Defining Atheism/Nontheism/Etc

[cottage]

This question has persisted in my mind and there are many inquiries to put forth about it, but these three seem to suffice for a beginning discussion. I will start a new topic if new questions come up in the discussion at present with these three questions

1)How do you define atheism in its degree? The prefix a tends to only imply a lacking, similar to words like apathy and ataxia. To say that an atheist believes there is no God or says "There is no God" would seem mistaken by the very etymology of the word in question. To properly qualify a person that says there is no God would be to call them a contratheist. And then there are people that say that the concept of God is a heinous/unethical or otherwise objectionable thing to believe in, which would be what I would term an antitheist.

The term nontheist might be said to only cause more confusion, since its similarity of prefix with the a prefix would suggest they are basically similar. But it could actually serve as an umbrella term for a larger variety of differing beliefs held in relation to God, all of which are essentially not belief in God in any sense, be it through skepticism, rationalism or other related modes of thought one could posit. This would be to distinguish systems of thought that don't speak about belief in God but about God's relevance and meaningfulness, which range from agnosticism and skepticism to ignosticism, igtheism and apatheism, which I can explain if one is confused by the novel words I introduce.

2)A less considered difficulty of defining atheism is defining the part of the word that varies by the believer in a deity or deities. How do you define this term and justify it in contrast to other definitions, such as the deist and pantheist conceptions of God, not to mention the polytheist conception of deity as well as the bitheist description, where God is two complementary natures/forms/entities of sorts? If you define an atheist as one who does not believe in one God but could believe in multiple gods, the term becomes very convoluted to accurately define. It is usually easier to just suggest that an atheist disbelieves in any personal deities, but then this suggests that you can be an atheist and believe in a transcendent non personal force (like the Force in Star Wars for example, or the Tao in Taoism). So the term is then extended to a lack of belief or disbelief in the transcendent. But then this becomes difficult to define as well, since we can have transcendent experiences and believe in them, but not believe that they are supernatural, so the definition extends to supernatural. But as far as we try to define it, we keep coming up with new difficulties of language in relation to anything connected to divinity.

3)Related to this idea is how to define the extent of the person's beliefs or lack thereof about God. For example, a newborn child or a person that has not been exposed to any beliefs about monotheism for example could be considered atheistic. But in that same line of thought, many people have accused Deists and pantheists of being atheists because they deny certain qualities of God to be part of God's nature. Pantheists deny both God's personal and transcendent nature and Deists deny God's personal nature primarily. In short, the term atheist could actually even be extended to polytheists, since they believe not in a single personal deity, nor commonly in a transcendent deity, but in fact multiple deities with human characteristics and many of which are immanently present in the universe.

All we need to acknowledge is that a-theism applies to those who describe themselves as being without god belief. Note that on this account it cannot (and should not) be used to describe a lack of god belief in babies or those who have not been exposed to mystical claims. The important point, I believe, is self-affirmation.

 

[Idoleject]

"1) How do you define atheism in its degree?"

So far, I agree mostly with SSE. I feel that atheism is a term coined by theists to denigrate those who ascribe no fealty toward invisible beings. In reality it has no meaning whatsoever.

We don't have a word for those of us who don't collect stamps, do we? How about people who don't believe in extra terrestrials? Do we single them out with an invented word so we can readily define them as such?

Of course not! That would be ridiculous .. right?

"2) How do you define this term ..."

I, personally, don't!

In believers terms, I guess you could say that I am atheistic toward all the deities that I've been exposed to thus far and agnostic toward any that may still be coming down the pike.

No one has show me convincing evidence of their deities, so for now, my non-belief is a simple conclusion.

"3) ... how to define the extent of the person's beliefs or lack thereof about God"

No real question in this last section but still meaningless in light of my mindset toward the abstract inventions of the human mind.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Atheism is the "default setting" with the term applied. It's always the case, as none are born theists off the bat. The rest by way of variations of other terms, is something obviously learned and categorised.

 

[Norrin-6-]

1) The etymological fallacy: that the constituent parts of a word combine to determine the word's meaning. It's simple enough to refute. It's not that I have a problem with defining atheism as lacking a belief in a god or gods. My only caveat would be that I get my definitions of words through context. Generally I accept that the atheist uses the term to refer to their unbelief in God, and have a problem when theists misuse it to bolster straw-man arguments. But if I were an ancient Roman I would understand the word atheist might refer to the Christians.

2) I usually take the word atheism to mean having no belief in any god or gods, so that takes care of polytheism, and monotheists. I wouldn't say that a monotheist is an atheist in regards to the polytheistic gods because monotheism is defined as a theism that rejects other gods. So basically I disagree with the ancient Romans in a way. With deism and pantheism I'm more inclined to give them a similar treatment to monotheism by letting them with their own labels. I have no problem accepting that those who don't believe in God but do believe some kind of force that's not a god may in fact be atheists. If they start giving this force anthropomorphic attributes they're probably describing something too close to a god. I'm of the mind that there was some first cause but I would consider myself more of an atheist and not even a deist.

3) I'm not positive there's a question here, so I'll leave it be.

 

[InfiniteBeloved]

Here is a thread I started on Non-theism a while back:


In my mind non-theism is the 'I dont need to know' rather than a 'yes' 'no' 'maybe' answer....

I could be 'wrong', but we are using labels here

I agree with this.

Also, I believe the definition of "Atheism" has evolved over the years. Originally, I believe Athism meant non belief in the Abrahamic God. It was limited to that. So for example Hindu's would be considered 'Atheists' by followers of the Abrahamic religions.

Today however, in the global world, where there is more cross knowledge about religions, I believe the meaning of atheism has evolved to mean 'non belief in any God'.

 

[Copernicus]

I agree with this.

Also, I believe the definition of "Atheism" has evolved over the years. Originally, I believe Athism meant non belief in the Abrahamic God. It was limited to that. So for example Hindu's would be considered 'Atheists' by followers of the Abrahamic religions.

Today however, in the global world, where there is more cross knowledge about religions, I believe the meaning of atheism has evolved to mean 'non belief in any God'.

If that were true, then a Hindu or Muslim would have been considered an atheist in the past. The usage always meant rejection of belief in all gods. What has changed is that we are all now more easily exposed to religious beliefs of all kinds. It was easier for atheists to defend rejection of belief in just one particular god, knowing that the believer on the other end of the argument shared their skepticism of all the other gods. Religious discussion has become more complex with the advent of the internet.

 

[edwinic]

Atheism is an informed choice.

Can you explain it further? I am interested to know more. Please?
Edit
I am aware that there are varying understanding re the definition of atheism but for now I hold it as defined by Ted Drange. Is "informed choice" similar to it?