"Atheist"--the term itself

[Willamena]

Look, I think our ways of thinking are foreign to each other. I don't think more conversation or debate is going to alter that.

No doubt. I think rather Aristotelean.

 

[Willamena]

"Lacking" is just an adverb/adjective applied to the state of "belief." It's not something independent of belief.

It means "in short supply." Absent.

They really ought to be there.

What keeps them from being there is called denial.

That happens when the cognitive result is a "no" or "not."

"Nos" and "nots" don't exist in reality. They are cognitive results.

 

[Willamena]

"Nos" and "nots" don't exist in reality. They are cognitive results.

See, there's this whole concept of "falsehood," which means things that aren't. Nos and nots are claims of falsehood.

The world is.

 

[prometheus11]

One can't lack for something that doesn't exist. If belief is a cognitive state, lacking belief is also a cognitive state.

They arent lacking the thing. They're lacking belief.


Your questions are so easy to answer it's kind of weird.

 

[Willamena]

They arent lacking the thing. They're lacking belief.

Your questions are so easy to answer it's kind of weird.

The belief is an investment in the truth of the thing.

The thing is the idea of the thing.

 

[Curious George]

If you can lack belief in things that don't exist, you're a better cognitive entity than I.

(Actually, I don't believe that you can lack belief in things that don't exist.)

Exist where?

 

[Willamena]

Exist where?

Just so. Spatial and temporal identity are essential to a realist concept of existence.

After all, here and now mean little.

 

[Curious George]

Just so. Spatial and temporal identity are essential to a realist concept of existence.

After all, here and now mean little.

Is that so? One might think you would at least say spatial or temporal identity. Surely any realist can refer to an object existing only as a mental construct.

 

[outhouse]

After all, here and now mean little.

Unless your living

 

[Augustus]

So? Does your point negate language usage and root word meanings?

You are the one arguing against language usage. Since the beginning, I've said 'language is use of language'; you are arguing that words actually get their meaning from the way some of their letters (grouped or otherwise) are sometimes used in different words.

The ism of prism is not the -ism of racism or the -ism of baptism the -ism of Anglicanism.

Pray tell, where do root words, prefixes, etc. get their meaning? (hint: usage)

Why then are you arguing against the word atheist getting its meaning from usage?

The 'appeal to letters' fallacy is nicely demonstrated with the next example. Do you believe that atheism meant lack of deism when theist meant deist? (root words, prefixes, etc. , etc.)

Deism is specific. Theism isn't and it includes deism. Are you suggesting the terms were swapped at some point?

I'm not suggesting, I'm stating as fact. Theist used to mean what we now call a deist.

OED:

One who holds the doctrine of theism: in earlier use = deist; in later use, esp. as distinguished from this: see note s.v. deist.

1662 E. Martin Five Lett. 45 To have said my office‥twice a day‥among Rebels, Theists, Atheists, Philologers, Wits, Masters of Reason

(1740) 590 He [Oates] did but use the Privilege of a Theist or Freethinker, of which Crew, or worse, he plainly declared himself.

Strange to see the theists grouped withe the freethinkers, rebels, masters of reason and atheists eh?

The use of theist to mean believer in god might have actually been a reaction to it's use to mean 'deist'; religious people trying to claim ownership of a word via a new definition (sound familiar?):

1870 J. H. Newman Gram. Assent v. §2. 120 No one is to be called a Theist, who does not believe in a Personal God.

As to whether theism covers deism today, it's a moot point.


*edit* I was wrong about the reason for the switch in meaning, but right about it's link to ownership:

1878 D. Patrick in Encycl. Brit. VII. 33 The later distinction between theist and deist, which stamped the latter word as excluding the belief in providence or the immanence of God, was apparently formulated in the end of the 18th century by those rationalists who were aggrieved at being identified with the naturalists

 

[ArtieE]

Of course you can.

Look, I think our ways of thinking are foreign to each other. I don't think more conversation or debate is going to alter that.

The way Willamena thinks is also completely foreign to me so I've given up. I think it's foreign to most people.

 

[Deathbydefault]

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?

Allow me to reply again.
I've re-read the OP once more and have come to a deeper conclusion.
Take it as an elaboration on post #20.

There are indeed multiple definitions of atheist.
Disregarding personal definitions, you have the main two, linguistics and root.
The root definition means to be without theism. Simple.
The linguistics definition is a bit more complicated but has the same common theme of being without a God belief.

The literal definition takes precedence for rather obvious reasons.
However, the linguistics definition should be given proper attention as well.
Many branches of atheism rely on the linguistics definition.

Furthermore, the root definition is very simple but covers a very wide range.
If you don't have a God belief, you're an atheist.
Applicable to babies, jellyfish, chickens, and even rocks if you're that hardcore.

 

[ArtieE]

If you don't have a God belief, you're an atheist.
Applicable to babies, jellyfish, chickens, and even rocks if you're that hardcore.

If you have a car you're a carowner. If you don't have a car you're not a carowner. Applicable to jellyfish, chickens, and even rocks if you're that hardcore or want to appear as if you lack common sense.

"Does your son have a car? No, he's too young to own one yet".
"Does your chicken have a car? What, are you nuts?"

 

[prometheus11]

You are the one arguing against language usage. Since the beginning, I've said 'language is use of language'; you are arguing that words actually get their meaning from the way some of their letters (grouped or otherwise) are sometimes used in different words.

The ism of prism is not the -ism of racism or the -ism of baptism the -ism of Anglicanism.

Pray tell, where do root words, prefixes, etc. get their meaning? (hint: usage)

Why then are you arguing against the word atheist getting its meaning from usage?

The 'appeal to letters' fallacy is nicely demonstrated with the next example. Do you believe that atheism meant lack of deism when theist meant deist? (root words, prefixes, etc. , etc.)



I'm not suggesting, I'm stating as fact. Theist used to mean what we now call a deist.

OED:

One who holds the doctrine of theism: in earlier use = deist; in later use, esp. as distinguished from this: see note s.v. deist.

1662 E. Martin Five Lett. 45 To have said my office‥twice a day‥among Rebels, Theists, Atheists, Philologers, Wits, Masters of Reason

(1740) 590 He [Oates] did but use the Privilege of a Theist or Freethinker, of which Crew, or worse, he plainly declared himself.

Strange to see the theists grouped withe the freethinkers, rebels, masters of reason and atheists eh?

The use of theist to mean believer in god might have actually been a reaction to it's use to mean 'deist'; religious people trying to claim ownership of a word via a new definition (sound familiar?):

1870 J. H. Newman Gram. Assent v. §2. 120 No one is to be called a Theist, who does not believe in a Personal God.

As to whether theism covers deism today, it's a moot point.


*edit* I was wrong about the reason for the switch in meaning, but right about it's link to ownership:

1878 D. Patrick in Encycl. Brit. VII. 33 The later distinction between theist and deist, which stamped the latter word as excluding the belief in providence or the immanence of God, was apparently formulated in the end of the 18th century by those rationalists who were aggrieved at being identified with the naturalists

I can't help it that you think we're disagreeing when we are actually agreeing on language and usage. When it concerns God/spirituality, "ism" as a suffix has always meant "belief/belief set. "Theo(s)" as a root has always meant "God/godlike." "A" as a prefix has always negated meaning "not/without."

At no time (when discussing beliefs/gods) have those prefixes, suffixes, and root words meant something different. And wouldn't you just know it, those common USAGES throughout the centuries has solidified their meaning as prefix, root word, and suffix. Bringing up words like "prism" just demonstrates the point even more since that's a whole different etymology from a non religious source string.

I have already shown your "appeal to letters "is a preposterous accusation. As is your usual gambit, your repeatedly corrected about something, yet you continue to assert it over and over. "Ism" isn't a suffix in the word prism, it is a suffix in the words theism and atheism. Your other three words use "ism" the Way it is used in theism and atheism. Yes it's obviously about usage obviously. That's how we know the root word prefix in a fix are used in the standard way for both words. Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Willamena]

Is that so? One might think you would at least say spatial or temporal identity. Surely any realist can refer to an object existing only as a mental construct.

If they've parsed the world that way. Those objects, though, will always be the absolute truth, which places them firmly in a world that is a completed picture. There is no room for the uncertainty of a world being composed before their eyes, here and now.

 

[Augustus]

I can't help it that you think we're disagreeing when we are actually agreeing on language and usage. When it concerns God/spirituality, "ism" as a suffix has always meant "belief/belief set. "Theo(s)" as a root has always meant "God/godlike." "A" as a prefix has always negated meaning "not/without."

At no time (when discussing beliefs/gods) have those prefixes, suffixes, and root words meant something different. And wouldn't you just know it, those common USAGES throughout the centuries has solidified their meaning as prefix, root word, and suffix. Bringing up words like "prism" just demonstrates the point even more since that's a whole different etymology from a non religious source string.

I have already shown your "appeal to letters "is a preposterous accusation. As is your usual gambit, your repeatedly corrected about something, yet you continue to assert it over and over. "Ism" isn't a suffix in the word prism, it is a suffix in the words theism and atheism. Your other three words use "ism" the Way it is used in theism and atheism. Yes it's obviously about usage obviously. That's how we know the root word prefix in a fix are used in the standard way for both words. Thank you for proving my point.

I know it's not a suffix, it wasn't punctuated -ism like the other 3.

They were 4 different usages of ism in words: racism isn't belief in race and baptism isn't belief in bapt and Anglicanism isn't belief in Anglicans.

In words like racism, the -ism has even changed meaning over time. Racism (racialism) used to mean scientific theories of race. Now, along with sexism, ageism, etc., it denotes prejudice or discrimination.

When people coin new words, they often look to the patterns of other words when deciding on word form. This leads to the conventions you are discussing. However, this does not necessarily mean that such conventions apply retroactively and doesn't mean that all words meanings must now follow that exact pattern.

You don't know word usage because of the 'meaning' of the suffix, you know the meaning of the suffix because of the usage of the word. You seem to be confused by this point.

So, seeing as we agree that usage is king, we have 2 options:

1. Current and historical usage of the word 'atheism' is the best indicator of meaning of the word atheism.
2. An analysis of the way some of its letters a- the(os) -ism are sometimes used in some other words and contexts is the best indicator of meaning of the word atheism.

Keep in mind:

1. atheism predates theism as a concept so didn't get it's meaning from being 'not theism'.
2. theism used to mean deism, so according to your 'law of the letters', atheism meant 'lack of deism' for a century or so [despite nobody ever using the word in that way]
3. The definition you are claiming is 'proved' by the letters has been in common(ish) usage for about 30 of the 2500 year history of the concept. Even today is very much a minority definition, and is one that was coined for purposes of advocacy.

So, despite the word being unchanged for centuries, the 'correct' meaning was only recently discovered when somebody with a vested interest noticed the previously overlooked 'groups of letters' in it and cracked the code. Because of this, everybody else is simply wrong and should start using the new definition even if they find it vaguely ridiculous. True?

 

[ArtieE]

So, seeing as we agree that usage is king, we have 2 options:

1. Current and historical usage of the word 'atheism' is the best indicator of meaning of the word atheism.

"Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

"The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings."

https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

 

[Demonslayer]

"Does your chicken have a car? What, are you nuts?"

And yet the chicken, in fact, does not have a car.

 

[ArtieE]

And yet the chicken, in fact, does not have a car.

Correct. I take it you understood the point with the questions. One question is perfectly rational because humans can be theists, the other question isn't.

 

[prometheus11]

I know it's not a suffix, it wasn't punctuated -ism like the other 3.

They were 4 different usages of ism in words: racism isn't belief in race and baptism isn't belief in bapt and Anglicanism isn't belief in Anglicans.

The word is Anglicism. It's not based on AnglicANS but Anglic. You're being ridiculous, now.

In words like racism, the -ism has even changed meaning over time. Racism (racialism) used to mean scientific theories of race. Now, along with sexism, ageism, etc., it denotes prejudice or discrimination.

When people coin new words, they often look to the patterns of other words when deciding on word form. This leads to the conventions you are discussing. However, this does not necessarily mean that such conventions apply retroactively and doesn't mean that all words meanings must now follow that exact pattern.

Obviously. Nobody is applying meanings retroactively or that "all words meanings...." We are discussing meanings today.

You don't know word usage because of the 'meaning' of the suffix, you know the meaning of the suffix because of the usage of the word. You seem to be confused by this point.

Nope. For some reason you wish that I was, but I never have been.

We know what the prefix "a" means due to the prefix' prior usage.

We know what the root word "theos" means because of prior usage.

We know what the suffix "ism" means considering prior usage.

So, seeing as we agree that usage is king, we have 2 options:

1. Current and historical usage of the word 'atheism' is the best indicator of meaning of the word atheism.
2. An analysis of the way some of its letters a- the(os) -ism are sometimes used in some other words and contexts is the best indicator of meaning of the word atheism.

Not "letters," prefixes, root words, and suffixes. Even you don't insist that when people describe their living room furniture they only use the words "quarks," and "leptons."

Stop this absurd reductionism that is mere distraction/red herring.

Keep in mind:

1. atheism predates theism as a concept so didn't get it's meaning from being 'not theism'.

Correct. The term got its meaning from the way that the "theos" root was used and the way "a" prefix was used and the way the "ism" suffix was used.

They didn't call it"driformucal." They used understood word segments.

2. theism used to mean deism, so according to your 'law of the letters', atheism meant 'lack of deism' for a century or so [despite nobody ever using the word in that way]

Strawman. I have no "law of letters". I have corrected you multiple times on this, so I can only conclude that you are intentionally lying to be antagonistic. Stop claiming falsehoods.

I am not talking about atoms. I'm talking about molecules.

3. The definition you are claiming is 'proved' by the letters has been in common(ish) usage for about 30 of the 2500 year history of the concept. Even today is very much a minority definition, and is one that was coined for purposes of advocacy.

The term has always referred to someone who does not believe in God. Whether other connotations and definitions were more or less prevalent is interesting but does not affect that the "not God believing" was always an aspect of the word.

So, despite the word being unchanged for centuries, the 'correct' meaning was only recently discovered when somebody with a vested interest noticed the previously overlooked 'groups of letters' in it and cracked the code. Because of this, everybody else is simply wrong and should start using the new definition even if they find it vaguely ridiculous. True?

Nope. You're the only one building and attacking that STRAWMAN.