Word Usage Survey

[Copernicus]

As of this post, we have 17 replies and are essentially in a dead heat, but all answers are within the context of our little language community. About 5 of those answers come from those of us who have been locked in a somewhat heated debate already, so the statistics are somewhat skewed. I hope that we can get more answers to see if the 50-50 ratio holds.

 

[Marble]

1)
I say D.
Because to be an atheist or an agnostic one first has to understand the concept God/gods/supreme reality and a baby is not able to do that.

2)
A: Bob doesn't know (and probably doesn't care) if the moon landing actually happened.
B: Bob doesn't believe that the moon landing happened.

 

[Penumbra]

Theism means the belief in one or more gods.

Adding an "a" before a word is typically a privative. Its use is to negate the rest of the word. In other words, adding an a before the rest of the word indicates the absence of, or the negation of, that word. There are other privatives too.

The word atheism is not special in this regard. It's simply the word theism with a privative in front of it. It's the absence of, or the negation of, theism.

Atheism does not imply understanding the concept. That's an addition to the word that has nothing to do with the word itself. That's a cultural layer on top of the basic language. There is no more concise definition of someone who isn't a theist, than an atheist. Adding extra baggage onto the word itself is unnecessary.

If an atheist wants to clarify, that's why there are words that can be stringed together with the word atheist to further define what type of atheist they are. There are explicit atheists, implicit atheists, agnostic atheists, strong atheists, etc.

An atheist, however, is simply someone who is not a theist. They lack theism.

 

[Copernicus]

Theism means the belief in one or more gods.

Adding an "a" before a word is typically a privative. Its use is to negate the rest of the word. In other words, adding an a before the rest of the word indicates the absence of, or the negation of, that word. There are other privatives too.

The word atheism is not special in this regard. It's simply the word theism with a privative in front of it. It's the absence of, or the negation of, theism.

This is an incorrect linguistic analysis. The prefix "a-" in English usually only attaches to adjectives, as in a-political, a-moral, a-symptomatic, etc. We do not have corresponding nouns *apolitician, *amorality, *asymptom. There are a number of nouns with that prefix that were borrowed into the language with the prefix already attached, as was atheism, which was borrowed into English from French. That happened in the Middle English period when a great many loan words came in from Norman and Parisian French dialects. French and Latin were the language of the clergy at the time.

More importantly, though, we should be careful not to fall into the trap of an etymological fallacy, where meaning is based wholly on historical or morphological analysis. Usually, lexicographers derive definitions from a corpus of example usage. This survey is intended just to gather intuitions about how people in this debate forum think of the word "atheist" and "theist".

If an atheist wants to clarify, that's why there are words that can be stringed together with the word atheist to further define what type of atheist they are. There are explicit atheists, implicit atheists, agnostic atheists, strong atheists, etc.

This is a good thing to point out. In our community, we get into debates with people who have all sorts of beliefs. Hence, we have a need to distinguish a lot of different flavors of theism and atheism. That affects how we use the word "atheist", which now takes on a more generic flavor than it might have outside of this context. We are very much like a technical community that has developed specialized word usage and vocabulary to meet its need for greater precision in communication.

 

[Penumbra]

This is an incorrect linguistic analysis. The prefix "a-" in English usually only attaches to adjectives, as in a-political, a-moral, a-symptomatic, etc. We do not have corresponding nouns *apolitician, *amorality, *asymptom. There are a number of nouns with that prefix that were borrowed into the language with the prefix already attached, as was atheism, which was borrowed into English from French. That happened in the Middle English period when a great many loan words came in from Norman and Parisian French dialects. French and Latin were the language of the clergy at the time.

More importantly, though, we should be careful not to fall into the trap of an etymological fallacy, where meaning is based wholly on historical or morphological analysis. Usually, lexicographers derive definitions from a corpus of example usage. This survey is intended just to gather intuitions about how people in this debate forum think of the word "atheist" and "theist".

This is a good thing to point out. In our community, we get into debates with people who have all sorts of beliefs. Hence, we have a need to distinguish a lot of different flavors of theism and atheism. That affects how we use the word "atheist", which now takes on a more generic flavor than it might have outside of this context. We are very much like a technical community that has developed specialized word usage and vocabulary to meet its need for greater precision in communication.

Firstly, a privative a goes back a lot further than English. When applied to theism, it's a carry over from earlier languages. Calling someone an atheist was originally an insult.

Second, I see your etymological fallacy, and raise you argumentum ad populum.

Third, I offer you the challenge to provide me a concise and existing English word that defines the lack of belief in gods better than the word atheism does. If an acceptable word is going to be replaced with popular appeals, I would expect a valid replacement.

 

[Copernicus]

Firstly, a privative a goes back a lot further than English. When applied to theism, it's a carry over from earlier languages. Calling someone an atheist was originally an insult.

True, and it is still considered an insult by a great many people. But word meaning is always based on contemporary usage, not historical derivation. In English, all of the examples of nouns beginning with the prefix "a-" are fossilized borrowings, except where nouns are derived from adjectives.

Second, I see your etymological fallacy, and raise you argumentum ad populum.

You're not a very good gambler. You would lose this hand, because word meanings are based on usage, which is a matter of "populum". Argumentum ad populum is about a claim that a proposition is true because a large number of people believe it to be true. However, word usage is not a belief. It is a convention determined by a population of speakers.

Third, I offer you the challenge to provide me a concise and existing English word that defines the lack of belief in gods better than the word atheism does. If an acceptable word is going to be replaced with popular appeals, I would expect a valid replacement.

I would use the words "non-believer" and "non-theist". Those words are more neutral than "atheist", which people tend to associate with advocacy of belief that gods do not exist.

 

[methylatedghosts]

If it doesn't have the concept, then it doesn't have belief in that concept.

But it doesn't "not believe" in the concept either.

If I tell you I have an empty can on my desk, you can choose to believe it, and you can choose to not believe it, because you have the concept of a can on a desk, and you can from there imagine the likelyhood of that concept being a reality, and make an answer. You can also say "I don't know".

However, if I didn't tell you about a can on my desk, and if you had no previous concept of either can or desk, you wouldn't have any thoughts, or ideas about it at all. You don't believe it, but neither do you disbelieve it.

 

[Penumbra]

True, and it is still considered an insult by a great many people. But word meaning is always based on contemporary usage, not historical derivation. In English, all of the examples of nouns beginning with the prefix "a-" are fossilized borrowings, except where nouns are derived from adjectives.

And all the examples of words with a privative a before them mean the negation of, or the absence of, the following word.

You're not a very good gambler. You would lose this hand, because word meanings are based on usage, which is a matter of "populum". Argumentum ad populum is about a claim that a proposition is true because a large number of people believe it to be true. However, word usage is not a belief. It is a convention determined by a population of speakers.

I'm simply not going to consciously use words to mean something that isn't in their structure. Adding a privative a before the word theist means I'll use it to mean the absence of or the negation of, theism.

I would use the words "non-believer" and "non-theist". Those words are more neutral than "atheist", which people tend to associate with advocacy of belief that gods do not exist.

Non-believer is too broad. It is not a synonym, because "believer" has a far more wide-ranging scope than "theist" does, even though theist is already rather wide.

Non-theist might work, but it's a synonym of atheist. You propose that we should have the words "non-theist" and "atheist" mean different things, even though they are functionally equivalent?

But it doesn't "not believe" in the concept either.

If I tell you I have an empty can on my desk, you can choose to believe it, and you can choose to not believe it, because you have the concept of a can on a desk, and you can from there imagine the likelyhood of that concept being a reality, and make an answer. You can also say "I don't know".

However, if I didn't tell you about a can on my desk, and if you had no previous concept of either can or desk, you wouldn't have any thoughts, or ideas about it at all. You don't believe it, but neither do you disbelieve it.

If you never told me about the can on your desk, I would have never known about it, and therefore would have had zero belief in it. No belief at all.

If you define two words, with one meaning, roughly, "can believer", and the other being a word with a privative before it meaning "not a can believer", then I would be a "not a can believer".

If I worship a goddess named Isabel that you've never, ever heard of, would it be right to say that you believe in my deity, or that you lack belief in it? Of course you lack belief in it, because you've never even heard of her.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But it doesn't "not believe" in the concept either.

How is that logically possible?

It sounds to me that you're trying to violate the law of the excluded middle: Law of excluded middle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The difference between "believe" and "not believe" isn't subject to the etymological twistiness or questions of usage that Copernicus described for "atheist"; "not believe" is simply a negation of "believe". If the statement "the desk believes X" is false, then this necessarily implies that the statement "the desk does not believe X" is true.

This is just how logic works: "A is false" implies "(not A) is true".

 

[Koldo]

It is quite odd, and funny, how the language works.
The word "atheist" has a dual use, where in one of them it implies "X believes God doesn't exist.", and in the other it does not.

 

[doppelganger]

This is just how logic works: "A is false" implies "(not A) is true".

What color is the aroma of coffee?

 

[Magic Man]

As of this post, we have 17 replies and are essentially in a dead heat, but all answers are within the context of our little language community. About 5 of those answers come from those of us who have been locked in a somewhat heated debate already, so the statistics are somewhat skewed. I hope that we can get more answers to see if the 50-50 ratio holds.

Now we have 24 replies, and it's still around 50/50 with "atheist" winning by a little bit. This shouldn't really be a contest to see which side wins. I would think if even 20% of the replies said "atheist", that would be plenty to support our definition of the word.

Also, it's of note that Dopp agreed with you that the baby is neither an atheist nor a theist. However, he also agreed that an adult who has never heard of the concept of gods - and therefore doesn't believe in them - is an atheist.

Essentially he's drawing a different line than just between not holding the belief and holding it. He's saying in the case of the baby, there is no "self" to hold ideas, so the concept isn't even valid. So, he still agrees with the definition "one who lacks belief in gods", but just doesn't consider a baby to be a person in this context.

Now that was a lot of talking for someone else. I apologize, Dopp, if I misrepresented your position at all. Feel free to correct me.

 

[Falvlun]

To the poster who chose "Theist":
[youtube]OkCXQBY4q7w[/youtube]
All Babies, Sinead O'Connor
I love this song, even though I am an atheist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What color is the aroma of coffee?

I don't know what colour it is, but I know it isn't blue.

 

[doppelganger]

I don't know what colour it is, but I know it isn't blue.

Exactly. Nonsensical questions are not subject to Aristotelian logic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly. Nonsensical questions are not subject to Aristotelian logic.

But the question of whether a desk believes in God is not nonsensical. It may be trivial, but it's not nonsensical.

 

[doppelganger]

But the question of whether a desk believes in God is not nonsensical. It may be trivial, but it's not nonsensical.

Desks don't "believe" just like smells don't have color. It's nonsensical to ask what the desk does and does not believe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Desks don't "believe" just like smells don't have color. It's nonsensical to ask what the desk does and does not believe.

Can you explain what you mean by "nonsensical"? I'm not sure whether you mean something like "invalid" (in which case, I'd disagree and ask you to support your assertion) or "silly" (in which case, I'd say that this is irrelevant to whether it's valid)... but both have problems.

Did you mean the term some other way?

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm simply not going to consciously use words to mean something that isn't in their structure.

:clap If more people used English like that, the language would probably not suck so bad.

 

[Koldo]

:clap If more people used English like that, the language would probably not suck so bad.

Aren't you using the word 'suck' as a slang?