As stated, this is a misconception. In actuality, the origin of the term "atheism" was never meant to signify not-theist in the sense of a-theism. It is by standard, intended to signify athe-ism which is the antithesis of theism. Those who abide by the view that atheism "should" signify non-theists are the exception to original intent of the term "atheism".
What exactly is atheism?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
- Status
For the past 9 years they've given me an award for indoctrinizing the most people.
1111
Congratulations. There is no doubt there is a growing movement to change the definition of atheism from 'those who belive there is no god' to 'all non-theists'. But doesn't using tactics such as falsifying history or rewriting it exemplify what they claim to be atrocities committed by religions they hate?
Furthermore, what do they expect to accomplish? By claiming that an agnostic (who does not abide by theism or atheism) should be engulfed under atheism.
Then why is the term atheism and not antitheism?
The prefix a means without. The prefix anti means against.
It's not that complicated. Does this really need to be explained? Is it not completely in your face obvious that people who do not beleive in X cannot be against X? "Anti" signifies disfavor.
Even if terms such as antitheism and antiatheism existed, they would signify those who disfavor or are prejudice/hostile against theism or atheism. Similar to antisemitism. Protheism and proatheism would signify those in favor of theism or atheism.
It's not complicated. You make it complicated. It shouldn't need to be explained if 1 knows what the root, suffix & prefix mean & how the word is formed.
People who do not believe in X can be against the concept & against the actions of those who do believe in X.
The WORD antitheism DOES exist.
1111
People who do not believe in X can be against the concept & against the actions of those who do believe in X.
The WORD antitheism DOES exist.
1111
It's not complicated at all. You are making it complicated because you refuse to accept the blatantly obvious.
Close.
Atheism simply is no belief or acceptance in your claim that there are gods, whatever "gods" supposedly means.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Ermm those are your own posts..
Yeah. Well, your wrong. And have been demonstrated to be time and again. What's fascinating, however, is the psychology of your denial of the self-identity of atheists. One wonders what it is that informs your insistence that those who don't think as you must therefore not have valid opinions.
This, I must point out, is a bigoted perspective in the most liberal sense of the word.
Just out of curiosity, what do you call those who believe in gods other than the one(s) that you believe in? Or do you simply hold that believing in anything is okay as long as you believe?
And yes, lixluke is an atheist, whether he's willing to admit it or not. Ask him if he believes in the Mesoamerican god Quetzacoatl.
According to your warped logic, everybody is an atheist. So why not just say what you believe? Everybody is in atheist. Is anybody supposed to take somebody seriously that claims all people are atheists?
There are a number of dillemas that occur when using the incorrect definition of atheism. When defining atheism as those who believe there is no God, these dillemas are not present. When defining atheism as everbody that is not theism, you get multiple dillemas. Including the one that everybody is not theism, and therefore, everybody is atheism.
DILLEMA 2: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2068486&postcount=1
I don't expect a blind-faith believer to take anyone serious that doubts their blind-faith. That would be contrary to their blind-faith and, once other positions are seriously entertained, blind faith is no longer possible. The continuation of blind-faith, therefore, is evidence that rational thought isn't taken seriously.
That having been said, everybody is an atheist. Everyone rejects gods of some sort or another (unless they try the intellectually dishonest and non-demonstrable argument that "all of humanities gods are simply the same 'one' god"), making them atheists with regard to those gods. There are thousands of extant and extinct gods invented by human society and yours is but one of these (since there is no evidence that it can be factually elevated above yours).
The difference between you and I is that I take my atheism one god further and see no good reason to believe in yours either.
But, unlike you, I at least recognize that I can no more disprove the existence of Zeus or Thor than I can Yahweh and I can only tell you that there almost certainly are no gods based on the available evidence. And that, my friend, is the definition of atheism.
I believe that there almost certainly are no gods. My knowledge of your god, the Gods of Polynesia, the Andean gods, the Mesoamerican gods of 600 years ago, the Greek gods of over 2000 years ago, the Egyptian gods of over 4000 years ago or the Near Eastern gods of 10,000 years ago, is all circumspect in that I realize I cannot fully test the universe for their existence. This is an agnostic position in that I realize the limits of knowledge.
The grammatical construction of this point is somewhat questionable and leaves much to be desired and citing yourself only compounds the problem.
If you have no gods to which you believe require appeasement, your an atheist. If you believe that there exist one or more gods that require appeasement, you're a theist. Its just that simple.
You might be an agnostic-atheist or an agnostic-theist, that is to say, one who believes there are no gods but realizes the issue cannot be tested; or one that believes there is one or more gods but realizes the issue cannot be tested.
Any more questions?
Citing yourself to demonstrate your point is a circular argument.
It is not a circular argument because you are confusing arguments with your own circular reasoning. Blind faith this and blind faith that and bla bla bla.
Before we can move further in a debate, we must establish certain criteria:
These are 2 different ideas of X.
1. X = Only those who believe there is no such thing as God.
2. X = Everbody that does not believe there is a God.
If X = 1: It cannot be said that everybody is X.
If X = 2: It can be said that everybody is X. Those who beleive in God A, and do not belive in God B can be in a sense be categorized under "Those who do not believe there is a God".
Is this correct or incorrect?
Before we can move further in a debate, we must establish certain criteria:
These are 2 different ideas of X.
1. X = Only those who believe there is no such thing as God.
2. X = Everbody that does not believe there is a God.
If X = 1: It cannot be said that everybody is X.
If X = 2: It can be said that everybody is X. Those who beleive in God A, and do not belive in God B can be in a sense be categorized under "Those who do not believe there is a God".
Is this correct or incorrect?
You're compositional and grammatical skills, lacking as they are, aren't helping you. I've really no idea what you're on about in the above post and I'm only addressing your OP in which you so poorly construct an argument that it is nearly impossible to discern what it is you are truly concluding.
To that, one can only make an assumption that you are concluding that it is a "hoax" to self-identify as an atheist unless you are willing to state, categorically, that you are certain that there are not gods and, since one cannot possibly have the knowledge necessary to make such a categorical distinction, there are, thus, no such things as atheists. I'm left to wonder if it is the term "atheist" which you consider the hoax, or the movement to self-identify as "atheist."
You're ignorance and bigotry notwithstanding, the term atheism, as has been explained to you time and again simply refers to those who are without god(s). Period. An atheist has no compulsion or belief that he or she must appease any supernatural deities.
You seem to be confused by my casual analogy of atheism as it exists among theists, and I apologize since I took some liberty on my expectations of your ability to process the information. This was an unfair judgment on my part and I should be ashamed.
I am not suggesting that there are no such things as theists, rather, I was only attempting to demonstrate that the reason for atheism isn't something that is foreign to theists and was attempting to offer an analogy that a theist might understand (the notion that a monotheist rejects any god that isn't theirs since there's no good reason to believe in them).
For the record, I retract that analogy in the interest of clarity and stick with only my offered definition of atheist, "one who believes that there no god," and offer an additional clarification that a rational atheist would add "almost certainly" just before "no" since there isn't a method in existence at this time to empirically test the "no god" claim.
But this applies every bit as much (if not more) to the theist, particularly when it comes to determining which god.
The additional claim of your OP, laced with subtle vernacular inclusions of "cult," "fanatic," "acolyte" etc. within the text is that "atheism" is a religion. Are you making this claim or are you using these words as tropes?
To that, one can only make an assumption that you are concluding that it is a "hoax" to self-identify as an atheist unless you are willing to state, categorically, that you are certain that there are not gods and, since one cannot possibly have the knowledge necessary to make such a categorical distinction, there are, thus, no such things as atheists. I'm left to wonder if it is the term "atheist" which you consider the hoax, or the movement to self-identify as "atheist."
You're ignorance and bigotry notwithstanding, the term atheism, as has been explained to you time and again simply refers to those who are without god(s). Period. An atheist has no compulsion or belief that he or she must appease any supernatural deities.
You seem to be confused by my casual analogy of atheism as it exists among theists, and I apologize since I took some liberty on my expectations of your ability to process the information. This was an unfair judgment on my part and I should be ashamed.
I am not suggesting that there are no such things as theists, rather, I was only attempting to demonstrate that the reason for atheism isn't something that is foreign to theists and was attempting to offer an analogy that a theist might understand (the notion that a monotheist rejects any god that isn't theirs since there's no good reason to believe in them).
For the record, I retract that analogy in the interest of clarity and stick with only my offered definition of atheist, "one who believes that there no god," and offer an additional clarification that a rational atheist would add "almost certainly" just before "no" since there isn't a method in existence at this time to empirically test the "no god" claim.
But this applies every bit as much (if not more) to the theist, particularly when it comes to determining which god.
The additional claim of your OP, laced with subtle vernacular inclusions of "cult," "fanatic," "acolyte" etc. within the text is that "atheism" is a religion. Are you making this claim or are you using these words as tropes?
Those terms are used to show how much in common SW has with religions they hate. Their intentions are to change the meaning of atheist from A to B usng propaganda of history alteration. They are throwing out what really happened, and putting their own concoted version has history and etymology. All in the name of elimination of ideas to impose their own.
So before I move on, the reason I consider all of your arguments totally circular is because you do not seem to be arguing against the points that I am making. It is in my conclusion that you have no idea what I am saying. It isn't complicated, so I will explain my position as I have done many times as clear as I can.
My main solid point is:
1. The term "atheism" 'was' orignilally intended and 'is' commonly accepted as a term to describe the position that there is no such thing as God. It is the antithesis to theism which is the position that there is such thing as God.
2. SW wants to change it so that the term "atheism" includes everybody who is not theism. Moreover, they want to use the term "strong atheism" to replace the term "atheism" to those who fall under the idea of atheism as described in #1.
3. It is my position that the term "atheism" is best used in its original context. To describe those who believe there is no God. Not to describe everybody that does not abide by theism.
1 and 2 are pretty much the same argument how the term atheism is used. #3 is more of an argument about the best use of the term atheism.
As it stands in #3, my position on the use of the term also implies that the term atheism/agnosticism impossible in definition #1 of atheism, but possible in definition #2 of atheism.
-If atheism is defined as those who state there is definitely no God, it is impossible for agnosticism to fall under that.
-If atheism is defined as those all who do not fall under theism, then agnosticism simply falls under one type of atheism.
If you wish to discuss your agreement/disagreement with my position, it is important that you are clear on what exactly my position is. Aside from any problems you might have with my conclusions, are you at all unclear of what my conclusions are? If and only if you are clear about what my conclusions are, I welcome you to comment on them.
No shit, and there is your dillema. You completely miscontrue the meaning of certainty.
Look, you are mistaken. Get over it all ready. Referencing your posts where you detail how you are wrong doesn't change that you are wrong.
I know this is difficult to understand, but try.
There are two aspects to the question of god which are often conflated to the great confution of the issue.
One is about what you can know. (Gnostic/Agnostic)
The other is about what you believe. (Theist/Atheist)
A typical theist believes in god and thinks you can know god exists.
Some theists believe in god and think you cannot know god exists (i.e. it requires a "leap of faith").
A soft agnostic may believe or not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists.
A hard agnostic may believe or not believe in god and thinks it is impossible to know if god exists.
A soft atheist does not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists. This is why a soft atheist is open to the possibility of proof.
A hard atheist does not believe in god and thinks you can know god does not exist.
These are sometimes collapsed into those who believe (theists), those who don't know (agnostics) and those who don't believe (atheists).
Your error is the you are trying to change "those who don't believe (atheists)" into the the hard atheist position of knowing god doesn't exist (hard atheist).
This is like saying some theists commit murder therefor all theists are murderers.
If you want to attack the hard atheist position, be my guest. It is weak and easily attacked. But it is by no means representitive of atheism as a whole.
Also, in attacking the claim of hard atheism to know about god you are also attacking the position of theist to know about god and you end up an agnostic who arbitrarily believes for no good reason.
There are two aspects to the question of god which are often conflated to the great confution of the issue.
One is about what you can know. (Gnostic/Agnostic)
The other is about what you believe. (Theist/Atheist)
A typical theist believes in god and thinks you can know god exists.
Some theists believe in god and think you cannot know god exists (i.e. it requires a "leap of faith").
A soft agnostic may believe or not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists.
A hard agnostic may believe or not believe in god and thinks it is impossible to know if god exists.
A soft atheist does not believe in god and doesn't know if god exists. This is why a soft atheist is open to the possibility of proof.
A hard atheist does not believe in god and thinks you can know god does not exist.
These are sometimes collapsed into those who believe (theists), those who don't know (agnostics) and those who don't believe (atheists).
Your error is the you are trying to change "those who don't believe (atheists)" into the the hard atheist position of knowing god doesn't exist (hard atheist).
This is like saying some theists commit murder therefor all theists are murderers.
If you want to attack the hard atheist position, be my guest. It is weak and easily attacked. But it is by no means representitive of atheism as a whole.
Also, in attacking the claim of hard atheism to know about god you are also attacking the position of theist to know about god and you end up an agnostic who arbitrarily believes for no good reason.
- Status