"Atheist"--the term itself

[leibowde84]

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?

Often I see theists use the term "atheist" to mean an active belief that God does not / cannot exist in order to shift the burden of proof. If it is merely a lack of belief (as I agree it is), there is no burden, as a lack of belief does not mean an active belief that God does not exist. Honestly, I think it's a cop-out to assume anything but atheism meaning a "lack of belief", unless one asks the atheist in question to explain their beliefs.

 

[leibowde84]

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, there certainly is. Even some of the most famous atheists today stick to the notion that they don't believe that God is an impossibility or even that God doesn't exist. They merely have not yet been convinced by the evidence. I think it's important that we encourage people away from making assumptions based on such a general term.

 

[prometheus11]

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

That's one way to admit you won't show where my statements were wrong, I guess.

Gnosis deals with spiritual knowledge. Some people claim to have spiritual knowledge: Gnostics.

Theism deals with belief in a god.

I don't claim to have any spiritual knowledge, so I'm agnostic.

On a related, but separate issue, I don't believe in any gods at this time. So I'm an atheist.

Not all women are mothers, and not all agnostics are atheists.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

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

^ This.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

Yup. I've seen those, and I agree with them. The philosophical position of atheism represents all those. Modern neo-atheists reject those definition though, and I think the term "atheism" belongs to the atheists to define. If they want it to mean just "lack of belief in God/gods", so be it. I can disagree on the usefulness of such a weak definition, but it is after all their word to use.

 

[prometheus11]

^ This.

So you think belief and knowledge are the same? Wow.

 

[prometheus11]

Yup. I've seen those, and I agree with them. The philosophical position of atheism represents all those. Modern neo-atheists reject those definition though, and I think the term "atheism" belongs to the atheists to define. If they want it to mean just "lack of belief in God/gods", so be it. I can disagree on the usefulness of such a weak definition, but it is after all their word to use.

No, it's not up to atheists to define. It's up to the speakers of the language. As Augustus correctly points out, language changes, and terms are defined by their usage, not by one group or another with specific desires.

 

[Janardena]

Yes, there certainly is. Even some of the most famous atheists today stick to the notion that they don't believe that God is an impossibility or even that God doesn't exist. They merely have not yet been convinced by the evidence. I think it's important that we encourage people away from making assumptions based on such a general term.

They also out rightly deny any argument, comment, etc.. that is favourable to God, and most don't mind negativity toward God or believers in God (especially Christians). They conveniently make it so that there is nothing at all favourable toward the notion of God existence. Then they say there is no evidence, but if evidence surfaces they are prepared to accept.
Their tactic is blindingly obvious.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, it's not up to atheists to define. It's up to the speakers of the language.

According the American Atheists, it belongs to the atheists.

As Augustus correctly points out, language changes, and terms are defined by their usage, not by one group or another with specific desires.

Absolutely. But it's the atheists who are defining what they mean by being atheists. It's the common usage of the word, and it used to be (when I grew up) that atheists meant a rejection of God/gods, not just lack of belief. The usage has changed, not because of the theists (who are still using the old definition), but it has changed because of the modern atheists, and mostly because of the forum discussions on Internet.

The word doesn't give away anything about belief. A-theism doesn't mean "Non-Belief in God". It only means "a person who with No God."

If you're a true un-believer, then you're an apistevist, a person without belief.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

So you think belief and knowledge are the same? Wow.

Wow.

 

[prometheus11]

According the American Atheists, it belongs to the atheists.

The American Atheists do not get yo define how language works and how terms evolve.

I agree with you on the rest.

 

[Augustus]

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

hmmmm....

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.

Rejected.

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

hmmmmmm.....

 

[leibowde84]

They also out rightly deny any argument, comment, etc.. that is favourable to God, and most don't mind negativity toward God or believers in God (especially Christians). They conveniently make it so that there is nothing at all favourable toward the notion of God existence. Then they say there is no evidence, but if evidence surfaces they are prepared to accept.
Their tactic is blindingly obvious.

They honestly believe that God, as a concept, is more trouble than its worth, whether or not God actually exists. That is their opinion, and they are free to hold it.

 

[prometheus11]

hmmmm....





hmmmmmm.....

Oh my, you got me good, didn't you. :eye roll:

See how I didn't even remember the second one?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

worth reading ...

 

[prometheus11]

worth reading ...

So now I'm supposed to dismiss you out of hand three or four times with a derisive comment, right? Karma?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is it so controversial? People fight for the meaning of language all the time, and resent others 'hijacking' language to suit their own ends.

In the case of the word "atheist", arguing that it means active disbelief means burdening the term with a two-tier mindset when it comes to gods.

Rejecting every god-concept ever conceived would be impossible. Heck - it's probably impossible for one person to even know all their names, to say nothing of learning all their attributes to the point where it would even be possible to form an opinion on every single one of them.

This means that if we're going to define the term as active disbelief - and if we concede that atheists exist in reality - then it can only be defined as something like "active disbelief of the god(s) that matter" with all the attendant problems of deciding which gods 'matter' and which gods don't.

I'm very much in the active disbelief camp, as I find the 'lack of belief' view nonsensical.

And I find the "active disbelief" view nonsensical. Do you really think that every single person you consider an atheist actively disbelieves in Istenanya, just to give a random god that came up in a quick googling? Have all of them even heard of Istenaya in order to disbelieve in her?

It defines atheism as literally nothing, the word has no referent and is therefore just a symbolic symbol with no meaning. The disbelief definition describes something and therefore has some degree of meaning.

It's kind of like "non-smoker" that way: it doesn't tell you anything about the person other than that they don't smoke. It tells you nothing about why they don't smoke or what they do with the time when they could be smoking.

I also think it is impossible to lack belief in god, unless you don't understand what the word means. People don't lack belief in unicorns, they hold the belief that they are fictitious horse like creatures created by the imagination of people of old. I consider the same to be true about god, particularly for active posters on a religious debate forum. That such a person could have an absence of belief is not plausible.

Your grammar betrays you: the way you talk about "god" in the singular is a sign of that two-tier mindset I described.

I have opinions about many gods. I reject some; I reject arguments for many. For some, I've only ever heard a name. For others, they've been explained to me so poorly that I don't even have a coherent concept to imagine, let alone parse it to the point where I could evaluate it. I have no idea how many countless god-concepts only ever resided in the head of one person who never shared it with anybody else. Do you think it's even possible to "actively disbelieve" in all of them? How can I even conceive of them? I can't reject what I can't evaluate.

 

[Erebus]

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

You'd be surprised.

 

[prometheus11]

Now I just want all the thread participants to read post #77, twice...slowly...on adderall.

Oh well. I tried.

 

[leibowde84]

In the case of the word "atheist", arguing that it means active disbelief means burdening the term with a two-tier mindset when it comes to gods.

Rejecting every god-concept ever conceived would be impossible. Heck - it's probably impossible for one person to even know all their names, to say nothing of learning all their attributes to the point where it would even be possible to form an opinion on every single one of them.

This means that if we're going to define the term as active disbelief - and if we concede that atheists exist in reality - then it can only be defined as something like "active disbelief of the god(s) that matter" with all the attendant problems of deciding which gods 'matter' and which gods don't.


And I find the "active disbelief" view nonsensical. Do you really think that every single person you consider an atheist actively disbelieves in Istenanya, just to give a random god that came up in a quick googling? Have all of them even heard of Istenaya in order to disbelieve in her?


It's kind of like "non-smoker" that way: it doesn't tell you anything about the person other than that they don't smoke. It tells you nothing about why they don't smoke or what they do with the time when they could be smoking.


Your grammar betrays you: the way you talk about "god" in the singular is a sign of that two-tier mindset I described.

I have opinions about many gods. I reject some; I reject arguments for many. For some, I've only ever heard a name. For others, they've been explained to me so poorly that I don't even have a coherent concept to imagine, let alone parse it to the point where I could evaluate it. I have no idea how many countless god-concepts only ever resided in the head of one person who never shared it with anybody else. Do you think it's even possible to "actively disbelieve" in all of them? How can I even conceive of them? I can't reject what I can't evaluate.

Great point. You've got this one in the bag.