What do people think "atheist" means?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Here in Norway I never go around identifying myself as an atheist. It's a given.

That the Earth is round or that it is not the center of the universe is about as close to a "given" we can get to. Yet, despite my limited familiarity with Norwegian (which relies largely upon knowledge of Swedish, Danish, German, Old Norse, Icelandic, etc.), I can safely say that there exists no term for "not a proponent of round 'Earthism'" and that., while heliocentric remains a term in use, there exists no equivalent term for "the Earth doesn't move". That's because it's clearly idiotic and pointless to have a term that can identify one's position as not that of another, specific position. If you don't go around identifying yourself as an atheist, either you don't identify yourself as an atheist, or you do. If you do, this isn't a given or there would by definition be no reason to identify yourself as such (it would be "given").

I haven't used the word in conversation outside forums for I don't know how long.

Yet you know it, despite it being a word in a non-native language (presumably).

 

[ArtieE]

That the Earth is round or that it is not the center of the universe is about as close to a "given" we can get to. Yet, despite my limited familiarity with Norwegian (which relies largely upon knowledge of Swedish, Danish, German, Old Norse, Icelandic, etc.), I can safely say that there exists no term for "not a proponent of round 'Earthism'" and that., while heliocentric remains a term in use, there exists no equivalent term for "the Earth doesn't move". That's because it's clearly idiotic and pointless to have a term that can identify one's position as not that of another, specific position. If you don't go around identifying yourself as an atheist, either you don't identify yourself as an atheist, or you do. If you do, this isn't a given or there would by definition be no reason to identify yourself as such (it would be "given").

You realize that atheists don't believe in God right? Why shouldn't they have the right to define themselves like American Atheists say? When they don't believe God exists, why should they have to swallow the negative theist definition of them from God's book?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You realize that atheists don't believe in God right?

I don't believe in god, and am not an atheist (but agnostic, which was coined precisely because a term was required for someone who neither denied the existence of god nor affirmed it).

Why shouldn't they have the right to define themselves like American Atheists say?

Why shouldn't they have the right to use an idiotic definition that is so completely pointless that it requires it be so by being wholly defined by the negation of a singular alternative term? One would hope because "they" wouldn't wish to minimize atheism to such a intellectually bereft position that relies on clearly false assertions about some "default position".

When they don't believe God exists, why should they have to swallow the negative theist definition of them from God's book?

Atheism IS the "negative theist definition" insofar as its definition at least entails it. To not believe in god simply requires not believing in god, rather than identifying one's self as "atheist". I don't believe in god, but don't find the need to claim I'm atheist because of some intellectually sterile need for my epistemic position to be the "default".

 

[ArtieE]

I don't believe in god, and am not an atheist (but agnostic, which was coined precisely because a term was required for someone who neither denied the existence of god nor affirmed it).

An agnostic doesn't KNOW whether gods exist or not. If you are an agnostic and not an atheist what the heck are you doing here trying to dictate to atheists how they should define themselves?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

An agnostic doesn't KNOW whether gods exist or not. If you are an agnostic and not an atheist what the heck are you doing here trying to dictate to atheists how they should define themselves?

More or less what you are telling me I am as well as millions of people who explicitly identify themselves as deists, polytheists, etc., in opposition to theists, except far less sweepingly dismissive of others' self-identification, logic, or the basics of lexical semantics. You claim that atheism is some special term that, for reasons you don't specify, is basically the only colloquial term in any language defined wholly and solely as not being another term, yet somehow find it odd that as an agnostic, I object to being defined by a modern anti-intellectual definition of atheism by a subset of atheists who emerged only in the past few decades and in opposition to the great atheist intellectual tradition? Ok, I I am agnostic and what I am doing here is trying to "dictate" what atheism is because 1) I object to being labeled atheist because of the pathetically sterile "new atheist" attempt to make "atheism" an epistemic default despite the inherently contradictory and inconsistent nature of such a notion and 2) I actually respect atheist arguments/positions, rather than seeking to make them by definition "true" or at least "default" by virtue of nonsensical notions of belief, logic, and language. Also, I object to atheists "trying to dictate" not only how I should define myself, but how EVERYONE should because of some made-up definition of atheism that defines everybody who isn't a theist (deists, polytheists, agnostics, Druids, Wiccans, etc.) as atheists because of the indefensibly arrogant position that their epistemic claim should be considered an epistemological foundation for no reason and in opposition to basic logic.

 

[David M]

The only problem is that the definition of theist is a person who believes gods exist not claims they do.

Believing that a God exists is, to all intents and purposes, a claim that a God exists.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Believing that a God exists is, to all intents and purposes, a claim that a God exists.

I would think this clearly and trivially true. If I believe X, then to say I don't claim X to be true is essentially to state I don't believe X (or at least that what I believe isn't a claim I think true).

 

[ArtieE]

You claim that atheism is some special term that, for reasons you don't specify, is basically the only colloquial term in any language defined wholly and solely as not being another term, yet somehow find it odd that as an agnostic

ROTFL. Agnostic means "not gnostic" just like atheist means "not theist". A gnostic knows an agnostic doesn't know, a theist believes an atheist doesn't believe.

 

[Norrin-6-]

ROTFL. Agnostic means "not gnostic" just like atheist means "not theist". A gnostic knows an agnostic doesn't know, a theist believes an atheist doesn't believe.

You asked me before how I would learn what the definition of atheist was, so that I could understand a person. I'd like to turn the tables and ask you how did you get these definitions?

I think, again, you're falling into the trap of the etymological root fallacy. But again, you probably got them from somewhere.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

ROTFL. Agnostic means "not gnostic"

Interestingly, here we need not rely on etymology because one person coined the term for a specific reason, and "agnostic" refers to a position in opposition to the (19th century) conception of "Gnosticism". It doesn't mean "not gnostic", because that would mean that all theists are agnostic and all atheists are agnostic. Of course, even if we allow for the semantic changes given usage since Huxley, it's still self-contradictory to define "agnostic" as "not gnostic" and expect this to mean anything, as both theists and atheists (not to mention basically all religious and non-religious positions) are "not gnostic". This is why there do not exist terms relating to X that mean "not X." Given a term X, we indicate the claim that X isn't true by simply saying "not X". We don't pretend that term which clearly isn't used and didn't develop to mean "not theism" is somehow defined by a term ("theism") when this is ludicrously idiotic and pointless (one need only negate theism, yet for ~500 years "atheism" has been used rather than simply negating "theism" because it isn't simply "not theism

just like atheist means "not theist".

Exactly: not at all. Atheist doesn't mean this, to assert it does is illogical and wholly contradictory to linguistics as well as other fields, completely baseless, an insult to atheism, and has no support other than its assumption and pathetically inadequate reliance on particular etymological interpretations.

A gnostic knows an agnostic doesn't know

Knows what? And before you say anything about god or religion, note that Gnostics believe and have historically believed radically distinct and mutually exclusive things about god(s).

 

[ArtieE]

You asked me before how I would learn what the definition of atheist was, so that I could understand a person. I'd like to turn the tables and ask you how did you get these definitions?

Common usage. I may be wrong but has there ever been a time when an atheist wasn't a person who didn't believe in gods?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I may be wrong but has there ever been a time when an atheist wasn't a person who didn't believe in gods?

The entirety of the usage of the word. Originally, it didn't even mean disbelief in gods, and then it meant disbelief in the monotheistic god as well as polytheism, deism, etc.

 

[idav]

The entirety of the usage of the word. Originally, it didn't even mean disbelief in gods, and then it meant disbelief in the monotheistic god as well as polytheism, deism, etc.

Yes, well we live in an age where gods are not a given anymore.

 

[ArtieE]

The entirety of the usage of the word. Originally, it didn't even mean disbelief in gods, and then it meant disbelief in the monotheistic god as well as polytheism, deism, etc.

But again, has there ever been a time when the word didn't describe a person without belief in gods?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But again, has there ever been a time when the word didn't describe a person without belief in gods?

The original definition of the term didn't refer to a person without a belief in gods, but did describe those who believed in god (such as Christians).

 

[Norrin-6-]

Common usage. I may be wrong but has there ever been a time when an atheist wasn't a person who didn't believe in gods?

The Christians used to be called atheists because they rejected the Roman gods. I don't know if that eludes not believing in gods though - they believed in one god at least, but that's not why they were called atheists. Again, I think the Christians believed these gods didn't exist.

How exactly did you come across this usage? People in your town? The internet?

 

[ArtieE]

The Christians used to be called atheists because they rejected the Roman gods. I don't know if that eludes not believing in gods though - they believed in one god at least, but that's not why they were called atheists. Again, I think the Christians believed these gods didn't exist.

How exactly did you come across this usage? People in your town? The internet?

Everywhere. I have never come across the word atheist where the word didn't describe a person who didn't believe in god(s).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The Christians used to be called atheists because they rejected the Roman gods. I don't know if that eludes not believing in gods though - they believed in one god at least, but that's not why they were called atheists. Again, I think the Christians believed these gods didn't exist.

How exactly did you come across this usage? People in your town? The internet?

"Whereas most Western countries have gradually separated church and state, the example of other societies, such as Iran and Saudi-Arabia, that this is not so everywhere. In ancient Greece, too, religion was totally embedded in society- no sphere of life lacked a religious aspect...In such an environment atheism was simply unthinkable. The term atheos did not originate before the fifth century and even then indicated only a lack of relations with the gods." (emphasis added)
Bremmer, J. (1994). Greek Religion (Greece & Rome No. 24). Oxford University Press.

From the most authoritative source on the English language:
"2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man."
(OED)

 

[ArtieE]

"Whereas most Western countries have gradually separated church and state, the example of other societies, such as Iran and Saudi-Arabia, that this is not so everywhere. In ancient Greece, too, religion was totally embedded in society- no sphere of life lacked a religious aspect...In such an environment atheism was simply unthinkable. The term atheos did not originate before the fifth century and even then indicated only a lack of relations with the gods." (emphasis added)
Bremmer, J. (1994). Greek Religion (Greece & Rome No. 24). Oxford University Press.

Well of course they could be said to have a lack of relations when they didn't believe they existed but all the others did.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well of course they could be said to have a lack of relations when they didn't believe they existed but all the others did.

Try reading:: "In such an environment atheism was simply unthinkable.". The term didn't mean lack of belief in god or gods beause that was "simply unthinkable".