I have a problem with the term 'atheist'

[Shadowed]

As a site for writers, hopefully we can get some discussion going on the interpretation of words and their inherent meanings. I don't intend to turn this into a debate about religion, but simply words. With that said...

The term 'atheist' means one who believes that there is no god. I take a strong issue with this, as the word is only relevant from the assumption that there is a god. The way that I term myself in comparison to theists is not that I believe there is no god, but that I do not believe that there is a god. I don't believe that a lot of things exist, but that's a marked difference from believing that something does not exist. Indeed, it would have to be conceptualized first, before we can realize that we don't believe it. Did you all know that everyone reading this post is an agysmotical? That you do not believe in the race of Gysmots, the magical loaves of bread that eat babies and piss liquefied uranium? Exactly.

So, obviously, we live in a theism-dominated world. That's fine, and understandable. Yet there are only three commonly accepted terms for those who do not claim to believe in a specific god: atheists, agnostics, and nihilists. Now, I'm technically a nihilist, but that's part and parcel with atheism in the Judeo-Christian viewpoint. So, let's look at those real quick. Atheists believe there is no god, agnostics believe you can't/we don't know if a god really exists or not, and nihilists don't believe in any sort of purpose to life, a god included. None of those terms are tailor-made for people who simply have no belief, positive or negative, in theism.

Why is this? Why do we have terms that only imply a belief in something's existence or nonexistence? Should those of us commonly termed as atheists instead go by 'human'? Who would understand what we meant if we simply responded "I'm human" when people ask if we believe in a god? In fact, that response would be interpreted differently for each person hearing it. As it's not likely that we can create a new term, why not redefine the existing one? Look at atheist: Someone who is not theistic. That's it, the entire root of the word. Someone who does not hold to a theistic belief. That says nothing about believing that there is a god or not, or that we don't know, or whatever. All it says is that we don't subscribe to any such beliefs, that we have an utter lack of belief in regard to the aspects of theism. The word's there, the root is there, and that's what it really should mean. So why are we tied down to someone else's perceptions of our own beliefs and lack thereof?

[Lathienas Miraq]

Deism: The belief in no particular god / the belief that the universe was created by a god who then retreated into silent uncaring.

Technically this was my set of beliefs up to when I converted to christianity. But enough about that as we don't want a religious debate

The connatations tied to athiestic labels are largely brought about by many famous 'athiests' who are largely anti-theist (as opposed to ante-theistic which is a whole different argument). There is a difference but many people assume they are the same thing.

Atheist means a lack of theism (the belief in a partictular deity/deities, usually monotheistic in modern culture). Thus having a lack of theism in a culture that largely contains it is worthy of differentiation (hence the label). However, being agysmotical is the norm and there are very few (I would imagine) gysmot believers. Also lacking a belief in gysmots does not make you agysmotical, that is a lack of gysmots. This means that the term would be redundant in this culture.

[Shadowed]

Ultimately, I understand why we have a common term to define someone who doesn't believe in theism. But my primary issue with it is that the current definition is wrong. I don't mind being in an out-group, but currently, the only thriving label for that out-group is entirely predicated from an in-group perspective. Even people in the out-group using the larger perspective to define themselves, as there is no other commonly accepted term to denote what we truly are. That's the biggest issue, that the term atheism as it is currently defined is simply wrong.

[Lathienas Miraq]

I think you missed the point of my argument. Atheism is the lack of theism. This is the definition of the word. Lack of theism is not belief in an absence of god, it is just not a belief in the prescence of god. This is what you are (if I have understood correctly). Anti-theism is what many people think of when they hear atheism and is the direct belief in an absence of god. Thus, atheism is not wrongly defined it just carries different connotations because of media etc. The definition itself still stands though.

EDIT: ok, I think I misunderstood *embarrassed*. The reason that the 'out-group' as you call it is defined by the 'in' group is because the 'in' group have been around longer. Almost every culture has had some aspect of theism from the beginings of the human race and therefore the absence of it is considered different rather than the presence of it being strange as it would be if atheism came first.

Besides, what's wrong with nihilism as a label? It simply states that you don't belive in anything, or rather you believe there is nothing. This is a circular argument anyway.

[Shadowed]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

one who believes that there is no deity

[Lathienas Miraq]

It's wrong. It's a very very common misconception but what they are talking about is anti-theism not atheism. At least in the sense of a literal breakdown of the word. As I said before, the modern connotations have been warped by certain prominent 'atheists' with lots of rhetoric and very large megaphones.

[Kerrigan Muldoon]

While I think I understand your reasoning and partly agree with you, Lathienas Miraq has a point. I'm not familiar with the numbers but it's quite possible that still most of the people on this world are not atheist (or nihilist or maybe even agnostic). Even if not, until max 100 years ago the massive majority were theist so that is I guess the reason for your problem. Up until at least 100 years ago the non-theist had to explain their (non)believe and not the theist, even while the balance is changing the languages are still based on that assumption.

[Visla Eraclaire]

Different people use the word differently. I don't get wrapped up in trying to force a specific definition to become standardized. I just define my terms very carefully when I am having a serious discussion on the topic.

[Max Dirks]

This could be a far too simplistic approach, but in law we're taught to explore the plain meaning of words. The Latin word root "a" means "without." According to Webster, theism means, "belief in the existence of a god or gods." Put together, atheism should mean "without the belief in the existence of a god or gods." Thus, I have no problem grouping those who believe in the existence of a god under a term called "theists" and those who do not believe in the existence of a god under a term called "atheists."

Beyond that, all these sub-groupings (agnostics, nihilists) just sound like ridiculous terms some high philosopher created to distinguish their beliefs. Most of it can be sorted out (or perhaps complicated) by simple logic. If you are an agnostic and, as Shadowed defines, believe you "can't know if a god really exists or not," then really in fact you don't believe in the existence of a god. Your logical way to arrive at that point (i.e. I would, but I can't, I won't, I don't care), is wholly unnecessary. That's just philosopher bullshit. You either believe or you don't believe, it's pretty simple.

Also, Miraq, "anti" means "against," which really doesn't refute Shadowed's argument that "None of those terms are tailor-made for people who simply have no belief, positive or negative, in theism." If you are anti-theist, you are against the existence of a god. To be against something implies the negative. If you're implying that most people confuse atheism with anti-theism I doubt you'll find any empirical authority for that claim. Sorry boss. I hate logic and I hate law!

[Lathienas Miraq]

Yes, anti means against, that was the point I was making. I simply said that atheist fulfilled the definition he wanted. I was just making the point that it surely doesn't matter the background to the origin of the word?

Also, not to mess up your logic but I belive someone can be truly agnostic. I know many people who want to believe but want proof. That is, they don't not believe, its more a case of they don't know what they believe in. I, myself went through a long period of this state and agnostic (indecision about beliefs in its simplest form) is a very good term to describe it. And Deism is different to theism. Theism is belief in an 'active' god if you like whereas Deism is belief in a silent or 'inactive' god. Kind of like 'the force' or a god who created the universe for lolz and then ignored it for the rest of eternity

/philosophy, debate, belief and thread!!!