Atheism- A misnomer?

[deekayfry]

I have been giving this a lot of thought lately.

If we were to break the word "atheism" into its constituent parts.  That is the prefix "a-" and then "theism" the word itself is misleading.  The "a" part normally stands for "without," but in other cases it can be interpreted as "against" or "opposed."  That is the former is the denotation of the word, literal meaning, and the latter a connotation, which is the popular meaning, which has been purposely applied in such a way.

As for the second part, we all can readily agree that "theism" means God or diety, in any way shape of form.

The reason why I am being so picky about the word, as in the question Shakespeare asked, "What is in a word?" is that the word implies that an atheist is against God.  This then implies that the word acknowledges that there is a god, and said "atheist" is against a God.

But personally, there is no God, there is nothing for me to be against.  It is like a baseball team showing up to a football game to play baseball.  I am the baseball player, I don't ascribe or accept the rules of football.  I am not playing in the same sport or ball park.   As an atheist, I cannot "believe" there is no God, because my viewpoint is not grounded in any type of belief.  I don't see that there is a God to accept or reject.  God is simply not there.

As for religion, I am not against religion because I recognize it as a rightful place among humanity.  As anyone can see I support the right to practice a religion, and that support is selfish, because the right to practice also means the right not to have to practice it.  So, to me, it is a fair trade, you do what you want to do or not, and leave me alone and I do what I don't want to do or want to do.


This nit-picky distinction is important to me because theist have branded us as against God and religion and have demonized us not "believing."  For me, the feeling is this has nothing to do with belief, because belief implies acknowledging an existence, right?  (This is a philosophy board after all).

Anyway, I thought of an alternative moniker like "non-theistic" as to say, I am not theistic.  That is one who does not accept the concept of a God or deity.  It is not that he or she does not believe in a God, rather it is a concept that he or she has concluded to which there is no deity to acknowledge, believe in, or accept.

What are y'alls take on this?  A lot of what has been discussed since I have joined and has made me think of how important this word is and the ideas behind it.  I am sure that there is entire scholarly field behind the very idea of believing, not believing, and the importance of the absents of the two.

[Whitney]

I'm not a big fan of finding new words to describe something simply because a few ignorant people don't understand what a word is intended to mean...my research into the origins and usage of the word atheist have indicated that it was intended to mean someone who doesn't believe in god and is most commonly used in that manner.  

non-theist works but imo that's just another way of saying atheist for those that aren't comfortable with the word atheist.

I find that freethought represents my views a lot better than telling someone i'm an atheist since I'm not defined by my lack of belief...so I just say I'm a freethinker if the religion/worldview topic comes up unless asked more specifically about what I think about god.

[pinkocommie]

I think the vast majority of people who insist on misunderstanding what atheism is and are out there arguing with atheists about what they think based on this misunderstanding are doing it on purpose because whatever point they want to make - that atheism requires faith, is a kind of religion, is a belief, or whatever - is contingent on misrepresenting what atheism is to begin with.  So even if you change the term you use, those people will most likely figure out a way to misunderstand and misrepresent that term as well.

The only real use I know of for even using labels like atheist, free thinker, non-theist or whatever is to help give an initial impression so I think people ought to use whatever term they feel is right for them and fill in the blanks as needed.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I am an atheist insofar as I live life without god.  It makes no statement about god's existence, but rather, about my view.  I'm very happy to explain this to theists.

Also, Whitney is right; crafting new words is not a good idea.  Much like the discovery of a new species actually "creates" two "missing links" for creationists to trumpet, putting yet another word out for the lack of faith only provides more targets.

When a theist asks me what atheism means to me, I merely say that it means I am faithless.  They cannot argue that.

[Recusant]

"Non-theism" is not a new word.  In fact, there are examples of it's use going back to at least 1852, and for very similar reasons to the ones that deekayfry has mentioned.

[Tank]

This semantic debate went on and on and on and on... At Richard Dawkins forum, there was, of course, never a conclusion.

[KDbeads]

[Jac3510]

This nit-picky distinction is important to me because theist have branded us as against God and religion and have demonized us not "believing."  For me, the feeling is this has nothing to do with belief, because belief implies acknowledging an existence, right?  (This is a philosophy board after all).

Not necessarily. To believe something is to give it mental assent - that is to say, it correctly describes the way the world actually is. We are, then, distinguishing between a concepts and concepts about concepts. In Scholastic terminology, this was referred to as first and second intentionality. Statements of the first intention referred to reality itself. "The ball is red." Statements in the second intention refer to our concepts about reality. "Red is a word that denotes a color."

"God," like every other word, is a concept. They concept may or may not exist. The word "God" by itself says nothing of the matter (let me say, by the way, that I am speaking here in very popular terminology -- I would get shredded by any classical Thomist for that sentence, but for our conversation, it's fair play) just like the word "ball" or "zergulflug" say nothing about whether or not those concepts are found in the real world. You have to add a predicate, such as "exist" or "runs" or "is pretty." Only when you add a predicate does a statement become capable of receiving truth value. Thus, "The ball is red" may or may not be true. That is a statement of the first intention. If the ball is blue, it is false. If there is no ball, it is still false. Thus, if there is no ball, and I say, "The ball is blue," I can say, "I believe the statement is false." In saying the ball isn't blue, I'm hardly acknowledging its existence. Nothing changes when the predicate is "exists." "The ball exists" may be a false statement. In asserting as much, I'm not attributing to it existence. Just the opposite!

Further, that doesn't change if you say, "I cannot say whether the ball is in the other room or not, because I lack belief in the ball." You aren't attributing existence to the ball by saying that, either.

So the order is this: first, we establish a concept we label God. Then, we talk about it by predicating things to it in the second intention. "God is a concept that refers to an all knowing being." Once we have done that, we look at our concept and ask the first intention question: does this concept properly reflect the way reality actually is? If so, we say "God exists." If not, we say "God does not exist." We may say, "I have no reason to believe this concept accurately reflects reality," which is the statement commonly defined these days as "atheism" (as this very board makes clear). I'm not so interested in arguing about labels. Many will argue that what is commonly called atheism is actually agnosticism. I don't really care. What I care about, regardless of the label on the concept, is the statements of first and second intention that underlies each.

So feel free to call yourself an "atheist" and define it the way this board does. Or call yourself a non-theist. It doesn't really matter. It just seems to me that belief doesn't necessarily imply an acknowledging of existence. Belief, rather, simply makes a judgment on the truth value of a proposition "X is Y."

[panflutejedi]

I look forward to the day when the term "atheist" becomes redundant, because that will be the day when reason has finally won out.

In "Letter To A Christian Nation", Sam Harris made the point that the word "atheist" should not even exist, just as we have no word to describe someone who does not believe in astrology.

We don't refer to people who doubt Sasquatch's existence as "Asasquatchists", because it is clear to any rational person, that there is insufficient evidence to support Sasquatch's existence. Anecdote, unverifiable sightings, and personal conviction do not constitute evidence.

In the absence of verifiable evidence, it is understood that "does not exist" is the default position. The overwhelming majority of people understand this to be a perfectly reasonable position, with regard to Sasquatch, Zeus, Santa Claus, etc. So, one must wonder, why are people having such a problem with applying this rational train of thought to their religion?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I look forward to the day when the term "atheist" becomes redundant, because that will be the day when reason has finally won out.

In "Letter To A Christian Nation", Sam Harris made the point that the word "atheist" should not even exist, just as we have no word to describe someone who does not believe in astrology.

We don't refer to people who doubt Sasquatch's existence as "Asasquatchists", because it is clear to any rational person, that there is insufficient evidence to support Sasquatch's existence. Anecdote, unverifiable sightings, and personal conviction do not constitute evidence.

In the absence of verifiable evidence, it is understood that "does not exist" is the default position. The overwhelming majority of people understand this to be a perfectly reasonable position, with regard to Sasquatch, Zeus, Santa Claus, etc. So, one must wonder, why are people having such a problem with applying this rational train of thought to their religion?

Socio-cultural programming, and compartmentalization.

[deekayfry]

"Non-theism" is not a new word.  In fact, there are examples of it's use going back to at least 1852, and for very similar reasons to the ones that deekayfry has mentioned.

Thank you recusant.

[panflutejedi]

In the absence of verifiable evidence, it is understood that "does not exist" is the default position. The overwhelming majority of people understand this to be a perfectly reasonable position, with regard to Sasquatch, Zeus, Santa Claus, etc. So, one must wonder, why are people having such a problem with applying this rational train of thought to their religion?

Socio-cultural programming, and compartmentalization.

Compartmentalization, indeed. Aside from erecting an impregnable, psychological stone wall within one's brain, behind which religious dogma can take refuge at need, what else can explain the use of rational thinking skills to balance one's checkbook on Saturday, and on Sunday believing one is in church eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a dead-for-2000-years carpenter?

This is, of course, assuming said carpenter actually lived as a real historical person at all...........

[deekayfry]

"Non-theism" is not a new word.  In fact, there are examples of it's use going back to at least 1852, and for very similar reasons to the ones that deekayfry has mentioned.

Thank you recusant.

Thank you, again.  I gave a quick thanks as other important matters caused me to hit the AFK button and jettison back IRL at the OKC...

You completely understood the spirit of the discussion.  While thinking about all this, I could not help to think I would not be the first to visit this thought process.

Furthmore, I am re-hashing the topic to hope to better clarify the philosophical aspect of this process.  I apologize for the redundancy.

The intent of dissecting the word atheism is because in certain parts of this country and usually in communities, such as the one I live in, atheism is labeled as "against God."  Whereas, the denotation meant "without God" or expanded "belief in no God." My exposition on why the "against God" misnomer was a personal rationalization of why the connotation of "against God" is incorrect as "against God" implies one has to first acknowledge a God.

I further delved into the "belief in no God" aspect of the definition.  As an atheist, I don't even believe there is no God because my thoughts on religion has  a premise of not having to believe.  Belief is not part of my equation of my views about a concept of a God in the universe.  I simply don't believe, from my vantage point, I know there is no God.  To make this conclusion stronger, I acknowledge that there is no God.

Finally, I proposed an alternate word "non-theist" to distinguish the misnomer, under the misconstrued definition by radical fundamentalists.  I would lie to say I did not intend this to be a paradigm to combat those who intentionally use the wrong definition.

At the same time, I will not fight or campaign, or even care for that matter, to have a name changed.  All of this was simply sharing a thought process.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My atheism is different, then.  I cannot honestly say that there is no god; I simply see no reason to credit the belief, due to lack of evidence.  But, to quote Sagan:  "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Is there a god?  Most likely not. That does not entitle me to say that there certainly is not one.

[humblesmurph]

So feel free to call yourself an "atheist" and define it the way this board does. Or call yourself a non-theist. It doesn't really matter. It just seems to me that belief doesn't necessarily imply an acknowledging of existence. Belief, rather, simply makes a judgment on the truth value of a proposition "X is Y."

You lost me here Chris.  What is X?  What is Y?  As I understand it, there is either an all powerful being that created everything or there isn't .  To belief in such a thing is to acknowledge it's existence.