"Atheist"--the term itself

[outhouse]

It was a response to Prometheus claiming that "-ism" means belief". It doesn't.

Sorry but in context it does, lets look at the definition.

the·ism
[ˈTHēˌizəm]
http://www.religiousforums.com/javascript:void(0)
NOUN

1. belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures. Compare with deism.

 

[outhouse]

Atheism = lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

It can be a belief

it can also be a lack of belief

 

[ArtieE]

Agnosticism was invented by Thomas Huxley because he wanted to invent a word for his beliefs.

If he had invented agnosticism because he wanted to describe a cheese and ham sandwich and it had caught on, agnosticism would have meant a cheese and ham sandwich.

I can't see what this has to do with my question so here it is again:

"Gnosticism means "having knowledge" and agnosticism means "not having knowledge". Theism means "having belief" and atheism means "not having belief". But you want atheism to mean "having the opposite belief"?

 

[ArtieE]

It can be a belief

it can also be a lack of belief

Well, actually "atheism" can't be a belief. "Strong atheism" is a belief.

 

[Augustus]

I can't see what this has to do with my question so here it is again:

"Gnosticism means "having knowledge" and agnosticism means "not having knowledge". Theism means "having belief" and atheism means "not having belief". But you want atheism to mean "having the opposite belief"?

You are arguing that the letters in a word mean more than the usage of a word. That is not true.

You can't claim that because word A means this then word B must mean this because its letters are similar to the ones in a completely different word.

Atheism predates theism. Theism used to mean deism.

Usage is king, not letters.

 

[Ouroboros]

Sorry but in context it does, lets look at the definition.

the·ism
[ˈTHēˌizəm]
NOUN

1. belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures. Compare with deism.

Ok. Fine. "-ism" can mean belief.

And a-theism means no theism, i.e. no belief in god.

I'll yield that point.

 

[Ouroboros]

I can't see what this has to do with my question so here it is again:

"Gnosticism means "having knowledge" and agnosticism means "not having knowledge". Theism means "having belief" and atheism means "not having belief". But you want atheism to mean "having the opposite belief"?

Gnosticism means "belief in knowledge" if we interpret it in the same fashion as Theism. Or are you expanding the definition of "-ism" to also mean "having"?

 

[Willamena]

I never said that we should identify toasters and babies as atheists. I merely said that, technically, they COULD BE identified as such...

That's literal pedantry, not a technicality.

 

[ArtieE]

You can't claim that because word A means this then word B must mean this because its letters are similar to the ones in a completely different word.

If agnosticism doesn't mean "having the opposite knowledge" why should atheism mean "having the opposite belief"? Where's the logic? Moral, amoral, immoral. Why in the world should we claim that amoral actually means immoral?

 

[Ouroboros]

If agnosticism doesn't mean "having the opposite knowledge" why should atheism mean "having the opposite belief"? Where's the logic?

We just discussed that the suffix "-ism" means belief. Did that stop at the word gnosticism?

 

[Willamena]

Well, actually "atheism" can't be a belief. "Strong atheism" is a belief.

So strong atheism is not atheism? Or, atheism is both a belief and it isn't.

 

[ArtieE]

We just discussed that the suffix "-ism" means belief. Did that stop at the word gnosticism?

I don't know you tell me... "Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "having knowledge", from γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge)". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
Does it say "having knowledge and/or belief"?

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't know you tell me... "Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "having knowledge", from γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge)". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
Does it say "having knowledge and/or belief"?

it says "from", meaning that it's built from the word "gnostikos" that mans "having knowledge". But it doesn't explain the suffix ism that has been added in English. Gnostikos means having knowledge. But gnosis means knowledge. Suffix Ism means belief. So Gnosticism should be the belief in knowledge or belief in having knowledge perhaps, but the belief part has to be in there, don't you agree? What would the suffix -ism mean here otherwise? Just a tag along without meaning?

 

[ArtieE]

So strong atheism is not atheism? Or, atheism is both a belief and it isn't.

Atheism is absence of belief in the existence of gods. Strong atheism is absence of belief in the existence of gods + active belief that gods don't exist. Can you see that one is not a belief and the other is?

 

[Ouroboros]

So strong atheism is not atheism? Or, atheism is both a belief and it isn't.

Don't you know. The strong atheists are heretics.

 

[outhouse]

Does it say "having knowledge and/or belief"?

It does. You just did not read it all.

Also their claim of knowledge is still belief. It is a claim that their belief has surpassed belief and gone into knowledge. which is not a supportable position.

They believe in a god

 

[outhouse]

If agnosticism doesn't mean "having the opposite knowledge" why should atheism mean "having the opposite belief"?

because the words have different meaning

don't get hung up on spelling similarities, that does not indicate context similarities

 

[leibowde84]

That's literal pedantry, not a technicality.

I agree. It is "excessive concern with minor details and rules" to care whether or not atheism can apply to inanimate objects or babies. It is an issue belonging to those who complain about identifying toasters as atheists rather than the meaning of the term. Who cares whether atheism can apply to babies and toasters? I don't see why that should be a concern to anyone.

 

[leibowde84]

So strong atheism is not atheism? Or, atheism is both a belief and it isn't.

I agree with you here. Strong atheism is a belief, and weak atheism is the withholding of belief either way. But, both are forms of "atheism".

 

[leibowde84]

It does. You just did not read it all.

Also their claim of knowledge is still belief. It is a claim that their belief has surpassed belief and gone into knowledge. which is not a supportable position.

They believe in a god

Thank you. Just because someone claims to "know that God exists" doesn't make it true or plausible. For this claim to be true, they would have to be able to support this claim of knowledge with verifiable evidence that supports it. Mere subjective experience is not nearly enough, as subjective experience is often unreliable. Thus, verifiable evidence that can be confirmed as valid is necessary to "know" that God exists. And, I think this is an unattainable requirement.