Who gets to decide?

[McBell]

Good noticing there.

Nope. I can't bring myself to care.

interesting how fast you lost interest in your own topic when it is pointed out you are doing the exact thing your OP is whining about.

 

[jojom]

interesting how fast you lost interest in your own topic when it is pointed out you are doing the exact thing your OP is whining about.

 

[McBell]

I wonder if you have figured out that your Op equally applies to yourself....

Care to answer your own questions:

Do you have a good argument here?
If so, why?
If not, why not?​

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Atheism is agnostic,rejecting a simple dichotomy doesn't really make sense - you either believe in God or you don't.

Except there is more than one concept of what constitutes "god," and there is more than one way of believing, and more than one way of not believing (withholding belief for or against is not the same as believing against). Yes, you can shoehorn all the variation into a simple dichotomy, but in doing so it makes the terms vague and debatable...which is exactly what we're seeing in this thread...

Let me say this again:

I "believe" that the universe is alive with spirits. To me, spirits are not God. I do not believe in traditional pantheistic gods, nor in J/C omnimax personal creator god (although I do recognize I could be mistaken, and they could actually exist). Therefore, to me, I am not a theist; I'm an agnostic on God and gods, but a believer in non-god spirits.
Someone else--you, perhaps--will see that I believe in spirits (without any idea at all of what I mean by that term), and say, "Aha, spirits are the same sort of thing as God or gods, therefore you are a Theist." If you stretch the meaning of God or gods to include spirits the way I think of them, then you are making the concept meaningless, because you're equating a whole lot of things that aren't really the same (Heck, even the difference between the modern monotheistic J/C God is so different than the traditional gods of the pantheisms as to make putting them in the same category ridiculous).
Or you will say, "Oh, you see yourself as agnostic, therefore you are an atheist." Yet I disagree, because I see the distinction between withholding belief, and believing that God/gods do not exist--that is, nonbelief and disbelief.

Because there is no final arbiter or meaning in the English Language, everyone is free to have words mean what they want--but they must recognize that when they try to change the common, understood meaning/usage (such as reflected in reputable dictionaries), other people may disagree. Historically (say, the last century or so), the meaning of atheist has been "disbelief in god or gods," while agnostic has meant nonbelief or "withholding of belief or disbelief." For the reasons above, I disagree with changing the term atheist from disbelief to nonbelief.

It is perfectly fine for someone/some group(s) to try to change the language, but it is also perfectly fine for others to resist that change, or to suggest other changes. Personally, I'd rather see a proliferation in terms, new terms to account for the differences I've mentioned above, which recognizes the messy world in which we actually live, rather than a continued insistence on dichotomy, which tends to inhibit discussion and understanding rather than increase it.

 

[Bunyip]

Except there is more than one concept of what constitutes "god,"

Yes, there are thousands of Gods -I was referring to Yahweh.

and there is more than one way of believing, and more than one way of not believing (withholding belief for or against is not the same as believing against).

How is it different?

Yes, you can shoehorn all the variation into a simple dichotomy, but in doing so it makes the terms vague and debatable...which is exactly what we're seeing in this thread...

Let me say this again:

I "believe" that the universe is alive with spirits. To me, spirits are not God. I do not believe in traditional pantheistic gods, nor in J/C omnimax personal creator god (although I do recognize I could be mistaken, and they could actually exist). Therefore, to me, I am not a theist; I'm an agnostic on God and gods, but a believer in non-god spirits.

Well then it is simple - you say you are not a theist, so you are atheist (not theist)

Someone else--you, perhaps--will see that I believe in spirits (without any idea at all of what I mean by that term), and say, "Aha, spirits are the same sort of thing as God or gods, therefore you are a Theist."

Nope, 'theism' refers to a belief in a theistic God.

If you stretch the meaning of God or gods to include spirits the way I think of them, then you are making the concept meaningless, because you're equating a whole lot of things that aren't really the same (Heck, even the difference between the modern monotheistic J/C God is so different than the traditional gods of the pantheisms as to make putting them in the same category ridiculous).

No, I am referring to a theistic God specifically - Yahweh.

Or you will say, "Oh, you see yourself as agnostic, therefore you are an atheist." Yet I disagree, because I see the distinction between withholding belief, and believing that God/gods do not exist--that is, nonbelief and disbelief.

I see no difference in practice.

Because there is no final arbiter or meaning in the English Language, everyone is free to have words mean what they want--but they must recognize that when they try to change the common, understood meaning/usage (such as reflected in reputable dictionaries), other people may disagree. Historically (say, the last century or so), the meaning of atheist has been "disbelief in god or gods," while agnostic has meant nonbelief or "withholding of belief or disbelief." For the reasons above, I disagree with changing the term atheist from disbelief to nonbelief.

It is perfectly fine for someone/some group(s) to try to change the language, but it is also perfectly fine for others to resist that change, or to suggest other changes. Personally, I'd rather see a proliferation in terms, new terms to account for the differences I've mentioned above, which recognizes the messy world in which we actually live, rather than a continued insistence on dichotomy, which tends to inhibit discussion and understanding rather than increase it.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Yes, there are thousands of Gods -I was referring to Yahweh. How is it different? Well then it is simple - you say you are not a theist, so you are atheist (not theist) Nope, 'theism' refers to a belief in a theistic God. No, I am referring to a theistic God specifically - Yahweh. I see no difference in practice.

Okay, let me try it this way:
If you're not a Republican, you're a Democrat.
If you're not a Democrat, you're a Republican.
Forget that there a Libertarians, Independents, etc. You have to be Democrat or Republican. Does that make the issue of nuance any clearer?

Not everyone agrees that the term atheism only applies to Yahweh--in fact the definition refers to "god or gods." So to YOU it's about believing in Yahweh or not; to others it's about other versions of god or gods. To say that it only applies to a theistic god is to then beg for a definition of what exactly a theistic god is, and why the term would not apply to theistic and not nontheistic gods. And then for some, it's about not having a belief, and for others, it's about believing there is not. Lumping all those distinctions does nothing to improve understanding, when you still have to explain the nuances.

My personal reservations about belief in Yahweh or some other version of the J/C single omnimax deity makes me an agnostic, given the standard dictionary definition of the term, and I'm quite comfortable with that. Saying that because I neither believe nor disbelieve the proposition of such a deity makes me an atheist does not fit the with standard dictionary or accepted philosophical definition of the term, and therefore it is not accurate.

So, we have theistic and nontheistic gods, and belief, disbelief, and nonbelief. We don't need a dichotomy, we need a set of six terms to reflect the diversity of positions in this matter.

So, let me get this straight: if it only has to do with theistic gods, and atheists are those disbelieve or nonbelieve in theistic gods, then someone who believes in a nontheistic god (but not a theistic one) is an atheist?

 

[Bunyip]

Okay, let me try it this way:
If you're not a Republican, you're a Democrat.
If you're not a Democrat, you're a Republican.
Forget that there a Libertarians, Independents, etc. You have to be Democrat or Republican. Does that make the issue of nuance any clearer?

Well no - you are ignoring a number of other possible states.

Not everyone agrees that the term atheism only applies to Yahweh--in fact the definition refers to "god or gods." So to YOU it's about believing in Yahweh or not; to others it's about other versions of god or gods.

You have misread - I am referring specifically to Yahweh, but am atheist in relation to all Gods known to me. If you are referring to a different God - just say so.

To say that it only applies to a theistic god is to then beg for a definition of what exactly a theistic god is, and why the term would not apply to theistic and not nontheistic gods.

Simply because A-THEISM refers to theism.

And then for some, it's about not having a belief, and for others, it's about believing there is not. Lumping all those distinctions does nothing to improve understanding, when you still have to explain the nuances.

My personal reservations about belief in Yahweh or some other version of the J/C single omnimax deity makes me an agnostic, given the standard dictionary definition of the term, and I'm quite comfortable with that. Saying that because I neither believe nor disbelieve the proposition of such a deity makes me an atheist does not fit the with standard dictionary or accepted philosophical definition of the term, and therefore it is not accurate.

If you do not believe Yahweh exists, you are atheist in relation to Yahweh.

So, we have theistic and nontheistic gods, and belief, disbelief, and nonbelief. We don't need a dichotomy, we need a set of six terms to reflect the diversity of positions in this matter.

So, let me get this straight: if it only has to do with theistic gods, and atheists are those disbelieve or nonbelieve in theistic gods, then someone who believes in a nontheistic god (but not a theistic one) is an atheist?

Yep.

 

[LuisDantas]

In another thread (Atheism is not a default position | ReligiousForums.com ) I had reason to go to the American Atheist web site to get their take on the nature of atheism. I had always regarded atheism as the disbelief in gods or a denial of gods. But they say No, that isn't right. Atheism is "a lack of belief in gods." As I read it, this means that even if one grows up never hearing about god, the concept of a god, or even the word---one has total ignorance of it---one would be an atheist.

That is correct. There are different understandings of atheism out there, of course, but few people would dispute that ignorance of the concept of god would indeed be atheism.

Unless, I suppose, the person discussed somehow creates a concept of god of his or her own. Come to think of it, even then it would be exceedingly unlikely that he or she would treat it as a deity.

Thanks. I had not quite realized previously that theism is at least in part a social construct. I used to see it as an esthetical inclination.

This they say is in contrast to the common dictionary definition of atheism, one that's in accord with my view: "atheism is the disbelief in gods or a denial of gods." It is also in contrast to what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says: ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

Being unaware of the concept of god involves denial of the existence of God, at least by my understanding. Apparently Muslims and some Christians disagree, which I can only find odd.

The American Atheist web site then goes on to say . . .

"Why should atheists allow theists [ I presume they feel that those who write definitions are theists] to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves."
What is Atheism? | American Atheists​

In other words, they feel they have the right to define the word because they're the ones to whom it applies.

That could perhaps be better worded, but it is essentially correct. It is very inappropriate for others to drop their deities over our heads.