Atheism, part 3: Definitions

[ChristineM]

I think you are wrong on both counts.

I think i am right on both counts, both the OED definition and etymology back me up.

Do you think that this word was used to describe an absence of belief as opposed to a belief that a particular god or set of gods did not exist or had no power?

Without gods is pretty plain

 

[Curious George]

Historically "atheists" was used to describe those who didn't believe in the same gods as the speaker, much like "pagan" was used in the middle ages.
But that was a long time ago.

To be clear we are not talking about a “lack of belief”. We are talking about people who believed your god doesn’t exist or doesn’t hold any power but mine does. I believe the term was also used for people who didn’t honor or pay tribute to various temples. But the important part here was that the term was used to describe actual beliefs and not any absence of belief.

This is the etymology of the word. How the word came about and was originally used and the meaning that the word was intended to convey at that time.

the point here is that the etymology of the word is not absence of belief.

This is not to say or imply that absence of belief is not atheism. Or that atheism is not used to convey an absence of belief now. Definitions change. I am taking exception to two very particular points that a user was making.

 

[Curious George]

I think i am right on both counts, both the OED definition and etymology back me up.

I am not so sure about that. We can agree to disagree.

Without gods is pretty plain

This is not an answer.

 

[ChristineM]

I am not so sure about that. We can agree to disagree or you can back up your claim.


This is not an answer.

Definition
Oxford English dictionary.
Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
If you want to check Google UK, that uses the OED you are welcome.
Or you could pay the subscription and find it yourself.


Etymology
Oxford Languages
atheism
/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/

Origin

Again Google UK


It's the answer i have given

 

[Curious George]

Definition
Oxford English dictionary.
Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
If you want to check Google UK, that uses the OED you are welcome.
Or you could pay the subscription and find it yourself.


Etymology
Oxford Languages
atheism
/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/

Origin
View attachment 70278

Again Google UK


It's the answer i have given

I don’t think this addresses the actual definition when the word originated.

 

[HonestJoe]

I was reading through PureX's latest post in my thread "Atheism, part 1", in which he drawed out what the word "atheist" means to him, and how it means a bit more than the Dictionary definition.

No disrespect to PureX or yourself, but I think that approach is a mistake. I think the fundamental problem here is talking about "atheists" as a type of person rather than "atheism" as a singular characteristic among the thousands which make up and individual character and world-view. You don't need to (an, arguably, don't get to) build your own personal elements to the term itself and doing so risks invalidating the atheism of people who don't share your specific form (if only unintentionally).

Generally, when people talk about "atheists", they're only referring to a specific and relatively small subset of people who have the characteristic of atheism. I'd argue that most people who have the characteristic aren't even consciously aware of it, don't think about it and don't label it. We're part of a tiny weird minority on this forum.

But of course, like so many things, the simplistic label is such an easy tool to use when you want to insult, attack, condemn or dismiss a particular group of people because it's much easier than explaining what is actually wrong with them (especially when there isn't anything wrong with them in general). Plenty of other labels are often used in a similar manner, including things like "Christian", "Catholic", "Muslim", "Jew" etc., but with those labels, their misuse seems to be more often challenged and dismissed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Definition
Oxford English dictionary.
Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
If you want to check Google UK, that uses the OED you are welcome.
Or you could pay the subscription and find it yourself.


Etymology
Oxford Languages
atheism
/ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/

Origin
View attachment 70278

Again Google UK


It's the answer i have given

We live in a post-dictionary age.
People invent personal definitions,
& then claim they're the only cromulent
ones...everyone else is wrong.

Are you just too lazy to invent your own?

Mine...
Atheist: A highly intelligent & good looking
capitalist who thinks religion is bonkers.

 

[ChristineM]

This does nothing to explain how the term was used at that time. Etymology is a study of the origin of words, meanings and how those meanings change. Your claim was that the etymology (assuming you were talking about the origin) supported the use of absence of belief. Putting forward a rough translation from the original word doesn’t support your claim. You will need to dig deeper and discuss how the word was used and show how that use entails an absence of belief.

I think you will find that the word was intended to describe people who believed in different gods or failed to honor or pay tribute to a god or a set of gods and those people were therefore “without gods.”

without gods does not clearly mean absence of belief in gods. Without gods could mean that the gods do not support that individual or that individual does not support some god or gods that the speaker does support.

Without gods... An atheist is without gods. Why do you have a problem with this?

 

[ChristineM]

We live in a post-dictionary age.
People invent personal definitions,
& then claim they're the only cromulent
ones...everyone else is wrong.

Are you just too lazy to invent your own?

Mine...
Atheist: A highly intelligent & good looking
capitalist who thinks religion is bonkers.

Of course your definition works perfectly well for you but I'll stick to the OED

 

[ChristineM]

I take issue that with your apparent want to conflate the original meaning of the term from which the word atheism originated with the meaning “absence of belief in a god’s existence.” Especially when you are willing to engage in semantics to distinguish lack of belief in god’s existence from belief that a god doesn’t exist.

A suggestion that the meaning has always been “lack of belief in god” is false and misleading

Jolly good you tell the OED that their definition is wrong then

 

[Revoltingest]

I take issue that with your apparent want to conflate the original meaning of the term from which the word atheism originated with the meaning “absence of belief in a god’s existence.” Especially when you are willing to engage in semantics to distinguish lack of belief in god’s existence from belief that a god doesn’t exist.

A suggestion that the meaning has always been “lack of belief in god” is false and misleading

She has a cromulent dictionary definition.
You have....uh.....personal opinion.
She wins.

 

[Curious George]

Jolly good you tell the OED that their definition is wrong then

Their definition is not wrong, your understanding and interpretation is wrong.

 

[Curious George]

She has a cromulent dictionary definition.
You have....uh.....personal opinion.
She wins.

I don’t think you are following.

we are not talking about a dictionary definition, we are talking about the etymology. I have explained why posting down a quick breakdown of an original word and the translation of the parts of that word does not support that posters assertion.

I would guess even with this brief summary you still won’t follow. That is okay. I can’t imagine you would find the discussion interesting, better you continue to not pay attention.

 

[ChristineM]

Their definition is not wrong, your understanding and interpretation is wrong.

Your opinion is noted

So where do you think my interpretation is wrong?

 

[ChristineM]

we are not talking about a dictionary definition,

Yes we are.

we are talking about the etymology.

As well

original word and the translation of the parts of that word does not support that posters assertion

Yes they do. But you are welcome to your opinion

 

[Ella S.]

They want to debate, but they can't, because they can't assert any position, or counter anyone else's position without exposing their own position, and they know they can't defend it. So all they can do is keep spewing this endless and dishonest nonsense about atheism being "unbelief".

The truth is that the atheist's position is that no gods exist unless and until someone proves otherwise to them. Which they have no intention of ever allowing to happen, because they will reject any and all evidence anyone offers them by defining it out of existence. It wasn't convincing. It wasn't "scientific". It wasn't testable. It was anecdotal. It was immaterial. And on and on and on. They place themselves in the position of being the decider of what constitutes evidence, and then they decide any evidence being offered isn't evidence.

Every aspect of this supposed "debate" (and I have witnessed and participated in many of them) is disingenuous. And it all begins with this nonsense about atheism being "unbelief". Atheists believe that no gods in any form exist. And they hold to this assertion because they believe that if any form of God/gods existed, they would see and grasp sufficient and convincing evidence of it. But unfortunately for them, they cannot defend this position, logically. They can;t even tell you what that evidence would look like. So they have to hide from it behind the "unbelief" nonsense, and keep the onus on theism, so as not to be called out.

Agnostic atheists make plenty of counter-claims in debates, but those are not normally "there is no God." Instead, they're claims like "evolution is more likely to be true than creationism" or "that prophecy was written after the event it prophesied."

So your complaint that they can't debate because they won't take a stand on anything is a non sequitur. It's a totally false claim you've fabricated to build up a strawman.

The giant flaw in your reasoning, here, is that you know what to look for as evidence of leprechauns, and where and how to look for it. You also know what to look for as evidence of unicorns, and where and how to look. So that when you look for this evidence, and you don't find any, you can reasonably conclude that there isn't any. And so there probably isn't any leprechauns or unicorns, either. But you have no idea what a God is, or where a God is, or what evidence a God might generate, or where or how to look for it. All you have are a billion conflicting ideas and stories about what people think God is and why they think so. So the lack of any such "evidence" is hardly surprising, or indicative of anything but your own confusion (and everyone else's).

And yet I'll bet money that even though I've just pointed out this glaring flaw in your "no evidence" theory, you will completely ignore it and continue to insist that there is no evidence and that this means there are no gods. You will just blindly continue to repeat ...
Even though "belief" is completely irrelevant and you have no idea what, how, or where to even look for evidence. And you will automatically dismiss any evidence anyone else presents to you.

This is special pleading. If you can know what evidence to look for when it comes to leprechauns, then you know what evidence to look for when it comes to gods. Both of them are supernatural beings that we derive our information about through mythology and folklore; we have the same sort of data on both entities.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

As a follow-up, I had seen where some Dictionary definitions weren't complete, in my opinion (none of which had to do with the word atheist), and had given a benefit of a doubt to the idea that the word "atheist" may not be complete, too.

But I think there is adequate proof to say that the word "atheist", according to the Dictionary, is just fine.

 

[Curious George]

Your opinion is noted

So where do you think my interpretation is wrong?

With the assumption that since the original Greek words part roughly translate to without gods that the etymology supports the current definition meaning of absence of belief in the existence of a god.

 

[ChristineM]

With the assumption that since the original Greek words part roughly translate to without gods that the etymology supports the current definition meaning of absence of belief in the existence of a god.

No assumption, and no rough translation. A = without, theos = gods

Your only support for your claim that etymology supports this newer definition of atheism is by posting the breakdown of the word according to OED. This is a non sequitur. It does not follow. What your claim lacks is any actual usage from the time period the word originates that supports the definition of absence of a belief in the existence of god.

Yes and. That was the definition according to the OED, not a breakdown . And it does follow.

The fact the word a-theos was a word tells me it was used, if you can show otherwise please feel free.

FYI, i am atheist, i lack belief i meaning i have no gods, i.e. i am without gods. I don't see why this concept is so difficult for you

such evidence does not exist because that is not how the word was originally used

Please show how the word was originally used rather than simply making a claim that doesn't actually make sense

Ergo, the etymology cannot support the meaning which you have suggested it does.

Ergo yes it does.

Unless by etymology you were referring to the evolution of the word across many centuries and not the origin of the word

Eh?

If that is the case, then you were misleading in posting the breakdown of the word.

So report me, lets see how admin view it

 

[ChristineM]

You hold this but you ignore the meaning the word conveyed. You can post the breakdown of the word all you want, but it will not change the fact that the etymological origin does not support the current definition of the word atheism. The original word meant something much different. To suggest otherwise is to be dishonest.

Bullpoop

Or show what the origin of the word meant.

If you are accusing me of dishonesty then i suggest you withdraw that statement or should i report it to admin?