"Atheist"--the term itself

[prometheus11]

"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."

If you lack air, you don't have any air.

If you lack belief, you don't have any belief.

I've never seen anyone other than you argue that the true meaning of a word is its opposite.

 

[Augustus]

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

Anglicanism, not Anglicism. Ultimately from the Latin for Angle(as in the people), but related to the Anglican version of the Christian faith.

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.

What about the prior usage of 'atheism?' Why is this superseded by prior usage of your 'groups of letters'?

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.

It's still letters. Breaking a complete word down into its sub groups of letters does not give a better understanding of a word than looking at how the word is used in its complete state. It's pretty elementary stuff really, can't be that hard to grasp.

To use your metaphor, we can better understand the use of Coca-cola from analysing it's molecules and how they are used in other products, rather than looking at how Coca-cola itself is used?

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.

Christians believe in God, and they used to be called atheists as they didn't follow the correct Gods.

The rejection of (the right) gods has always been part of it's meaning; some form of disbelief has always been part of its meaning. Lacking belief has been part of its accepted meaning for 30 odd years

Anyway there's only so many times I can say 'meaning comes from usage', and usage in this case relates to the whole word atheism, not it's constituent prefix/root/suffix.

Last thing I will say on the topic as no progress is possible:

1. Both definitions of atheist are accepted parts of the English language, there is no 'correct' definition.
2. You can prefer one over the other for many different reasons though.
3. Arguing that you can determine the 'correct' meaning of the word based on how its constituent letters and groups of letters are used in other words is fallacious.
4. Arguing that it should mean something based on its 'groups of letters' is not fallacious, its just a very weak argument. The utility of a word is obviously more important than a pedantic attempt to 'enforce' some rules that don't really exist.

[not sure if you are arguing for 3 or 4 really]

 

[outhouse]

1. atheism predates theism as a concept .

That Is impossible. a deity has to exist for one to be without a deity.

Belief in imaginative beings goes back as far as history and beyond


You still have not showed evidence for you false claim of a 2000 year difference.

 

[RedDragon94]

Why is there so much confusion over this term?

I think it's because the world is mostly religious and religious people want everybody to identify as something. When religious people hear people identify as anything having to do with religion they assume its organized. If a person is truly an atheist then they may have a better chance at proving their point by saying they have no religion than by saying they're atheist. The word atheism implies organization, when instead atheists are individuals.

 

[outhouse]

I think it's because the world is mostly religious and religious people want everybody to identify as something.

So far this thread has only had to deal with theistic bias. They cant stand when others have their own thoughts that go against their FAITH.

 

[RedDragon94]

They cant stand when others have their own thoughts that go against their FAITH.

Right. It gets pretty old when people of different religions demean each other. They can't stand it when others have thoughts that go against their faith too. This is why I have looked into something else besides Abrahamism.

 

[prometheus11]

What about the prior usage of 'atheism?' Why is this superseded by prior usage of your 'groups of letters'?

What about it?

Why did people drop the "a" and start using "theism" to mean "God belief" if atheism didn't mean not God belief?

As I said, they didn't call it "flergoshacup" did they?

It's still letters. Breaking a complete word down into its sub groups of letters does not give a better understanding of a word than looking at how the word is used in its complete state. It's pretty elementary stuff really, can't be that hard to grasp.

Preposterous.

Molecules are groups of atoms, but when we're talking about molecules we use the term "molecules."

We've been over this a dozen times. I'm uninterested in pathetic strawmen exercises.

To use your metaphor, we can better understand the use of Coca-cola from analysing it's molecules and how they are used in other products, rather than looking at how Coca-cola itself is used?

Nope. I have no such metaphor.

However, you'd do best to analyze the molecules of Coke to understand it rather than how it is used.

So, your poor attempt at analogy kinda backfired.

But that's not how language works, and it works against your perspective, so...

Christians believe in God, and they used to be called atheists as they didn't follow the correct Gods.

Oh, so they were called atheists because they lacked belief in a certain God? Really?

It's almost like when theists called themselves "theists" instead of "plinkerpims" because they understood that the term "atheist" meant "no God belief." So they used "the" and "ism" without the negating "a" prefix.

The rejection of (the right) gods has always been part of it's meaning; some form of disbelief has always been part of its meaning. Lacking belief has been part of its accepted meaning for 30 odd years.

Ok? So? "A" prefix means without/not. So it makes sense.

Anyway there's only so many times I can say 'meaning comes from usage', and usage in this case relates to the whole word atheism, not it's constituent prefix/root/suffix.

And there's only so many times I can agree and add that root words, prefixes, and suffixes attained their meaning through usage, and that's why the terms are made up of those constitutes and were not talking about "flerbiskomital."

Last thing I will say on the topic as no progress is possible:

1. Both definitions of atheist are accepted parts of the English language, there is no 'correct' definition.
2. You can prefer one over the other for many different reasons though.
3. Arguing that you can determine the 'correct' meaning of the word based on how its constituent letters and groups of letters are used in other words is fallacious.
4. Arguing that it should mean something based on its 'groups of letters' is not fallacious, its just a very weak argument. The utility of a word is obviously more important than a pedantic attempt to 'enforce' some rules that don't really exist.

[not sure if you are arguing for 3 or 4 really]

I'm not making any of those claims, so keep thrashing your strawman, I guess.

If you can't recognize that root words, prefixes, and suffixes get their meanings from usage, and the people reuse those root words, prefixes, and suffixes in other words because of their meaning attained through usage, then I don't know how to help you.

According to you, "antiestablishmentarianism" could mean "pig farts." Because why should anyone be worried about the meanings of common prefixes and suffixes?

 

[outhouse]

Right. It gets pretty old when people of different religions demean each other. They can't stand it when others have thoughts that go against their faith too. This is why I have looked into something else besides Abrahamism.

I love academia-ism

 

[Desert Snake]

I think it's because the world is mostly religious and religious people want everybody to identify as something. When religious people hear people identify as anything having to do with religion they assume its organized. If a person is truly an atheist then they may have a better chance at proving their point by saying they have no religion than by saying they're atheist. The word atheism implies organization, when instead atheists are individuals.

Actually, atheism can be not only religious, /it often is, but also can require just as much faith as any other religious adherence, if not more. For example, if a devout atheist has a religious /theistic/ experience, what do they do? Do they admit that they are wrong? Do they simply not reveal that they are now aware that atheism is a false position? All these issues affect atheists as much as Buddhists, Hindus, Satanists, Christians, etc.

 

[prometheus11]

What is "devout atheism?" How do I do that.

What sort of "religious/theistic" experience?

 

[ArtieE]

Actually, atheism can be not only religious, it often is, but also can require just as much faith as any other religious adherence, if not more. For example, if a devout atheist has a religious /theistic/ experience, what do they do? Do they admit that they are wrong?

If by "devout atheist" you actually mean "strong atheist" I would assume they would go to a doctor and check if they have temporal lobe epilepsy because it might be a symptom of some serious disorder in the brain.

http://www.macalester.edu/academics/psychology/whathap/ubnrp/tle09/Religiosity.html
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1867

If anybody comes across people who exhibit such symptoms get them to a doctor.

 

[Desert Snake]

What is "devout atheism?" How do I do that.

What sort of "religious/theistic" experience?

You don't know what 'devout' means? We can use the word ''religious'', etc. If fanatic atheist applies to the hypothetical situation, that would work, as well.

''Religious experience''. It would mean that the person had a religious experience /of some sort/, that they concluded was ''real''. There is no specific type of religious experience indicated in the hypothetical, simply one that (obviously), the person having it, considered it to be real.

 

[RedDragon94]

Actually, atheism can be not only religious, /it often is, but also can require just as much faith as any other religious adherence, if not more. For example, if a devout atheist has a religious /theistic/ experience, what do they do? Do they admit that they are wrong? Do they simply not reveal that they are now aware that atheism is a false position? All these issues affect atheists as much as Buddhists, Hindus, Satanists, Christians, etc.

The difference is atheism doesn't formulate any spiritual pipe dreams. It's not faith as much as it is discovery through science and reason.

 

[outhouse]

The difference is atheism doesn't formulate any spiritual pipe dreams. It's not faith as much as it is discovery through science and reason.

Said person refuses academia

 

[RedDragon94]

Said person refuses academia

It's sad how people think that... Never mind, I forgot who I was talking to. I was going to say that God and evolution are one.

 

[Desert Snake]

The difference is atheism doesn't formulate any spiritual pipe dreams. It's not faith as much as it is discovery through science and reason.

Whatever ''spiritual'' means, I think all of that is subjective. And science and reason are not necessarily connected to atheism, at all. The faith aspect is going to vary. ''Faith'' is a concept that has many applications, one of them could be ''atheism''; it's pretty much an arbitrary idea to somehow say that theists necessarily have more faith than an atheist; they may not, it depends on context.

There is nothing, for example, that would indicate, from science, that lack of some type of creator, makes any sense. That's a matter of faith. Believing that everything magically poofed into existence, from nothing, is a religious belief, (faith based), and fairly non-scientific, at that .

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Actually, atheism can be not only religious, /it often is, but also can require just as much faith as any other religious adherence, if not more. For example, if a devout atheist has a religious /theistic/ experience, what do they do? Do they admit that they are wrong? Do they simply not reveal that they are now aware that atheism is a false position? All these issues affect atheists as much as Buddhists, Hindus, Satanists, Christians, etc.

You are correct in that many/most atheists are religious. As many atheists or non-theists call themselves Buddhist, LaVayan Satanists, Taoist, Scientologist and a number of other atheist or non-theist religious belief systems.
However, secular atheists could not honestly be called religious. Passion is not enough qualification for the term. The only thing secular atheists have in common is lack of religious participation and lack of belief in gods. And that doesn't make up the foundation of a religion.

Determining what is genuinely a theistic experience is highly subjective. Which lots of religious people don't believe happens for gods or spirits they don't believe in. But if they truly felt the experience was real and not mistaken identity, sure, they'd probably admit they were wrong and convert.

I'm skeptical of any claims of spiritual experiences, personally. But if I had tangible, verifiable reason to believe in it, I would.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

There is nothing, for example, that would indicate, from science, that lack of some type of creator, makes any sense.

Unless Hawking and m-theorists and unified m astrophysicists turn out to be correct, and believing the universe came from gods would be as silly as saying snowflakes came from gods. The universe would just be as a result of where physics and quantum mechanics meet.

Believing that everything magically poofed into existence, from nothing, is a religious belief, and fairly non-scientific, at that .

You're right in that magic and ex nihlo is not scientific, but religious ('and God said'). But it's also not what physicists claim. So that's a bit of a strawman to foist on atheists. Rather, the current models is there is no 'nothing' and that even what we thought was empty space has quantum level changes where particles can come in and come out of our universe (and all others.) We don't know for sure because quantum mechanics is very difficult stuff. But it's a far cry from magic out of nothing.

 

[RedDragon94]

it's pretty much an arbitrary idea to somehow say that theists necessarily have more faith than an atheist;

Well if they didn't they probably wouldn't be theistic in the first place, or maybe they think they're theists but they're wrong. It's a case of mistaken identity.
Here's this

There is nothing, for example, that would indicate, from science, that lack of some type of creator, makes any sense.

Bill Nye is a well renown scientist. Listen to him.

Believing that everything magically poofed into existence, is a religious belief, and fairly non-scientific, at that .

That's not what an evolutionist believes. The big bang was actually not an explosion as much as it was an expansion.
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

 

[Curious George]

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.

Perhaps you can elaborate.