Atheism- A misnomer?

[Asmodean]

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.

I think he refers to proposing that x equals not x or x equals <-E, x, E>

[humblesmurph]

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.

I think he refers to proposing that x equals not x or x equals <-E, x, E>

I still don't get it.  Is it possible to put this into words as opposed to symbols?

[Asmodean]

An apple equals to something other than an apple or, an apple equals to an apple or something else within infinity (since no more clear an interval was defined)

[deekayfry]

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.

Belief is a pliable flexible term, but it is not an objective term.  The truth value of X is Y is concrete.  Let's state that X=Glass Door and Y=Door.  So when I say, my glass door is a door.  It is true, but do ignore the obvious circular fallacy.  This example is simply to illustrate how X is Y.

Belief is subjective and also a matter of perspective.  To then define the concept of belief as objective is like saying, as a matter of fact, that the Earth is flat.  However, no matter how hard, how much, or how many people believe that the Earth is flat does not make the Earth flat.  I will always allow and accept anyone and everyone to believe that the Earth is flat, but the fact remains, the Earth is NOT flat.

Now, belief always has a part of its definition acknowledgment and inferred acceptance.  Note, I say inferred because people can lie about their beliefs.  Still, you first have to acknowledge (as in "gain knowledge" which is the semantics of the word) and then arrive to a conclusion of accepting it.

[hackenslash]

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

I have often said that the best statement for the bus adverts would be 'Imagine no atheism' for precisely this reason. Of course, it would be lost on the credulous, which is a fair bit of the point. No theist could find that statement offensive...

[Helveticat]

A related problem is that "atheist" contains the word "theist". Many deists are a-theists too.

This matters because some of the arguments we read on this forum apply to some very specific, theistic belief system (let's face it -- usually Christianity) but are passed off as arguments against belief in any kind of supernatural entity. This is a fallacy, and one I've seen celebrity atheists commit in public more than once.

I suspect that most people who call themselves atheists are actually just what philosophers sometimes call "naturalists" -- in a nutshell, people who think that we oughtn't to believe in anything other than the universe described by the natural sciences:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism

So I have questions: does anyone here not consider themselves a naturalist in roughly this sense? If you do, does your atheism commit you to anything else over and above that?

Incidentally, I'm not suggesting a change of nomenclature -- that would be silly. But we can agree that the term "atheist" is a bit confusing, and explain why, if we've done some thinking ahead of time.

[Whitney]

Many deists are a-theists too.

A deist believes in god and would therefore fit into the theist category.

[pinkocommie]

Incidentally, I'm not suggesting a change of nomenclature -- that would be silly. But we can agree that the term "atheist" is a bit confusing, and explain why, if we've done some thinking ahead of time.

I don't agree with this.  An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god.  A theist is someone who does.  It seems pretty cut and dry to me.  When people over think the term is when it gets complicated, but that doesn't mean the term "atheist" itself is in any way confusing.

[Ihateusernames]

Incidentally, I'm not suggesting a change of nomenclature -- that would be silly. But we can agree that the term "atheist" is a bit confusing, and explain why, if we've done some thinking ahead of time.

I don't agree with this.  An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god.  A theist is someone who does.  It seems pretty cut and dry to me.  When people over think the term is when it gets complicated, but that doesn't mean the term "atheist" itself is in any way confusing.

Doesn't this just lead you straight back to the original problem of a negative posited in an absolute?  By this classical definition the pretty standard theistic argument of atheism being self contradictory really does hold true, and it lays the burden of proof at the atheist's feet as well.

I'd have to say atheism is not a misnomer for quite a few people on this board, however if you actually press the issue everyone has to end up in some category like naturalist or strong agnosticism... etc.  The pretty famous argument between Bertrand Russell and the jesuit priest really set this idea in stone imo.

[pinkocommie]

Incidentally, I'm not suggesting a change of nomenclature -- that would be silly. But we can agree that the term "atheist" is a bit confusing, and explain why, if we've done some thinking ahead of time.

I don't agree with this.  An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god.  A theist is someone who does.  It seems pretty cut and dry to me.  When people over think the term is when it gets complicated, but that doesn't mean the term "atheist" itself is in any way confusing.

Doesn't this just lead you straight back to the original problem of a negative posited in an absolute?  By this classical definition the pretty standard theistic argument of atheism being self contradictory really does hold true, and it lays the burden of proof at the atheist's feet as well.

I'd have to say atheism is not a misnomer for quite a few people on this board, however if you actually press the issue everyone has to end up in some category like naturalist or strong agnosticism... etc.  The pretty famous argument between Bertrand Russell and the jesuit priest really set this idea in stone imo.

How is this self contradictory?  I don't believe there is a god, but that doesn't mean I'm saying for certain that there isn't one.  I'm not.  I just don't believe there is one.  If the definition said that an atheist is someone who KNOWS there is no god, I think this might lead to self contradiction.  Or maybe I'm missing your point.  

[Mistermischief]

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

We could switch tracks:  As a proud ATHEIST, the word I have a problem with - in the way it is generally misused - is "religion".  Last year I was at the launch event, at Harvard, for the book "Good Without God" (a  mediochre but necessary  humanist coming-out-of-the-closet for atheists.)  The only thing which bothered me about this book...and the language of those who are trying to debunk "religion" in general...is the transposition of the word "religion" for the word "faith".  

When atheists talk about the main fault of Christianity and other mainstream religions, they are talking about a counterfactual belief system.  That problem is called FAITH, not "religion."

"Religion" refers to the routinized PRACTICE OF beliefs...period.  It is possible (and there are living examples) to have a religion that is based on objectivity only, employing rituals and routines to celebrate the human, the natural, the real, etc. without resort to a counter-factual belief in fairies.

(Having) FAITH is the correct word to use when describing a counterfactual BELIEF.  It's an important distinction, but one which has almost totally gone down the tubes today, along with the use of precise definitions in general.

[Mistermischief]

"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.

It's not a new word, mainly, because it is still the word "theist".  The prefix "non" does not create a whole new word, just as the -ing ending on a verb doesn't.

Anyway, I think the "new" word you are looking for (if you are looking for one) might be "ANTI-theist".  

I'd also add, to those who equate atheism with just another belief...don't be overly humble.  The onus of proof is always on the people who contend that something EXISTS.  In this case, the true believers - the theists.  Since they have not proven shit (and cannot do so) atheism must be considered the default sane belief system.  It's not an equality issue.  We're allowed to act with certitude in this case.  I do not think Atheism is a misnomer, but for my part I'd like to be considered an ANTITHEIST.

[i_am_i]

To believe something is to give it mental assent - that is to say, it correctly describes the way the world actually is.

But we all know that believing something, giving something mental assent, does in no way mean that what you're giving mental assent to correctly describes the way the world actually is. It's far more likely that what you're giving mental assent to is a description of the world as you want it to be. And that's why belief, in my opinion, is something to throw out, to get rid of.

I'm an atheist because that's what people who don't believe in a supernatural explanation for life are called. And that's fine, I don't care. But I don't believe in a supernatural explanation for life because I make it a point to not believe at all. If that makes any sense.

[Tank]

Many deists are a-theists too.

A deist believes in god and would therefore fit into the theist category.

Not so as far as I have been told elsewhere. A deist simply believes in the existance of a god or gods, however these entities are not interventionist in the running of the universe. A theist however believes that the god or gods are interventionist. Thus a deist may well be an atheist. This is my understanding of the situation.

[humblesmurph]

Many deists are a-theists too.

A deist believes in god and would therefore fit into the theist category.

Not so as far as I have been told elsewhere. A deist simply believes in the existance of a god or gods, however these entities are not interventionist in the running of the universe. A theist however believes that the god or gods are interventionist. Thus a deist may well be an atheist. This is my understanding of the situation.

I have encountered Christians who believe that anybody who doesn't believe in Yahweh is an atheist regardless of whatever gods, ghosts, or other supernatural beings they may believe in.