Happy Atheist Forum

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Non-theism" is not a new word.  In fact, there are examples of it's use going back to at least 1852 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism#Origin_and_definition), and for very similar reasons to the ones that deekayfry has mentioned.

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

;)

Quote from: "deekayfry"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 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=830)). 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."

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?

Quote from: "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?

Socio-cultural programming, and compartmentalization.

Quote from: "Recusant""Non-theism" is not a new word.  In fact, there are examples of it's use going back to at least 1852 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism#Origin_and_definition), and for very similar reasons to the ones that deekayfry has mentioned.

Thank you recusant.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "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...........

Quote from: "deekayfry"

Quote from: "Recusant""Non-theism" is not a new word.  In fact, there are examples of it's use going back to at least 1852 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism#Origin_and_definition), 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.

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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"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.

Quote from: "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>

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "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?

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)

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "Jac3510"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.

Quote from: "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.

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...

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.

Quote from: "Helveticat"Many deists are a-theists too.

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

Quote from: "Helveticat"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.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "Helveticat"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.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "Helveticat"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.  

Quote from: "Tank"This semantic debate went on and on and on and on... At Richard Dawkins forum, there was, of course, never a conclusion. :D

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.

Quote from: "Recusant""Non-theism" is not a new word.  In fact, there are examples of it's use going back to at least 1852 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism#Origin_and_definition), 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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"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.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Helveticat"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.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Helveticat"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.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"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!  

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Helveticat"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 (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 (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 (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theism)

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?

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

Yes,

"Idiots"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"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.

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

^Doesn't seem contradictory to me.

Quote from: "Whitney"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'

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"

Quote from: "Whitney"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?

Quote from: "Davin"]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?

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.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Whitney"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 (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 (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 (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.

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).

Quote from: "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.

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://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism)
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dict ... an/atheism (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/atheism)
http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheism (http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheism)
http://www.onelook.com/?w=atheism&ls=a (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

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.

Quote from: "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).

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.

I disagree that my view is the minority atheist view of how atheist is defined, as evidenced by a very quick google and picking the first source (which just happens to be infidels.org so not a shabby source) where atheist is defined by an atheist:

QuoteOne might argue that the term "Jewish" should properly be defined by Jews, and that similarly the term "atheist" should be defined by atheists. So, here are a few quotes from popular atheist books about atheism.

It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism.

    Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god--both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.
    [Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, p. 99.
    Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992.]

    The word "atheism," however, has in this contention to be construed unusally. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of "atheist" in English is "someone who asserts there is no such being as God," I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix "a" to be read in the same way in "atheist" as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as "amoral," "atypical," and "asymmetrical." In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels "positive atheist" for the former and "negative atheist" for the latter.
    [Antony G.N. Flew and Paul Edwards, God, Freedom, and Immortality p. 14.
    Prometheus, 1984.]

    If you look up "atheism" in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god." From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.
    [Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, p. 463.
    Temple University Press, 1990.]

Martin goes on to cite sveral other well-known nontheists in history who used or implied this definition of "atheism," including Baron d'Holbach (1770), Richard Carlile (1826), Charles Southwell (1842), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), and Anne Besant (1877).

    The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses "atheist" to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that yhe term "god" has no importance, or possibly no meaning, to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.

    When we examine the components of the word "atheism," we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of "a-" and "-theism." Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix "a-" can mean "not" (or "no") or "without." If it means "not," then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means "without," then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.
    [Gordon Stein (Ed.), An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, p. 3.
    Prometheus, 1980.]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... tions.html (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html)

Quote from: "Tank"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.

The bolded section is correct.  Deists attribute characteristics to their deity just as any other theists do, but believe that their deity can be understood via reason and observation of the natural world, rather than through revelation.

Quote from: "url=http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm]World Union of Deists[/url]"]Deism is knowledge of God based on the application of our reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature. The designs presuppose a Designer. Deism is therefore a natural religion and is not a "revealed" religion. The natural religion/philosophy of Deism frees those who embrace it from the inconsistencies of superstition and the negativity of fear that are so strongly represented in all of the "revealed" religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

"Theism" is the more general term:

Quote from: "url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theist]Merriam-Webster[/url]"]: 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

Contrary to your final sentence, not all theists are Deist. Rather, all Deists are theist.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"

Quote from: "Davin"]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.

The word atheist was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist roughly means "with god" and the prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." The first usages of the word atheist didn't mean "non-believer" but just to describe anyone who wasn't Christian. However because this wasn't a very useful word because we already had definitions like "non-Christian" and "Christian" so the words theist and atheist changed to mean "one who believes in god" and "not one who believes in god" respectively.

Because of the Greek prefix of "a" at the start of atheist, all atheist means is really based on the definition of theist because whatever is defined as "theist" or "theism" an atheist is not that and atheism is not that, respectively.

I've found that usually a tussle over the definition of "atheist" is really an attempt by one to pigeonhole non-believers, and an attempt by the other to avoid said fate.  Because of this, I like to say that I am faithless.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I've found that usually a tussle over the definition of "atheist" is really an attempt by one to pigeonhole non-believers, and an attempt by the other to avoid said fate.  Because of this, I like to say that I am faithless.

I agree with this.  It's all about burden of truth.  Atheists define atheism in a way that the burden of proof lies with the theist.  Theists define atheism in a way that either splits the burden of proof, or lays it on the atheist entirely.

I still think the term atheist is fairly straightforward and it's people's projection onto the term that complicates it.  Anything else I might have added to this has been touched on already by whitney and davin and others, and I don't want to be redundant.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I still think the term atheist is fairly straightforward and it's people's projection onto the term that complicates it.  Anything else I might have added to this has been touched on already by whitney and davin and others, and I don't want to be redundant.

This is true. It's a bit like a brand name. Until the accident in the gulf BP had a good name because it was a consistently a profitable sound investment, while it still is a profitable sound investment (in the long term) the oil spill has badly buggered its brand image. In the case of 'atheist' the propaganda has become far more significant that the reality of atheism as a world view. It is therefore a damaged brand.

Faithless is a good term as it does what it says on the tin.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I've found that usually a tussle over the definition of "atheist" is really an attempt by one to pigeonhole non-believers, and an attempt by the other to avoid said fate.  Because of this, I like to say that I am faithless.

I agree with this.  It's all about burden of truth.  Atheists define atheism in a way that the burden of proof lies with the theist.  Theists define atheism in a way that either splits the burden of proof, or lays it on the atheist entirely.

Very good point. To me, that seems to be it in a nutshell. And since most of the time, neither can budge from that starting point, a lot discussions go nowhere productive.

I forgot where I've read it but deists were once considered atheists. In that, they do not believe in the gods of major religions.

Quote from: "wildfire_emissary"I forgot where I've read it but deists were once considered atheists. In that, they do not believe in the gods of major religions.

The first usage of the concept I've come across was actually aimed at christians by the Romans, because they didn't believe in the pantheon.

Interestingly, it is still viewed by believers, although not explicitly, a 'not believing in my god'.