"Atheist"--the term itself

[prometheus11]

Some of the time, and then only if you understand the conventions and common meaning given to these prefixes and suffixes, whilst also understanding that the a- prefix carries several potential meanings and that the meaning of these ultimately derived from usage anyway: abasement doesn't mean 'lacking basement'. Etymology is just a history of usage and convention.

Ultimately, everything goes back to usage and convention, layer upon layer. A- is still a symbol, just as atheist is, its meaning is what is ascribed to it.

'Language is use of language'

The root word in your example is "abase," and the "ment" suffix acts precisely as it should and the meaning is exactly as the root and suffix imply.

I reject your analysis of "some of the time." I would say, the vast majority of the time, root, prefix, and suffix supply a fair representation of a word's meaning.

Asymmetrical.
Asexual.

 

[Augustus]

A definition is applicable no matter the circumstances.
You are an atheist until you're not.
You are sober until you're not.

It's not difficult at all to grasp, I did it when I was 7.

If you had been born 100 years earlier, you would not have been an atheist until you were.

At what point did the official switch over happen?

 

[prometheus11]

If you had been born 100 years earlier, you would not have been an atheist until you were.

At what point did the official switch over happen?

Rejected.

Everyone is an atheist before they are instructed to be a believer.

 

[allfoak]

The reason that I claim that the default stance is atheism is because particular God belief must be taught. You can't believe in Allah without having information about Allah and how Allah believers tend to worship him.

A person who is born and raised without any instruction in God belief or worship might develop a sense of spirituality or oneness with nature and that sort of thing, but she wouldn't have belief in any formulated God, she would simply have "her ideas" about origin and reality and finality.

Atheism, like soberness, is the default state until belief (or alcohol, in this metaphor) is taken into the individual.

A wise man asks an infant about God and gets an answer.
A fool has no question and gets no answer.

 

[Altfish]

Grief this is being complicated.

If you walk up the street and say to someone, "What is your religion?" And they answer, "Atheist" is there really much doubt about what they mean?

 

[Augustus]

The root word in your example is "abase," and the "ment" suffix acts precisely as it should and the meaning is exactly as the root and suffix imply.

I reject your analysis of "some of the time." I would say, the vast majority of the time, root, prefix, and suffix supply a fair representation of a word's meaning.

Asymmetrical.
Asexual.

The point is you can't tell the meaning from the letters, as you are always relying on convention and usage.

Even with convention:

Anew
Ashore
Ascend

Language is usage of language.

When some Greek chap coined the original a - theos, it didn't mean what you now claim it means. Are you claiming he was wrong and it took 2500 years to work out the 'correct' meaning?

a- can also mean not: a - theos not god. Everybody is a - theos in this sense.

You interpret it as meaning without, and you interpret 'without' as meaning 'lack of' (not to mention the complexities of the 'god' part).

You are claiming there exists a 'true' meaning independent of usage, but that is not the way language works. There is only usage.

 

[prometheus11]

I'm claiming none of those things.

I didn't say "letters". You did. I responded with root, prefix, suffix.

I'm also not talking about "theos." I'm talking about "atheist/atheism." The "ist" and "ism" are important.

 

[prometheus11]

Grief this is being complicated.

If you walk up the street and say to someone, "What is your religion?" And they answer, "Atheist" is there really much doubt about what they mean?

Yes, since atheism isn't a religion.

 

[Demonslayer]

"What is your religion?" And they answer, "Atheist"

No one in their right minds would ever say that.

 

[Augustus]

I'm claiming none of those things.

I didn't say "letters". You did. I responded with root, prefix, suffix.

I'm also not talking about "theos." I'm talking about "atheist/atheism." The "ist" and "ism" are important.

Root, prefix and suffix are letters. They are symbols with no intrinsic meaning other than that which is given them by convention.

Atheist evolved from a- theos. I'm simply pointing out the interpretation required at each step. Interpretation that results from usage and convention.

I'm not arguing you can't hold your definition, I'm arguing that you can't claim 'objectivity' for your definition.

You misunderstand the way language works.

Rejected.

Everyone is an atheist before they are instructed to be a believer.

The point was that the meaning 100 years ago was active disbelief; look at a dictionary. Your definition was not in common usage then.

You are arguing that meaning is fixed by letters, but the letters were the same then and the meaning was different.

How can that be the case?

 

[Erebus]

The term is problematic for many reasons (I assume we will get into those reasons, here), but it shouldn't be.

The term refers to a state of "notness," similar to the term "sober." It's the natural, an affected state. The default.

Sober, means "not drunk." Infants are sober, just like chickens and jellyfish, though we don't apply that term to infants, chicken, or jellyfish, unless there's extenuating circumstances that merit the term's use.

Atheist, means "not a god believer." Infants are atheist, just like chickens and jellyfish, though we don't apply that term to infants, chicken, or jellyfish, unless there's extenuating circumstances that merit the term's use.

Sober doesn't mean "good" or "law abiding," and plenty of horrible people eschew alcohol consumption. And atheist doesn't "bad" or "communist," and plenty of great individuals eschew God belief(s).

Why is there so much confusion over this term?

I agree that atheist is a problematic term, but for slightly different reasons.

Put simply, the word "god" means so many different things to so many people that labels like atheist or theist become essentially meaningless without further context.

For example, I consider myself a theist. I consider the concept of deity to be useful and so I incorporate it into my worldview. However, to some people (let's call our hypothetical person Jeff) "god" means an omnipotent, omniscient, interventionist creator. Anything else wouldn't qualify as a god to Jeff. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't believe in such a god. Does that make me an atheist? Well, in the mind of Jeff it probably does.

Both me and Jeff are working with very different ideas of what constitutes a god* and so without further explanation, labeling ourselves theist or atheist isn't all that useful.

*For what it's worth, I consider a god to be something deemed worthy of reverence. I like to keep the definition fairly open-ended. Some people disagree with that approach, but that's probably something for a different topic.

 

[viole]

The reason that I claim that the default stance is atheism is because particular God belief must be taught. You can't believe in Allah without having information about Allah and how Allah believers tend to worship him.

A person who is born and raised without any instruction in God belief or worship might develop a sense of spirituality or oneness with nature and that sort of thing, but she wouldn't have belief in any formulated God, she would simply have "her ideas" about origin and reality and finality.

Atheism, like soberness, is the default state until belief (or alcohol, in this metaphor) is taken into the individual.

With all respect, I do not agree.

If that was true, then we would all be atheists, for someone must have started instructing people to believe in God. But how could anyone start instructing about God if that someone must have been a not instructed atheist to start with?

It follows logically that this initial instructor must have come to believe in God without any antecedent instruction. By definition.

Which sort of defeats your initial conjecture that you believe in God only if you are instructed to.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

The term is problematic for many reasons (I assume we will get into those reasons, here), but it shouldn't be.

The term refers to a state of "notness," similar to the term "sober." It's the natural, an affected state. The default.

Sober, means "not drunk." Infants are sober, just like chickens and jellyfish, though we don't apply that term to infants, chicken, or jellyfish, unless there's extenuating circumstances that merit the term's use.

Atheist, means "not a god believer." Infants are atheist, just like chickens and jellyfish, though we don't apply that term to infants, chicken, or jellyfish, unless there's extenuating circumstances that merit the term's use.

Sober doesn't mean "good" or "law abiding," and plenty of horrible people eschew alcohol consumption. And atheist doesn't "bad" or "communist," and plenty of great individuals eschew God belief(s).

Why is there so much confusion over this term?

Sober is a contrast, it contrasts to drunk. Atheist contrasts to theist. The term has never meant a default state to me, and I certainly wouldn't use it to refer to that. It's not the norm, any more than being sober is a norm.

 

[Deathbydefault]

If you had been born 100 years earlier, you would not have been an atheist until you were.

At what point did the official switch over happen?

I would have been an atheist in any time there was a theist, whether there was a word then to describe it or not.
This is the part I don't get about those arguing this term.
There may have not been a word, a title to define yourself with, for atheist, but it still existed.
So long as there have been god beliefs people without have existed as well.

Before theist became a term it was no different than it is now.
It works entirely the same with atheism.

 

[prometheus11]

Root, prefix and suffix are letters. They are symbols with no intrinsic meaning other than that which is given them by convention.

Nope. They're combinations of letters/symbols with specific meanings. Don't obfuscate.

Atheist evolved from a- theos. I'm simply pointing out the interpretation required at each step. Interpretation that results from usage and convention.

Irrelevant red herring. Why didn't you address the point?

I'm not arguing you can't hold your definition, I'm arguing that you can't claim 'objectivity' for your definition.

Duh. Nobody's arguing that. It'd be stupid.

You misunderstand the way language works.

I understand. You don't understand it as well as you assume, and bullying whilst proving your misunderstanding is telling behavior.

The point was that the meaning 100 years ago was active disbelief; look at a dictionary. Your definition was not in common usage then.

Nope. Not arguing that. Read better.

You are arguing that meaning is fixed by letters, but the letters were the same then and the meaning was different.

Nope. Read better.

How can that be the case?

It isn't.

Do you usually erect strawman when you debate, because it seems to be your MO.

 

[prometheus11]

Sober is a contrast, it contrasts to drunk. Atheist contrasts to theist. The term has never meant a default state to me, and I certainly wouldn't use it to refer to that. It's not the norm, any more than being sober is a norm.

Being sober isn't the normal, default state?!?!?

 

[prometheus11]

With all respect, I do not agree.

If that was true, then we would all be atheists, for someone must have started instructing people to believe in God. But how could anyone start instructing about God if that someone must have been a not instructed atheist to start with?

It follows logically that this initial instructor must have come to believe in God without any antecedent instruction. By definition.

Which sort of defeats your initial conjecture that you believe in God only if you are instructed to.

Ciao

- viole

I already explained this somewhat. I'll check the post number and get back to you.

Spiritual belief arises easily on its own. Belief in a particular God requires instruction. Certainly the first gods to be believed were beings in stories. We made them up.

 

[prometheus11]

I agree that atheist is a problematic term, but for slightly different reasons.

Put simply, the word "god" means so many different things to so many people that labels like atheist or theist become essentially meaningless without further context.

For example, I consider myself a theist. I consider the concept of deity to be useful and so I incorporate it into my worldview. However, to some people (let's call our hypothetical person Jeff) "god" means an omnipotent, omniscient, interventionist creator. Anything else wouldn't qualify as a god to Jeff. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't believe in such a god. Does that make me an atheist? Well, in the mind of Jeff it probably does.

Both me and Jeff are working with very different ideas of what constitutes a god* and so without further explanation, labeling ourselves theist or atheist isn't all that useful.

*For what it's worth, I consider a god to be something deemed worthy of reverence. I like to keep the definition fairly open-ended. Some people disagree with that approach, but that's probably something for a different topic.

I don't think Jeff would think you were an atheist.

 

[viole]

I already explained this somewhat. I'll check the post number and get back to you.

Spiritual belief arises easily on its own. Belief in a particular God requires instruction. Certainly the first gods to be believed were beings in stories. We made them up.

Yes. We make them up all the time. And we make them up exactly when there are no instructions. And that is why we believe in things like Jesus and the great Juju at the bottom of the sea, depending on where we were born.

Instructions just give us a pre-cooked solution. But that is a far cry from saying that we are natural born atheists.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ThirtyThree]

The Three Types of Atheist

1) There is no God.
2) There is no God or Hereafter.
3) There is no God, Hereafter or "Spirit beings".

Scientific Theism

1) God is an other dimensional being.
2) Consciousness survives death.
3) Parallel universes are possible.

In the case of 1, a person would have to define just what God is and what it is not. Does God refer to a singular being? Is the nature of God a collective consciousness? Does God have limitations? Can God exist in all or many places at the same time (Omnipresent)? If it can exist in many places at the same time, that is limited presence. Light can exist in many places at the same time, as can data. Does God know and see everything (Omniscient)? Does God exist outside of time? Does God exist outside of space?

1) Could a multi dimensional being or a being outside of time and space author the singularity which caused The Big Bang?
2) Could a hyper advanced civilization or entity be omnipresent or at least have limited multiple presence?

The Atheist Now

1) There is/are no multi/other dimensional beings.
2) Humans are not multi dimensional. There is no "soul". Consciousness does not survive physical death.
3) There are no hyper advanced civilizations or entities.

Congratulations! You just denied what is possible in science! Have a cookie!

The Futuristic Theist

1) Humans are multi dimensional beings. Consciousness may not be restricted to the current dimension and it survives physical death. That is called a "soul", by the way. Even as per the Greek definition for the term which is used in the Bible as "psyche". It is also clearly stated that this "psyche" survives physical death.

2) There are hyper advanced civilizations/entities who have mastered their multi dimensional nature. They are the "gods" capable of manipulating other dimensional beings in a way which currently can not be measured.

3) There are other dimensions and possibly parallel universes.


So, what is an Atheist? Someone who denies... things possible through science? Maybe just someone who denies the possibility of a deity like YHWH as per the Judeo-Christian understanding of him, which is probably the equivalent to an ant trying to understand a rocket? Maybe he was one of those hyper advanced multi/other dimensional beings and the ants do not understand him too well?