You're using a circular argument. What I and others are saying is that the word "atheist" doesn't only describe people who have rejected gods; it applies to anyone who hasn't accepted the existence of at least one god.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bob the atheist?
- Thread starter Satans_Serrated_Edge
- Start date
Again, it's absurd and biased to say that the word means something different to theists.
My point, since you missed it, was that I am not an atheist if I cannot disbelieve god.
Just so, that's why I cannot be atheist if I've never heard of god. The root word of disbelief is belief.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
But again it comes back to the definition of "atheist". As I've explained I take "atheist" to mean "not-theist", and "not-theist" means not holding a belief in God. Not holding a belief in God can include an absence of belief in God as well as a rejection of belief in God. Bob's situation ( never having heard of God ) would fall into the former category here.
The word "atheist" means "without belief" not "believing the opposite of what a theist believes."
Which includes disbelief.
The point, though, is that disbelief (an epistemological stance) and not having belief in the context of being ignorant of god (an ontological image) are not compatible. Holding that the latter is atheism, or worse, essental atheism, is eliminative of the former. RF has had this discussion on-going for a decade, and the strongest arguments against that I've heard have been dismissive (to the point of ad hominem) or entirely accepting of the contradiction imposed (doublethink). Some actually assert that there are no strong atheists, or have a double standard that ignores that strong atheism's disbelieving stance matters.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Check the top line of the main table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefix You will see that the prefix a- negates, and means "not".
So "atheist" means "not theist", ie not holding a belief in God.
No harm at all.
Which is the same as being without a belief in God.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
As I've explained, I view atheism as a spectrum which includes rejection of belief as well as absence. In practice I think most atheists reject the idea of God, so it is more than just an absence of belief.
I have never understood atheists who claim there is no rejection of belief involved.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Not exactly. I think "not theist" is more accurate, and it seems that accuracy is important here.
Of course it isn't. Both the active disbeliever and the ignorant person are not theists. And that's what atheist means. Not theist.
Seems you misunderstood me. I wanted your categories for "god", not just "God".
That's the goal, of course, but the only way I've ever been able to attempt to define the category "god" is with a list of specific gods, which is doomed to be incomplete.
I'm interested in hearing you give general criteria to distinguish gods from things that aren't gods. My point with my comment before is that when we look at any set of criteria:
- if it excludes things we know are gods (e.g. the heavenly messenger Mercury), then we know it isn't broad enough... and is therefore wrong.
- if it includes things we know aren't gods (e.g. the heavenly messenger Gabriel), then we know it's too broad... and therefore wrong.
Basically, I'm looking for consistency with how we use the term "god" generally.
Augustus
…
The word did not arise as the negation of theism though, but from people's attitude towards the gods.
People who play the 'meaning from letters' game always consider it a-theism rather than athe-ism, yet this is clearly wrong given the word's history.
-ism = belief or principle
a-the[os] -ism = the belief or principle of being without god.
The a-theism argument is simply a post hoc rationalisation of the newer meaning rather than the 'proof' of the newer meaning. If it means 'not theism', it is simply because people want it to mean 'not theism' rather than any intrinsic quality of the word itself.
If it was due to the letters themselves then it would always have meant 'not theism', even when nobody ever used it in that manner.
Who do you think is claiming that?
"To qualify as an atheist, you only need to not believe in any gods" does not imply "atheists don't reject any gods."
"You don't need to live in New York City to be an American" does not imply "there are no Americans in New York City."
The point is that us an atheist's perspective, but there is a flip side. From an atheist's point of view Bob is purely an atheist in his ignorance, but on the Thirst's point of view his ignorance will b pardoned, because it isn't a sin to not know.
The fact that you use "god" in the singular is still a giveaway even if you don't capitalize it. We aren't just talking about monotheistic god-concepts.
That's what was given. It's customary to capitalize the first word in a sentence.
Completeness shouldn't matter, as long as there is a sufficient sampling. If I were to explain sheep by example, I certainly wouldn't attempt to point at every particular sheep in the world. A sampling in a field should suffice.
If we look at particular sheep in all the fields of the world, and the variety present, from mountain sheep to miniature ones, I'm sure we could confuse ourselves to pieces about the definition of "sheep," too. That's why there are set techniques for definition that rely on generalizing to a concept based on how the word is used.