Atheism

[LegendarySandwich]

I'm an atheist.

Ah, sorry for the confusion. When I said "you", I meant in the general sense, not specifically referring to you. That was horrible wording.

The impersonal "you."  Ah, how I both love and hate it.

I tend to use it quite often, assuming that my audience knows what context I meant it in.

[Bubblepot]

That's a two-way street, and thus far all the traffic has been in one direction only.

It's good to have some empathy.  

I am repeating what they themselves have said on previous occasions, so I think I am in a reasonable position to speak for other members of the forum on this point, yes.

Really. And which members were these?

Both of those, and many others, as there are more characteristics that embody the philosophy of atheism than these two that you mentioned. However, this discussion isn't just limited to my own dwelling-upons; everyone is free to do so, as I said in my opening post. This is a discussion where all are welcome.

There is no philosophy of atheism. There are many philosophical positions regarding atheism, but none of them are essential to atheism itself, which is merely the absence of bleief in deities.

If there's no philosophy of atheism, then what's this site? You can go on about how atheism is this or that, but at the end of the day, it's no different from any other philosophy in the larger scheme of things. That's my personal opinion.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. Anti-theism is a distinct position in itself, and has nothing to do with belief in a deity. Atheism isn't short for anything, and its etymology is well-understood. It stems from the greek a (without) theos (god), and simply means 'without god'.

I disagree; anti-theism as everything to do with whether one believes or does not believe in a deity.

The opposite of theism would be a categorical belief in the non-existence of deities. That is more than is necessary and sufficient for atheism. It would certainly be described as atheism, but it carries characteristics that are extraneous to that which is sufficient and necessary.

Here you're mixing up atheism with the philosophy of agnosticism. Atheism is called "anti-theism" for a reason.

It does you no good to reassert this point as if it's uncontroversial while it is actually under challenge. You have not yet established this, merely asserted it. You have also been given clear reasons why this assertion doesn't hold water.

And already debunked you, which is why I still refer to atheism as the opposite of theism here unless you can prove otherwise. Which is why:

you're implying that atheism, on the other hand, is the ultimate seeker of knowledge;

Despite the fact that you say:

I imply no such thing.

And probably believe it as well.

I never implied that either. Perhaps you would be better off starting your own forum, where you can argue with yourself to your heart's content, since you aren't erecting any useful arguments against the position of anybody responding to you here.

It looks like I've boxed you into a bit of a logical corner here, and you seem to be desperately defending your position, if only by hinting you want me to leave. However, may I remind you, that I did not start this thread for debate; we're merely voicing our opinions. If you like you're welcome to stop debating right now- I have absolutely nothing against your assertions about atheism so long as you can be fair and understand that they are actually based on opinion, not fact.

and theism is the opposite of philosophy,

Err, who said that?

But that's the thing: you did. You said that theism is the opposite of philosophy since philosophy seeks knowledge and theism refuses to seek knowledge; thus, philosophy and theism are opposites. Atheism, being the opposite of theism, must, then, be philosophy. This is the only conclusion I can reach when I follow your "logic". Do you disagree with your logic? If so, please explain why.

Now I've skipped a few of your quotes where you basically deny everything groundlessly, as I've already shown why you're wrong above.

No, theology and apologetics are.

This contradicts what you said before, based on the implications of what you've said that I already pointed out above. Explain the contradiction to me please.

Wow, do you need lessons in vernacular English as well? It's a figure of speech.

No, really. What mark? The least you can do is explain it.

No, that being the search for truth.

By which you mean atheism, so my point still stands.

Very good. Why do I get the feeling you're possibly one of my many stalkers? Is that you, Armageddo?

It wouldn't be the first time some have been surprised at my sharp responses. But this is beside the point.

[Davin]

I am repeating what they themselves have said on previous occasions, so I think I am in a reasonable position to speak for other members of the forum on this point, yes.

Really. And which members were these?

Me for another. Someone else already stated that it matches them. hackenslash isn't really speaking for anyone here, just expressing that many others on this forum have already gone over this many times.

The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

I also agree with hackenslash that belief is useless.

[Existentialist]

The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

I also agree with hackenslash that belief is useless.

The word atheo was already in greek long before the 1400's.  The suffix -ism was added in English.  Theism came later than atheism.  

The etymology of atheism doesn't make it mean the 'absence of theism'.  If you want it to mean that then do, but don't claim an etymological basis for it, and be prepared for others to disagree.

[Tank]

The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

I also agree with hackenslash that belief is useless.

The word atheo was already in greek long before the 1400's.  The suffix -ism was added in English.  Theism came later than atheism.  

The etymology of atheism doesn't make it mean the 'absence of theism'.  If you want it to mean that then do, but don't claim an etymological basis for it, and be prepared for others to disagree.

[Existentialist]

Wonderful.  Discussion by pictures - how very enlightening!

[Tank]

Wonderful.  Discussion by pictures - how very enlightening!

[Davin]

The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

I also agree with hackenslash that belief is useless.

The word atheo was already in greek long before the 1400's.  The suffix -ism was added in English.

I cite specifically the word "atheist" (even had it in quotes), and then you bring up that the word "atheo" already existed in Greek before my said time frame. I don't see the connection. Perhaps you can explain how saying a different word from a different language has anything to do with the word I was referring to.

Theism came later than atheism.

I can see how my wording may have brought out the nit picker in you, I do understand this and would never claim otherwise (unless I found compelling evidence to do so).

The etymology of atheism doesn't make it mean the 'absence of theism'.  If you want it to mean that then do, but don't claim an etymological basis for it, and be prepared for others to disagree.

I don't need to be prepared for people to disagree, so far I haven't seen any basis for it meaning anything other than the lack of belief in a god or gods. Not one source I've found that defines and describes Greek prefixes has stated that the "a, an" prefix means anything other than "without, not, absence of... etc."

Here are a few:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0907013.html
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/luschnig/EWO/18.htm
https://www.msu.edu/~defores1/gre/roots ... s_afx1.htm

Maybe you have some source(s) that show that every book, site or whatever I've ever seen that describes the Greek prefixes are just incorrect. I'm more than willing to drop what I've found to be the meaning of the Greek prefix "a, an" because I'm not attached to it at all.

[Existentialist]

You don't see the connection between the original greek word atheo and the english word atheist?  Ok.  English is derived from a number of other languages, mainly germanic but also French, Latin and Greek.  The word atheo meaning 'not' of 'god' originated in Greek, passed into Latin, from there found its way into French where the suffix -ism was added to atheo to become atheism.  The word theism in English appears to have post-dated the first use of atheism.  The fundamental argument that the a- prefix was simply added to the english word 'theism' is incorrect.  This isn't really nitpicking, it's just right.  I've certainly not argued that the greek prefix a- is anything other than a negative, so the references to your findings on the meaning of that prefix aren't relevant.  It's all a bit academic because as far as I'm concerned a word can mean anything you want it to mean, it's just that in this case I've given an accurate summary of its history and you haven't.

[Tank]

You don't see the connection between the original greek word atheo and the english word atheist?  Ok.  English is derived from a number of other languages, mainly germanic but also French, Latin and Greek.  The word atheo meaning 'not' of 'god' originated in Greek, passed into Latin, from there found its way into French where the suffix -ism was added to atheo to become atheism.  The word theism in English appears to have post-dated the first use of atheism.  The fundamental argument that the a- prefix was simply added to the english word 'theism' is incorrect.  This isn't really nitpicking, it's just right.  I've certainly not argued that the greek prefix a- is anything other than a negative, so the references to your findings on the meaning of that prefix aren't relevant.  It's all a bit academic because as far as I'm concerned a word can mean anything you want it to mean, it's just that in this case I've given an accurate summary of its history and you haven't.

 

[Davin]

You don't see the connection between the original greek word atheo and the english word atheist?

No, I see that connection. Perhaps you can explain why you're bringing it up.

Ok.  English is derived from a number of other languages, mainly germanic but also French, Latin and Greek.  The word atheo meaning 'not' of 'god' originated in Greek, passed into Latin, from there found its way into French where the suffix -ism was added to atheo to become atheism.

Well actually, in French it was "atheisme" but that's only if we want to provide an accurate account.

The word theism in English appears to have post-dated the first use of atheism. The fundamental argument that the a- prefix was simply added to the english word 'theism' is incorrect.

Whose fundamental argument is this?

This isn't really nitpicking, it's just right.

It is just nitpicking, because I did not clearly explain that the word "theist" was not recorded in use until after the word "atheist" was. I clarified myself on this point, and you continued to nitpick at the same thing while ignoring my correction.

I've certainly not argued that the greek prefix a- is anything other than a negative[...]

If I say that X is not 4, that doesn't mean that X is the negative of 4, it just means that X is anything but 4. If I say that a basket is without oranges, that doesn't mean that the basket has a negative amount of oranges (or that it has apples instead), just that it has no oranges. In the same way; saying that one doesn't believe in any god or gods (atheism) doesn't mean that one believes there are no god or gods (anti-theism).

[...]so the references to your findings on the meaning of that prefix aren't relevant.

They are entirely relevant when you told me that atheism does not mean "the absence of theism" when every source I've ever seen shows that that is what the Greek prefix "a, an" means.

It's all a bit academic because as far as I'm concerned a word can mean anything you want it to mean, it's just that in this case I've given an accurate summary of its history and you haven't.

Incorrect, (aside from you being inaccurate about the French word), I've given an accurate account of the word "atheist" (well not actually, the year is about a century off), you decided to add in some other word from some other language as well as tell me that my sources are incorrect about the Greek prefix "a, an" while failing to provide anything showing that you're assertion has any basis.

[Existentialist]

I've given an accurate account of the word "atheist" (well not actually, the year is about a century off), you decided to add in some other word from some other language as well as tell me that my sources are incorrect about the Greek prefix "a, an" while failing to provide anything showing that you're assertion has any basis.

Thank you for your response.  You are correct about the adding of -isme, rather than -ism in French.  However, my description of the development of the word 'atheism' is accurate: first Greek as atheos, then Roman as atheos, then French as atheisme (thank you), then English as atheism.  The formation of the word atheism can be traced back through this route.  Subsequent to the first use of the English word 'atheism', the word 'theism' was used in English for the first time.  

The reason I said this was in answer to your post on Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:25 am which said:-

The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

My view is that this is an incorrect account of the history of the word 'atheist'.  You have corrected your statement, that in English the word 'theist' came first.  The logical consequence is that it would not have been possible to add the prefix a- to a word that wasn't yet being used in English.    I don't dispute your account of what the prefix a- means: without, lack of, not etc.  You and all the websites you have been researching are correct in this regard.  It seems to me that it is reasonable to describe the words 'without', 'lack of' and 'not' as 'negative' in their meaning.  By this I meant negative linguistically, not mathematically, I admit I hadn't anticipated that you would use it in its mathematical sense.  Clearly it is not possible to have a negative number of oranges, and I didn't mean it to sound as if I was arguing that.  But we needn't have an argument about that anyway because I accept the meanings you have used for the prefix a- : without, lack of and absence are fine - these are accurate descriptions of the meaning of the prefix a- in Greek.

When the word atheism came about in English, the prefix a- had already added to its root word 'atheos' by the Greeks, so no prefix was added in English, nor French, nor Latin.  What was added was the suffix -ism, which as you correctly point out had already been added in the French form 'atheisme'.  Therefore in short, if we are talking about the etymology of the word atheism, it is correct to read it as atheos[ism], not as [a]theism.  (The 'o' has been dropped from atheos, obviously.  I don't mean you to read it as a zero!)  

It's an important distinction, and is far from nitpicking if you want to argue the meaning of atheism from an etymological standpoint.  It means that atheism developed as the -ism of 'lack of' god.  It's the 'set of ideas' around the lack of god.  Atheism as a word didn't develop as a- theism.  It didn't develop as the 'set of ideas' around the lack of theism, which is what you were arguing in the post above.

'Set of ideas' is just my interpretation of the suffix -ism.  If you want to refer me to lots of websites which state the true linguistic meaning of the suffix -ism then by all means do so but this detail is not fundamental to my argument.  

My argument is that the word atheism, etymologically, should be read as the 'ism' of around the absence of god, not the absence of theism as you stated in the post I just quoted above.

[Ultima22689]

I've given an accurate account of the word "atheist" (well not actually, the year is about a century off), you decided to add in some other word from some other language as well as tell me that my sources are incorrect about the Greek prefix "a, an" while failing to provide anything showing that you're assertion has any basis.

Thank you for your response.  You are correct about the adding of -isme, rather than -ism in French.  However, my description of the development of the word 'atheism' is accurate: first Greek as atheos, then Roman as atheos, then French as atheisme (thank you), then English as atheism.  The formation of the word atheism can be traced back through this route.  Subsequent to the first use of the English word 'atheism', the word 'theism' was used in English for the first time.  

The reason I said this was in answer to your post on Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:25 am which said:-

The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

My view is that this is an incorrect account of the history of the word 'atheist'.  You have corrected your statement, that in English the word 'theist' came first.  The logical consequence is that it would not have been possible to add the prefix a- to a word that wasn't yet being used in English.    I don't dispute your account of what the prefix a- means: without, lack of, not etc.  You and all the websites you have been researching are correct in this regard.  It seems to me that it is reasonable to describe the words 'without', 'lack of' and 'not' as 'negative' in their meaning.  By this I meant negative linguistically, not mathematically, I admit I hadn't anticipated that you would use it in its mathematical sense.  Clearly it is not possible to have a negative number of oranges, and I didn't mean it to sound as if I was arguing that.  But we needn't have an argument about that anyway because I accept the meanings you have used for the prefix a- : without, lack of and absence are fine - these are accurate descriptions of the meaning of the prefix a- in Greek.

When the word atheism came about in English, the prefix a- had already added to its root word 'atheos' by the Greeks, so no prefix was added in English, nor French, nor Latin.  What was added was the suffix -ism, which as you correctly point out had already been added in the French form 'atheisme'.  Therefore in short, if we are talking about the etymology of the word atheism, it is correct to read it as atheos[ism], not as [a]theism.  (The 'o' has been dropped from atheos, obviously.  I don't mean you to read it as a zero!)  

It's an important distinction, and is far from nitpicking if you want to argue the meaning of atheism from an etymological standpoint.  It means that atheism developed as the -ism of 'lack of' god.  It's the 'set of ideas' around the lack of god.  Atheism as a word didn't develop as a- theism.  It didn't develop as the 'set of ideas' around the lack of theism, which is what you were arguing in the post above.

'Set of ideas' is just my interpretation of the suffix -ism.  If you want to refer me to lots of websites which state the true linguistic meaning of the suffix -ism then by all means do so but this detail is not fundamental to my argument.  

My argument is that the word atheism, etymologically, should be read as the 'ism' of around the absence of god, not the absence of theism as you stated in the post I just quoted above.

This actually makes sense, not really interested in contributing too much but ism, ty, etc usually do imply some sort of system of philosophy or belief. There are some militant atheist out there who rally around some sort of banner of atheism, perhaps a  distinction should be made.

[Davin]

It's an important distinction, and is far from nitpicking if you want to argue the meaning of atheism from an etymological standpoint.  It means that atheism developed as the -ism of 'lack of' god.  It's the 'set of ideas' around the lack of god.  Atheism as a word didn't develop as a- theism.  It didn't develop as the 'set of ideas' around the lack of theism, which is what you were arguing in the post above.

I did not say that theist came first, you took what I said removed the colloquial meanings and took the first sentence as very literal. Not only did you take some funky wording and ran with it, but you even claimed that it was my fundamental argument. My main argument in the post you quoted isn't that the word "theist" came before the word "atheist" (I think that is very unimportant), it's the very common (to theists) misconception that "atheism" means more than just the lack of a belief in a god or gods. They tend to add things like calling it a worldview, a set of ideas, saying that it means that one claims there is no god, that it's a religion... etc. as if trying to pigeonhole an atheist to defend views they don't hold or just for use as a straw-man. You're the first person I've seen that thinks that the order in history that the words were recorded in has some huge significance that must be cleared up before addressing your incorrect assertion that "atheism" doesn't mean "the absence of theism."

'Set of ideas' is just my interpretation of the suffix -ism.  If you want to refer me to lots of websites which state the true linguistic meaning of the suffix -ism then by all means do so but this detail is not fundamental to my argument.  

My argument is that the word atheism, etymologically, should be read as the 'ism' of around the absence of god, not the absence of theism as you stated in the post I just quoted above.

So it should be read as "atheo" (lack of god) "ism" (belief) instead of "a" (lack of) "theism" (god belief)? That is an interesting thought, however etymology isn't just the order in history in which the parts of a word were added, it's also how the parts of the word are used, and the Greek prefix "a, an" is the "lack of" whatever it is attached to, not the "lack of" the first part of whatever it is attached to. You'd have to show the etymology that Greek prefix "a, an" ever only meant the lack of part of what it is attached to.

[Existentialist]

You'd have to show the etymology that Greek prefix "a, an" ever only meant the lack of part of what it is attached to.

My only point is that people who say that the word atheism was invented by adding the prefix a- to the word 'theism' aren't necessarily right.

I've already said more than once that as far as I'm concerned, anybody can invent a word or re-invent an existing word and attach any meaning they want to it.  In my experience the dire warnings of chaos that pour forth when I state this basic commitment to free speech rarely come to pass, because people are genuinely interested in getting their meaning across.  If you want to add the greek prefix a- to the word 'theism' and call it atheism then you are free to do so, I'm just saying don't claim some false authority from it from etymology.

The word atheism as you constructed it is not the same as my construction, but you are free to use it.  When I say I am an atheist, I mean I take the stance that there is no god.  God doesn't exist.  There's nothing wrong with that.  There's also nothing wrong with exploring the full philosophical consequences of a consistently atheist position.    Having established what one sees as those full consequences, I don't see anything wrong with someone saying that "my atheism means that..." an outlining some philosophical, personal, political or other ideas.  Atheism, like socialism, existentialism or empiricism, or many other -isms (but not all) can have a huge set of attached ideas.  If it didn't, there'd be no need for atheist internet forums like this one.