What do people think "atheist" means?

[ArtieE]

Try reading:: "In such an environment atheism was simply unthinkable.". The term didn't mean lack of belief in god or gods beause that was "simply unthinkable".

LOL. So nobody was an atheist, nobody had a lack of belief in gods because everybody were theists? So what?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So nobody was an atheist

No, rather atheist didn't and couldn't mean a disbelief in gods.

nobody had a lack of belief in gods because

...this is a nonsensical, incoherent, and idiotic approach to epistemology. The phrase "lack of belief" is use almost solely by intellectually sterile positions that seek to define themselves as right by assumption: nobody describes themselves as having a "lack of belief" in unicorns, a "lack of belief in UFOs", or a "lack of belief" at all. That's because we say "I don't believe" unless we are attempting to illogically define a position so desperately that we depend upon the convolution of language just to use the phrase "lack of belief" as if it were some epistemic claim rather than a pathetic attempt to avoid one..

everybody were theists?

Not at all. Because contrary to the laughable definition of atheism as a "lack of belief", it turns out that if one uses logic or examines usage, people who are theists define themselves as such, and people who don't define themselves as many things and most of the aren't "atheist".

 

[ArtieE]

Things are complicated no matter who you want to give blame to. There's no reason why people can't use the term to describe a person who lacks belief.

Every atheist is a person who lacks belief.

 

[Ouroboros]

When a person tells you he or she is a Catholic, Conservative, Liberal, Anarchist, apolitical, agnostic, polytheist, amoral, etc., what do each of these tell you that person is not? Or is atheist the only term used completely and only by people who (for some ridiculous reason) wish to identify themselves ideologically, philosophically, epistemologically, and/or intellectually in terms of a singular definition that describes that which they aren't, rather than what they are or what they think or believe?

That's how it seems like some atheists wants it. It's been watered down so much that it doesn't have any use anymore. Who cares if I'm a asantaist, ateapotinspaceist, agnomeist, apixieist, etc. No one goes around making a point about what they lack belief in. A most of all, people don't walk around identifying themselves with a concept which is built on ignorance. "I'm an atheist because I'm ignorant about what God(s) means and I reject any idea the theists suggest." That's a very crazy standpoint, but that's what it seems to be going to.

 

[Ouroboros]

Common usage. I may be wrong but has there ever been a time when an atheist wasn't a person who didn't believe in gods?

Yes.

It meant more like ungodly or impious (not showing respect or reverence, especially for a god, wicked). Socrates (I think it was) was charged with being an atheist, not because he didn't believe in gods per se, but he didn't believe in the gods of the city specifically. Socrates (if I remember right) heard an inner voice that he believed to be god, so he was probably not an atheist by modern definition.

 

[ArtieE]

That's how it seems like some atheists wants it. It's been watered down so much that it doesn't have any use anymore. Who cares if I'm a asantaist, ateapotinspaceist, agnomeist, apixieist, etc. No one goes around making a point about what they lack belief in. A most of all, people don't walk around identifying themselves with a concept which is built on ignorance. "I'm an atheist because I'm ignorant about what God(s) means and I reject any idea the theists suggest." That's a very crazy standpoint, but that's what it seems to be going to.

In post 264 Legion calls himself an agnostic. The definition of agnostic is a person who doesn't know if gods exist. The definition of atheist is a person who doesn't believe gods exist. If you define atheism as having the belief that gods don't exist, then agnosticism must be having the knowledge that gods don't exist. Same principle just exchanging the word belief for the word knowledge. Don't you think that sounds ridiculous?

 

[Ouroboros]

In post 264 Legion calls himself an agnostic. The definition of agnostic is a person who doesn't know if gods exist. The definition of atheist is a person who doesn't believe gods exist. If you define atheism as having the belief that gods don't exist, then agnosticism must be having the knowledge that gods don't exist. Same principle just exchanging the word belief for the word knowledge. Don't you think that sounds ridiculous?

Here's the thing. The term "agnosticism" doesn't contain the word "theos" at all. If you want to go all etymological on the words, then agnosticism doesn't say anything about knowledge in God, but knowledge in general. So your example doesn't hold.

 

[ArtieE]

Here's the thing. The term "agnosticism" doesn't contain the word "theos" at all. If you want to go all etymological on the words, then agnosticism doesn't say anything about knowledge in God, but knowledge in general. So your example doesn't hold.

 

[ArtieE]

...this is a nonsensical, incoherent, and idiotic approach to epistemology. The phrase "lack of belief" is use almost solely by intellectually sterile positions that seek to define themselves as right by assumption: nobody describes themselves as having a "lack of belief" in unicorns, a "lack of belief in UFOs", or a "lack of belief" at all.

You described yourself as an agnostic who is a person with lack of knowledge... if an atheist is not supposed to be a person with a lack of belief in gods but a person who believes gods don't exist, then what is an agnostic? A person not with a lack of knowledge whether gods exist but knowing that gods don't exist?

 

[Willamena]

If you need a guide to tell you what you are, you're doing it wrong*.


*Being what you are.

 

[ArtieE]

If you need a guide to tell you what you are, you're doing it wrong*.


*Being what you are.

I don't need a guide. I posted it for you.

 

[Willamena]

You described yourself as an agnostic who is a person with lack of knowledge...

That's someone who is ignorant.

 

[Willamena]

I don't need a guide. I posted it for you.

I don't need a guide, either.

 

[ArtieE]

That's someone who is ignorant.

Oh! I didn't know that!

 

[ArtieE]

I don't need a guide, either.

Apparently many here do. I can post many similar guides if they don't get this one.

 

[Willamena]

Apparently many here do. I can post many similar guides if they don't get this one.

No one does, Artie. Else, they're doing it wrong.

 

[Augustus]

Apparently many here do. I can post many similar guides if they don't get this one.

This is a map of Spain.

I can post many similar maps if you don't get this one.

 

[Willamena]

You described yourself as an agnostic who is a person with lack of knowledge... if an atheist is not supposed to be a person with a lack of belief in gods but a person who believes gods don't exist, then what is an agnostic? A person not with a lack of knowledge whether gods exist but knowing that gods don't exist?

An agnostic is a person with "the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable." (Dictionary.com)

 

[leibowde84]

If I must spell it out, I'll take the first two examples which show the difference between the two uses.


The "deficiency of communications" in this sentence refers to a lack of communications that, had they been sufficient, would have benefited the condition of agriculture. "Having a deficiency" in this case means knowing you are without those vital communications or that those vital communications were insufficient. To take it as simply "not enough communications" would imply some set quantity that wasn't achieved, and miss the point of what's being implied.

On the other hand, this example...

...is about quantity.

Other examples on the thread show other uses of the word "deficiency."

You can disagree with me all you like, but I'm out for a while.

There is no requirement for a specific quantity for something to be considered to be "deficient". The communications in your example were certainly and correctly described as "insufficient" or "not enough". Just because it is abstract and not defined does not mean that it is incorrect to say insufficient. Faith can be insufficient as well, but not in atheists, as "atheism" requires a complete absence of belief in the existence of God.

 

[Willamena]

There is no requirement for a specific quantity for something to be considered to be "deficient".

That's true, as the examples demonstrate. It's sufficient for some examples, but not required in any.

The communications in your example were certainly and correctly described as "insufficient" or "not enough". Just because it is abstract and not defined does not mean that it is incorrect to say insufficient. Faith can be insufficient as well, but not in atheists, as "atheism" requires a complete absence of belief in the existence of God.

Some were examples of "not enough," yes.

What is it you refer to as "abstract and not defined?"