Fundamentalist Atheists

[Saint Frankenstein]

This has really degenerated into an argument over the meaning of the word "atheist"?

 

[Thief]

Not the first thread to have done so.....won't be the last.

How about you?...got a declaration to make?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not the first thread to have done so.....won't be the last.

How about you?...got a declaration to make?

A declaration about what?

 

[Thief]

A declaration about what?

Being an atheist?

I say it's all about the declaration.
No default positions.
Babies are not atheists.
Apathetically minded people are not atheists.
Politicians might be atheists.....
Lawyers might atheists....

How about you?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Being an atheist?

I say it's all about the declaration.
No default positions.
Babies are not atheists.
Apathetically minded people are not atheists.
Politicians might be atheists.....
Lawyers might atheists....

How about you?

I'm an autotheist. Gods outside of myself just aren't as important to me as before. My beliefs are about transformation of Self and external deities aren't required. At best, I'm an agnostic. You could say I'm an atheist, though. Atheism means the the same thing as non-theism. Doesn't really matter. I think the question is largely irrelevant.

 

[Thief]

I'm an autotheist. Gods outside of myself just aren't as important to me as before. My beliefs are about transformation of Self and external deities aren't required. At best, I'm an agnostic. You could say I'm an atheist, though. Atheism means the the same thing as non-theism. Doesn't really matter. I think the question is largely irrelevant.

How about this question....Nothing Greater than yourself?
Top of the line life form are you?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

How about this question....Nothing Greater than yourself?
Top of the line life form are you?

It's more a statement about positions of authority in one's life. Instead of following some other being's will or the will of society, I follow my individual Will. Instead of seeking power without, I seek it from within. Why should I view a being as superior to me?

 

[Uberpod]

Here are your two mistakes:
1)

As Ambiguous Guy already pointed out, words are hardly constructed in a way to demonstrate a specific definition.

Words are constructed in particular ways to impart a specific meaning generally. There are significant exceptions, but the general trend holds and it is demonstrated by the construction of the word atheist.

2)

When you look up the etymology of "atheism", belief actually isn't even a factor. It is literally "without gods".

This is false. Belief is a factor. None of what you quote contradicts that belief is a factor. atheos is the word that means without gods not atheist. Atheist simply means person without a god belief. You ignored the suffix. I have mention that a few times now. -ist / -ism adds the piece that means state of belief.

You evidence does my bidding. I would add one point, however, that goes beyond your evidence just a tad. It is important to keep in mind the bias of the person offering a definition. A theist might define an atheist in a biased fashion thusly: One who refuses that God exists, one who rejects God, one who neglects to see God. An objective wordsmith would not add a presupposed belief to enter the definition as it reflects a personal bias.

 

[Thief]

It's more a statement about positions of authority in one's life. Instead of following some other being's will or the will of society, I follow my individual Will. Instead of seeking power without, I seek it from within. Why should I view a being as superior to me?

Ahh!....and you do believe in an afterlife?

What if there really is no One in charge?

Or maybe there could be that Someone....but your denial sets you apart.
He won't come running to help.

I estimate 6billion people will die within my lifetime.
That's a lot of spirit.

No one in Charge?

Are you looking forward to the chaos?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ahh!....and you do believe in an afterlife?

What if there really is no One in charge?

Or maybe the could be that Someone....but your denial sets you apart.
He won't come running to help.

I estimate 6billion people will die within my lifetime.
That's a lot of spirit.

No one in Charge?

Are you looking forward to the chaos?

Why do you always repeat yourself? Go take your mindless preaching elsewhere. It's tired.

 

[Uberpod]

I am not interpreting anything. I am not making any assumptions. I am simply regurgitating what every single source on the topic states.

It might be time to stop passing on what others regurgitate and actually digest the word yourself.

Now, do you have any evidence to support your position?

Your evidence does two thirds the job of supporting my position quite nicely.

 

[Falvlun]

Here are your two mistakes:
1)

Words are constructed in particular ways to impart a specific meaning generally. There are significant exceptions, but the general trend holds and it is demonstrated by the construction of the word atheist.

Words were constructed....

That would make your statement more accurate. The point still stands that etymology is not the criteria by which current word usage is defined.

2) This is false. Belief is a factor. None of what you quote contradicts that belief is a factor. atheos is the word that means without gods not atheist. Atheist simply means person without a god belief. You ignored the suffix. I have mention that a few times now. -ist / -ism adds the piece that means state of belief.

You evidence does my bidding. I would add one point, however, that goes beyond your evidence just a tad. It is important to keep in mind the bias of the person offering a definition. A theist might define an atheist in a biased fashion thusly: One who refuses that God exists, one who rejects God, one who neglects to see God. An objective wordsmith would not add a presupposed belief to enter the definition as it reflects a personal bias.

Again, you have offered no evidence. Why should I merely take your word for it, when your word is countered by everything else I have read on the subject?

I am beginning to think you don't really know what "etymology" means. It is not merely about breaking up a word into component parts. It's about historical usage, and the reasons why the word developed the way it did.

It never used to mean merely "without belief in gods". It was used to indicate "ungodliness", "impiety", "severing relationship with the gods", "denying the gods", and once we get to the French, "disbelieving the existence of God".

Even if accepting that the "ist" and "ism" adds the "belief" portion-- which it certainly does in the modern word, but we are talking about the etymology-- you are still left with the problem that this word was not constructed to support the definition you claim that it was constructed to support.

 

[Uberpod]

Words were constructed....
The point still stands that etymology is not the criteria by which current word usage is defined.

It is but one area to consider when exploring the nuance of a word.

I am beginning to think you don't really know what "etymology" means. It is not merely about breaking up a word into component parts. It's about historical usage, and the reasons why the word developed the way it did.

I did not bring that word into this discussion. It's merely a footnote as far as I am concerned.

Even if accepting that the "ist" and "ism" adds the "belief" portion-- which it certainly does in the modern word, but we are talking about the etymology-- you are still left with the problem that this word was not constructed to support the definition you claim that it was constructed to support.

The essential meaning of the word is obvious. I do not need any evidence whatsoever. The word fits in a context of other words. Theocracy, bicyclist, asexual...


If theists want to steap additional information and pejorative connotations to it (and they have) so be it.

 

[Falvlun]

Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The essential meaning of the word is obvious. I do not need any evidence whatsoever. The word fits in a context of other words. Theocracy, bicyclist, asexual...

Another language master to come and tell us what our words really mean.

Oh boy.

 

[Uberpod]

My main point is that the definition of atheist must include as one of the entries the basic neutral version: person without a god belief.

Your google search cut and paste "evidence" supports my position:

In early ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless".

In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587. The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God", predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571.

Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god. In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God"

The words "atheism" and "atheist" originated from the Ancient Greek word "ἄθεος"4 ("átheos") meaning "without deities" without any direct or implied anti-theistic (or anti-religious) connotation, for it was impartial in its initially intended use. Philosophical atheist thought is also believed to have begun in Asia and Europe as early as 600 BCE.

Drink up!!

 

[Uberpod]

The essential meaning of the word is obvious. I do not need any evidence whatsoever. The word fits in a context of other words. Theocracy, bicyclist, asexual...

I should have said I don't need any evidence beyond what has been presented already. If I did not require evidence at all I might be a theist.

 

[Falvlun]

My main point is that the definition of atheist must include as one of the entries the basic neutral version: person without a god belief.

Your google search cut and paste "evidence" supports my position:

Drink up!!

You seriously misunderstand.

You stated that the word was "constructed in a fashion that directly supports" the definition "without a god belief".

The two things I have attempted to show you were this:
1) Etymology-- the construction and history-- of a word does not define current understanding and usage of the word.

2) The etymology of the word "atheist" shows that it was not, in fact, constructed to literally mean "person without a god belief".


You have obviously not understood the first point, because of your continued references to theists steeping pejorative connotations into the word. The purpose in demonstrating that the word "atheist" often had negative connotations was not to prove that it should have negative connotations in the present. Why? Because etymology-- the construction and history of a word-- does not define the current understanding and usage of a word.

And you have obviously not understood that the history of the word "atheist" obviously indicates that it was not purposefully constructed to mean "person without a god belief". That was the form it took, but that was not the meaning that was imbued upon it.

Now note: This is in no way evidence for my preferred definition that restricts atheism to those who disbelieve in the existence of gods (or believe that gods don't exist). Why? Repeat after me: Because etymology does not define current word usage.

But it does indicate why etymology cannot be used in support of your own.

 

[Uberpod]

You seriously misunderstand.

One of us clearly does.

You stated that the word was "constructed in a fashion that directly supports" the definition "without a god belief".

That statement has very little to do with etymology actually. If I say the appropriate current use and function of a house has a lot to do with it's construction, that does not mean we have to delve into earlier uses or the reasons and motivations it was built.

The two things I have attempted to show you were this:

Your patronage has not been appreciated. Stop trying to show me (badly)things I already know and agree with to the appropriate degree.

1) Etymology-- the construction and history-- of a word does not define current understanding and usage of the word.

Of course. That does not mean that it is completely irrelevant. Why do people bother with etymology at all do you think?? A side point is that etymology, while it does not dictate anything, does loosely give us a trajectory, a tenor , a patina of the current meanings. It's a side point because I DO NOT BASE my argument on etymology. You have chosen to foist that into the center of the discussion. It would more appropriately be gaged a mere footnote.

2) The etymology of the word "atheist" shows that it was not, in fact, constructed to literally mean "person without a god belief".

I disagree. Look at the component parts and look at the words I put in bold. And, remember that this is a minor point that I am making not the central one.

You have obviously not understood the first point, because of your continued references to theists steeping pejorative connotations into the word. The purpose in demonstrating that the word "atheist" often had negative connotations was not to prove that it should have negative connotations in the present. Why? Because etymology-- the construction and history of a word-- does not define the current understanding and usage of a word.

Okay, then stop talking about it. And, I believe I have a clear understanding of your confusion.

And you have obviously not understood that the history of the word "atheist" obviously indicates that it was not purposefully constructed to mean "person without a god belief".

Wrong -

from your undigested pasting:The words "atheism" and "atheist" originated from the Ancient Greek word "ἄθεος"4 ("átheos") meaning "without deities" without any direct or implied anti-theistic (or anti-religious) connotation, for it was impartial in its initially intended use.

That was the form it took, but that was not the meaning that was imbued upon it.

It's a was a temporary detour of little significance. We both agree on that!

Now note: This is in no way evidence for my preferred definition that restricts atheism to those who disbelieve in the existence of gods (or believe that gods don't exist). Why? Repeat after me: Because etymology does not define current word usage.

This has reached the level of a strawman. congrats!

But it does indicate why etymology cannot be used in support of your own.

Etymology is not strong support one way or another.

 

[Uberpod]

The more interesting thing to consider is why we feel so strongly about our positions here. Why would you deny my one entry of a basic definition into the list of the several current uses of the word? I would suggest that it the same phenomenon as the attack on Christmas. Theist do not like that they are losing the default position of what is considered normal and resist an equalizing of the playing field.