"Atheist"--the term itself

[viole]

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 collective or is it 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. 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.
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?

You would have a point if God created man in His image and He miserably failed. Rockets do not look like ants at all.

Ciao

- viole

 

[prometheus11]

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

We aren't born believing in God.

Myths inform the characters. People imagine the characters with superhuman powers. People begin to believe in gods. Children, WHEN THEY CAN PROCESS beliefs and ideas about gods, are instructed in the God belief they are taught.

(I'm not talking about spirituality or believing in great spookiness, I'm talking about specific God belief).

 

[prometheus11]

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 collective or is it 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 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?

Or maybe some atheists lack any beliefs about God.

I don't disbelieve in God or say God doesn't exist, I just don't believe in any gods I've been told about.

God might exist, I just don't believe in one, currently.

 

[ThirtyThree]

We aren't born believing in God.

Some doubt that. However, I will not press the issue.

 

[Altfish]

No one in their right minds would ever say that.

I have, on numerous occasions.

 

[Ouroboros]

Why is there so much confusion over this term?

Because it has changed over time.

Google "atheism", and you get:

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."

Notice "Older dictionaries define". It used to be for quite some time to mean someone having a belief in no God, not the lack of belief that it means today. When I grew up, all my dictionaries had the old definition. Even the McMillan encyclopedia of philosophy defined it as such until 5-10 years ago. So, the confusion is because atheists today want the "lack of belief" to be the ruling definition and remove the "belief in no God", while many people still think according to the old definition.

 

[ThirtyThree]

God might exist, I just don't believe in one, currently.

That is called an Agnostic. You just do not know.

 

[prometheus11]

That is called an Agnostic. You just do not know.

Nope. I'm an agnostic atheist. I neither know nor believe. The terms are not on the same continuum. One is a scale of esoteric knowledge. The other is a scale of belief. I have no spiritual knowledge (agnostic) and I have no belief (atheist).

 

[Laika]

Because it has changed over time.

Google "atheism", and you get:

Notice "Older dictionaries define". It used to be for quite some time to mean someone having a belief in no God, not the lack of belief that it means today. When I grew up, all my dictionaries had the old definition. Even the McMillan encyclopedia of philosophy defined it as such until 5-10 years ago. So, the confusion is because atheists today want the "lack of belief" to be the ruling definition and remove the "belief in no God", while many people still think according to the old definition.

I didn't realise it was that recent, so thanks for that.

 

[viole]

That is called an Agnostic. You just do not know.

Yes, we are agnostic about Mother Goose, too.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ThirtyThree]

Nope. I'm an agnostic atheist. I neither know nor believe. The terms are not on the same continuum. One is a scale of esoteric knowledge. The other is a scale of belief. I have no spiritual knowledge (agnostic) and I have no belief (atheist).

@ "Agnostic Atheist"

 

[Ouroboros]

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

Yup. "A-theist" doesn't say anything about belief or who's the subject/object or anything. It's just "No-God". Which means that atheists and all humans fit the bill. None of us is a God, so we're all no-God. For the word to mean exactly "Lack of belief in God or Gods of any kind", then it should be written all out exactly like that in Greek, all words including "belief" and "gods". But it doesn't. So the definition/meaning of "atheism" today is an extension of the root word, and not exact to what it actually says.

 

[Ouroboros]

I didn't realise it was that recent, so thanks for that.

It's kind'a funny. When I became an atheist 15 years ago, I searched dictionaries and encyclopedias of many kinds to find a fitting definition of "atheist". I hated every single one just because they said "Belief in no God". I didn't feel I was believing in the non-existence of God, so I adopted the "lack of belief" when it started to become popular on internet forums. Then then internet dictionaries started to show up, and they started to use the newer and broader definition. Many, or most printed dictionaries still have the old definition, and American Atheists argue that it's because of the theistic and religious influence of society that is influencing it (which is somewhat true). But now, when I feel I'm more of a pantheist, I'm starting to dislike the "lack of belief" definition simply because it's not a philosophy, view, opinion, or anything. Being an atheist is to be something, not to lack something. To me, it's becoming too much of "I'm an a-car-ist because I have no car in the garage." So what? Why should be go around and identifying ourselves with all the things we don't have instead of trying to identifying and labelling ourselves to what we are and what we have? Well. It's just the way I'm leaning and everyone can have their own view on this issue, so I'm leaving at that.

 

[Ouroboros]

That is called an Agnostic. You just do not know.

Here's the strange thing between the words atheism and agnostic.

Atheism is "No God".

Agnosticism is "No Knowledge".

Agnostics lack knowledge. In what? It doesn't say "atheognostic" or "agnostictheos", so what is it that the agnostic is lacking in knowledge?

Also, a-theism doesn't say belief. It's not a-pisti-theos or a-theos-pisti or whatever it's supposed to be to include the term "belief".

So why does a-theism exactly, without a doubt, only translate to "Lack of belief in God or gods"?

And why does a-gnostic exactly, without a doubt, only translate to "Lack of knowledge in God or gods"?

It has something to do with usage and how society and culture shapes the usage, and not 100% only based on their Greek/Latin roots.

 

[Augustus]

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

It's not 'obfuscation', it is the crux of the whole system of language.

A prefix, like a word, is a combination of letters with specific meanings that are derived purely through usage (in context). That is why different languages are different.

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

You were arguing that you could work out the 'true' or at least 'superior' meaning of atheist from the combination of letters in the word.

Correct, but simple recognition of the way the word is assembled points to the first definition rather than the second. But we cannot change how a term has been used in the past.

You are basically arguing 'this is best because my interpretation of convention suggests it is best'.

It's still 100% reliant on usage and convention for meaning.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Most of the time, Augustus, you can get a good idea of a word's meaning by looking at the root word and its prefixes and suffixes. ...

UNI - CORN​

 

[prometheus11]

@ "Agnostic Atheist"

Really? Just mockery instead of showing which portion of my reasoning you disagree with? Wow.

I believe my car will start, but I don't know that it will. Knowledge and belief are different things. Obviously. In fact, many theists are agnostic; they do not claim to have access to spiritual knowledge, but they believe based on others who claim to have spiritual knowledge.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Really? Just mockery instead of showing which portion of my reasoning you disagree with? Wow.

I believe my car will start, but I don't know that it will. Knowledge and belief are different things. Obviously. In fact, many theists are agnostic; they do not claim to have access to spiritual knowledge, but they believe based on others who claim to have spiritual knowledge.

It is too ridiculous to even debate. It just hurts my head at this point.

 

[Augustus]

It's kind'a funny. When I became an atheist 15 years ago, I searched dictionaries and encyclopedias of many kinds to find a fitting definition of "atheist". I hated every single one just because they said "Belief in no God". I didn't feel I was believing in the non-existence of God, so I adopted the "lack of belief" when it started to become popular on internet forums. Then then internet dictionaries started to show up, and they started to use the newer and broader definition. Many, or most printed dictionaries still have the old definition, and American Atheists argue that it's because of the theistic and religious influence of society that is influencing it (which is somewhat true). But now, when I feel I'm more of a pantheist, I'm starting to dislike the "lack of belief" definition simply because it's not a philosophy, view, opinion, or anything. Being an atheist is to be something, not to lack something. To me, it's becoming too much of "I'm an a-car-ist because I have no car in the garage." So what? Why should be go around and identifying ourselves with all the things we don't have instead of trying to identifying and labelling ourselves to what we are and what we have? Well. It's just the way I'm leaning and everyone can have their own view on this issue, so I'm leaving at that.

This is a Christian site but the article curates a decent amount of external sources. It's advocacy rather than dispassionate analysis, but worth a look for the sources alone:

Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god"), is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not (Academic American Encyclopedia).
Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason (Random House Encyclopedia-1977).

Atheism (from the Greek a-, not, and theos, god) is the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God, the use has become the standard one (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy-1995).

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods (Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995).

Atheism is disbelief in God (Introduction to Philosophy, Perry and Bratman, Oxford University Press-1986).

Atheism from the Greek a (not) plus theos (god). The doctrine of disbelief in a supreme being (Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, William Reese, HumanitiesPress-1996).

Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God (Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996).

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist (The World Book Encyclopedia-1991).

Atheism, Greek atheos-Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God (Oxford English Dictionary-1989)

Atheism, commonly speaking, is the denial of God. Theism (from the Greek theos, God) is belief in or conceptualization of God, atheism is the rejection of such belief or conceptualization.In the ancient world atheism was rarely a clearly formulated position (Encyclopedia Americana-1990).

Atheism, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswerable, for the atheist, the non-existence of god is a certainty (The New Encyclopedia Britannia-1993).

According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god…(rejects eccentric definitions of the word) (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967).

Atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise and good (Encyclopedia of Religion-1987).

Atheism (Greek and Roman): Atheism is a dogmatic creed, consisting in the denial of every kind of supernatural power. Atheism has not often been seriously maintained at any period of civilized thought (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II).

Atheism denies the existence of deity (Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia-Vol I).


More here: http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm

 

[prometheus11]

It's not 'obfuscation', it is the crux of the whole system of language.

I'm not talking about letters. I never did. I was talking about groups of letters that form specific symbols: root words, prefixes, and suffixes.

Or do you only talk about quarks and leptons instead referring to things like cars and sofa cushions?

A prefix, like a word, is a combination of letters with specific meanings that are derived purely through usage (in context). That is why different languages are different.

Yes. I didn't know anyone thought otherwise?!

You were arguing that you could work out the 'true' or at least 'superior' meaning of atheist from the combination of letters in the word.

Nope. I am merely discussing the term. I've only disagreed with you on one issue by the way.

You are basically arguing 'this is best because my interpretation of convention suggests it is best'.

Nope. You wish I was, but I'm not and I haven't. We've only disagreed on one detail this entire time.

It's still 100% reliant on usage and convention for meaning.

Yes. We've agreed on this about a dozen times now. I'm out of little gold stars at this point.