Atheists who do not claim there is no god do not have an "atheist faith".

[Zhade]

(This is predicated by a response in another thread, but I feel my larger point should be repeated in a thread of its own. As this is not intended as a 'revenge thread', I will not name the other thread or poster to which I refer.)

It has been repeatedly noted that some believers here on DU refuse to allow atheists to define themselves. For example, when told that we "do not believe in god", some believers will insist on saying we atheists "have faith there is no god".

This is highly insulting, and I will tell you why - you will discover the reason is not what you may assume.

See, it is not that we are told we "have faith" that is insulting to us. I have faith in lots of things - the love of my friends and family, that the sun will rise tomorrow, that I will always like pickled products unless they are meat-based. In other words, I, an atheist, don't feel offended when the f-word is used around me.

I do, however, take offense when I am characterized in a fashion that is not reflective of who I really am. That's what happens when a believer insists I "have faith god doesn't exist".

Want to know why? It's really quite simple, but easy to miss: it offends me when people put words in my mouth.

Saying that I have faith god doesn't exist, instead of accepting my honest statement that I don't believe in things - including gods - for which there is no evidence, paints me as having argued that there is evidence god doesn't exist.

I have never made that argument. Why? Because I am honest (and sane!) enough to admit that it is impossible for me to know all knowledge in the universe. Or, if we discover they exist, universes! We may very well one day uncover evidence that a god or gods exist somewhere in our universe, who knows?

However, as there is none to date, I don't believe in unproven gods any more than I eagerly await the Easter Bunny on that special Egg-Day.

If I made the affirmative statement "there is no god", I would be making a statement that I could not back up, and it truly would be a faith-based statement, because I would be making an argument for which I could not produce evidence.

I don't, and never would, say that. So when a believer insists that I have faith god doesn't exist, s/he puts words in my mouth I never uttered and assigns me a debate position I never would enter into on my own.

It is similar to how Fox News hosts will paint a Democrat as having made an argument they never made - or how Scotty McClellan erroneously assigned Helen Thomas a position on the "War on Terror" that she herself had not vocalized.

It is a way to frame the debate on the believer's terms, to set the debate by red herring and strawman. A strawman of a position that I never took.

It is dishonest and manipulative. It forces the atheist to argue against an argument s/he never made in the first place.

It is wrong. And I ask that it stop.

Stop telling atheists what we think. We don't tell you what you think, or how your worldview works. Not if we're decent people, anyway.

I hope this post illuminates the reason why some of us get very angry when someone labels us as "having faith".

[shenmue]

1. Thanks

Well said.

:7 :thumbsup:

[Zhade]

2. Glad it made sense.

I've been racking my brain for weeks trying to figure out how to get the point across.

(Thanks for the kick, too!)

[papau]

192. Atheism, a religion dedicated to its own sense of smug superiority

Stephen Colbert from The Daily Show and his definition:

Atheism, a religion dedicated to its own sense of smug superiority.

[beam me up scottie]

193. "If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!"

~Clark Adams

[papau]

194. And Bald is a hair color!

there are great quotes out there :-)

All of which ignore the difference between zero and all other real numbers.

[beam me up scottie]

195. I thought that Zhade asked for tolerance and respect...

Maybe that is just too much to expect from some people.

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

197. Your fellow progressives deserve respect, not religious bigotry.

Thanks for letting us know which of the two we can expect from you.

[madeline_con]

378. There's a lot of "smug superiority" in the "Christian" camp, too.

:)

[electropop]

132. More than that, it reveals a hole in religionist thinking:

They seem to be incapable of imagining how a mind works if it is not driven by religious belief. Their automatic assumption is that everybody is religious, and that atheism is just another religion. They just can't even conceive of a brain without religion.

Personally though, I am confident there is no god(s)(ess)(es). The concept seems as likely to me as the concept of an invisible space alien hiding in my closet and burning my toast by mind control. These seem like equally arbitrary concepts to me. I don't feel a need to prove a negative. The burden lies on believers to prove an outrageous assertion if they wish me to believe it.

[bloom]

141. I think that in the same way

that the OP suggests people should not assume or try to argue that atheists have "faith" there is no God - atheists should not make assumptions about other's religious beliefs and set up straw-man non-arguments about them.

For instance - I think it is perfectly plausible to think of a "Goddess" as a symbolic manifestation that represents the ongoing creation of life. That does not mean that I think there is an embodiment of a Goddess that exists anywhere like an invisible space alien.

In fact - I suspect that many people who "believe" in myths - understand them as myths - symbolic - not "real". (I realize that some people have gone past thinking of some myths as myths - but I won't go into that.)

There are a lot of people who could stop making assumptions about what others think.

[Zhade]

143. "There are a lot of people who could stop making assumptions"

Agreed!

:toast:

[malaise]

3. Well said

Saying that I have faith god doesn't exist, instead of accepting my honest statement that I don't believe in things - including gods - for which there is no evidence, paints me as having argued that there is evidence god doesn't exist.

Put simply - spare us the ontological arguments.
Edit -gr.

[Zhade]

4. Thanks. It's frustrating to not be able to express it correctly.

I don't like it when people (wrongly) make my arguments for me. I'm hoping pointing this out will enable better understanding between believers and atheists.

[malaise]

7. I think you did a great job

Believers and atheists will never understand each another. I gave up on that ages ago. My obsessed catholic mother and I debated these issues for decades and agreed to a truce.

[Zhade]

8. Funny thing is, I tried the belief thing. Several times. Never took.

Just couldn't accept as true things for which there was no evidence - and whatever feelings I had, I couldn't be sure they weren't wishful thinking or any number of other things. I had nothing to point to that could show for certain what caused the feelings.

So I know what it's like as far as being on the other side, argument-wise. In fact, it's kind of how I wound up realizing I'm an atheist.

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. That's how I ended up as a liberal believer. I attended a lot of

fundy churches as a kid and started dating a no dancing-no-drinking-no swearing believer just after I turned 15. I tried for years to jam my foot into their glass slipper and was miserable about it not fitting.. like it was MY fault their shoe was warped!

But since then I have loosened up and let go of the black and white thinking. But not God. I see God as being a lot like the Force in Star Wars and Jesus is like Yoda only taller and not so green. Also, in my mind he doesn't sound like Grover from Sesame Street.

It make my husband nuts that we are so different in our faith views now. :P He thinks I am just this side of an atheist and will end up there eventually (and possibly Hell too), but I don't think so. I like thinking there is something good out there, whether it's a conscious being larger than myself or just the collection of all our good thoughts and feelings.

But I would never insist that anyone else has to agree to what I believe. I go to hubby's church and my teeth ache during those times when they start waving the "We're the best, we know it all" flag. I am SO not going to let my boys learn that lesson.

[Big Kahuna]

5. I find that

telling them to take their religion and shove it up their arse works too. :)

[Zhade]

6. No, they just think they're right and you're pissed.

They're wrong - better, I thought, to explain why they're wrong than just tell them to fuck off.

It's part of that 'respect' thing Skinner's talking about. :D

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. No, it doesn't make sense to me *scratching head*

How do I put this? I think the trouble is that this all depends on who says "you have faith there is no God". If it is a fundagelical, then most likely your assertion is true because to them faith = proof. "I feel it, I read it in the Bible, therefore it must be true, praise Jeebus!" But if it is a progressive believer, then most likely your assertion is false because to me and many other liberals like me, the word "faith" means 'uncertain about' and 'unable to prove'. We feel as you do in that we can't possibly know everything there is in the universe so we would be foolish to make an unequivocal statement about something we cannot prove scientifically. (Remember, science is one of the litmus tests for liberals in determining what things in the Bible are literally true vs metaphorically true. Ergo fundies say Noah's ark happened the way it was written. Progressives generally think it's an odd allegory.. pretty ending but ghastly beginning and not very likely to have literally taken place as stated.)

I have faith in God because I am not entirely sure "He" is there but I would like to think so and because every so often I just get a sense that there is something bigger than me out there. So the flip side of that, in my mind, is that if you are pretty sure that there isn't a God then you have 'faith' that there isn't one because you cannot prove it but it is what you believe. :)

Ultimately the only way you can tell if someone just put words in your mouth when making that statement to you is to find out what kind of theist they are which would clarify their definition of "faith": black and white thinking fundies who "know" God exists and looks like X, acts like Y, and lives at Z, or progressives who are comfortable with grey areas in matters of God.

[Zhade]

32. Independent of who says it. It's about the argument being made for me.

You nailed this:

"So the flip side of that, in my mind, is that if you are pretty sure that there isn't a God then you have 'faith' that there isn't one because you cannot prove it but it is what you believe."

And since I'm not pretty sure there's not a god, but just don't believe in one because I've never been convinced one exists...I don't have faith god doesn't exist. I don't make that argument.

That's exactly what this thread was about. :)

[pecwae]

9. I understand you.

I don't appreciate someone 'translating' my thoughts and feelings to fit their purpose for any reason including the f-word.

[catabryna]

10. This is just an honest question...

so, please don't be offended; I don't intend for anyone to be. It's the best explanation of atheism I've seen in a long time. However, when I read your post, the term "agnostic" came to mind.

Can you explain your thoughts on the differences between atheism and agnosticism?

Again, this isn't a smart-assed question... I'm really interested.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. As I understand the post

An agnostic would say something like "I don't know, and it's not in our power to know."

An atheist would say, "Given our current evidence and standards for what constitutes knowledge, I can hold this justifiable belief."

The difference would then be the quality of belief. For the agnostic, the belief is wholly indeterminate. For the atheist, the belief is determined, but that determination is open-ended, and - like all science - contingent on the introduction of new evidence." So, for example, an atheist would never say "We just can't know" about a principle in particle physics. Rather, she would say "What evidence do we have for it," and if sufficient evidence exists (under established standards of evidence) to draw a reasonable conclusion, she would hold that belief - unless and until a new theory is put forth with better evidence. This is completely different from agnosticism.

[catabryna]

18. Thank you...

Your explanation helped me wrap my head around this and I appreciate your taking the time to provide me with a well thought-out answer and taking my question in the spirit in which it was meant.

[Zhade]

33. Yep, A.M. gets it exactly right as to why I'm not an agnostic.

And no worries on the question, I could tell you were sincere. :)

[catabryna]

90. Thanks...

I find that it's important for me to try and grasp the things I'm unsure of because it leaves open entirely too much room for misunderstanding.

[GreenPartyVoter]

21. Yes, that's what an agnostic is. Also, we need to throw the

term anti-theist out there as well since there is some confusion between that and atheism.

From Merriam-Webster:

Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity

From Oxford:

Antitheist: One opposed to belief in the existence of a God.

[IntravenousDemilo]

27. Not so sure about that first sentence

or at least the last part of it. Yes, an agnostic would say something like "I don't know", but he wouldn't make the definitive statement that "it's not in our power to know", because maybe it is in our power to know. Who knows?

It's the agnostic who will insist on evidence before coming to any final conclusions. The atheist will just flat out deny that god exists.

I tend to agree more with Catabryna in post 10.

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. Disagree

The agnostic would never come to any "conclusion," (contingent or final) for as soon as a conclusion is reached, then the "I don't know" of agnosticism would disappear, by definition.

It is the atheist who has reached a contingent conclusion beased on available evidence, and who demands further evidence to change that belief. This is a wholly different operation than either agnosticism or "faith." The agnostic demands further evidence to come to ANY conclusion, but would cease being an agnostic as soon as such a conclusion were reached. The difficulty here is that conclusions are assumed to be absolute, or final, in all cases. But that is just the confusion that Zhade's post addressed. The conclusions of science aren't "final." Witness the birth of quantum physics and the ways it changed Newtonian assumptions. Many philosophers of science have dealt with this question at length (see Karl Popper, for example, or W.V.O. Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism").

At the end of the day, all of this seems like hairsplitting to me, however, since the importance of these beliefs lies not in their various definitions or statuses, but rather in the ways they affect action, or practice. Atheism, as I see it, operates in the open-ended style of the sciences, meaning that we can settle on claims based on the available evidence (and standards of evidence) and go from there. Whether one believes in a deity or not is not first and foremost an ontological point but an ethical one, to the extent that the position lead to different forms of practice.

[immoderate]

118. I see it a little differently

Agnostic literally means without knowledge, as opposed to a gnostic, someone who has absolute knowledge.

Most atheists are also agnostic in the sense they have had no direct revelation as to the status of god. This makes sense since there is no way to demonstrate that there is no god of any kind.

Then it gets down to which good we are talking about. Most gods that can be described lead to contradictions of things we know. Therefore we can dispense with them. Some mysterious and unspecified "godness" is not really arguable.

In a sense, the notion that the universe follows natural law, which precludes the existence of the most common representations of god, is an example of faith, as this is a postulate to understanding science. But atheism is not a faith in the same way that not accepting the existence of a tooth fairy is not a faith.

--IMM

[SheepyMcSheepster]

12. thanks

I too tire of the "you have faith that god doesn't exist" argument.

the simple answer is i don't have faith in anything remotely concerning god.

[Lerkfish]

14. fair enough...in return...

could atheists stop defining people of belief as followers of fairy tales, ignorant or stupid?

after all, that would returning the favor, since atheists tend to define people of belief in ways that are insulting to them, too.

thanks in advance.

[IntravenousDemilo]

31. It's up to the atheists.

As for me, an agnostic, I reserve the right to refer to both positions as extremes, though. Mind you, you can probably guess which of the two extreme philosophies I regard as the more logical, given the latest evidence.

[Zhade]

42. And that's your right.

You are differentiating between the atheist, and the absence of belief in gods.

You are always entitled to your opinion regarding certain positions. We all are.

[Zhade]

41. I will not call a believer stupid. That's crass, and often inaccurate.

I will have to say, however, that my opinion remains that revealed religions are myths that some believe to be true without evidence of their stories having actually happened.

And I do find those who believe that, say, the earth was created in six days to be ignorant, because scientific evidence clearly proves otherwise.

"after all, that would returning the favor, since atheists tend to define people of belief in ways that are insulting to them, too."

Calling a believer stupid for their beliefs? Yes. But two things:

1) please acknowledge that not ALL atheists define people that way

2) please recognize and understand the difference between criticizing a believer for being a believer, and criticizing their beliefs.

I am required to respect your self-description of yourself and that you have the right to hold your beliefs, just as you are required to respect my self-description and my right not to believe in things that haven't been proven to me to be true.

Neither of us must give deference to the other's beliefs, or absence thereof.

[greekspeak]

15. This happens to me in all parts of my life

It is a tactic. A common way of arguing is to take ownership of words. If you own the word, you own the message, as the theory goes. No matter how absurd or fallacious, people try to hijack the word "athiest."

It rarely works. People do not understand what atheism is. My personal favorite argument is that we are really agnostics. So...not only do our detractors not know what an atheist is, they do not know what an agnostic is either.

[IntravenousDemilo]

30. Well, sure -- do you believe with certain conviction that there is no god?

If so, you're defiinitely an atheist. I presume that describes you?

[Zhade]

43. You are doing exactly what I asked NOT be done in the OP.

Stop assuming our positions for us! Atheists DO NOT all actively believe there is no god.

Did you even read the OP? You're assuming our arguments and putting words in our mouths.

[KarenS]

16. recommended,,,, Great post!! n/t

[Bridget Burke]

17. Not all Atheists are the same.

One advantage of not belonging to a church (mosque, temple, synagogue, ashram or coven) is that you have the right to speak for yourself.

Just as you tell people of faith not to tell you what to think (are people of faith all alike?)--you do point out that you only speak for "some" Atheists.

[skids]

22. Precisely.

Some atheists call people stupid for believing in one or more "gods" no matter whether they are the kind of believer that believes in something which is rather improbable, or just the kind of person who isn't conceited enough to believe that a living organism is the only system capable of emerging conscious behavior -- two extremes and the middle between them lumped together as a convenient whipping post.

Some believers call atheists, well various things, regardless of whether they are the type to shove their non-belief at people through the above ridicule, or just an agnostic that self-identifies as an atheist -- two extremes and the middle between them lumped together as a convenient whipping post.

You know what? It would all stop if the namecalling, derogatory rhetoric, and generic rudeness would stop.

[tx_dem41]

29. I agree with you and Bridget.

My Atheism is my personal choice just like someone of "faith" has chosen that personally. I claim to neither be right nor wrong, especially when projecting that towards other's choices.

[IntravenousDemilo]

19. To my mind, an atheist who does NOT claim there is no god

is more properly called "agnostic", which translates from the Greek more or less as "I dunno". I would class myself as one of those. I have no idea whether there's a god (or several of them) or not. I don't have a really strong belief one way or the other. It really doesn't matter to me that much. I do know that I am not willing to accept the existence of god unless I'm presented with incontrovertible, empirical evidence of the same, so in the absence of proof, I think it's more logical not to have faith in things unseen. At the same time, I am perfectly willing to accept the proof if it is indeed proof. And it's of course not my job to prove the non-existence of god, either; it's up to the god-believers to furnish positive proof. That's how the scientific method works.

That, by the way, is also one of the things I admire about science -- it doesn't claim to know everything, so it's always willing to explore new ideas (that is, if you exclude the bad scientists who are incapable of changing their opinions even in the face of evidence).

Saying that I have faith god doesn't exist, instead of accepting my honest statement that I don't believe in things - including gods - for which there is no evidence, paints me as having argued that there is evidence god doesn't exist.

You seem to be equating faith with evidence here, unless I'm reading you wrong. Faith and evidence have nothing to do with each other, no matter what the "goddies" say -- you know, they claim for instance that the complex structure of the eye is "evidence" of intelligent design, when all they're doing is expressing their "faith" that this is indeed the case -- and I'm a bit worried that you may have fallen into their trap and succumbed to using their terminology.

What faith is, is a strong and unwavering belief in something for which one has no proof. I find that atheists, as opposed to agnostics, generally have a strong and unwavering belief, i.e, faith in the non-existence of god, but just like the "goddies", they have no actual proof to back up their claim.

I would never presume to say that, because I like to keep an open mind on this and most other matters. But as I said before, I could just be reading your post wrong, and we may very well agree 100 per cent in our positions. You do, after all, say that you don't believe in things for which there is no evidence, which sounds kind of like where I'm coming from. However, if that's the case, you're really an agnostic, not a true atheist.

Still, just to make sure, if you were presented with iron-clad evidence that god exists, would you then believe?

I will admit that there is one thing I have absolute faith in, and that's the basic goodness of people. But again, I don't know for a fact that people are essentially good, because I can't peer into anybody's psyche but my own. For all I know, people may simply be absolutely vile creatures deep down. And it's even possible that I don't completely understand myself, and I may be vile, too. But I prefer not to think that I'm that way, or at least I certainly hope I'm not.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. See post 11 for the distinction between Zhane's atheism and agnosticism

n/t

[IntravenousDemilo]

28. I actually started writing my very long post when there were just

four up there. I like to polish.

[Zhade]

45. Zhade, but thank you, you got it exactly right.

It seems some are skimming the OP. Regrettable.

[BurtWorm]

78. The key phrase is "I don't have a strong belief one way or the other"

which, in my book (and most atheists' books), classifies you as an atheist, "one who does not believe in a god or gods" just as a theist is "one who believes in a god or gods."

You say you don't have a strong belief? Do you have a weak belief in god? If so, maybe you're a weak theist.

[melv]

23. I get tired of being defined by faith

This is what gets to me. I do not like it when I am defined my possesion or lack therof of faith. Whether or not I believe in a higher power is not what outlines me to the rest of the world.

[neebob]

24. I'm inclined to think use of a phrase like

atheist faith is intended to bug an atheist. Another less likely explanation is having such a problem with the word atheist that I have to put it with this other word that I like better to take the edge off.

Reminds me of my parents discussing whether my grandpa, who had said he was an atheist, was really an agnostic. Grandpa's having said he was an atheist bothered them so much that they had to talk about it later to feel better about it. And it was such a big deal that I remember this little snippet of conversation that took place before 1972.

I also remember Grandpa saying he was an atheist at least once, and criticizing the Mormon church a lot - yet they had his funeral in a Mormon chapel. And sat around afterward, debating whether some song that was played was the one he had said he liked.

What makes it even weirder and more ironic is that my grandma had never been Mormon, and her two daughters hadn't been raised in the LDS Church - seeing as their father had a problem with it and was an atheist and everything - but they held his funeral in a Mormon chapel, anyway.

So maybe an atheist faith is when others have faith that you're not an atheist.

[BiggJawn]

26. This "Have Faith" argument is an attempt...

...to pigeonhole Atheism as a "Religion", and thus subjected to the same church-state seperation rules as the Xians.

IOW, it's sour grapes.
"Oh, you can say you DON'T believe, but *I* can't say I *DO*...Well! We'll just get your lack of belief declared a religion, then you'll see what it's like to be persecuted for your faith like WE are!"

I'm with you, Zhade, I do not "Have faith that there is NO Gawd". Based on the lack of evidence and lack of proof provided by followers (please see "Kissing Hank's Ass" if you don't understand) in favour of the existence of the old whiskered gent, I have to say that it's most likely he does not exist.

It's like mixing baking soda and vinegar. I don't have faith that it will fizz, I KNOW it will fizz. I have DEMONSTRATED that it will fizz. On the other hand, I don't have faith that vinegar and citric acid powder will NOT fizz. THAT I have seen also.

[salvorhardin]

34. Nicely written

For myself, my atheism is my lack of belief. I just don't believe in any god. I see no way in which positing the existence of a deity explains the workings of the universe any better than scientific inquiry can. As far as morals go, I should think that if I needed the threat of some wrathful god to behave decently then I wouldn't really be a moral person. I should also think I'm lesser of a human for it as I feel any rational human should be able to figure out that it makes life a heck of a lot easier to deal with if you don't have to worry so much about other humans killing, beating, or robbing you and that a little bit of altruism goes a long way.

So, if a believer wants to say that I have no faith, then so be it. Frankly I could care less. Where I do care is when believers, who make up a huge part of the population, impinge on my disbelief or assert their 1st century moral values on me or want to start making decisions of state based on those values. I will respect your right to belief, I will even tolerate (quite easily!) your religious practices but those things I will neither respect or tolerate.

[The Witch]

35. Well said

Thank you for articulating what I am sure many people wanted to say.

[SupplyConcerns]

92. Except there is one extra negative in the title.

Which reverses what you're trying to say.

[bryant69]

36. Lingustic Parallels

"A Believer believes there is a God; an Atheist believes there is no God."

"A Believer believes there is a God; an Atheist knows there is no God."

"A Believer believes there is no God; an Atheist is of the opinion that there is no God."

"A Believer believes there is no God; an Atheist thinks there is no God."

"A Believer believes there is no God; an Atheist is convinced that there is no God."

Which of these is the best?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[cosmik debris]

47. None of the above.

Please do not describe atheism in negative terms, thank you.

[Zhade]

48. None. You're begging the question.

I do not believe, or have an opinion, that there is no god. That would presuppose that I had searched all of the universe to see it any gods existed.

Clearly, if I could do so, I'D be a god.

I would accept that gods exist if any evidence ever turns up to show they exist. I remain without god belief because that evidence is lacking.

Just say ""A Believer believes there is a God; an Atheist has seen no evidence to convince him/her there are any gods."

That's it. In a nutshell. It covers both those who know they can't say for certain that god doesn't exist, and those who insist there is no god (since one likely hasn't seen any evidence if they're insisting no gods exist).

Respectful, accurate - simple.

[bryant69]

53. OK

Well if that's what you want (and in the absense of any other suggestions (other than I avoid defining atheism in terms of negatives, which frankly I don't understand), I'll do it, insofar as I remember to do so.

There is a lurking implication that such evidence may exist however.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[cosmik debris]

71. Just because someone makes up a question

"is there God?" and someone makes up an answer, doesn't mean that everyone has to ask that question or believe that answer.

[bryant69]

74. I don't buy that

I mean the first part; obviously nobody is required to believe or agree with any particular belief or opinion about God. But the concept of religion and of God is woven into the fabric of our society (and pretty much all sociieties); there are very very few people who can really avoid confronting the question of whether God (or Gods) exist at some time during their life.

But let me ask you this, how would you construct this parallel. A Believer Believes there is a God; an Atheist . . .

Bryant

[cosmik debris]

79. Halloween

The concept of superstition and black cats is woven into the fabric of our society as well. Halloween is just around the corner.

I would not construct any such parallel. Atheism is not a parallel to theism. It is a label created by theist to show contempt for those with whom they disagree.

The only attribute that all atheists have in common the the attribute that theists disagree with us. No other attribute applies to all atheists.

[bryant69]

82. Do you think that Atheists and Theists should converse at all?

Or do they have anything to say to one another? On the subject of belief I mean.

[cosmik debris]

85. That's an individual decision

But this is a public forum. Discussions here should not start of with an insulting insinuation that atheist are deficient or incomplete in some way. If it is going to be a fair discussion, neutral terms must be used. I will gladly discuss my opinions, but not with a person who uses terms that show contempt for my opinions.

[bryant69]

87. Is Atheist one of those terms?

I mean, per one of your previous messages, Atheism is the lack of theism or at least that's how the term was created.

Do you make distinctions based on intentions? I mean if someone says "Well Athesits believe X if I understand it" and you don't feel there's any malice how do you respond to that?

[cosmik debris]

93. I did not create the term

It was created to label me. I resist being labeled.

I am an atheist by default just as I am a bi-ped. The only way I can stop being a bi-ped is to cut off one of my feet.

I never attribute to malice that which can be easily explained as insensitivity. But when people say "atheists believe. . ." I respond that the label was created by my enemies to denigrate me. Use of that label implies that you agree with my enemies and believe that their framing of the discussion is ok. Atheists do not follow the theist template of belief and disbelief. And it is unfair to expect atheists to participate in that kind of discussion where theist make the rules.

[bryant69]

94. That goes back to my earlier question

I mean is it fair to expect theists to participate in a discusion where atheists make the rules?

or is the larger injustice of numerical superiority (coupled with Fundementalists attempts to make us a theocracy) enough to overcome that?

[cosmik debris]

95. I am just pushing for equality

The theists started this labeling and as long as they insist on maintaining linguistic control over the argument, it is not equal, it is insulting. If theist don't believe in fairness to atheists, they should not participate in such discussions. But fairness requires that they ask us what we believe rather than tell us what we believe.

[bryant69]

96. I don't know

I do know that most discussions I get into with Atheists start from them defining what Believers (nearly always Christians) believe.

[cosmik debris]

98. Which is another example

of how atheists don't have multiple common characteristics. Ascribing common traits to atheists is like saying we have rhythm and like watermelon. It is offensive and inaccurate. Just because it is the historical frame for the debate doesn't make it right.

[bryant69]

100. Well you want to be treated like an individual

That I can understand. I generally to discuss respectfully with those who discuss respectfully; and slam into those who slam into. Seems fair enough to me.

But the problem with the "every Atheist is different" formulation is that it undercuts your larger point. While talking with you, in so far as we do discuss, of course it's only polite to adjust my terminology to a framework you are comfortable with (assuming so doing is more or less neutral).

But if all Atheists are different, why should I change my terminology in all cases? For all I know they might prefer the phrasing "Atheists believe . . . "

[cosmik debris]

103. Same reason you don't use the N word

Some Black people use the N word. Politeness requires that I don't. You may if you want to. But you need to understand that it is offensive to some and you use it at your own risk.

[bryant69]

104. Well something to consider anyway

I'd be curious to know the percentage of Atheists who would get offended by the "B" word.

[cosmik debris]

108. My guess is

That most atheists don't get offended. They have grown accustomed to the jab and ignore it. It is not the kind of brick wall they want to bang their head on.

[beam me up scottie]

109. From personal experience,

almost all of DU's atheists have a problem with being misrepresented.

Some of us are just more vocal about it than others.

[bryant69]

112. I can understand that

I certainly get upset when Christianity or Belief is misrepresented or slandered.

[cosmik debris]

113. Ooops!

I was operating on the assumption that DU was not a representative sample of "most atheists". I guess I should not do that.

We are indeed more vocal and more likely to be offended by the BS from beyond.

[Zhade]

147. Those atheists should not be doing so.

I have learned there are genuine Christians who don't buy into the whole "virgin birth, resurrection, literally divine Jesus, blood sacrifice" myths.

It would be wrong of me to ascribe to such a Christian those beliefs - just as it would be wrong for them to say I deny god when I don't (can't really deny something that has never been proven to be there).

[Zhade]

146. "...where atheists make the rules?"

See, here's the key: we're talking about making the rule as it applies to us, alone.

Theists should no more apply their labels to us than atheists should apply their labels to theists.

We're talking about respecting the atheist's actual position. Mine is not, and never has been, that there is definitely for sure 100% proof there is no god.

I can't possibly know that. I'm not omniscient.

I can know that there is no evidence that supports their existence, and thus I don't believe in any gods.

[Zhade]

145. For one thing, try "absence of theism" instead of "lack of theism".

Much more accurate, and pleasantly neutral.

[arwalden]

282. ~

:thumbsup:

[Az]

161. No implication of existing evidence

It would be nice certainly. But suffice to say the claims of another individual of a god are not in and of themself convincing enough to sway me. I could talk empassionedly to you about smurfs and how nice they are, but I should not expect you to believe in them simply on my say so. Evidence would be nice. But if you come to believe in smurfs on my say so ... well, watch out for Gargamel.

[BurtWorm]

119. "An atheist believes theists should not define atheism."

That's best.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Brilliant.

You went right to the heart of the matter.

Unfortunately, I think the people that repeatedly try to redefine atheism already know this.

They have what's called a "lack" of respect.

It is an excellent explanation, however, for the theists who will respect our right to define ourselves.

[Zhade]

50. Thanks!

If it passes muster with you, I must have gotten something right!

:)

[beam me up scottie]

52. I'm glad you're trying

to go the educational route.

I'm worn out from having to explain this constantly to the same posters, only to see them pop up in another thread and do the same exact thing.

[the other one]

38. I will raise your points at the next atheist non-prayer meeting

where we all gather and discuss our faithful faithlessness.

[rhett o rick]

39. Good discussion. Personally I don't understand Atheism. Seems to

me that one would have to know what God is, to not believe. But without a good definition of God, I have a hard time explaining whether I believe or not. I certainly don't believe in the same God that Pat Robertson believes in.

I know that I am not intelligent enough to understand everything. I don't need to. Some people can't stand to "not understand" everything, therefor God fits in very well. Many of these people are easy to lead. Just tell them "I am from God" and they will follow you anywhere. 59 million American's apparently believe that God told George to go to war in Iraq.

[Zhade]

51. Look at it this way (I'm going to be called a woo woo on this!)...

...I don't believe that when I die, it's all over.

Can I prove that belief is true? Nope. I have suspicions, so I leave it open to see what happens when I die. So, I'm no longer afraid of death.

Now, could you call my belief in persisting as some form of energy or thought after death "god"? Maybe some would classify it that way, and to them I wouldn't be an atheist.

But as theists believe in gods generally defined as individuals, and I don't believe those individuals exist, I'm still an atheist.

The reason I don't have any god belief is because I don't know all the forms gods allegedly take, and those forms I do know about lack the evidence to convince me such gods exist.

[rhett o rick]

72. I understand your argument about the lack of evidence to convince

you there is a God. On the other hand, is there adequate evidence to convince you there isn't a God? It seems important to Atheists to declare there is no God. I don't see the need to say that. I don't know what God is and I am ok with that. I definitely do not believe in the god that Pat Robertson follows. When someone wins a foot race and says "I thank God for letting me win", I don't believe in that God. I believe there are a lot of things that i don't understand about life, and if someone wants to call that God, then fine, I believe. But I don't believe in the gods that religions use to justify terrible acts like war and torture.

[beam me up scottie]

89. "It seems important to Atheists to declare there is no God"

That's not true.

Think of it this way; you say you don't know what god is, I don't either.

How can I actively disbelieve in something that cannot be defined?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

116. bingo. very well put.

What bothers me most is the intrusions being made, in the name of some sect's idealized version of their god, into our society. If we complain, they first take the high road, broadly proclaiming (erroneously) that our country and constitution were formed on christianity; once we call them on that set of lies, they claim that only religious can be moral, because religion is morality. Another lie. Morality is accepting a set of rules and following them. I do not doubt that some religions can be moral or that they have a moral thread someplace hidden inside their theology. It is not an exclusive matter of ownership, however. To the contrary, most religions have the most amoral and immoral past in the history of mankind.

Morality is deciding on a set of rules, the following it. If there is a conflict in moralities, problems can and do occur.

[beam me up scottie]

120. I was once told that

people learn morals in church.

Now isn't THAT a terrifying concept?

If you haven't taught your kid right from wrong by the time they understand what's being said in church, you might as well go directly to juvenile hall and pre-register them.

[rman]

122. How can you actively *believe* in something that cannot be defined?

It's not that by default people believe in (the existance of) *everything* (that is conceivable), except those things that are defined. Or at least i hope that's not how it is.

Things that are defined are usually things that do exsist - how can one define something that does not exist?

[beam me up scottie]

125. I dunno. Ask a believer.

We are all atheists when we come into the world.

Children are taught to believe in deities, not born with foreknowledge of them.

[neebob]

99. Of course it's important.

If you didn't believe something, why wouldn't you say it? Especially if you were surrounded by people who thought your lack of belief was a bad thing and were always trying to get you to change your mind or at least keep your lack of belief to yourself. It would be important to you because you'd keep noticing how it seems to be okay for all these people to tell you there is a god, and to talk about him/her/it in your presence as if you also believed in god, but it's not okay for you to say there's no god.

[Zhade]

148. "is there adequate evidence to convince you there isn't a God?"

I'm not convinced of that, because I can't possibly know all knowledge in the universe.

[rhett o rick]

162. If you are addressing me, the answer is no. I don't believe in the god

that is portrayed as an old man with white beard doling out favors and punishment, any more than I believe in the Easter Bunny. But if god means all that we don't understand, then I believe. If god is undefined, how can you not believe.

[Az]

163. Redefinable god

It is possible to so redefine a word that it loses all sense of meaning. Let us agree that god in this context implies a conscious entity. God may or may not interact with the universe. God may or may not have been the creator of the universe.

As to how one cannot believe in something undefined... its really quite simple. If its not defined there is no reason to grant acceptance.

[neebob]

97. What's not to understand?

I don't believe in any of the available definitions of god or any kind of higher power or intelligence. Sure, I'd like to believe in some benevolent force and some kind of afterlife. What I think would be really great is if, after you die, you could fly around and see everything that ever happened, as if it had been videotaped. But that's just wishful thinking because there's no evidence to support the existence of an afterlife and all kinds of evidence to the contrary.

Despite my belief that this is all just a big accident of evolution and the belief in some spiritual entity with an afterlife is just a product of the feeling of being inside a body, looking out, I do sometimes wonder how it all came to be and why I'm me - why my consciousness is in this particular body, looking out, or why it feels that way. That doesn't make me an agnostic. I'm an atheist, and it's easy to understand.

[Zhade]

149. Because you wonder about those things, without the god question involved..

...you're still an atheist.

That's how I feel, too.

[neebob]

210. Well, it's not emotionally fulfilling

but I'm sure there's a scientific explanation. I get why others prefer to believe in something else.

[BurtWorm]

127. Every definition of God I've ever come across does a poor job

of distinguishing God from human thought. In all of my experience with the idea of God, I've seen nothing to convince me it's anything, in other words, than a human construct. If God is defined as a human construct, I would say I believe that. But I still wouldn't believe "in God" (as something separate from human thought).

[neebob]

40. And here we are in the Religion forum

... speaking of irony.

[beam me up scottie]

54. What are you saying? That atheists shouldn't post in the THEOLOGY forum?

Where should we discuss theological subjects?

[neebob]

75. No, I'm saying it's ironic

that a thread about atheism not being a religion was moved from GD to the religion forum. I wouldn't dare say the other thing, since I've never been to this forum and am not familiar with the discussions that take place here.

[beam me up scottie]

77. Sorry.

I'm a little touchy since we've been told more than once that we don't belong in here.

I get it now! :evilgrin:

[neebob]

86. No problem

I'm guessing the rationale for moving this thread here instead of, say, the Atheists group, is that more of those to whom it's addressed would be likely to see it.

I don't get why so many get so huffy about criticism of their religion or lack thereof - especially by people on an internet message board.

[beam me up scottie]

88. Most of us don't.

Most liberal believers seem to understand that criticism of religion is not the same thing as criticism of them.

Hell, many of them are the first to criticize religious leaders and intolerance.

[Zhade]

150. Skinner stated that he moved this because it's not related to politics...

...or public policy.

I think it's related to the public as a whole (and how topics like "What do you know about the Knights Templar?" and "Isn't the proof that Intelligent Design is Creationism by another name" - both topics on religion - stay are beyond me) and disagree with the move, but hey, it's Skinner's site.

I wish it had stayed in GD, because I wrote this to try to bridge the gap between theists and atheists, even if only by adding a couple of planks stretching over the chasm between us.

[Az]

160. Where esle do you suppose we should post this information

Atheism is defined by theism. Theism is part of the dominant religious sects in our society. We are going to be affected by religion. We are going to speak to religious individuals about how their religion affects us. We are going to disagree about many things that come about due to religion. The religion and theology forum was created just for this purpose. Atheists have been here since day one.

[neebob]

221. I didn't have a better idea, except maybe to leave it in GD.

And I've since realized I might have misread the OP's main point as "atheism is not a religion" when it was really more like "don't call me an atheist" or "don't label me." I thought it was more about the word faith.

[cosmik debris]

44. Both labels, atheism and agnosticism,

are creations of the theists. They created labels for "the other". The had to find a way to discuss those with whom they disagree so they made up names.

Since they are responsible for creating these labels, they chose to use negative wording, "not" this, "lack" of that, "without" something else. There are no neutral terms to describe the people with whom theists disagree because theists created the class of people and described them with wording expressing their contempt.

In short, they control the language, they control the debate.

Therefore it is imperative that the language change before a fair discussion can take place. The theist (generally) tend to avoid any language that does not give them a linguistic advantage and take offense at language that is as negative as the language they use for "the other". But it is not possible to have a fair discussion with a person who starts off with an insulting label.

edit for spelllling

[neebob]

91. The word "atheist" isn't negative in itself

It just means without religion. I'm no linguist, but it seems to me that anyone who was trying to define the god-free others in negative terms could have done a much better job - like the ungodly or faithless dirtbags or something like that.

Atheist is only a negative term to those who have negative views of atheists or who attach all the negative connotations to it. My mother is a good example. She's marginally able to deal with my saying I don't believe in God, but if I said I'm an atheist it would upset her.

[cosmik debris]

102. Every definition of atheist I've seen

includes negatively charged words such as non, no, lacking, without. This is clearly a linguistic bias on the part of people who use such words. Especially compared to the positively charged words such as faith, religion, belief etc.

[neebob]

105. No argument there

It took me a long time to say out loud that I'm an atheist, because I was raised by people who believe it's bad to be one. My dad used to rant about Madeleine Murray O'Hair. Bad, awful Madeleine Murray O'Hair - emphasis on the Hair. Bad, awful atheists. My grandpa clearly upset both my parents by saying he was one.

[bloom]

142. I think you bring up a good point

It's like everyone has to be an "ist" of some kind.

I've even looked things up - to see if I could find an "ist" to suit me.

Like "naturalist" or "humanist". One problem with all of those things is that there are particular definitions - so that as soon as you say are any sort of "ist" - people make assumptions about what you believe - as the OP describes.

[beam me up scottie]

269. Actually, the word 'agnostic' is also used incorrectly by most people.

From Online Etymology Dictionary:

agnostic

1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known."
Coined by T.H. Huxley from Gk. agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic).
Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God," but according to Huxley it was coined with ref. to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic).

"I ... invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic,' ... antithetic to the 'Gnostic' of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant."
(T.H. Huxley, "Science and Christian Tradition," 1889)

The adj. is first recorded 1873.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=agnostic&searchmode=or

[democrank]

49. Thought-provoking post. Thanks.

The issue of faith (or lack of it) has become such a destructive wedge in our culture. Anyone can say "I`m a man of God" but actions speak louder than words.

[Zhade]

55. Atheists who do not claim there is no god do not have an "atheist faith".

(This is predicated by a response in another thread, but I feel my larger point should be repeated in a thread of its own. As this is not intended as a 'revenge thread', I will not name the other thread or poster to which I refer.)

It has been repeatedly noted that some believers here on DU refuse to allow atheists to define themselves. For example, when told that we "do not believe in god", some believers will insist on saying we atheists "have faith there is no god".

This is highly insulting, and I will tell you why - you will discover the reason is not what you may assume.

See, it is not that we are told we "have faith" that is insulting to us. I have faith in lots of things - the love of my friends and family, that the sun will rise tomorrow, that I will always like pickled products unless they are meat-based. In other words, I, an atheist, don't feel offended when the f-word is used around me.

I do, however, take offense when I am characterized in a fashion that is not reflective of who I really am. That's what happens when a believer insists I "have faith god doesn't exist".

Want to know why? It's really quite simple, but easy to miss: it offends me when people put words in my mouth.

Saying that I have faith god doesn't exist, instead of accepting my honest statement that I don't believe in things - including gods - for which there is no evidence, paints me as having argued that there is evidence god doesn't exist.

I have never made that argument. Why? Because I am honest (and sane!) enough to admit that it is impossible for me to know all knowledge in the universe. Or, if we discover they exist, universes! We may very well one day uncover evidence that a god or gods exist somewhere in our universe, who knows?

However, as there is none to date, I don't believe in unproven gods any more than I eagerly await the Easter Bunny on that special Egg-Day.

If I made the affirmative statement "there is no god", I would be making a statement that I could not back up, and it truly would be a faith-based statement, because I would be making an argument for which I could not produce evidence.

I don't, and never would, say that. So when a believer insists that I have faith god doesn't exist, s/he puts words in my mouth I never uttered and assigns me a debate position I never would enter into on my own.

It is similar to how Fox News hosts will paint a Democrat as having made an argument they never made - or how Scotty McClellan erroneously assigned Helen Thomas a position on the "War on Terror" that she herself had not vocalized.

It is a way to frame the debate on the believer's terms, to set the debate by red herring and strawman. A strawman of a position that I never took.

It is dishonest and manipulative. It forces the atheist to argue against an argument s/he never made in the first place.

It is wrong. And I ask that it stop.

Stop telling atheists what we think. We don't tell you what you think, or how your worldview works. Not if we're decent people, anyway.

I hope this post illuminates the reason why some of us get very angry when someone labels us as "having faith".

[achtung_circus]

56. ag�nos�tic

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

or if you prefer,

you say to may to,
I say to mah to.

[Birthmark]

58. "ag�nos�tic"

3. Atheist who's afraid to go all the way. :)

[beam me up scottie]

70. ROFL !

:evilgrin:

[Zhade]

60. I'd only be agnostic if I thought there was no way to know.

Ironic - I ask that believers not define me for myself, and I get this.

Point missed. Congrats.

[tlmorris]

62. If you define yourself as atheist,

people will use their definition of atheist to try to understand your beliefs. If your beliefs don't coincide with the official Webster definition of atheist, n. Someone who denies the existence of god, then you probably shouldn't take offense when people assume they do.

[Zhade]

66. I only take offense if, after I've explained it, they refuse...

...to accept my self-description.

I don't hold the fact that theists wrote the original definition of atheist against people who look it up in the dictionary. They may be unaware of this fact, and thus are undeserving of ire.

[Birthmark]

57. What is conveniently forgotten...

...is that the process that allows atheists to come to a reasoned decision that we believe in no gods is the same process that allows us to not believe in unicorns, aliens, bigfoot(feet), and magical alligators that deliver beer. (Pity, that last one.) Yet no one would claim that I simply have faith that there are no unicorns, aliens, etc.

I've always taken the "you have faith" stuff as a tad disingenuous, to say the least.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

59. If I'm understanding you right,

what you are having a problem with is how the word "faith" is used. If I understand your examples correctly, to you "faith" means something that is personally verifiable to you, and is based on your opinions or feelings, as in the example of pickle products. But it is a little more than that, because you state that you have faith that the sun will rise. Since this is something that is verifiable to the world at large, do you include in your definition events that are verfiable-not only sunrises, but also that there are particular seasons in various parts of the planet that follow one another in a particular order?

If I have understood your position correctly, then the reason you object to using the word "faith" in relationship to your concept of there being no God is that the word implies a reliance on something not personally verifiable to you or to the world at large.

Have I understood you correctly?

You are certainly welcome to your concepts, and I will endeavor to use proper terminology when addressing you and other atheists, Brights, etc. My feeling is that if your belief system works for you, making you feel comfortable within yourself and making you behave in a manner that is generally helpful rather than harmful to your fellow beings, far be it for me to criticize or suggest any changes.

[Zhade]

61. I love your posts, and you ALMOST get it.

First off, I do not have a belief system when it comes to gods. You are making the same mistake some believers do - putting me into a position I don't actually occupy.

I know you mean no offense by it. You are one of the most gentle people I have seen on the boards. I value your posts.

But it's still inaccurate. Essentially, I am saying (perhaps not clearly enough) that to say I have faith that no god exists is akin to saying I have made the argument that, after reviewing the evidence, I can say there is no god.

I can't possibly make that argument, because I have never been shown any evidence that any god exists. How could I thus review evidence I don't see as existing in order to make the affirmative claim that god doesn't exist?

Does that (hopefully) make more sense?

[mseang]

63. Question?

I am slightly confused. I consider myself an agnostic. It has always been my understanding that the difference between atheists and agnostics is that agnostics profess they do not know whether there is a god or not and atheists know that god does not exist. According to your definition, all agnostics would also be atheists.

I consider agnostics to be the Independents of the religious political circle, choosing not to belong to either party, while atheists and believers in God hold strong beliefs at either side of the spectrum.

I am really trying to understand and this may seem to be a smart ass response, but it is not meant that way. In todays World with our current political climate, it seems everything that comes out of me mouth is either sarcastic or smart ass. :)

So I apologize now.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

65. Welcome to DU!

It's not my place to answer your post, but I read it, saw your post count, and wanted to welcome you!

[Zhade]

67. No need to apologize.

What a lot of people don't know is that the definition of atheist originated from the minds of theists looking to separate atheists from the rest of the community.

In order to do so, it wouldn't have helped to use the definition WE use, because then the theists would be harassing and persecuting people for something atheists really couldn't control.

So, it came to be that atheists "denied" god, even though the truth is we have no reason to deny something no one has ever proven to us exists.

The difference between agnostics and atheists is that the former deals with knowledge, the latter with belief. They are connected, but not the same.

I, for example, am an agnostic atheist - I have no knowledge of any gods, due to lack of evidence of them, and thus do not believe in their existence.

Hope that makes sense.

[mseang]

81. Definitions

Originally posted by Zhade:

"What a lot of people don't know is that the definition of atheist originated from the minds of theists looking to separate atheists from the rest of the community."

I realized the same thing when I read the definition of atheism in the dictionary.

In the Oxford English dictionary (abridged), it simply states "the belief that no god exists. In an American dictionary it goes on to add "or denial of the existence of God."

So all atheists and agnostics are then living a lie? :banghead:

[LizMoonstar]

133. I've been reading through this, and

this is the clearest I've seen it put in the whole thread. thank you, as I was getting confused.

so, if i understand it correctly, i am an agnostic theist, because i have no evidence of any gods, hence no knowledge of them, but i like to think that there's Good Stuff(TM) out there in the universe because it makes me happy. yes?

[Zhade]

151. Yes! Exactly.

Ah, understanding - it feels great, doesn't it?

Cheers! :)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

64. I think it does

Sometimes it is hard to put things into words. Basically, you believe in some things-like love of family and friends, the sun rising each day, etc-but since you haven't been shown or found any evidence that any god exists, you don't want to be called a "believer in no god" or a "non-believer".

Have I got it right now? I want to make sure, because for a while I thought it was a no-no to even use the word "believe" in any context with people who call themselves atheists or say they have not been shown any evidence of the existance of a Divine Being.

I think that most people believe in something, be it something concrete and provable (such as the sun rising) or something a bit more nebulous (that your family and friends love you).

Would you say that you believe in the ideals of democracy? The Constitution? The Democratic Party?

Again, trying to get things straight for better understanding.

[Zhade]

68. Yes, Yes, and Back When They Meant Something.

"since you haven't been shown or found any evidence that any god exists, you don't want to be called a "believer in no god" or a "non-believer"."

I'm okay with being called a "believer in no god". That's accurate.

What isn't accurate is to say that I "have faith there is no god". That phrase evokes the image of myself having stated that there is no god - a statement I cannot in honesty make, as I cannot fully examine the universe to exhaust all possibilities.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

69. Ok

Now I understand better. Thank you!

[dretceterini]

73. I was at an athiests of Utah

meeting yestrday, and beliefs ranged from what I would call agnostic to what I would call true athiests. My problem is I can't come up with a term that accurately describes MY position.

To me, all things are ultimately based on faith. Science teachs you each act is an individual one. Put the key and the car 10,000 times and it starts. Your belief that it will start on the 10,001st time is ultimately an act of faith, no matter how rational and logical that belief is..

As a scientist, I agree with Einstein's thoughts that nothing is created and nothing is destroyed, it only changes form.

I have no need for God or creation, but I do believe in something like collective conciousness.

We do seem to have enough evidence that everything that exists is connected in some "cosmic" manner, and that everything effects and affects everything else.

PanENtheism doesn't quite work as far as describing my beliefs. Anti-theist doesn't go quite far enough.

I don't think spiritual works either, as that tends to connote some seprate entity in ultimately control of everything...

So what word should I use to accurate describe MY bliefs? I know a lot of others in a very similar situation...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

76. Maybe mystic?

Or Wahkah Tanhka? Both refer to the mystery that cannot really be explained, and both imply, at least, the interconnectness of everything. As a Sufi initiate, my main practice involves practices and group activities that help show Unity with no seperation. Having done many Lakota ceremonies, I know from my experience that Ho Metaquiastun means all my relations, but more than that-again, that everything is interconnected.

[dretceterini]

135. Thank you

but I don't think a term like Wahkah Tannka would be known by the general public.

I also do not see anything as mystical or magical; just simply unknown...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

139. Esoteric

might fill the bill, then.

[Maat]

214. Sounds like my belief system.

I also believe that nothing is created or destroyed, and that form only changes into other form.

We refer to 'collective consciousness' as Spirt (God, the Cosmic Muffin).

Check it out.

www.rsintl.org .

Lots of fun.

[Joe Chi Minh]

121. Would it be fair to say you're just not interested, one way or

another, for whatever reason? In fact, you'd rather not know? There's no implicit value judgement in the question.

[beam me up scottie]

126. "In fact, you'd rather not know" ???

No, it would not be fair.

Assuming an atheist is ignorant by choice is an insult.

[BurtWorm]

144. Why would you think that's fair?

My own current disinterest in the God question has been earned from a lifetime (until my 38th year) of paying more or less attention to it, only to find that no answer would likely ever satisfy me.

How could there not be an value judgment implicit in your question?

[Miss Chybil]

80. Isn't the idea, one cannot know whether a "higher power" exists, or not,

called agnosticism?

"ag�nos�tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something."

as opposed to

"a�the�ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

This has nothing to do with your assertions about "having faith," but I just thought I'd point out the difference. Both entries were found at http://www.dictionary.com

[beam me up scottie]

123. Most atheists do not fit the dictionary definition.

Probably because that is a theist's definition.

That is the op's point.

Most atheists don't "believe" there is no god.

[Miss Chybil]

134. So what do they "believe?"

Or, are you splitting hairs? I'm an agnostic. I can't presume to know the secrets of the universe, nor do I "believe" anyone else can. I am skeptical about things which cannot be proven, but I am not so eaten up with myself as to think I KNOW anything, much less everything, but I "believe" a lot of things. I would think an atheist's view, an "anti-theist's" view, would be they "know," or, at least, "believe" there is no god. The original poster said he, or she, doesn't know, if there is a god, or not. Thus, my point is he, or she, is perhaps an agnostic.

[beam me up scottie]

136. You can call yourself whatever you want.

But most atheists use the op's definition of atheism.

And we're not "splitting hairs".

We're using the original definition of atheism.

IMO, agnosticism is the pc form of atheism invented to make it more socially acceptable.

[Miss Chybil]

137. How is honestly saying you don't know, trying to be "socially

acceptable?" What's the original definition of atheism? Are you saying atheism is agnosticism, but people would prefer to call atheism agnosticism because it's more socially palettable? That doesn't make sense. They are two different things. Show me the "original" definition of atheism?

[beam me up scottie]

138. Many atheists used the term agnostic because

it was less damning in 19th century society, and many still do for the same reason.

What is an Atheist?
by Dr. Gordon Stein

Origin of Atheism The word "atheist" conjures up a multitude of images in the minds of Americans, from courageous to horrible. In fact, the term is one of the most misunderstood in the English language. The derivation of the word reveals exactly what it mean to atheists themselves, and atheists should best know what the word means.

The word derives from the Greek "theism", which is a belief in a god or gods, and "a", which means "without". Thus, atheists are people who are without a belief in a god or gods. Contrary to common belief and some older dictionaries, the vast majority of atheists do NOT absolutely deny the extremely small possibility of God. In order to deny God categorically, an atheist would have to know all possible definitions of God, examine them all, and find them all logically self-contradictory or false, and therefore reject them all. To do this would require the atheist to be omniscient. In addition, atheists refuse to make the "leap of faith" past the evidence to a conclusion not merited by it. Atheists leave that logical mistake to theists. Since atheists can not logically deny god, they do not. Anyone who says they make such a simplistically all-encompassing statement is simply unfamiliar with the literature of atheism.

http://www.atheistsunited.org/wordsofwisdom/Stein/whatisath.html

[Miss Chybil]

165. So, what you're saying, and what the author is saying, is atheists

are really agnostics and that there is no such thing as a person who thinks, believes, or claims to know, there is no god, or gods. If there were such a person, exactly what would his, or her, stance be called?

[Az]

166. Problem

There are agnostics that believe there is a god. They simply don't claim they know there is a god.

Agnostic just doesn't tell you what a person believes or not. Theist and Atheist are the terms that define whether a person believes in god or not.

Theist: Someone that believes in god or gods.

Atheist: Someone that is not a theist. They may believe there are no gods or they may simply not believe in gods.

A person can be an agnostic and an atheist and they can be a gnostic atheist. Although logically supporting the claim of gnostic theist is problematic.

Suppose there was only one claim for god. Say god is that which makes bricks float in mid air all the time. Dropping a brick would be an effective means to refute such a god. Someone claiming that they believe this particular god does not exist would likely be able to support the claim

The problem with opening this rejection of god to the open ended issue of god is rejection requires a positive claim to consider. You cannot reject what has not been claimed. If a claim of god is put forward only then can it be considered and accepted or rejected.

Modern atheists have to deal with a world of claims rather than a singular local cultural claim as our ancestors did. Our diverse culture has lead to diverse claims for god.

There may be many gods that an atheist rejects due to a variety of reasons. But for gods that have not been promoted or suggested they have no means of rejecting them. Thus even if every single claim for god has been found to be wanting in evidence or been refuted they still cannot claim to know there is no gods simply because they cannot know if they have heard every possible claim for god.

[Zhade]

152. I am an agnostic atheist - an AA, if you will.

I have no knowledge that shows me gods exist, and thus do not believe in any purported gods due to this lack of knowledge, which is due to the lack of evidence for gods.

So, you are partially correct, but not completely.

[Az]

159. Believing and Knowing

There is a difference between believing a thing and what you know of a thing. Particulary if we look at the evidenciary sense of being able to understand something.

We come to know things by way of experience. It is directly conveyed to us by way of our senses. Belief is derived from what we know or understand. Belief can come about without overwhelming knowledge. Belief in not something we choose.

Thus even without knowledge of god one can believe in god. So saying you are an agnostic doesn't really tell us if you believe in god or not.

Obviously we cannot both believe there is a god and not believe there is a god. They are exclusionary. We can claim we do not know but we are asking whether it is believed or not. If one remains fixed on the claim of ignorance (not an insult) that is still a lack of belief in god and it can truly be said that person does not believe in god.

[Miss Chybil]

175. I assert one cannot truly know anything. We may not even be here,

philosophically speaking. I believe we are here and I assume you believe we are here, but, perhaps, we cannot assume to know where here is. I do not KNOW, if anybody is "running the show," so to speak, and I cannot claim to know such a thing. I do not know, if there is a god. Honestly, I would like to believe there is some sort of higher power, if only for the "opiate" effect such a belief creates in times of need and duress. And, so I wonder, to myself, if the need to believe and the belief are sufficient in themselves without a god? What does it matter, if there is a god, or not? I still don't know. (We all know how deadly these beliefs can be, but that has no bearing on the core issue of whether a god, or gods, exists, or not.) My intellect tells me there is no god, but my primal self needs one, sometimes. So, to call myself agnostic, is to be just that - a person who does not KNOW, if there is a god, or not. Which is what you are saying an atheist believes, or knows. Were I to call myself an atheist, I would say I believe there is no god. I might even be so bold as to say, I know there is no god. I do not understand why it is an atheist must take on the definition of an agnostic. If you don't know, you don't know. If you think you do, then say so. What's the big deal? Why change the definition of the word, to make it mean something there is already a word for? It really makes no sense to me.

[Az]

177. The Solipsistic trap

Aka the brain in a vat paradox. Made popular by the movie The Matrix. Back when I debated online we were flooded by a wave of new philosophers that had just seen the movie the Matrix. All of them were suddenly aware of the idea that we can't really know if the reality around us is ... reality.

I would suggest that anyone that claims they know something doesn't really understand the issue. It is my contention that we are all agnostics. Those that are claiming to be gnostic are either plugged into the cosmos in a way beyond our imagining or don't understand the ramifications of the problem.

So we are left again with the question of what a person believes rather than what they know. Were you to call yourself an atheist you would say you do not believe in god. If you wished to take it further you could proclaim yourself faithful that there are no gods but as suggested above knowing that is perhaps beyond our reach therefor it would be a faith statement (and yes I know atheists prepared to make that faith statement). But such a claim is not necissary to be entered into club atheist. We allow all in our club except those that say they believe in god or gods.

I think part of the problem in this issue comes from the matter of faith. Faith seems to be a learned belief of what you are supposed to believe. That is it is a sort of template we learn from society or those around us of what our belief is supposed to adhere to. When one says they have faith it suggests that they have an image of what they are supposed to believe in and their beliefs cleave to it. When one loses their faith it suggests that their beliefs are straying from that template.

Because dogmatic religions put so much stress on adhering to the particular set of beliefs faith and belief become synonimous. Any deviation from the faith is seen as a lack of belief. Thus any straying is met with deliberate actions designed to reinforce the belief and keep it shaped to the faith.

Atheists as a rule do not have faith about gods. Not even in the negative. There is not a model we learn to adhere to. Most atheists find their way to our club in their own way. They shed their beliefs and faith in their own time. Some never are painted in belief and thus their path is their own. We don't need to believe there are no gods. We simply don't believe there are gods.

Its an important observation. Agnostic does not describe what we believe. It describes what we know. And any sophmore philosophy major can tell you claiming you know anything beyond that you are is making quite a leap of faith. But we do believe or not believe things. And atheists just happen to not believe in gods.

[lakemonster11]

164. I'm all for people defining themselves,

so I understand where the arguments of this thread are coming from, but I have to say that, as someone who reads Greek, these definitions (above, from dictionary.com) are quite accurate. The "a" part of both words means "no" or "not." "Theos" means "god." "Gnosis" means "knowledge."

Therefore, "agnostic" would mean "(having) no knowledge," whereas, "atheist" would mean "(having/believing in) no god."

By the way, I can see where the term "atheist" was probably invented by "theists," but I'm pretty sure the word "agnostic" was invented by "agnostics" (probably to defend themselves against charges of "atheism"). (I think I've read a philosophical article about this, but I can't think of a citation right now.)

Wikipedia has an interesting article on the differences between gnostic and agnostic atheism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Gnostic_and_agnostic_atheism

I think the difficulties being experienced defining atheism on this thread stem from the broad spectrum of atheism described in the article.

See, I consider myself agnostic, but I probably fall more into the agnostic theist category than the agnostic atheist category---While I'm willing to admit that there could easily be no "higher power" or "collective conscious" or anything, I feel like there's something out there that is probably unknowable and indefinable, at least right now.

When people say that they're "agnostic," I tend to interpret them as meaning that they (for lack of a better word) "believe" what the original poster does, in other words, that they're "agnostic atheists."

However, when people say that they're "atheist," I tend to interpret them as meaning that they are sure that there are no gods, in other words, that they're "gnostic atheists." This thread has opened my eyes, however, to the fact that many atheists in fact do not mean this at all. While I don't harass people over their beliefs/non-beliefs (and, really, don't care whether people are atheists, agnostics, or theists), I will keep this new knowledge in mind so as to not offend my atheist friends.

[smoogatz]

83. I think the whole idea of "belief" is really the issue--

since "faith" is part and parcel of "belief." I do not "believe" there is no God--it is my opinion, based on the available evidence (or lack thereof), that there is no supernatural creative or controlling being that rules the universe. Given conclusive evidence to the contrary, I will change my opinion--because that's what rational people do when faced with new and compelling information. It is also my opinion that all religion that posits the existence of such a being is myth--and that when the proponents of opposing myths come into conflict with each other the results are often quite destructive. I read, I listen, I think--I don't believe. I'm a non-believer, not a believer in the absence of something. It's an important semantic distinction.

[beam me up scottie]

84. "I'm a non-believer, not a believer in the absence of something. "

:applause:

I may just start using that, if I may.

[arwalden]

107. Indeed!

:thumbsup:

[smoogatz]

128. Consider it yours.

No charge.

[beam me up scottie]

129. Why, thank you.

Please accept this lovely drawing of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a token of my appreciation.

[smoogatz]

130. FSMism--now there's something I could believe in.

May you be touched by his noodley appendage.

[nannah]

101. observable phenomena

I like the term observable phenomena to describe what informs my sense of things. i believe there is a wealth of observable data that allows us to see what supports and yields viable life. I think you can see that the patterns of energy distribution and waste management that yield sucessful life forms are replicated again and again in vital communities of living things. When you are not caught up in mystical, magical realms of supreme being belief systems you can open yourself to other possibilities.

[beam me up scottie]

106. Good point.

The natural world blows my mind without any artificial flavouring.

~I was just looking at pics from the Hubble Space Telescope.:wow:

[cosmik debris]

110. Nice shot

You have to have observable phenomena to formulate a hypothesis. If you do it the other way around, you end up in the world of hocus pocus.

[Zhade]

153. Right on.

You get it.

[longship]

111. As an atheist, this is a fine characterizaion.

I couldn't have put this in words as well as you have.

Thanks.

[PurgedVoter]

114. Opposites often act like the opposite.

Quite often people of faith behave as if it does not matter. They may conceal it in the "I'm saved" wrapper that was so clearly expressed by Rasputin. In fact, however, they will declare their faith universal and entirely true, but their actions practical. While holding up divine law they will justify their behavior with, 'everyone else does it' or 'someone else will do it if I don't.' For someone with 'faith,' to act so, shows a severe disconnect.

Quite often people without faith behave as if it does matter. Not in simply a compassionate or simple living philosophy, but as a universal ethic. This seems to show a conviction of something. Oddly the God that they relate to may be a larger God. Is it possible that their apparent lack of belief is in fact a closer link to what is and is unknowable? Is is possible that some 'unbelievers,' are closer to the Divine than those who follow a faith created and/or twisted by men?

Some people hold to faith because they fear living without it. This is a magnificent paradox, clinging to faith while having no faith.
Some people cast off faith in order to punish God. Both of these positions are such frail houses of cards that they beg to be swept away so that at least a clear foundation might be exposed.

I personally try to separate what I know from what I believe. I also try to recognize what I cherish but do not know or believe. For example I like to think that the next card I flip over is going to be random. But, in fact, it is only random from a limited information viewpoint.

I am quite sure of a compassionate Deity. In a way, this makes me much more like an atheist that a person of faith. In fact the lack of faith that I live, while having the evidence I have, leaves me with a clear conclusion. I am a big dummy-head.

Ignoring all argument of rationality, sometimes in a quiet moment I will feel a great welling of joy that reminds me of the evidence I hold. I wish I could share, but in all truth I cannot. I personally hold to the teachings of Jesus. However the image of the Divine that I hold in my head is not clear. In a way, my proof has destroyed my faith.

[FreedomAngel82]

115. I do see where you are coming from

I'm a Christian and do see where you are coming from. I always use an athiest as my example for when other conservative Christians use the Bible as their excuse for why they don't want this or that (such as Roe V Wade or gay rights). I tell them you can't prove God exists and you can't prove God doesn't exist. This is why there is freewill and I always remind them that God (since we believe) gave us all freewill (which God did) to make our own choices and consequences about what we'll believe. The only way someone can come to God is if they have an open heart and an open mind. In Acts 2:39 it even states that God will not call for everyone but "for all whom the Lord our God will call". There is a story of a woman named Lydia who heard an apostle speak (either Paul or Peter) and she believed in his message because her heart was open and her mind. I can't prove that God is real or have enough proof that Jesus was real. I can only go by my faith and my own personal experiences with the spiritual realms that I know there is more to this life than just what we see. So I do see where you are coming from. I have doubted my faith before and while you do feel guilty about doubting it's perfectly normal and means you're human and you're a free thinker.

[Zhade]

154. "...while you do feel guilty about doubting..."

If I'm misreading, please forgive me, but where did you get the idea that I "feel guilty about doubting"?

I don't want to misunderstand you, especially as I find you to be one of the cool Christians on this board. So please help me understand your meaning?

[liberal43110]

270. Not sure but.....

I'm not sure, but I think freedomangel may have meant "you" as in "one." In that case, freedomangel was probably talking about himself/herself and extrapolating to other Christians who ever experience doubt.

Which, to me, begs the question: "Why would you feel guilty for doubting, questioning, and probing your own faith?" If you don't thoroughly examine your beliefs and thoughts, then what good is your faith? If you don't understand where your beliefs come from and feel comfortable with your answers even when those beliefs are severely challenged, then do you really have any faith to begin with? If you haven't ever had the courage to intellectually challenge your own faith, then you may be afraid, ignorant, or stupid...but not really faithful.

By the way, I'm not approaching this as an enlightened progressive Christian. I'm approaching it as a strongly agnostic atheist, to use your definition. I admit that I do not know only in the logico-philisophical way that claiming to know anything is problematic at best, foolish at worst.

[Az]

158. This is where the issue comes from

It is based on the freewill argument combined with the notion that god is all merciful. Therefor we must be choosing to reject god.

Sorry, there is no guilt here. I simlpy see no reason to believe in god. I see no evidence supporting the god of the bible or any other god. The threat of damnation is just that... a threat. As I do not believe in god I do not believe the threat either.

This is Pascal's Wager in a nut shell. But the trouble is it is myopic. It was formed in a time where most societies were exposed to a single concept of god. It does not take the multiplicity of claims for god into account. So what happens if you pick the wrong god?

Do you feel guilty for not believing in the right god? What if the right god doesn't want to share or be compared to the other claims of god?

[Beetwasher]

117. As An Atheist, I Have Faith In The Following:

I have faith that there is in fact an objective "world/universe" that can be perceived and understood in some manner, and that my perceptions of it, while not truly reflective of it's ultimate reality/nature, are at least a reasonable facsimilie thereof. IOW, for example, I have faith that I'm not just a brain in a vat somewhere.

That's my faith. I do NOT however have faith that there is no god(s). I do not believe there is no god. God is irrelevant to my view of reality.

[pazarus]

174. aye caramba

you're an agnostic, not an atheist. same as the guy who posted the original. i know people hate being told what they believe, but you just described the very definition of an agnostic--a barely-understood word that is commonly confused with atheism.

I used to think i was atheist, and everything became much more clear when I realized that I, and many other 'athiests' I knew, were agnostic.

[Zhade]

183. You are partially right - I am an an agnostic atheist.

This is possible because agnostic deals with questions of knowledge (I have no knowledge that shows any gods exists), while atheism deals with the matter of belief (thus, I do not believe in gods due to the lack of evidence). Two separate, yet connected, things.

[Beetwasher]

189. *Sigh*, No, I'm An Atheist Too

Because I don't believe in a god(s).

[beam me up scottie]

191. .

[Az]

199. Scottie... I'm stealing that

And its not because I am immoral. :evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

200. Spread the word, brother!

rAmen.

:evilgrin:

[pazarus]

250. *Sigh* Definitions are fun.

even if seldom read or understood.

You are an atheist, but only by your definition, not the one thats out there in the English language.

[beam me up scottie]

253. ROFLMAO !!! The word "atheist" is not an English word!

:rofl:

[More Than A Feeling]

124. Your point is thoroughly and well made.

Hopefully, the subtle difference between the two positions has now been made clear.

[Az]

157. The problem is

We have to keep on making it. We may have reached a number of people reading this thread. But tomorrow someone will walk up to me (or read a post of mine) and insist that I reject god because I am an atheist. And then it all starts again.

Even those we tell this to refuse to acknowledge the difference more times than not. It is so engrained in our society. Its why some groups have started looking for a new term (ie Bright).

I maintain that the word atheist is perfectly servicable to describe what we nonbelievers are. The Etymology of the word perfectly describes us. From theist meaning one that believes in god or gods with the prefix 'a' meaning without. It is the adapted social context of the word that is problematic.

It stems from 1000s of years of dominance of singular religions. When there is only one god proposed or argued for an atheist that found issues with such a claim could be accurately said to reject that particular god. As there are no other claims for god being prompted the simple description sticks. Add to this the social desire on the part of the theists to promote a good god. Therefor the atheists damnation for lack of belief cannot come from god. It must come from their own rejection of god.

But times change. New ideas of gods enter the mental stream. If a person does not find merrit in any of these claims they are still an atheist. But the multiplicity of gods creates a new problem. That is there are possibly gods that we have not heard promoted and the fact that we do not know the entirety of the universe (or multiverse) means we cannot in good conscience say we reject all gods. We simply do not believe in any gods.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

131. Okay, would you accept the characterization that you are

a materialist (in the philosophical sense--the material world is all there is--NOT in the sense of Madonna's "Material Girl") and a strong empiricist ("I don't believe anything that can't be proved empirically")?

[Zhade]

155. No, because I am imperfect.

I actually do not hold the view that the material world is necessarily all there is.

I just don't have any god belief due to lack of evidence for gods.

My empiricism is not as strong as others, perhaps to my detriment. But there it is.

Just like theists, we atheists are a diverse lot!

[Az]

156. Not sure how you would get that conclusion from the information

The problem we have with people's reactions to the word atheist is that they form all sorts of conclusions from just that word. Its like hearing someone is a Catholic and suddenly they are in lock step with every word the Pope utters.

Its just not that way. Atheists are more individualistic than nearly any group I have come across. One very simple reason for this is that other groups form out of shared principles or ideas. Atheism is a group in name only because we are simply about not having one particular belief.

Once you find out a person is an atheist you just know one thing about them. Thats it. They could be a Buddhist or an Arch Skeptic materialist. They could believe in life after death or that life is just an illusion. The only way to find out what an atheist believes is to talk to them as an idividual.

[kwassa]

198. I wouldn't regard a Buddhist as an atheist

AZ:
"Atheists are more individualistic than nearly any group I have come across. One very simple reason for this is that other groups form out of shared principles or ideas. Atheism is a group in name only because we are simply about not having one particular belief."

which itself is a shared belief.

most are interested in science as a basis of all understanding. I haven't seen that great a variance among the "atheists" here, quite honestly, and probably Unitarians are more varied, since they do define themselves by what they aren't.

In practice, all groups hold commonalities, and those that call themselves atheists are just one more group.

[Az]

202. Of course they are a group

Their singular shared trait being that they do not believe in god. Beyond that you really are going to have to talk to the individual to find out what their make up is. I know an atheist Rabbi.

And as to Buddhism its practice and abservance is not predicated on the belief in gods. There are entities refrenced by Buddhism that can be revered as gods but it is not necissary to the practice to see them as anything other than ideals or templates of behaviour. Buddhism is not inherantly theistic.

[yodermon]

140. You are a "weak atheist".

This is not an insult, it is a technical term.

The theist you are arguing against is assuming you are a strong atheist, when in fact you are a weak atheist. Simply point out the difference next time this comes up.

Wikipedia entry on "weak atheism":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism

Weak atheism also called negative atheism or implicit atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods, without a positive denial of the existence of any god or gods. Weak atheism contrasts with strong or explicit atheism, which asserts that no gods exist, and theism, which asserts that there is at least one god. The weak atheist generally gives a broad definition of atheism as "lack or absence of belief in a god or gods", which defines atheism as a range of positions that entail non-belief, disbelief, doubt, or denial of theism. A narrower definition of atheism as "denial of the existence of gods" (synonymous with strong atheism) is also in common use. Those who favor this definition prefer to use other terms, such as agnosticism, for skepticism, though this is semantical and theist can also be agnostics and/or skeptics. It should be noted that a strong atheist also fits the definition of a weak atheist, but that the reverse is not necessarily true: a strong atheist lacks god beliefs, but a weak atheist does not necessarily deny the existence of god(s).

and from http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all.
Sponsored Links

Strong atheism is sometimes called �gnostic atheism� because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it � that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.

Because knowledge claims are involved, strong atheism carries an initial burden of proof which does not exist for weak atheism. Any time a person asserts that some god or any gods do not or cannot exist, they obligate themselves to support their claims. This narrower conception of atheism is often thought by many (erroneously) to represent the entirety of atheism itself.

The statement in red applies to the current misunderstanding.
HTH!

[pazarus]

167. You're not an atheist. You're an agnostic.

If you check out the definitions of each, you will see you have a perfectly spelled out agnostic viewpoint. An athiest does believe there is no God. You, as an agnostic, admit there's no way to know.

[Az]

168. Missed the whole point didn't ya

Agnostic/Gnostic tells you what a person knows.

Atheist/Theist tells you what you believe. Different things.

[pazarus]

169. yeah, i guess so. Words do have definitions though.

and the poster described to me the definition of an agnostic.

He is entitled to believe, as you are, that the word means anything he wants it to. It does, however, have an actual definition.

For instance, here is the definition of agnostic, from dictionary.com:

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

He may profess true atheism, thereby bypassing the second definition, but this quote:

"I have never made that argument. Why? Because I am honest (and sane!) enough to admit that it is impossible for me to know all knowledge in the universe. Or, if we discover they exist, universes! We may very well one day uncover evidence that a god or gods exist somewhere in our universe, who knows?"

...is the very definition of what it means to be an agnostic. Whether the original poster knows it or not, he is an agnostic.

[Az]

170. Yep, words have meanings and those meanings change

At one time those definitions may have sufficed the situation and the society. Today its an entirely different situation.

Agnostic tells us nothing about what a person believes.

You will find that most atheists will clearly reject certain claims of god (much like most theists with the exception of the god they happen to believe in). But if they are honest they cannot proclaim a rejection of something that they know nor have heard of. And then there are simply the claims for god that they simply do not accept because of insufficient evidence. Not because they have refutive evidence.

Lets go over this again. The word atheist was applied by theists. Particuarly it was applied by theists that believed that god condemned people that did not have faith in him. But they also believed that god was merciful and benevalent. This meant that they had to reconcile good and merciful with condemning someonet that was largely innocent. Thus it was that they deemed that atheists must choose to reject god. They deliberately turn their back on god. It is by their own choice that they are damned. Call it pride, call it prejudice. They turned it into a fault of the nonbeliever.

But that simply is not true. Atheists do not choose to not believe in god just as theists do not choose to believe in god. Belief is not something we choose. Belief is the culmination of our experiences and understanding of the world around us. It is the balance of what we have learned and accept as true. I cannot choose to believe in god, though I may come by some experience that may cause me to change my position.

So the definition found in most dictionaries reflects the theistic definition. But it doesn't really fit the etymology of the word or the shift in social conditions.

Lets look at the etymology.

Theist: Pretty simple. Means a person that believes in god or gods.

Atheist: From the word theist combined with the prefix 'a' meaning without. Again, very simple. A person without a belief in god or gods.

Gnostic: From the Greek gnosis. Meaning to know. Also adopted by an early Christian sect.

Agnostic: From the word gnostic combined with the prefix 'a' again meaning without. It is a person that is without knowledge on some subject.

Aldous Huxley is credited with popularising the term to reflect his admonition that he did not know whether there was a god or not. But it simply does not answer the question asked.

Do you believe there is a god? To claim I don't know does not answer this. It side steps the issue. Belief is not built upon knowing the right answer. It is a reflection of your current understanding of the world around you. Simply put if you believe there is a god then you believe in a god. If you do not believe in a god then you do not believe in a god. Absense of belief in god is not believing in god.

The question agnostic is an answer to is: Do you know if there is a god? The question atheist is an acceptable answer to is: Do you believe there is a god?

Our society is rife with claims of god. But it was not always so. At one time western society was dominated (and I do mean dominated) by a singular claim of god. At that time philosophically speaking an atheist that found fault with that particular claim would be accurate to proclaim that they reject god. But it is a singular rejection of god. Much like you and I both reject the god that makes all brick float in mid air all the time.

At that time an atheist would have little problem accepting the notion that someone claimed they reject god. But things change. Words change. Even claims of god change. Now we live in a world where god has been proclaimed to be everything from an old guy with a beard in the sky to an interconnecting emotion that binds us all together. And there is a universe of claims for god that we have never heard. So our understanding of what an atheist is must change to suit the times and situation.

An atheist is simply put someone that lacks a belief in god. An agnostic is someone that does not know if there is a god or not. They may believe there is a god or not. They simply have recognised that they cannot or do not know for certain whether there is a god. A person can be both agnostic and atheist as well as agnostic and theist. People can be both gnostic and atheist and gnostic and theist as well, though expect quite a bit of probing as to how they came by their absolute knowledge.

Words have meanings and those meanings change as our understanding changes. And unfortunately dictionaries do not always keep up with the times or accurately represent all views of the matter. Give them time, they will catch up.

[pazarus]

172. The definition of agnostic and atheist haven't changed.

And dictionary.com is not outdated.

Look, I see where you are coming from. People who are agnostics have called themselves--and been called by other people--atheists. I thought for a long time that I was an atheist because people told me what the word meant.

Long story short, I was wrong. I would get into arguments about my atheistic views and realize I couldn't win. People would tell me it's just another belief system, and they were completely right. Atheism is like another religion because it believes, it has faith in, something for which there is no evidence either way. It is equivalent to claim that a God does not exist and to claim one exists when you don't know either way. I realized one day that I didn't know either way, and that nobody ever could.

So atheism, which is exactly what the original poster is trying to defend as 'not a faith', is just a faith. He is using the definition in the erroneous way I used to. It's not his fault, and I did the same thing for much of my life.

It's so clear to me, when I read his post, that he is searching for something else. He is trying to mold the definition of atheism around his views instead of finding the true word that describes them. These paragraphs really give it away:

Saying that I have faith god doesn't exist, instead of accepting my honest statement that I don't believe in things - including gods - for which there is no evidence, paints me as having argued that there is evidence god doesn't exist.

I have never made that argument. Why? Because I am honest (and sane!) enough to admit that it is impossible for me to know all knowledge in the universe. Or, if we discover they exist, universes! We may very well one day uncover evidence that a god or gods exist somewhere in our universe, who knows?

However, as there is none to date, I don't believe in unproven gods any more than I eagerly await the Easter Bunny on that special Egg-Day.

If I made the affirmative statement "there is no god", I would be making a statement that I could not back up, and it truly would be a faith-based statement, because I would be making an argument for which I could not produce evidence.

I can almost feel his frustration in the post. I've been there, I've been characterized by people who think atheism means something different than I think it does. The real problem here for the poster is that they (the people he is making this post to) are right, and he is the one trying to put a new definition onto atheism. He is trying to force the definition of agnostic onto the word atheism. When he says who knows?, he has stepped into the realm of the agnostic and out of the realm of the atheist.

He is an agnostic who has been brought up to believe that agnosticism is atheism. He doesn't know that yet, but when he realizes it, he won't have to deal with mis-characterization of his viewpoint anymore.

[Az]

176. Interesting assertion

I would argue that by definition all dictionaries are outdated. Simply because they are fixed in time while society and culture move on. Definitions and words do change. Dictionaries have to be updated. Dictionaries reflect societies usage. The editors of dictionaries do not suddenly wake up one day and decide they are going to add or change a defintion of a word. It takes time and study of many factors to change a dictionary definition.

Answer this simple question. Do you believe there is a god? The question is very specific. Do you currently believe that there is a god? This does not question whether you are open to their being a god. Its simply a question of what do you currently believe. If you do not believe there is a god ... then you don't believe in god.

The reason for the twist in this whole situation is simply because the definitions given to the words are prejudiced by those that do believe in god. They reflect the dominant view in society. Thus the dictionary and typical usage will reflect there point of view. And in their point of view there is a god. Anyone not accepting this simply must be rejecting god. The argument is totally parsed in their view.

I understand your clinging to the defintion as it was. But things change. Agnostic just simply does not answer the question provided. Do you believe in god? I don't know is not an appropriate answer to that. They are two different things knowing and believing.

Meanings of words change. Dictionaries try to keep up.

I think there may be a parallel to the homosexual community. It was once presumed by most that homosexuals chose to be what they were. That their descisionto be deviant was voluntary. We have since come to understand that it is not a choice. Thus we change how we refer to things. Homosexuality is no longer a word that means someone that chooses to have sex with someone of the same gender.

Think of this shift in meaning as the atheist communities way of enpowering themself in a society set against them in so many ways. They define us as choosing to be immoral by rejecting god. Its a lie. We do not reject what we do not believe in. It's ok not to believe in god. It's ok to be an atheist. It's ok to be open about being an atheist. It's about time to let us out of our closet in this society. It's time to stop condemning atheists as being immoral.

[pazarus]

178. Knowing and believing are different.

And whether or not you prescribe to the original poster's viewpoints, he said "who knows?".

You may be an atheist, but he is an agnostic. He makes the claim that nobody knows about the existence of a God. He does not make the claim that he believes there is no God. The former makes him an agnostic, the latter shows he is not an atheist.

He just used the word incorrectly. Many people believe that atheism encompasses the defintion of agnosticism. Maybe in hundreds of years when enough people make the mistake, atheism will mean something else. I am not clinging to the definition: it is right there for everyone to see, and it isn't as fluid a definition as it is commonly used.

Don't let people define you. They will always say atheism is a belief system because thats what it is. They are right. When you can honestly say that God is a possibility--however unlikely--but that nobody knows whether he exists, you are simply an agnostic. From then on, they can't paint you into a corner. Once you know the right language for your views, you will be able tomake much more sense of it.

Whatever your views are--and you may be an atheist, I don't know--the original poster made his agnosticism clear.

[Az]

179. You continue to miss the point

And twist words.

I am going to be very concise and large here as I do not want this point to be missed.

An atheist does not believe in gods.

It is not an active belief in no gods. That doesn't even make any sense.

There is a glaring hole in the old setup of definitions. It is clarified when we push aside the old prejudiced definitions and return to the etymology of the words.

Let us look at the problem through the lens of the definitions you are using.

Theist: Someone that claims there is a god or gods.

Agnostic: Someone that does not know if there are god or gods.

Atheist: Someone that claims there are no god or gods.

The problem comes in when you ask the agnostic what they believe in instead of what they know. It may take quite a bit of effort to get one to own up to it but they either believe there is a god or they don't. There is no two ways about it. A person that believes there is a god by definition cannot also not believe there is a god. And inversely a person that does not believe there is a god cannot believe there is a god.

So knowing that a person is an agnostic leaves you with incomplete information. What do you call an agnostic that believes there is a god? What do you call an agnostic that does not have a belief in god?

The issue with agnosticism is it is a very carefully reasoned claim. But it has nothing to do with belief. Belief need not be careful or reasoned. It could just be your gut feeling.

Telling us a person is agnostic tells us nothing. It is arguable that no one trully knows anything thus all we learn from the word agnostic is they are likely human. We do not know what they believe from the word.

[pazarus]

180. I understand your point.

And several years ago, when I assumed a definition from hearing the word around me, I would have argued the exact same.

Your point: An atheist does not believe in Gods.

My point: You have used the word atheist incorrectly. You have taken the definition of agnostic and probably believed your whole life that it described an atheist.

I don't care how you personally mean to use the word. It has a definition that is not only widely accepted, it is correct. It is often used incorrectly. I used to use it incorrectly. The original poster used it incorrectly. Many people do. You use it incorrectly in your self-defined point.

You said:

It is not an active belief in no gods. That doesn't even make any sense.

That is wrong. I am glad to be the first person who has ever challenged you on this. An atheist believes there are no Gods. Here's a small excerpt from the dictionary:

Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

That definition does not leave a lot of leeway. An atheist disbelieves in God or gods. When the original poster said "who knows?", he was expressing not a 'disbelief' in God or gods (atheism), but an agnostic view, which I think you rightly understand to be a lack of knowledge about God's existence.

Here's a little excerpt from atheist.org:

Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any. Nature simply exists.

This is atheism. They strongly believe that there is no God, period. They leave no leeway for 'not knowing', or accepting the possibility of a God. For years, I thought like you do. I thought that not believing in a God made me an atheist. It does not.

Atheism is believing that no God exists, denying the existence of God. I, along with this poster, don't make that claim. We don't know whether he exists, therefore, we are agnostics (whether we know it or not).

Look, I'm not talking out of my ass here. I have spent a good portion of my life trying to figure out my own theological view, and I have done a lot of research into what the different schools of thought are on the subject. This is not an uncommon thing to misuse atheist to mean agnostic. It happens all the time, and until people start learning what the words mean it will continue to happen.

Why do you think the poster is so frustrated at people mis-characterizing his position? He is frustrated because he has been using it wrong. When he says atheist, they think (correctly, I might add) "He believes there is no God". If he would just come to grips with his agnosticism, he could easily say what he really believes, which is that nobody knows whether there is a God, so he doesn't necessarily believe there is (or isn't) one until it's proven otherwise.

If you read over his post, that is clearly his position. It is also clearly the very definition of an agnostic.

Please keep an open mind to the possibility that the way atheist might have been used around you in the past has been an overencompassing term that has included agnostics. Check the defintion of an agnostic, and ask yourself: would I call someone an atheist if they described that viewpoint?

[Az]

181. Lets examine the claims

We will start with this definition:

Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Lets take apart the words here. Disbelieves. Well believes is understood I hope. So what does the prefix 'dis' refer to? It means remove. To remove belief. What if they never had belief? It seems to imply that the belief was once there. This doesn't seem accurate. A person that does not believe in god has no belief to remove.

Ok, how bout denies the existance of god? Again this seems to presume the existance of god and puts the atheist in the active roll of rejecting him/her/it. As far as the nonbeliever is concerned there is no god to deny.

Something is wrong with this definition. It doesn't really seem to make sense from the point of view of someone that doesn't believe in gods. It makes a lot of sense to someone that does believe in gods.

For most of history the term agnostic was not a readily used term. It wasn't until Huxley popularised it when he proposed the notion that its not possible to know whether there is a god or not.

So what were the categories prior to that? Well it really wasn't healthy for most of history to advertise that you did not believe in god. So it was pretty much defined by the theists. And they were pretty certain an atheist was an immoral person that actively denied the existance of god. They even suggested they knew god existed but denied him anyways because of how naughty they were.

Yes, history and dictionaries are pretty clear on what many have defined atheists as. Agnostic was and is a nice way to soften the blow. But it just does not answer the question asked. Do you believe in god? Yes or No? There is no ambivelance about that question. And depending on how you answer it you are either a theist or an atheist.

There have been individuals that have tried to form schools of thought around atheism. But they are seldom succesful. Even today we have the very basic problem that there is no single school of thought or way of arriving at an atheistic stance. The single common thread is an absense of belief in gods. Some may be spiritualists others stark Rand Objectivists.

Agnostic is an adjective. It informs you whether a person has knowledge or not of a thing they believe in. It descibes knowledge not belief. It is not an answer to "Do you believe in god?"

You can be atheist and agnostic. As both descibe two different things they are not in conflict. You cannot be both theistic and atheistic as they are in conflict and in fact exclusionary. Further more you can be agnostic and theistic as these two are not in conflict with one another.

Answer yourself these questions.

Does being an agnostic mean you cannot believe in god despite your awareness that you cannot know whether you belief is right or wrong?

Do you know if there is a god?

Do you believe there is a god?

If a person can believe in god and still be an agnostic and another person can not believe in god and be an agnostic how can the word agnostic inform us of anything relevant about their belief?

On Edit: Yes to be fair we are claiming the dictionary and much of history is wrong in its usage. It is not the first time such a claim has been made and it will not be the last time. The basis for this is that the definition has largely been created by those who were not atheists and is tainted by that aspect. The argument is that the words as defined do not accurately represent reality. Dictionaries change because new understandings come about. It is time for this issue to be rectified.

[pazarus]

204. The biggest line of confusion here

is that you, and the poster, are making your own definition of atheism. You are trying to reclaim it something it isn't. It's fair enough to say you don't think the chance of there being a God is very high, but if you acknowledge the possibility you are not an atheist.

Maybe if enough people decide thats what the word means, then it will change. I happen to think the poster is a skeptical agnostic, leaning towards atheism.

I realize at this point there is no word for that. Call it maybe 'weak agnosticism', or 'weak atheism', or 'skeptical agnostic', but not just atheism. It's not just confusing, it's wrong.

[Az]

205. Your right, its wrong

The current definitions are inaccurate. The changing nature of god has left the modern atheist with an inadequate monicor. Yes we are reclaiming the word. Our reclimation of it fits the etymology of the word better than the prejudiced ancestoral interpretation of the word. Enjoy your front row seat for the changing of a word. It happens. The definition of atheism and agnosticism you are trying to adhere to is no longer relevant to our modern situation. The definition of god has changed and thus the definition of things relating to god must change as well.

[pazarus]

209. There's no need for a redefinition.

If there were a need to form a new word or change this one, I would say yes, it might happen. There is no need though. There are enough words and combinations of words out there already for him to mix and match and describe his exact feelings.

There is no way the definition of the word atheist is going to lose the meaning "a belief that there is NO God". In a way you might be right that it will someday encompass this poster's viewpoint and describe those just have no belief in God. It will never lose the fact that is does, has and will continue to mean a belief in NO God.

First and foremost, he is an agnostic. From there, we can only talk about leanings. He has no strong belief either way because he accepts the possibility that there is a God or gods. He leans towards atheist, but as the wikipedia might say, he is closer to a nontheist.

He just wants this huge concept to become his own, instead of finding his own and starting from there. It's a harder journey, it leads to confusion, and he won't win.

[Zhade]

257. I've already won. More people now understand what I am.

That you are wrong and do not understand does not lessen the positive impact of this thread - more believers now understand my position, and that I am allowed to define myself.

But I thank you for your continued, wrong insistence in attempting to define me, because it kicks the thread and provides an example of the very arrogance I was writing about in the OP. Well-done.

[pazarus]

263. arrogance? a dictionary definition is arrogance?

learn to define yourself, not the words in the English language.

Someday you might see why your position causes more confusion than clarity. That day is apparently not today.

[beam me up scottie]

268. What were agnostics called before the word was invented?

Since you have such a firm grasp of the English language, you should be able to tell us the answer.

[pazarus]

298. That's an easy one.

People who were agnostic did not know whether God exists. Thats what they would say. When there wasn't a word, there were a few choices they had:

a) Make a new word, like agnostic.

b) Use the word atheist, and try to take over and change the definition of atheist to suit their viewpoints.

They chose a, the original poster (and a few others here) would like to choose b. That's a fine choice, but call it what it is.

[Az]

301. Did they believe god existed?

Its really a simple question. And yes they knew whether they believed if god existed. Were they confident about what they believed? No. They didn't know if what they believed was true. But confidence or knowledge is not the question.

[beam me up scottie]

302. Heh heh, guessing games are fun but not accurate.

Correct answer: They called themselves atheists because that's what they were.

And you obviously skipped the etymology of agnostic or you would know its correct definition as well.

I provided you with proof of the origination and definitions of both words and you still don't or won't get it.


That leads me to conclude that you are either being purposely obtuse and/or willfully practicing intolerance by enforcing negative and incorrect stereotypes.

[pazarus]

310. They called themselves atheists?

And were they correct? Or were they searching for a more descriptive word? Eventually they found "agnostics" to describe exactly what they were. What they didn't do was successfully change the word atheist to match their view.

It's ok, I don't need to remind you it's not the definition of atheist. You know that. You know that the word is defined one way and you use it another. Please don't try to tell me using the word as it is defined is wrong.

When the definition changes, I'll continue to use the correct definition.

[Az]

311. It doesn't describe them better

It describes them differently. Saying a car smells like oil does not describe what color it is. Telling us a person is agnostic does not tell us whether they believe there is a god or not.

[pazarus]

325. he asked me what agnostics called themselves

certainly "agnostic" is enough description for agnostics?

[beam me up scottie]

312. You never even read the information I provided and you say I'm wrong?

Sad.

For others who do wish to learn, I'll post it again:

From Online Etymology Dictionary:

agnostic

1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known."
Coined by T.H. Huxley from Gk. agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic).
Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God," but according to Huxley it was coined with ref. to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic).

"I ... invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic,' ... antithetic to the 'Gnostic' of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant."
(T.H. Huxley, "Science and Christian Tradition," 1889)

The adj. is first recorded 1873.

[Beetwasher]

207. Bullshit, People Have The Freedom To Define Themselves

Who the fuck are you to tell an atheist he is NOT an athiest? The meanings of words have and do change over time. Language and meaning is not static. The word "athiest" has been used and defined incorrectly for quite some time according to US the actual athiests to whom it supposedly applies, and we are trying to rectify that. If you have a problem w/ that, then you can call YOURSELF whatever the fuck you want to call yourself, but don't insult athiests by telling us we can't define ourselves how we please.

If you wish to remain dense on the matter, that's your problem, I think people have been MORE than understanding and patient w/ you in trying to explain the problems and difficulties we have in OTHERS defining us, yet you continue to spout and flaunt your ignorance and I for one am too much of an asshole to be nice to you about it.

[pazarus]

213. Well, golly, I guess any word is up for grabs?

I'd like to define myself as a "theist". Well, i don't believe in God, but I have just decided that the word theist no longer requires a belief in God. Heck, it can mean whatever I want it to! That won't confuse the issue when I talk about with others.

Atheist no longer means a belief in NO God? Bullshit, man. Look up the definitions of atheist and agnostic and see where this poster falls. Don't tell me he has the right to make any word mean anything he wants it to in a meaningful discussion.

He is making an active effort to change the meaning. If you would like to join him in that, fine, but at least accept that it is not the current meaning of the word.

Or am I a theist?

[Az]

217. The reclamation of the word atheists makes sense

It has long been defined by those that do not claim the word for themself. It has usually been an epithet. Its association with negativity and beligerance. This does not suit those of us that do not believe in god. The word has been mistreated and we are reclaiming it.

The definitions we have provided better suit the situation. They are more informative and do not create a logical paradox. Simply stated the old definition did not keep pace with the changing times. It neither properly informs nor does it cover all contingencies.

The definition is flawed not the word. The etymology of the word fits the definition we are claimning. The older definition of the word was foisted upon us by generations of believers. Going back to the original definition derived from its etymology clears the matter up entirely.

[pazarus]

220. Why do you want this word?

when there are so many others to choose from?

I would have thought it might be to create a larger umbrella under 'atheist', so that the term might describe more people and become useful in identification. That makes sense to me.

But what is happening here is that he is trying to take agnosticism, mix it with scientific skepticism, and then with those form an new narrow definition of the word that is completely different from its original--and accurate--meaning.

Why? Who cares where the meaning came from? It's not an insult, it's a word that means something and describes a set of beliefs. It happens to describe a different set of beliefs than the original poster thinks it does, but that doesn't mean it should be redefined for his wishes. Sure there might be a ot of people who want to redefine the word so they can be more clear when they call themselves by it, but its a pointless act. Clarity doesn't come from changing a definition, it comes from understanding what the definitions are and using them correctly.

If it's clarity he wants, why not just use existing words?

[Az]

223. Because the existing defs are not clear

You can be agnostic and believe or not believe. It doesn't inform.

The definition we are fighting for is Atheist: Someone that does not believe in god(s). That is the more inclusive word. It fits the modern position. It fits the etymology. It fits logic and reason. It simply fits the situation better.

There are no better words to describe our situation. We tried borrowing a word (eg Bright) but that fell through. The simple truth is atheist best describes us.

Using the old defs is basing the position on flawed understandings, prejudiced social contexts, logical missteps, and a lack of recognition of the changing definition of god. Perhaps eventually the accepted definition of god will so change that it is no longer objectionable to anyone and then the need to differentiate ourselves from each other on the matter will cease to have significance. Till then it is necissary to have a word that clearly designates those that do not believe in god differentiated from the word that designates those that do not believe you can know if god exists.

What color is the car? It smells like oil. That doesn't answer the question asked. Do you believe in god? I don't know if there is a god or not. That doesn't answer the question. Yes or no. Theist or Atheist.

[pazarus]

231. And what do current atheists become?

Your definition is not exactly inclusive of the current actual atheists, as the original poster notes. People keep telling him he "believes there is no God", and that he has faith that there is no God. They are telling him he is an atheist, and he is disagreeing and redefining atheist.

There may be fewer atheists, but they are out there. If you are successful in redefining atheist (good luck with that), then what word is now used to describe people who strongly believe that there is NO GOD? It can't be 'atheist' anymore, because, as the original poster makes note of, the two are not equivalent. One implies something more than reason, it implies a belief that there are no Gods nor can there be.

Current atheists should just back away from the word then? They should be the ones to find a new word?

Why? It just doesn't make sense, what you are proposing. Current atheists should keep their word (and learn what it means to make sure they qualify), and agnostic skeptics (leaning towards atheism) need to step up either make a nice single word their own (like "nontheist") or just accept that their position might be a bit more complicated than one existing word.

[Az]

235. Did they suddenly pick up a belief in a god?

If not, they are still atheists. We actually refer to them as Strong Atheists. Athough the phrase gnostic atheist would fit as well.

[beam me up scottie]

227. We already have clarity from legitimate sources.

From Atheists Anonymous

Agnosticism
The theory that man does not have the knowledge to determine whether a god exists; the suspension of judgment due to a lack of knowledge.

Atheism
A lack of faith in a god, supernatural being, or deity. This is a neutral position in regard to the question, "Does god exist?" It does not affirm any belief in god's non-existence despite many people's claims.

Atheism 101: Introduction to Atheism & Atheists
From Austin Cline

What is Atheism?:

The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is “not believing in any gods.” No claims or denials are made — an atheist is a person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called “weak” or “implicit” atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called “strong” or “explicit” atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.

Who Are Atheists? What Do Atheists Believe?:

There are a lot of misunderstandings about who atheists are, what they believe, and what they don’t believe. People become atheists for different reasons. Being an atheist isn’t a choice or act of will — like theism, it’s a consequence of what one knows and how one reasons. Atheists are not all angry, aren’t in denial about gods, and aren’t atheists to avoid taking responsibility for their acts. It’s not necessary to be afraid of hell and there are advantages to being an atheist.

What is the Definition of Atheism?:

Atheism, broadly defined, it is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods. Christians insist that atheism means the denial of the existence of any gods; the absence of belief in any gods is, for some strange reason, often ignored. At best it might be mistakenly referred to as agnosticism, which is actually the position that knowledge of gods is not possible. Dictionaries and specialized references make it clear, though, that atheism can have a much broader definition.

Defining Atheism
by George H. Smith
from his 1990 book Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies

The technical problems of defining "atheism" may be divided into two categories: (1) etymological and (2) epistemological. (For the purpose of this discussion, I shall accept the common definition of "theism" as "belief in a god or gods.")

1. It is sometimes claimed that the chief etymological problem in defining "atheism" is how to construe the prefix "a." Should we regard it as a term of privation meaning "without," or should we regard it as a term of negation meaning "no"?

If we choose the privative meaning of "without," then "a-theism" will mean "without-theism" -- i.e., "without (or lacking) belief in a god or gods." This clearly supports the definition of atheism as the absence of theistic belief.

What if we construe the prefix "a" negatively to mean "no"? This has been preferred by those who wish to define atheism as the outright denial of God's existence. But consider: even the negative sense of "a" doesn't, by itself, give us this definition. "A-theism," with the negative "a," translates into "no-belief in a god or gods." Here again, we have an essentially privative definition -- atheism as the absence of theistic belief.

I suggest, therefore, that the real problem in defining "atheism" lies, not in the meaning of the prefix "a," but in determining precisely where that prefix should be inserted.

Atheism as outright denial can be achieved only if the negative "a" is used, not to qualify the entire meaning of "theism," but only part of it -- i.e., "a-theism" means "belief in no god or gods." In this interpretation, atheism is construed, not as the absence of a belief, but as a particular kind of belief.

The case for atheism as a kind of belief -- the belief in the nonexistence of God -- was championed by no less a figure than J.M. Robertson, the great historian of freethought. Robertson argued that any "ism," including atheism, implies that we are dealing with a positive belief or doctrine, not a simple privation. Contrary to Robertson's view, "-ism" can mean something other than a doctrine or belief; it can mean "a state or condition" as well. Thus, the privative definition of atheism is still possible. Atheism as the absence of belief can denote an "ism" -- a state of mind in which theistic belief is absent.

2. Linguistic arguments over the correct definition of "atheism" will solve little, because -- as philosophers like to remind us -- questions of word-meaning are ultimately determined by conventional usage, not by the decrees of linguistic "experts." But conventional usage does not solve the problem either, for we may ask: whose usage? During the McCarthy era, for example, atheism was commonly linked to communism. What, then, were noncommunistic atheists to do? Should they have stepped forward and defied conventional usage, thereby incurring the wrath of McCarthy, his goons, and philosophers?

Those philosophers who rely solely on "conventional usage" should recall that "atheism" has been used throughout history as a term of opprobrium, a veritable smear word. Indeed, until the eighteenth century, an "atheist" could be anyone who disagreed with one's own religious convictions -- a person who denied the divinity of Roman emperors, or who disbelieved in witchcraft, or who denied the Trinity, or who rejected infant baptism, or who maintained that philosophers should be free to seek the truth, wherever it may lead them.

Perhaps atheists can find refuge from the tyranny of "conventional meaning" in what philosophers call "technical, definitions." Thus, biologists are permitted to offer their own definition of "life," for example, without being overly concerned whether laymen (the conventional majority) agree with, or even know of, their definition. Similarly, professed atheists may have the epistemological right to define atheism, in the technical sense, as the "absence of theistic belief," even if most laymen (i.e., theists) disagree with that definition.

Or perhaps atheists can fall back on the rule of fundamentality, which says that a definition should identify the fundamental, or essential, attribute of the concept being defined. Obviously, the absence of theistic belief is more fundamental than the denial of theism, for the latter is a subset of the former. (One who denies the existence of God also lacks belief, but the reverse is not necessarily true: one who lacks belief in God does not necessarily deny its existence.)

According to this reasoning, one who denies God's existence is a legitimate atheist, but he subscribes to a particular species of atheism. If, however, we construe atheism as the denial of God's existence, then the person who merely lacks theistic belief is not a real atheist, but an imposter. This exclusion by definition, it seems to me, is ungracious, and it shows ignorance of what important atheists have argued for many years.

The Scope of Atheism
by George H. Smith
from his book Atheism: The Case Against God

Implicit atheism is conveniently ignored by those theists who represent atheism as a positive belief rather than the absence of belief. While this may appear to be a subtle distinction, it has important consequences.

If one presents a positive belief (i.e., an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor. The burden of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be believed. The theist who asserts the existence of a god assumes the responsibility of demonstrating the truth of this assertion; if he fails in this task, theism should not be accepted as true.

Some believers attempt to escape the responsibility of providing evidence by shifting this responsibility onto atheism. Atheism, which is represented as a rival belief to theism, allegedly cannot demonstrate the nonexistence of a god, so it is claimed that the atheist is no better off than the theist. This is also the favorite argument of the agnostic, who claims to reject theism and atheism on the basis that neither position can provide demonstration.

When atheism is recognized as the absence of theism, the preceding maneuver falls to the ground. Proof is applicable only in the case of a positive belief. To demand proof of the atheist, the religionist must represent atheism as a positive belief requiring substantiation. When the atheist is seen as a person who lacks belief in a god, it becomes clear that he is not obligated to "prove" anything. The atheist qua atheist does not believe anything requiring demonstration; the designation of "atheist" tells us, not what he believes to be true, but what he does not believe to be true. If others wish for him to accept the existence of a god, it is their responsibility to argue for the truth of theism -- but the atheist is not similarly required to argue for the truth of atheism.

It is crucial to distinguish between atheism as such and the many beliefs which an atheist may hold. All atheists do adopt some positive beliefs, but the concept of atheism does not encompass these beliefs. Atheism refers only to the element of nonbelief in a god, and since there is no content here, no positive beliefs, the demand for proof cannot apply.

Atheism is not necessarily the end product of a chain of reasoning. The term "atheist" tells us that one does not believe in a god, but it does not specify why. Regardless of the cause of one's nonbelief, if one does not believe in a god, one is atheistic.

Theism must be learned and accepted. If it is never learned, it cannot be accepted -- and man will remain implicitly atheistic. If theism is learned but rejected anyway, man will be explicitly atheistic -- which brings us to the second kind of atheism.

(b) An explicit atheist is one who rejects belief in a god. This deliberate rejection of theism presupposes familiarity with theistic beliefs and is sometimes characterized as anti-theism.

If you need more sources, just say the word.

Now perhaps you can explain why we should use your personal definition instead of the correct one?

[pazarus]

234. My personal definition?

Did I write the dictionary.com definition? Did I go and tell hundreds of years of historians how the word should be used and what it means? Or are people who don't believe in God making an effort to change the existing meaning of the word?

Yes, Christians gave the word it's meaning. Yes, atheists are fighting to have the word redefined.

No, they have not succeeded yet. It still means exactly what I have posted here again and again. It's a big debate. People who don't believe in God want to call current atheists "anti-theists" and take the title of atheist for themselves.

Fine, but it hasn't happened yet and I doubt it will. The articles above are opinions and useful history, but they are just a step in redefining an existing word and not definitive sources of the word's meaning. When you tell somebody--in this day and age, right now at this point in history before the great rewrite of the word is complete--that you are an atheist, they will correctly make the assumption that you believe there is no God. The definition hasn't changed in the dictionaries yet, and I doubt it will change in the minds of men for much longer.

Its not just my definition, its the one thats right for now.

[beam me up scottie]

236. Your definition is incorrect.

All of the fact based atheists are using the correct one.
;)

[pazarus]

243. My fantasy source: the dictionary

Why won't you admit that the current definition may be doing people an injustice? Don't bash the messenger, it's not my definition. I took it from a dictionary and checked it twice.

A few other people on here have picked up that the definition may not be what they want it to be, what they thought it was, but you really shouldn't be arguing that the dictionary definition does not exist and is not a fact.

[beam me up scottie]

247. I don't argue that it doesn't exist. I prove that it's incorrect.

I am using the correct definition and the one that most atheists use.

[pazarus]

249. The correct definition is the one that most people use?

First of all, no it isn't. The correct definition is the one in dictionaries. Other defintions may come up over time, and they will be correct in the dictionary someday too. It's not like this is some new slang that hasn't made it in yet.

Most atheists (self-described, most likely) might use that definition, but most people probably don't. This is the heart of the original poster's difficulty. People hear "atheist" and they think "believes there is NO GOD."

Are they wrong? Well, what if they look it up to be sure? Maybe they aren't wrong when they see it in the dictionary as such. Maybe the 'atheists' haven't yet changed the meaning of the word, and maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't get upset at people who use the word correctly. They make up a definition, use it, and expect people to follow suit and then get confused and upset when they aren't understood.

[beam me up scottie]

252. The dictionary definition is incorrect.

If you prefer to use the wrong definition, I can't stop you.

But when you address atheists, we would appreciate it if you use the correct one.

[pazarus]

254. Try selling that around

to the rest of the world. There are other people who would like to be considered atheists who will buy it.

It's not the best argument, as I realized a long time ago. A better argument is finding the existing words that describe your position.

What other words do you take issue with? Is this the only one, or is there a list of words you are looking to slowly overturn from the inside out? How many years has this effort been going on? Why has it never been successful? Have you tried petitioning the makers of dictionaries? Can I change the definitions of words I find too constrictive? If I do change the definition, how do I then propagate that to every dictionary? Maybe we need our own dictionary! Everyone defines their own words and keeps their own dictionary!

[beam me up scottie]

256. Why are you changing the subject?

I proved that our use is the correct one.

Stop trying to make this about me.

[Az]

255. Are they wrong?

Let us say our effort is one to correct a social misunderstanding of the word.

The change of meanings of words are not instantaneous events. They happen over time. Some are deliberately invented (quiz) while others are adapted from names (xerox). Ours is a deliberate examination of a change in situation and realization that the definitions do not fit. Furthermore it is a realization that the defintions were derived by those that oppose us.

I would suggest it is not too long before the leather bound dictionaries come around on this issue. To paraphrase the homosexual community, we are here, we are loud, get used to us.

:hi:

[Beetwasher]

218. Where Did I Say Otherwise?

Yes, we're actively making an effort to make the meaning MORE ACCURATE. WE are the actual ATHIESTS and WE say the way the word is currently defined and used by MOST people is BULLSHIT.

Do you go around telling African Americans "Hey, you're not African American, your Black! Or, "You're a NEGRO!" Or "You can't call your friend 'nigga', it's a bad word!"

No one said anyone can make any word mean whatever they want, but the people who a word applies to or describes certainly have the right to tell others they are using it incorrectly. So again, who the fuck are you to tell me how to define myself? It's been explained quite eloquently why the word has been used innacurately up until now, if you're too dense to understand, that's your limitation.

[pazarus]

222. The problem is not your intentions,

it's the way you are going about achieving them.

Let's say I tell people I am an African American. The first thing I should have done is checked whether there is any African American blood in my family. I should have checked if I was using the word correctly.

The original poster calls himself an atheist without checking first if the word atheist is right. In its current form, it is not right. In the same way that claiming I am African American does not change the definition of African American to include myself, he can not include himself as an atheist just by using the word to describe himself.

What he is trying to do is rework the word atheist to include his agnosticism and his particular definition that an atheist does not believe there are NO gods, per se, but that it does not believe in a God.

It's a subtle difference, but he made the mistake of using the word atheist--just like I used to--to mean something it doesn't. I've been down this road before. I realized there are better words to describe my viewpoint, and I didn't need to change the definition to match the one I started with.

[Beetwasher]

224. That's YOUR Choice, The Way WE Define "Athiest" Is MORE ACCURATE

"What he is trying to do is rework the word atheist to include his agnosticism..."

Ok, are you being purposely dense or do you really STILL not get it?

Agnosticism=KNOWLEDGE about God
Atheism=BELIEF about god.

Is knowledge and belief the same thing?

OUR definition of "athiest" is more etymologically correct. Do you know what that means? Of course we know how "athiesm" is currently and INCORRECTLY defined in most dictionaries. No one is making a mistake, we are correcting a mistake that's been made for too long.

[pazarus]

226. So.... why change the dictionary?

No, I'm not being dense on purpose, or at all actually.

And don't be so sure that people who argue atheism "know how atheism is currently and INCORRECTLY defined in most dictionaries." Most people I talk to (who don't know what the word actually means) seem to believe it means whatever they think it does, specifically, no belief in God.

Most people who argue this are pretty surprised the definition doesn't agree with them.

Some of them move on and find new words, some of them are stubborn and fight for control of the word they want to use. "Mine!", they say, "it'll mean what I want it to, someday! For some reason it's more correct the way I want it, regardless of what it means!"

It just leads to more confusion and frustration. I'm not trying to be an asshole here. When I realized I had the definition of atheism wrong, I moved on and found the words that actually described myself. It was a godsend for discussion. People are willing to understand and converse using existing words, and a lot less likely to converse if you want to rework the dictionary to fit your argument.

[beam me up scottie]

230. Why remain ignorant? See post #227.

Educate yourself.

[Beetwasher]

232. Because Properly Defined and Etymologically Speaking, We're ATHEISTS

"A" as in without, and "theist" as in belief in god(s).

We are without belief in god or ATHEISTS.

Screw the dictionary. What "other" word(s) are you talking about that describe someone who doesn't believe in god? Agnostic doesn't work for that, as that pertains to knowledge, not belief. If you categorize atheist as "weak" or "strong" you STILL have to explain it the same way.

[pazarus]

237. Agnostic is correct, but it doesn't tell the whole story

He is certainly agnostic primarily. He believes there is no God because there is no evidence either way. In a way, everyone could be considered agnostic. One thing I agree with Az about.

Strong and weak atheism are not part of what the word currently means. Like implicit and explicit, they assume the very broad interpretation of atheism most atheists want. It's not there yet.

Wikipedia suggests the possible term "nontheism" for people with no belief in God. That's not an existing word, but I would say it is easier to claim than atheism, whose current definition is what many people would call "strong atheism".

[Beetwasher]

238. No Agnostic is NOT CORRECT! For Noodles Sake, How Many Times

Does this need to be explained to you? It's NOT correct, it's NOT accurate and is says NOTHING about belief.

Yes, you are being intentionally dense. Atheism is the proper term when defined in an etymologically correct fashion.

[pazarus]

242. Oh, that clears things up.

I guess everyone who ever assumed the definition of atheism and agnostic are correct in the dictionary are also dense? You are going to encounter a lot of dense people in your life.

He may be other things, but he is certainly an agnostic.

An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist.

and from the original post:

I have never made that argument. Why? Because I am honest (and sane!) enough to admit that it is impossible for me to know all knowledge in the universe.

Agnostic and atheistic can exist mutually, so it is not incorrect to classify him as an agnostic.

Like many, many, many, many words in the English language, "atheism" has a slightly different definition than the etymology would suggest. Suffice it to say, it means nothing to say it is proper when "defined in an etymologically correct fashion." It has a real definition.

[Beetwasher]

244. Umm, That's My Point, Not Yours

Agnostic is not a replacement for the term atheism.

[pazarus]

248. no, its not complete

but unlike atheist, it is accurate.

[Beetwasher]

251. Wrong. Completeness Has Nothing To Do With It

Agnostic deals with knowledge and is irrelevant to belief. It's useless in dealing with the issue of whether or not one believes in god. It's not that it's incomplete, it's that it's irrelevant to the issue.

[beam me up scottie]

267. YOUR word "agnostic" is brand new.

So tell me, what would you have called yourself before it was invented?

[Zhade]

260. Wrong again. I don't believe in gods. I do not believe there is no god.

Stop putting me into a position I do not advocate. I have NEVER argued that there are definitely no gods, just that none have so far been proven to exist.

[pazarus]

264. did you read my posts?

I understand your position. i would never say you believe in no gods.

You, however, said that when you used the word "atheist".

Look it up, or say the dictionary is wrong.

[Az]

265. The dictionary is incomplete

By definition. You will not find any editor of a dictionary that will insist that theirs is the definitive definition of a word. They are dynamic living things. Unless you have a dead language on your hands. Then you have to adminster 20ccs of adrenalin and fire up the paddles.

[Zhade]

266. I've already said the definition is wrong.

As have others.

And it is.

[pazarus]

303. My key issue is the definition and people's confusion

which is why I took exception to your original post, which made no effort to point out that many people may be confusing your viewpoint based on the dictionary definition of the word, which you dispute (but don't mention).

Rather than chalk it up to intolerance, I think you should be aware that many people who have looked in the dictionary and read every current definition for the word are justified in accepting the definition they find. They aren't (always) trying to be mean or intolerant, and they aren't all versed in what the atheist movement to change the definition is doing.

There is a legitimate debate in here about how the definition should change, but you never touched on that in your original post.

[Az]

306. Sure they are justified

Until they meet someone that offers them a reasoned alternate explanation. Then they should consider their input. And barring total acceptance allow the new definition to sit for the duration of the conversation at the very least.

The point of this is to clarify that we as atheists (our usage of the word) do not believe in god(s). It is not a matter of claiming we do not know. We know we don't believe in god(s). We are logical people and should a god pop up in front of us we would be skeptical but if the evidence and facts are overwhelming we are not going to fall to our knees and begin chanting there is no god there is no god.

Agnostic just does not answer the question about whether we believe in god. It really really doesn't. This seems to be the point you are not getting. Yes we are agnostics. But then so is everyone else. Might as well say we are humans for all the information it conveys. Atheist conveys information that we do not believe in gods. The word is flexible enough to encompass both those that do not believe in gods and those that believe there are no gods. The critical information conveyed by the word alone is the absense of belief in gods.

[beam me up scottie]

307. If someone is given the correct definition and refuses to accept it,

like you are doing, it IS intolerant.

And the red herring that people who supposedly looked up "every current definition for the word are justified in accepting the definition they find" isn't going to work.

[pazarus]

315. not intolerant... stubborn though

"If someone is given the correct definition and refuses to accept it, like you are doing, it IS intolerant."
-beam me up scottie

Dictionary.com:

a�the�ist
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: athe�ist
: one who believes that there is no deity

Cambridge Dictionary Online:

atheist
noun
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

Wordsmyth:

atheist
one who believes that there is no God or gods.

Webster:

A"the*ist, n.
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

I'm not sure if you came late to the debate or not. Most people here have already agreed that the current definition (see above several examples) is different from the one they have been using. They may say it's wrong, but by virtue of being the accepted dictionary definition, it is certainly not incorrect.

I just don't know how I could present you with more.

Argue that it should be changed, but don't argue that every dictionary is 'incorrect'. My skepticism that you trump the dictionary is not 'intolerant', it's pragmatism.

[Az]

316. And they are wrong

Yes that has been the accepted definition. Lets take a look at another word the dictionaries define.

God
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

Do you think everyone will find their meaning of god in there? Maybe the issue is a little more flexible than the dictionaries allow for. Maybe the definitions change so fast that they can't keep up.

[beam me up scottie]

323. Have you noticed the total ignorance of the fact that atheists all

over the internet (and the world) are using the correct definition just as we are?

It's like some people live in a vacuum and are completely oblivious to what's going on out there.

[Az]

326. To be fair

There are atheists that do stick by the old def. And in their case I would admit that they base their arguments on faith rather than logic.

But yes, it is a growing movement to reclaim the def of the word. I suggest an adoption of small 'a' atheism for referencing our broader meaning and large 'A' for the more adimant proclomations that there are no gods coming from the Atheists.

It bears a parallel to the claims of god. When they are refering to the narrower claim of God it is capitalized. When refering to gods in the broader sense it is small lettered. It seems fitting as the reason for the shift in the word atheism is derived in part from the shift in the meaning of god.

[beam me up scottie]

329. There are books, articles, websites and organizations for pete's sake.

Why would anybody overlook all of those and insist on using a dictionary definition?

I posit they have "faith" in the dictionary, oops, I mean The Dictionary.

:evilgrin:

[Az]

337. Because of the process

We are contesting the dictionary definition. Just because we are raising an objection does not mean that others have to necissarily grant their acceptance of our claim. If in time our claim is accepted by the editors of dictionaries and society at large then we can press our issue against those resistant.

Until then it would be hoped that while engaged in conversation we make it known to others our particular claims and usage of the word as differentiated from the dictionary. Thus while in conversation with people that are unfamiliar with out issue they can be informed about the statis of our claim. It would then be considered appropriate for that time to expect them to treat us per the label we apply to ourselves.

In the end the label does not matter as much as the underlying concept. Clarity is our focus here. We believe the word atheist is more clear and honest when it means someone that does not believe in god(s). Many people understand it to mean something else. We bear the burden currently of explaining our position. They have the social burden of accepting our selfdescription for the duration of the conversation.

[beam me up scottie]

318. The narrow English dictionary definition is INCORRECT.

If you were truly a skeptic, you wouldn't have accepted it on faith.

A little research lead us to the correct definition and I have provided evidence to back up our claim.

If you choose to ignore the facts and put your faith in Webster, I can't help you.

[pazarus]

328. Find facts wherever you want

please, please stop arguing that I am choosing to 'ignore facts' because I accept definitions in the Webster Dictionary (and many, many others).

It's a losing argument. Here's a couple of facts I know, dispute as you will:

1) The accepted definition of atheist in every major dictionary is the belief that there is no God.

2) There is a debate, originating from people who do not believe in God, over whether the word atheist should change to describe them.


Those two facts are indisputable. All I am saying is that until the word has a new definition, it might be more helpful if people used it correctly when they argue theology.

[Az]

332. That is a fair assessment

Now a question to you. When conversing with a person that uses the term atheist to mean one that does not believe in god(s) are you going to hinge the conversation on what the dictionary definition is or are you going to accept (for the duration of the conversation) their label applied to them self?

[beam me up scottie]

336. No, it's not. We are not trying to "change" the word to fit us.

We are insisting on the correct use of the word.

[Az]

343. Agreed, but

we do not have a mechanism to directly alter other people's minds. Thus the best we can do is reason with them and hope that our reasoning is sufficient. There is no force in the universe that can make another person agree with us if they do not see the reasons in the same way as we do. If we fall back to anger and ridicule in the face of them not accepting our reason then we have abandoned reason.

The issue here is one of approach. We view the word as illdefined and coopted by theists. They are seeing it from the point of view that there is already an acceptable definition associated with the word. In some cases they may even recognise the limitations of the definitions. Their suggestion is find a new word. Our reaction is we already have a word that is ill defined.

We have provided the evidence, we have given our arguments. We have done all that is reasonable to make our case. I am sure we have convinced quite a number of people. But there are and will be hold outs. This is to be expected. We can continue to represent our case. But we cannot demand their consent. They have their own criteria for such things. And in time as we press our case to more and more people the social/dictionary definition will reflect our view and that may be the impetus that will turn them.

[beam me up scottie]

344. I haven't ridiculed them because of ignorance.

But I'm about to because of their woo woo thinking.

[pazarus]

342. Thank you

I will accept the label as they apply it to themselves as long as they understand that it is not the existing definition and that they are using it in a more ambiguous way. If they don't know that, then they are going to run into a world of trouble debating theists or being clear. They will forever be confused as to why people make assumptions about them. I will of course, still have to ask whether they believe in 'no God', or just don't believe in a God.

It's not as good as going the distance and using a few extra words to be specific, but an understanding is there at least. I think it would make the world run smoother if there was a different, non-taken word we could use.

What bothered me about Zhade's original post is that he called people who use and know the definition 'intolerant'. That bugs me. He was upset about people not understanding the word atheist, while at the same time using a definition atheists have created for themselves that hasn't made it to the dictionary (or much of the public, I might add).

[Az]

345. To be clear

It is our contention that we are trying to revert the word back to its original meaning. It is further our contention that the word was usurped by a dogmatic theist dominated culture. Semantics make a difference.

Yes we have the burden to explain the situation to those we converse with. But out intent is not to take over the word. Our intent is to return it to it's original meaning.

[beam me up scottie]

346. Zhade called people who refuse to respect us "intolerant".

There's a big difference between ignorance and intolerance.

And you've crossed the line when you've been given the correct definition and still prefer to redefine us.

[beam me up scottie]

333. ROFLMAO !!! You don't even use the word "fact" correctly.

We have provided proof of the correct definition obtained from reliable sources.

You prefer to believe in dictionaries.

Please stop pretending you don't understand the difference.

[pazarus]

335. Which facts did you dispute?

And how did I use the word fact incorrectly?

I really am just curious. Is it because you think those two things are beliefs? Neither of my statements (check them over again) is a statement of belief. They are as much of facts as "Some houses have red doors.", which is both a belief and a fact.

[beam me up scottie]

338. You claim we are trying to "change" a word.

We are insisting on the correct use of it.

A little late to beg the question, don't you think?

[pazarus]

347. well, when the current word's definition is

different from the one you want it to be, it takes a "change" in the definition to make that word mean something else.

So yes, people are trying to change the meaning of the word. Whether or not you agree with the dictionary, you must know that it's a book that has word meanings, right? When the meaning changes, so it will change in the book (maybe a couple years of delay?)

Correct in the beginning or not, a change is, well, a change.

[Az]

349. Actually it happens before that

Dictionaries are not up to date. They cannot be. It takes time for a word to shift in meaning. Long before the entry is made in the dictionary the shift begins to take place. It is only after the shift has taken place that the dictionary can be updated to reflect that.

[pazarus]

352. true, it takes a while

'atheism' isn't a new word though. They have had plenty of time to examine the meaning and plenty of time to look at alternative meanings.

The shift might be happening now, at least certainly for some people. Change is slow.

[Az]

358. Its not just new words that shift

Its all words. Its the definition of a living language. Things change. Language has to keep up.

[pazarus]

365. Maybe it will change

someday...

Now at least I know there are hard-working people out there fighting for it.

[Az]

370. That awareness I count as success

Whether you accept the change now or not is not something I can control. But that you recognise that it may change suffices.

[pazarus]

371. success for me is removing the ambiguity

any way it can be done. People being aware of the current definition is a good start.

[Az]

372. And of course our take on it

Is that the dictionary definition is neither clear nor accurate. So ambiguity is our enemy as well. We just seem to be going about it in different ways.

[Zhade]

374. The current definition is not the ORIGINAL one.

That's the whole point.

[Az]

375. Atheos

From the Greek. Meaning without gods. Thats the foundation of the word.

As to the later adaptions in English and other languages they came about in a time where there was one definitive god proclaimed and any statement to the contrary was taboo and outlawed in many cases. As such this crucible created a scenario where the adaption was flawed.

[Zhade]

373. Here, we agree.

I did not consider the historical origins of the word and the subsequent inaccurate definition foisted onto us by believers when I wrote the OP. Had I included it, I think you and I would be on the same page.

Perhaps I assumed erroneously that everyone in this forum had already learned the history of the word from past discussions. My bad for not summarizing it for those not in the know.

[Zhade]

258. Right on.

That's it, in a nutshell - the original definition was written to place atheists in a negative light compared to theists. It is a dishonest definition. We have the right to define the word that attempts to define us when it is so clear that the definition is wrong.

Some refuse to admit that fact, but I'm looking at the significantly larger number who now understand better thanks to this thread, and I consider that a step in the right direction.

And, as you say, just as people born a certain race have the right to call themselves by whatever they choose with regards to that race, atheists are allowed to do likewise - just as believers who, say, don't believe the purported divinity of Jesus are still allowed to call themselves Christians.

[Az]

186. From a more relevant source: Wikipedia

Its actually quite a good entry detailing many of the issues we have been arguing.



From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of god(s), thus contrasting with theism. This definition includes both those who assert that there are no gods and those who have no beliefs at all regarding the existence of gods. However, narrower definitions often only qualify the former as atheism, the latter falling under the more general term nontheism.

Although atheists often share common concerns regarding evidence and the scientific method of investigation and a large number are skeptics or humanists, there is no single ideology that all atheists share. Additionally, many atheists are not entirely irreligious; there are atheists who are religious or spiritual despite their lack of belief in god(s).

[pazarus]

206. I guess I'm a stickler for narrow definitions

The idea that a word (atheism) can mean both things (no belief in God and a belief that there NO God) but then be expected by the poster to mean only the one he feels (no belief in God), is absurd.

The word is defined in most places as the belief that there is NO God. As wikipedia points out, the alternative (to clear up the massive confusion this poster is dealing with) word for his position might be nontheism.

Call it nontheism then, or more accurately (as he shows in his post), agnosticism. He doesn't really know whether there is a God, but he leans toward atheism. He is still an agnostic, not an atheist.

Or, at the very least, if he is willing to accept the broad definition of atheism and make his own usage of it, then don't complain about people who can't understand exactly what he means when he says atheist. Honestly, only when he stops using the word atheist will he get people to understand his position.

[Az]

208. Complaining is how we let people know they are hurting us

Its a form of communication. Do you suppose black people should have kept quiet about being called what they were called?

There has been a recent attempt my many atheists to try to create a word to define themselves without the social repurcussions of the word atheist. That is where the term "Bright" came from. A failed attempt in my opinion.

I refuse to run away from the word atheist simly because it has become complicated by the ever changing face of god. I reject many gods and do not believe in the rest. I am an atheist. I do not believe in god(s). I recognise that I cannot know the entirety of the universe. I am also an agnostic. I am an agnostic atheist. The two terms together provide a more informed understanding of my position. Either one alone decreases the information you may want to know about me. But knowing I am an atheist is in general more informative than knowing I am an agnostic.

[pazarus]

211. You don't need to run from the word.

Just find the word that is correct. Words aren't such a plaything, and the sooner everybody can use the correct words, the sooner there will be meaningful communication.

How many times have there been confuson when this poster called himself an atheist? It's not other people's fault for reading and understanding the definition correctly. It's his fault for thinking he is an atheist and trying to change the word to mean what he thinks.

He is out to change the meaning. There is no need to. Humans, being quite clever, have already made other words that describe his position exactly. Maybe not one word, but it can't always be as simple as he wants it to be.

[Az]

212. The problem stems from the changing nature of god

If there was just one claim for god the word atheist could probably remain static in its usage. But the word god has shifted to mean many more things than what it once did. This affects the landscape upon which the issue is cast. THe other words cannot remain inflexible and properly describe the new situation. That is the sum and total of the reason for the shift. The definition of god changed and we had to follow suit.

[pazarus]

215. Well, when your campaign to change the word

is successful, then what the poster said is entirely correct.

Right now though, he is using the word atheist incorrectly, period. The word atheist as it is described is not dependent on a particular type of God or gods.

It's not going to change, and the original poster will continue to have this difficulty for the rest of his life. Anoter word might come up that describes what he feels, but it won't be atheist. That word is taken.

[Zhade]

261. I don't complain until people - like you - refuse...

...to allow me to define myself.

Beforehand, I have no way of knowing if you understand the history behind the creation of the term "atheist", so it would be wrong of me to hold any such ignorance against you.

Once it's been explained to you - as a number of peoiple have accurately done on this thread - and you continue to disrespect me, THEN I complain.

[kwassa]

276. It is not a question of refusing anyone to define themselves at all

It is a question of word usage, that is all. The word "atheist" has a common meaning and a common definition that means other than the way participants here are using it.

That is all.

I suggested earlier than you find a word that is entirely new and describes exactly what you do believe, the "no belief in God", but the "atheists" here are entirely adamant in trying to change the accepted definition of a word.

What I don't understand is why this word is so important to them, as it seems to bring them much grief in life, from what I can see. A new word would not have that negative connotation to it that they feel brings discrimination and abuse from believers. They are being abused, essentially, for a belief they don't hold, if what they say is true. The abusers are, however, understanding the word "atheist" the way the rest of the word understands it.

[beam me up scottie]

278. You are incorrect.

Read post 227.

The new word you're suggesting we use instead, 'agnostic', means something else entirely.


People were correctly labeled atheists long before 'agnostic' was invented.

[kwassa]

279. I never suggested you use the word agnostic

I did suggest that the "atheists" here create a new word for themselves that was more accurate.

[beam me up scottie]

280. Atheist is accurate.

Unless you can prove otherwise, the old definition stands.

[kwassa]

281. Here is the old definition of atheist; is this what you are?

a�the�ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Source: The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright � 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

[beam me up scottie]

283. Wrong.

The word has been around much longer than the dictionary.

Which, of course, you would have known if you had read the suggested post.

[kwassa]

285. If you choose to use a different definition than most of the world

then you are creating your own misunderstandings, and I really can't have much sympathy. Like I said, if you get discriminated against because people are opposed to what they think you are, not what you actually are, based on your personal use of the word "atheist", then you have really created your own problem.

[beam me up scottie]

287. No, it is you who refuse to acknowledge the correct definition

which has been provided to you several times, along with evidence.

We have yet to see provide us with evidence of your claim.

[kwassa]

289. From your own article, the exact point I am making

quote:
"2. Linguistic arguments over the correct definition of "atheism" will solve little, because -- as philosophers like to remind us -- questions of word-meaning are ultimately determined by conventional usage, not by the decrees of linguistic "experts." "

As the word atheism is conventionally used, you are misusing it. Now, you can continue, and I won't stop you, but I'll use it the way most of the world does.

And if you feel misunderstood, that is really your own responsibility. Don't expect the rest of the world to change for you, or you might find yourself waiting a very, very long time.

[beam me up scottie]

290. Quote: "the correct definition"

Thank you for emphasizing that.

[kwassa]

291. When you can actually address my points, let me know

Otherwise, I'm done.

[beam me up scottie]

293. Still waiting for that evidence.

Come back and see me when you can back up your claims.

[trotsky]

294. kwassa, you're defeating yourself.

'questions of word-meaning are ultimately determined by conventional usage, not by the decrees of linguistic "experts."'

Which is kind of what we're telling you here. We are reclaiming the word atheist, much to the chagrin of linguistic "experts" such as yourself. Much like other groups of people throughout history have sought to clarify the meanings of words used to describe them. I assume, if you're a liberal, that you approve of such efforts, at least when it comes to any group of people other than atheists.

I still have to wonder why defining atheism is such an important issue for you that you feel the need to continually post about it. It almost seems like a religion, in terms of your dedication and energy spent.

[Name removed]

296. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

313. I am merely exposing you to your own reasoning.

You yourself have argued that atheism is like a religion for the "fact" that atheists seem to expend so much effort talking about it in a religion forum.

You have no problem defining words the way you want to use them, yet turn around and criticize atheists for doing basically the same thing.

[kwassa]

319. Atheism is a belief system, not a lack of belief, as I have stated before

I never said it was a religion. It has some characteristics that are similar to religious faiths, however.

[trotsky]

321. And that's your own use of words.

Funny.

[Az]

322. Lets clarify

Lets differentiate the broad def of atheism we are advocating as small 'a' atheism and the more specific denial of god as reference with the older def as large 'a' Atheism.

Are you suggesting that we atheists who do not believe in god and can provide evidence to refute certain claims for god are part of a belief system? Or is your statement directed at those Atheists that believe there is no god(s)?

[kwassa]

351. Both, actually.

It is more clear with the large A Atheists, but, as you know, I see "lack of belief" as a belief in and of itself.

[Az]

356. Well that is a problem

I suppose our brains are stuffed full of beliefs about things we don't believe in.

[trotsky]

366. "Lack of belief" is a belief.

Just like a lake without water in it is still a lake, right?

[kwassa]

376. No.

[trotsky]

377. OK then, I guess that impressive reasoning settles it!

:shrug:

[pazarus]

308. The definition is paramount to discussion

Only then can people discuss it in full and without confusion. At the very least, everyone should know the actual definition. From there, it's nice (but not generally expected) if people know the alternate vernacular versions.

Fine to reclaim the word (the viewpoint should have a unique word for sure, maybe not atheist, but something), but until you are successful, please don't call other people intolerant for not accepting it.

Zhade, making the original post, is upset about how intolerant people are for not accepting his version (which he may or may not have known is not the actual definition). I am sure they will accept it if it is actually the definition, but why is it intolerant to read the word as it is defined?

[Az]

309. But the definitions you are insisting on inevitably lead to confusion

They don't answer whether the person believes in god or not. That is kind of critical to conversations that involve such topics.

I don't know is not an appropriate response to do you believe in god. You know whether you believe or not. Claiming ignorance is an evasion and confuses the matter. I don't know would be an appropriate response to do you know if there is a god. Different question. Different answer.

Our objection to the old defs is they are confusing. They do not fit modern issues. The definition of god has shifted and in order for the other words to make any sense they have to shift too.

[trotsky]

314. Thanks, Az.

Well put.

[pazarus]

324. the definition is very clear

for the word atheist.

Not so clear for what the original poster feels. Like me, he is agnostic, first of all. No, that doesn't answer the question of what he believes, but it is part of what he feels. Second, he doesn't believe there is a God. He falls somewhere in between the two extremes theism (believes in a god) and atheism (believes in no God).

There is no word for that right now, so it takes a few. When i tell people, it's 'skeptical agnostic'. I think the existence of God is about as likely as green moon-people control us with magic, but I don't know either way for sure so I won't rule it out for now. I don't believe in God, but I don't believe in not-God. Sometimes I'll say 'leaning toward atheism'.

Yes, it would be nice if atheist meant something else, but I'm not too distraught that it doesn't. When i say skeptical agnostic, people know what I believe. When Zhade says atheist, he gets upset when people don't 'get' it. If he wants clarity, he should use existing words correctly. If he wants to add a new word that means something in between theism and atheism (Wikipedia suggests "nontheism", which I like), I say go for it.

And if he wants to change the definition, that's fine too. It doesn't instantly make the old definition invalid, but maybe smeday it will. At that point we can start making up a new word for people who strongly believe there is no God, since atheism will be no longer specific enough.

[Az]

327. So why is it ok for god to shift

I mean god really is the topic at hand here. And its meaning has shifted. Why would you presume that the words that apply to the consideration of gods existance would not change in suit?

[pazarus]

331. they might change if there is a need

but right now the word has a meaning that is very clear. Is there a need to change it?

Some people would argue so. Others might say a new word should be introduced and atheism as it is now should be preserved.

In the end it doesn't matter. What matters is clarity, and when half the people are using your definition and half the people are using the dictionary's, there can be no clarity.

I hope it gets resolved one of these days... I am not arguing that it shouldn't be changed (although I could). I am arguing that it is being used wrong right now.

[Az]

339. It doesn't matter how clear the meaning is

If the meaning is applied to a moving target it has to be as flexible as the target. The meaning of god has shifted dramatically. It is in part due to the shift in meaning of god that the word atheism must follow in suit.

For the sake of clarity it must change.

[kwassa]

340. How do you see that the modern definition of god has shifted?

As I don't see that connection to the difference in the definition of atheism.

[Az]

348. God was once a singular defintion

Claimed by an authoratarian religion. There was only one definition of god. Any that questioned it were burned at the stake or worse. It was a meaning pressed into the people. At such a time an atheist that came to the conclusion that such a god did not exist could rightly be called someone that rejected god.

But as society opened up more notions of god entered into the stream of consciousness. With the coming of the age of enlightenment the doors were thrown wide open. As science and reason beat at the pillars of church dogma people scattered to all manner of notions of what god was.

In this modern age we have become aware of multiple cultures and their claims of god. We have created new ideas of god. God has become everything from a grey haired bearded man in the sky to an emotion that connects us all. There is no longer a singular defintiion of god.

[kwassa]

357. There never was a singular definition of God, really

because all these cultures existed simultaneously, whether or not groups were aware of them. Most cultures had multiple gods, and the monotheistic religions, all stemming from the same Abrahamic roots, had differing visions of God, and were aware of each others existence. I don't know how any of this had anything to do with the definition of atheism, as not believing in God seems to apply to any and all gods and all notions of god, irregardless.

[Az]

364. Not meshed together

They were seprate and distinct. In fact there was massive oppression and even death for those that diagreed with the dominant local belief.

Yes they existed globally. But it was not until recently that the affairs in a distant land were felt in our part of the world. People and culutres were isolated by distance.

[pazarus]

292. i am glad you understand what I am saying

I don't want to define anyone, but I do accept the actual definition of words.

[beam me up scottie]

295. So you believe kwassa over the etymologists?

The actual definition was given to you.

You refuse to accept it.

[pazarus]

297. kwassa wrote the dictionary?

I had no idea, but if so then I do believe him. In fact, I generally trust the dictionary. It's not exactly a right-wing shill.

[beam me up scottie]

305. Yes, the English language dictionary is NEVER wrong, is it?

Because NOTHING is EVER translated incorrectly, right?

I'll trust an etymologist over a generic translation, personally.

I'm just thinking of all of the people that believed that Mary was a virgin because of another "correct" translation.

:rofl:

[pazarus]

317. what translation?

It's a word like many other words. It has greek roots and a vague root meaning (no god, without god, etc.) that doesn't clear up the debate. This has nothing to do with translation and everything to do with usage and an accepted definition.

You might think it's wrong. Most people use it the way it is used in the dictionary (as Zhade notes, the intolerant ones). You are entitled to think any English word is wrong. You are also entitled to become upset when people use it the way it is defined. Neither of those things will change the definition or make your definition true.

[beam me up scottie]

320. The CORRECT translation, which I provided.

Your belief in American dictionaries is heartwarming but atheists require evidence.

[pazarus]

334. that is nothing short of hilarious.

My undying faith in the English word has sent me on a quest to expose all those who are not believers in the almighty Dictionary, which is my bible and controls all my thoughts. It is a tool of the theists, who use it to hold back atheists of all grains and force them into pigeon-holed descriptions without allowing them to use their own word as they please.

Give me a break here, jeez. I use dictionaries, yes. I am not the only one. They, unlike you, have earned my trust over decades of correct definitions (and friendly examples!).

When you earn my trust over them, it will indeed be a dark day for dictionaries.

[beam me up scottie]

341. I don't need to, the translators, etymologists and scholars did it for me.

If you prefer to believe the dictionary instead of experts, it is indeed a matter of faith.

[pazarus]

350. yeah those bozos at the dictionary

they never do research. They don't research this at all, they just kinda throw stuff in. They have never examined a word like atheist. Nope, if there are people who are experts at the meanings of words, they certainly can't be found in the mindless masses that write dictionaries.

Sorry for the sarcasm (although its justified), but I feel like I am being asked to ignore dictionaries because they are worthless next to the scholars you read. The scholars might make a nice case why the word should mean something else, but they haven't made it mean something else. Maybe they should present their case to the people at the dictionaries?

[Az]

353. Not ignore the dictionaries

But we are asking that you understand the limits in which they operate and that your recognise our reasoning. We cannot compell you to accept it. But understand that we do believe it to be sound.

Dictionaries by their very nature are never fully up to date. Words often derive their meaning from prejudiced sources. Sometimes it becomes necissary for those being oppressed to rise up and reclaim the word being used to demonize them.

The definition in the dictionary reflects a theist point of view. Which is very likely as theists are the dominant part of society. It is not unlikely that the editors of dictionaries reflect their (assuming) theistic views.

It is going to take atheists rising up and representing themself honestly to shift the meaning back to its original etymological meaning. It is accurate and far more informative than the mess we have now.

[pazarus]

359. If I thought dictionaries were theist tools

I would agree.

"The definition in the dictionary reflects a theist point of view. Which is very likely as theists are the dominant part of society. It is not unlikely that the editors of dictionaries reflect their (assuming) theistic views."

is an assumption I reject. The word itself may have started under those conditions (theists certainly defined 'atheist'), but the keepers of the dictionary today aren't try to reflect their current theistic views by recording the existing meaning of words. It is how the word is used by most people, and it is how is has been used ever since the theists invented it and defined it.

It's not the only word possibility for what non-believers feel. It's not even the best possibility, it's just the most ambiguous.

[Az]

362. Its not a deliberate act

They simply do not have the perspective to recognise the difference. It just doesn't make that big a difference to them. When it all boils down to the placement of the word no it seems to be a minor difference. And if they are not positioned in the middle of thet distinction it may not be clear what a difference it makes.

[pazarus]

368. its not arbitrary either

If it were, we would see it both ways. They are aware of the decision they make, and its precise implications.

[beam me up scottie]

355. You are ignoring the experts and using an obviously incorrect

definition after being told it was incorrect.

And the dictionaries have printed incorrect and/or incomplete definitions in the past.

So to insist they are correct after having seen evidence that proves otherwise is illogical.

[pazarus]

361. "dictionaries have printed incorrect and/or incomplete definitions"

"So to insist they are correct after having seen evidence that proves otherwise is illogical."

So, the whole logical world is convinced? People who are perfectly logical are swayed away from hundreds of years of dictionary definitions because you present an opinion to the contrary as evidence?

Logical people might accept that there is a dispute, but not too mny would throw their dictionaries aside.

[Az]

367. Logic is a tool

One of our greatest tools. But a tool that can be improperly used. Trouble is of course determining who is using it improperly. Each person believes themself to use logic in an appropriate way. Its all a matter of what premises you start from.

[beam me up scottie]

369. Logical thinkers would recognize and acknowledge the difference,

instead of insisting that the dictionary was correct.

[Az]

299. Actually its the theists that insist we should believe in god

that cause us the grief. Not the word. The word is just a word. Its the people's reactions when they find out we don't believe in god. And frankly the difference between not believing in god and believing there is no god makes little difference to them at the moment of hearing about it. It still draws the same reaction (Gasp, Horror, Shock, Shun, etc).

The reason we adhere to the word is because it is the correct word. The definition applied to it is inadequate. The focus of the word (ie god) has changed and as such the definition of atheist must change to continue to be understood properly in its context.

[kwassa]

330. The word "atheist" has a specific meaning that people react to

AZ:
"And frankly the difference between not believing in god and believing there is no god makes little difference to them at the moment of hearing about it."

I think there would be a great difference. One is affirmative, and the other is not, at least in it's initial hearing.

[pazarus]

354. You are right that the people

who don't care for the distinction are the theists.

But I think it makes a big difference to most people who don't necessarily believe in God. They, like Zhade, don't want to be pigeon-holed as 'believing' there is no God. For people like us, this makes the definition very important.

[Az]

360. I understand

But you are still going to draw fire if you expose who you truly are. Someone that does not believe in gods. If they find that out it won't matter whether you make the distinction of where you place the word no.

You are godless. You are a nontheist. You are a nonbeliever. Every one of these terms is laced with the same disdain held for atheists. Trying to ameliorate it by claiming you don't know there are no gods doesn't change the social impact. Its just subterfuge to hold off the realization that you do not believe in their god.

[pazarus]

363. back in friendly territory

No one argues that religious fundamentalists will understand the difference... it's all the same heathens to them.

Ah, common ground.

[Zhade]

184. No. You are wrong, in part.

I am an agnostic atheist. Why is explained upthread.

[beam me up scottie]

187. Gee, Zhade, maybe you should start a thread

asking people to respect our right to define ourselves.

Maybe you could include the definition of atheism and explain why it's intolerant and insulting for others to tell us what we believe.

:sarcasm:

[pazarus]

201. Maybe I should start a thread

asking people with clearly definable beliefs to use the correct words instead of trying to redefine a word to include a much broader meaning.

Anyone who reads that thread above and knows what an agnostic is will recognize him as an agnostic. If he wants to call himself an agnostic atheist (as he did just above), then he might clear up a lot of confusion about his position and he won't have to spend so much time convincing people that atheist means agnostic atheist.

Because he makes no claim that there is no God, he is not an atheist. That is what the word means, no matter how he wants to redefine it.

But I suspect he'll just contnue to get into arguments about people trying to 'define' his viewpoint for him. If you use the terms correctly, you won't have that problem anymore.

[Az]

203. Define God

And please use the oirignal unmodified definition.

[pazarus]

216. The issue at hand is not a defintion of God

Its the simple logical problem of whether atheism means "a belief in NO God" or a "no belief in a God".

Some people say atheism encompasses both. Dictionaries, history, and atheist organizations use the narrower definition "a belief in NO God".

The original poster wants the world to redefine the word to only mean the second choice, "no belief in God". He rejects the sitting definition, makes the word his own, and then narrow it down to mean only what he believes, which also happens to encompass the agnostic "who knows?" question about God. Regardless of what form God takes for people, the logical question is the same.

It's like a hostile takeover of a word. Let the word mean what it does, and find your own words to describe what you are. There are correct words already out there, atheism isn't the one.

[Az]

219. It is entirely at the heart of the matter

If religion dominated the western world in the same way as it did in the past we would have a singular definition of god to contend with. The fact of the matter even those that recognise they cannot proclaim their absolute denial of god due to the changing nature of god still reject many if not all dominant claims of god.

The god that created the world in six days just 6000 years ago? Rejected. The god that talked to Mohhamed and sent him on his conquest of the mideast? Rejected.

There are many many clear examples of gods that most do proclaim as nonexistant. But the multiplicous nature of modern understanding means that we have to remain open to claims of god we have not yet been exposed to. And we simply cannot declare those gods nonexistant without first hearing the claims. Thus we have to honestly remain open until we do hear them. But this does not mean we believe in them

So which is more informative. Agnostic? Not really. It is still limited by the fact that it refers to knowledge. And our modern philosophy pretty much has a universal understanding that its unlikely for anyone to KNOW things in the absolute. So it just doesn't tell us anything of use.

We could sit down and spell out all the specific gods we do reject and deny. But that would take a while. There are a lot of gods. We certainly can't list all the gods we have not yet heard of for obvious reasons. So the most informative way to convey our position is to say we are an atheist. If we wanted to convey even more information we could say we are an agnostic atheist. And then an informed discussion could ensue.

[pazarus]

225. Agnostic atheist is closer, but not exact.

An atheist, as currently defined believes that there is no God or gods, no supernatural beings. Any good debater would nail someone by telling them they have an irrational belief that there are no Gods, which is unsupported by science. By using the word atheist, you have opened yourself to that.

"And we simply cannot declare those gods nonexistant without first hearing the claims."

You see, an atheist can do that. It is precisely what they do. People who call themselves atheists and can't do that are something else--not because I say so or want to define their viewpoints--because that is the currently held accepted definition of an atheist.

I can see that you believe that definition is old, outdated, and it will change. You feel like it needs to change instead of people using other words that may currently be more accurate.

I think it will not change. people who don't use the word correctly will forever be in a frustrated haze, because they will be using the wrong definition to define the very view they want to get across. What really comes across is this posters frustration that people are not getting his meaning when he says atheist. Why don't they get it exactly? Is it because the word needs to change r because he needs to change his words?

I would understand his view exactly if he said he was a "skeptical agnostic", for example. Atheist is just simply the wrong word in this time and place.

[Az]

228. Agnostic does not answer the question

It doesn't fit. It speaks to what you know or can know. The issue between theism and atheism is about belief. The word agnostic simply does not give the information requested.

The reason the proclomation there are no gods is logically flawed is because the word god shifted from an exclusive term meaning one specific god to an open ended word meaning an entire array of possible meanings.

Yes we are agnostic. But knowing cuts both ways. You can be agnostic and believe in gods or agnostic and not believe in gods. It just doesn't convey enough information.

Atheist in contrast clearly indicates that the person does not believe in god. It is only the insistance that the theists defined it as believing there are no gods that creates the problem. And it is not a problem that we originated. It is the twofold issue of shifting god and dogmatic believers insisting that atheists are deliberately turning their backs on god and rejecting him.

Again to refer to the homosexual situation. Homosexuals were once believed to choose to be homosexual. The word conveyed that meaning. It took time to shift the meaning to what it properly means someone that is homosexual not by choice but by nature.

I am an atheist by nature. I cannot choose to believe in god. If at such time evidence or an experience is provided to me to convince me of a god I will change my position. But until then I am an atheist by nature.

[pazarus]

239. Your are an atheist by your definition

And maybe someday by the actual definition.

I would say it's safe to say that I hold the same mindset about the existence of God as you do.

When I argue it now--with theists--I take away the crux of their argument that is is just another faith by explaining to them what it means to be a skeptical agnostic who believes the existence of God is just as likely as invisible gorillas controlling us as puppets (or the FSM, which was brilliant). We have no proof either way, so I won't believe but I won't discount it.

I could describe that as atheism, but then they wouldn't understand. Atheism means something else. I don't expect the meaning will change in my lifetime, and its a worthy fight for to change the language to suit my needs.

[beam me up scottie]

240. And there it is.

"I could describe that as atheism, but then they wouldn't understand"

That is the reason why some atheists won't use the correct name for themselves.

Thank you.

:applause:

[Az]

241. I have met people that honestly did not know there were atheists

They were honestly dumbfounded by the notion that anyone did not believe in god. I mean they were floored.

Our open society is insular in many ways. Cars and phones enable us to keep a circle of friends and associates around us that appeal to very specific niches. We are losing the ability to interact with those who are not on the same page as us. All this in a massive sea of diversity.

We are getting set in our ways. Because progress has ground to a halt (or nearly so) we become increasingly isolated. No longer turning to others to find common cause we retreat to our own private groups. Using technology to enagble such a retreat without a social penalty for ourselves.

That is why I speak up and to believers. I could easily retreat to the confines of the group of my fellow skeptics and atheists. But that to me does not serve the greater society.

So I make noise. I represent atheism. I try to disperse myths about us and correct mistaken views. All in the hope of getting this society a bit less isolated and moving forward once again.

[beam me up scottie]

245. Atheists: Out of the closet.

Until all of us are willing to speak up, we will never get rid of these stereotypes and the bigotry behind them.

[pazarus]

246. I understand your motives

Broad umbrella... many more than we think are atheists.

The reason i don't include myself as an atheist is because they won't understand, true. They won't understand because the word does not mean what you hope it does or what I thought it did a long time ago. They are correct in their usage, and I was incorrect in mine.

At that point I had two choices: fight for the word to mean whatever I wanted it to, or find the right words so people who know what "atheist" means can understand me.

I can tell you'll fight to change the definition. On principle, I agree with those efforts. It's still not correct to use it as such now though, and you'll spend many a frustrated argument wishing there wasn't confusion over the word atheist, wondering why people trust their dictionaries instead of you.

[Az]

259. Frustrated?

Not particularly. In fact I quite understand your resistance. I disagree and believe the effort to reason the matter through is worth the time. I do not expect to convince everybody of my arguments (this one or others). If that was the point I can well understand how some would become frustrated.

Instead I believe that a good discussion argued with passion and sincerity in the public provides a background which others can look into and discern for themself which way they lean. To this effect a congenial discussion that remains locked in disagreement still serves a purpose.

Yes, I would love for you to be able to accept the argument. Do I expect you to? Not particularly. I can only continue to offer reason and hope that I find a way to link the idea into your mindset in such a way as it is acceptable. I already feel as though I have had a modicum of success in this avenue as the idea is in there now and will begin finding common ground of its own within your own mind at your own accord.

[Az]

262. A moment of levity

I am Skepticus of Borg. Resistance if futile. You will be assimilated.

[beam me up scottie]

229. Wrong. See post #227.

I think Az has spent way too much time trying to reason with you.

Since your definition is based on emotions instead of evidence, you'll understand why we prefer to use the correct definition as explained above.

[kwassa]

275. Bravo! Bravo! Couldn't have said it better ......

Pazarus:

"It's like a hostile takeover of a word. Let the word mean what it does, and find your own words to describe what you are. There are correct words already out there, atheism isn't the one."

I asked earlier why they were so insistent on using "atheist" when the meaning as generally understood is completely different.

I still don't have a satisfactory answer to that one, from any of the participants. For some reason it is important that they kidnap the word "atheist".

[pazarus]

300. thank you

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

Although some people here do realize it is a redefinition they want, which I accept as an exciting (if futile) mission. As long as they don't claim it's the current definition, I take no issue with them.

[Az]

304. We already suffered the hostile take over

This is the white knight counter insurgancy. :evilgrin:

Seriously, generations have gone by with the mistaken usage of the word. Of course it has become part of our culture. But it is still wrong. The hostile take over came about when those who were literally hostile to atheists dominated society. They defined the word in their view and did it in such a way as to cast as dark a light on our claim as possible. We are by definition not the hostile party here.

[Festivito]

171. Use atheist in an inexact way, then complain about others' exactitude.

Atheist gets stretched to mean what agnostic means, then "atheist" used in a forum evokes one response from people holding one meaning and a confusing response due to a different meaning held by someone else. AND THEY TAKE OFFENSE AT EACH OTHER?!

Some people have faith in God, some in the Bible.
..even though some things did not go well.
Some people have faith in science and the scientific method.
..even though scientific method occasionally pulls a boner.
Some people have faith in the belief that God does not exist.
..even though some rare occurances make them doubt the opposing.

It is not inconcievable that a self-labeled self-defined-atheist, might have faith in their self-defined state. Faith that the description will relate who they are to others. Faith that the identity derived will fit their being throughout their life, offering themselves clarity or some form of satisfaction.

Since atheists should be allowed to define themselves, and thus define the word atheist, to mean "does not believe in God" rather than "beleives there is no God," perhaps posting proponents of faith could define faith as "possibly believing in" something thus making the idea of atheist having faith seem un-insulting.

[pazarus]

173. exactly.

There is a word describing this posters' viewpoints, he just hasn't found it yet. Clearly he is an agnostic, which isn't as popular a buzzword as atheist.

[beam me up scottie]

233. Inexact? According to who?

You?
:rofl:

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with more reliable sources on this one.

They seem to have a better grasp of the language, if you know what I mean.

If not, see post #227.

[Festivito]

274. According to your two prong definitions.

The 227 post relays TWO defs of atheist. One meaning used by some poster caused offense to a second poster who saw a different meaning to the same word.

link to 227
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=30817&mesg_id=31100

I think atheists have been and are persecuted. I can understand wanting a big tent, more-inclusive definition to include all those persecuted by intolerant groups.

But, now we have no word! Someone posts "atheist" and what does it mean? Wanting to respond with, "god only knows what they mean," can be taken in two different ways.

[beam me up scottie]

277. The word 'agnostic' has nothing to do with gods.

It's a new word and it is incorrectly used by some instead of the word 'atheist'.

And 'atheist' is just one of many names that can define more than one type of person or belief - take 'christian', for example.

[Festivito]

284. a. YOU used god in YOUR definition in #227 of THIS thread.

Agnosticism
The theory that man does not have the knowledge to determine whether a god exists; the suspension of judgment due to a lack of knowledge.

b. The post you answered did not even talk about agnosticism. It talked about atheism's two definitions, and added that since atheist has extra meaning it leaves us no word that means solely someone who denies god's existence versus denying belief in god.

c. God is an implied subject in the word agnostic. From the greek a- or an- mean: not with a sense of without. Gnosis comes from the greek gignoskein: to know, but its use by the early Christian Gnostics(dismissed as heretics) who combined a bunch of religions leads to our more modern -- agnostic, which dismisses god, religion, and afterlife.

[beam me up scottie]

286. Wrong again.

Do you guys ever do any research before you post stuff like that?

The only part you got right was the Greek meaning of "a".

agnostic

1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known."
Coined by T.H. Huxley from Gk. agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic).
Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God," but according to Huxley it was coined with ref. to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic).

"I ... invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic,' ... antithetic to the 'Gnostic' of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant."
(T.H. Huxley, "Science and Christian Tradition," 1889)


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=agnostic&searchmode=or

[Festivito]

288. You need to be beamed up. nt.

[Gelliebeans]

182. Well said Zhade, I love your posts.

For me personally, the problem is only when others try to define me. In fact, I think I am bugged just as much by fellow atheists and agnostics admonishing me for not fitting into their box than I am for xians not knowing and making the assumption on how I define myself. You summed it up with respect.
Peace
gb

[Zhade]

185. Thank you.

Some, unfortunately, intend to remain with inaccurate definitions from the Dark Ages of the Catholic church.

I will pay them no mind, as they are wrong.

[catabryna]

188. I'm so glad this thread didn't denigrate

Everyone handled questions and answers with a modicum of respect, i.e., that "thing" that Skinner's been discussing. I tend to shy away from discussions such as this (as well as others, which is why I lurked for so long). I want to understand, not argue.

I do believe that this thread is a perfect example of how matters like this can and should be discussed in any situation, but that's my laid back personality talking. I have, for one, learned a lot because everyone stated their points of view without taking a defensive posture.

So, thanks everyone! :grouphug:

[beam me up scottie]

190. No kidding.

What was that you asked for again?

Oh, yeah.

Respect.

Funny how the definition of that word escapes them as well.

[FM Arouet666]

271. Tally ho

Your post is complete I have nothing much to offer other than my total agreement.

I note the pedantic dissertations above regarding proper definitions.:boring:. The bottom line is that atheists do not believe in a god, lack a belief in a god, do not associate with gods, but do swear to god, if the opportunity arises to annoy the faithful.

To have faith is to believe in something which requires no supporting evidence, 'the holy leap of faith', atheists do have beliefs, grounded by reason and evidence. 'Atheist faith' is an oxymoron, propaganda supplied by the faithful, an attempt to legitimize their belief system through comparison.

In the words of Capt Picard, 'Nicely Done'....... :evilgrin:

[Zhade]

272. Thanks, captain!

*salutes*

[FM Arouet666]

273. Number one, go have a number two...

Sorry, I couldn't resist....

:toast: