Atheism- A misnomer?

[Tank]

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.

Oh Joy!  

[Whitney]

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.

Seems to me that theist is more commonly used to refer to someone who believes in a god and that the type of god is not the main part of the definition.  In common usage I would say that deist is a subset of theism as it would not be proper to consider a deist an atheist because they do believe in a god.

the·ism
â€, â€,/ˈθiɪzÉ™m/ Show Spelled[thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
â€"noun
1.
the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism

the·ism  (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theistic

Definition of THEISM
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism

[humblesmurph]

Whitney, I dunno.  It seems that there is a very important difference between some deists and Christians/Muslims/Jews.  Forgive my ignorance of Buddhism, but it seems that some folks have deified this guy because they believed he had a preternatural understanding of reality, not a supernatural control over it.  Einsteins "god" was no god at all to me.  It seems an understanding of what we mean by 'gods' is essential to a term that is defined in reference to them.

Also, is there an accepted term for people who don't believe in gods but they do believe in other supernatural things?

[Mistermischief]

is there an accepted term for people who don't believe in gods but they do believe in other supernatural things?

Yes,

"Idiots"

[Ihateusernames]

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.  

Meh, it is somewhat semantics I suppose because we all know what people really mean by claiming atheism (sorta), but isn't saying "I don't believe X" equivalent to saying "X does not exist"?

For example, if I was to say that there is a giant scoop of ice cream behind you and about to eat you to take revenge for all the ice cream eaten in the world... I have a feeling you would say either "I don't believe that" or "That's not true.  There is no scoop behind me."  Both have the exactly the same meanings, don't they?  So for you to say "I don't believe in god's existence"  isn't it really just positing "there is no god."

Anyway, just saying "I don't believe X" does not let you avoid the burden of proof.  If you say "I dunno if X exists or not"  then you have no burden.  However, like before mentioned that is agnosticism not atheism.

[Whitney]

I don't believe in aliens.  Aliens could exist.

^Doesn't seem contradictory to me.

[Ihateusernames]

I don't believe in aliens.  Aliens could exist.

^Doesn't seem contradictory to me.

Exactly.  But does that mean you are a-aliens?  no, it means that you're agnostic in regards to aliens.

Lets replaced aliens with god.  "I don't believe in god.  God could exist."  Is this anything but (probably strong) agnosticism?  I really don't see how this could possible be 'atheism' though.

If we are saying that the word 'atheist' means a person who thinks, "I think god probably doesn't exist, but I'm not really sure"  Then sure I suppose it fixes it and it could be atheistic... but that really is taking the definition of agnostic and placing it into the word 'atheist'

[Davin]

I don't believe in aliens.  Aliens could exist.

^Doesn't seem contradictory to me.

Exactly.  But does that mean you are a-aliens?  no, it means that you're agnostic in regards to aliens.

Lets replaced aliens with god.  "I don't believe in god.  God could exist."  Is this anything but (probably strong) agnosticism?  I really don't see how this could possible be 'atheism' though.

If we are saying that the word 'atheist' means a person who thinks, "I think god probably doesn't exist, but I'm not really sure"  Then sure I suppose it fixes it and it could be atheistic... but that really is taking the definition of agnostic and placing it into the word 'atheist'

Atheism just means the lack of the belief in god, I really don't see the need to add onto the definition at all, it's just fine as it is. Why don't we just stick with what the word means and if you feel the need to add onto it, then use other words when you use it?

[Ihateusernames]

]Atheism just means the lack of the belief in god, I really don't see the need to add onto the definition at all, it's just fine as it is. Why don't we just stick with what the word means and if you feel the need to add onto it, then use other words when you use it?

I'm not exactly sure where you are getting your definition, Davin, but it isn't from a dictionary or even standard usage.  Like I've been saying if you are willing to tag on the "but we don't know for sure" to "There is no god"  then you are not actually describing atheism anymore.

"There is a God"       Theism
"There is no god"      Atheism
"I dunno, but I think maybe/strongly that there is/isn't a god"  Agnosticism

or if you really want to reword it...

"I believe that there is a God"       Theism
"I disbelieve that there is a god"   Atheism
"I dunno, but I think maybe ..."    Agnosticism

I really don't see the difference between "I disbelieve god exists" and "I lack the belief that god exists" can you explain  how they are different?

[Whitney]

disbelieve requires knowledge (gnostic=knowledge).  lack a belief does not require knowledge (agnostic=without knowledge)

disbelieve gnostic, lack belief agnostic

agnostic is not an in between for atheist and theist...one can be agnostic yet fall in either camp.

That said, those who choose to define themselves as strong agnostics would argue that they can't say whether a god exists or not...but the very fact that they don't believe also makes them technically fall over onto the atheist side even if they don't self identify as such.

If you are to argue atheist into being a word that means someone who knows god doesn't exist you'd have hardly any atheists left and would then need to make up a word for people who think it's right to actively not have a belief as opposed to claiming there isn't enough info in order to 'pick a side.'

Note that some dictionaries also say that atheist means evil so they really aren't the end all be all source for how the word is used in all circles nor how it should be defined philosophically.

[Tank]

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.

Seems to me that theist is more commonly used to refer to someone who believes in a god and that the type of god is not the main part of the definition.  In common usage I would say that deist is a subset of theism as it would not be proper to consider a deist an atheist because they do believe in a god.

the·ism
â€, â€,/ˈθiɪzÉ™m/ Show Spelled[thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
â€"noun
1.
the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism

the·ism  (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theistic

Definition of THEISM
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism

Two of the three definitions make specific mention of the 'personal God' associated with theism. You appear to say that  deism is a sub-set of theism. I would contend that it is the other way around that theism is a sub-set of deism. Both deists and theists contend that there is a god, while a theist goes on to attribute additional characteristics to the deity. A theist is by definition a deist but not visa versa. Thus the term atheist is not all encompassing with regard to the existance of a god, the term should really be a-deist not a-theist. So a deist could be an atheist as far as Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Hinduism etc. is concerned, they would deny the personification of god.

[Whitney]

I'm not really sure that I care enough to keep arguing over definitions...I will say that it's pretty obvious that there is either a lack of vocabulary for defining various viewpoints and/or a large cultural divide which is creating vastly different ideas of what these words mean.

I try to use the words as they are commonly used among the freethought community rather than worrying with how others use them.  This is part of why I won't just walk up to a religious person and define myself as atheist...they aren't going to get the point of what I mean by the word because they have a narrower (often archaic) idea of what it means; so I use words like freethinker, skeptic, humanist that carry less baggage and then use atheist as a desciprtion along with the dialoge as opposed to a flat label (after all, I don't think anyone really shapes their philosophical views around being an athiest anyway, it's just a small part).

[Ihateusernames]

disbelieve requires knowledge (gnostic=knowledge).  lack a belief does not require knowledge (agnostic=without knowledge)

disbelieve gnostic, lack belief agnostic

agnostic is not an in between for atheist and theist...one can be agnostic yet fall in either camp.

That said, those who choose to define themselves as strong agnostics would argue that they can't say whether a god exists or not...but the very fact that they don't believe also makes them technically fall over onto the atheist side even if they don't self identify as such.

If you are to argue atheist into being a word that means someone who knows god doesn't exist you'd have hardly any atheists left and would then need to make up a word for people who think it's right to actively not have a belief as opposed to claiming there isn't enough info in order to 'pick a side.'

Note that some dictionaries also say that atheist means evil so they really aren't the end all be all source for how the word is used in all circles nor how it should be defined philosophically.

I believe that I have already conceded the point that if you are willing to say atheism means "I lack the belief in god, but you know I might be wrong because I'm not actually sure"  then sure atheism is not a misnomer.  This new definition to the word "atheism" is not the traditional, or even practical meaning of the word though.  Obviously dictionaries have their flaws, as well as words change their meaning, but I just completely disagree with the notion that words such as "theist" and "atheist" have such squishy meanings.  When someone new comes to this board and states "I am a theist!"   do you really hear "I'd lean more toward god exists than he doesn't, but I'm not really sure?"  I sure don't.

As to there not being many atheists left,  I'd just disagree.  It'd just make atheism not a very easily defendable philosophic position.  People'd still claim it even with its strictest meaning.  

Also, your concept of agnosticism being compatible with theism and atheism almost devoids agnosticism of any meaning.  Obviously as we can not know ANYTHING with 100% certainty, that means that whatever label is ever placed on someone will always have to start with 'agnostic-'  

Jac is an agnostic-christian.  You are an agnostic-atheist.  someone who sits dirrectly on the 50% mark between strict atheism and strict theism is an agnostic-agnostic... etc

I think we have reached an impasse though,  I just completely disagree with the concept that 'atheist' is just 'anything leaning toward lacking belief in god' and anything 'theist' is just "anything leaning toward belief in god"

You can end up just stating you disagree but:

Atheism is the position that there is no god
Theism is the position that there is a god
agnosticism is the position that we don't know if there is or isn't a god."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dict ... an/atheism
http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheism
http://www.onelook.com/?w=atheism&ls=a
... etc.  I spent quite a bit of time trying to find someone else who defines atheism as you do, and I have yet to succeed.

If you want to change the definition for HAF, by all means go ahead--Its much more your place than mine. Just keep in mind that it doesn't actually change the generally accepted definition held by the majority of the world.  (And, yes I know that statement was an ad populum argument.  Ad populum agruments are perfectly valid for a discussion such as this.   )

-Ihateusernames

[humblesmurph]

Ihateusernames,

Do you have any opinion on the word Gnostic?  As far as I understand it, a Gnostic is a particular kind of Christian that claims to have direct knowledge of God.  Is there a difference in your mind between a person who has unwavering faith in God but concedes that they have no hard proof and somebody who claims to have conversations with God regularly?

edit:  I agree with you regarding the word agnostic having little practical use as a word.  It was first coined 140 years ago and has done nothing to add clarity to this particular issue.  We could just throw the damn thing out for all I care.

[Tank]

I'm not really sure that I care enough to keep arguing over definitions...I will say that it's pretty obvious that there is either a lack of vocabulary for defining various viewpoints and/or a large cultural divide which is creating vastly different ideas of what these words mean.

I try to use the words as they are commonly used among the freethought community rather than worrying with how others use them.  This is part of why I won't just walk up to a religious person and define myself as atheist...they aren't going to get the point of what I mean by the word because they have a narrower (often archaic) idea of what it means; so I use words like freethinker, skeptic, humanist that carry less baggage and then use atheist as a desciprtion along with the dialoge as opposed to a flat label (after all, I don't think anyone really shapes their philosophical views around being an athiest anyway, it's just a small part).

I agree. I just brought up the point as technically a deist can be an atheist, although I have never seen a deist call themselves an atheist and in common
usage 'atheist' is generally used to define a-deism and a-theism. Semantic arguments are generally fruitless.