Atheism- A misnomer?

[Whitney]

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:

One 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

[Recusant]

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.

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:

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.

[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.

[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.

[humblesmurph]

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.

[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.

[Tank]

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.

[McQ]

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.

[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.

[hackenslash]

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'.