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 :D

/philosophy, debate, belief and thread!!! :p

[Max Dirks]

That is, they don't not believe, its more a case of they don't know what they believe in. To want to believe generally implies that a person doesn't presently believe. Beyond that, it's simply a matter of degree (i.e. I believe but want to believe more). I like the definition of agnostic too, but I can't bring myself to think it is anything more than just a subset of atheism/theism created by high (and therefore, creative) philosophers. Shadowed shouldn't mind being called an atheist under its proper use.

[Shadowed]

To clarify the situation a bit, my primary concern at the moment is the fact that theists view atheists as making a claim of non-existence. This makes it difficult, as making a claim requires some modicum of proof to verify the claims. For example, if I said that Max Dirks didn't exist, I'd either have to prove that in some way, or have the majority of people think I'm crazy - I mean, they can tell that he exists, and they feel it's self-evident. So, when arguing against a theist, they say "Prove that god doesn't exist." Well, by the proper definition of atheist, I'm not making an assertion that he doesn't exist, I'm simply not believing someone else's assertion. The difference is minute, but critical.

So, yes, I know that most of this difference comes from prominent anti-theists, but again, I think that most of those anti-theists are more anti-religion. After all, if god does not exist, how can you be opposed to god? Yet religions do exist, thus you can be opposed to them and their definitions and beliefs in a god. So, again, it's creating misnomers all over the place. No matter who's to blame, I would at least like to see the dictionaries represent the proper definition of atheism, rather than the currently accepted one.

Also, for agnosticism, it's not that they don't believe in a god (in most cases, making some generalizations here) but that they don't have enough information to properly define a god, or even prove that it exists. It's often theism without religion, you know? They believe a god exists, but they recognize that they don't know enough to make any definitive claims about the god, and they're open to the fact that they might be wrong.

[Max Dirks]

Well, by the proper definition of atheist, I'm not making an assertion that he doesn't exist, I'm simply not believing someone else's assertion. The difference is minute, but critical. If the trouble with the definition is only the word "belief," then you should just clarify to debaters that you aren't arguing he doesn't exist, but rather that you don't "believe" he exists. Then when asked to "prove he doesn't exist" you can say I can't, but you can still be right (insofar as they too wouldn't be able to counter your point without circumstantial evidence that you believe in a god).

That whole agree to disagree is a logistical nightmare, but doesn't this sound a whole lot like it?

[Shadowed]

It's fine on an individual sense, but the very fact that the dictionary definition is wrong is still a considerable problem.

[Taskmienster]

That's just philosopher bullshit. You either believe or you don't believe, it's pretty simple.

As a philosophy major, I must say that this is the most common flaw assumed in regards to those who are in my major. We don't just make bullshit up, we think about a lot of things and try and explain them. Agnostic, what I am, is not just a babbling of words to make some philosopher feel better about their beliefs, or a word created to make people think that the philosopher is smart and different.

It is a belief in the fact that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god. If you want to, convince me either way and I'll believe. But from a lot of personal study as well as a lot of study in class, it is possibly the only realistic way to think of deities. I personally am not saying that god is or isn't real, since I have made up my mind that neither can be proven. I don't believe that there is something there that controls your life, but at the same time cannot explain certain silly things through science and reasonable logic either.

So, agnostic is not bullshit. You don't either believe or not believe, there is a gray line between that asks for reason why to go either way. I'm in that gray line. If you believe but don't have proof for why you do, or you don't believe but have no proof of why either, and you want that proof you are agnostic. Not hard.

[Lathienas Miraq]

Agreed. As I say experience has shown agnosticism to be a very real term. However Theism can either be without proof (Faith) or with it (though I don't know the correct word for it).

Also wouldn't this generally come under the heading of theology rather than philosophy?

[Shadowed]

When discussing god in the 'higher power' sense, rather than a physical, defined sense (such as the Christian god) it's more in the realm of philosophy.

[Mikeavelli]

You don't find the dictionary definition of "atheist" specific enough, it doesn't meet your exact notion of what the word should mean, or how you're described.

There are, however, dozens of different definitions for the word atheist. Indeed, you could probably get an entire room of atheists together, and have them all quibbling over this or that minor point about how the label doesn't really describe them perfectly. It does, however, do what the dictionary definition of a word is supposed to do, describe the general concept.

If you want specifics, you ask the person.

This whole argument sounds like, say, a Japanese person taking issue with the word "Asian," about how they're called an "Asian" all the time, and this doesn't describe them at all, and everyone should quit using the word "Asian" and only refer to them as "Japanese."

This is fine and Dandy.

Now, imagine they take it to the next level, and insist the dictionary definition of "Asian" is wrong, it shouldn't include Japan, because Japan is distinctly separate from the rest of Asia in a minor, but very important (in their mind) way. Say, because they're not connected to the main land mass.

[Max Dirks]

It is a belief in the fact that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god.I'm looking at the bigger picture, though from a positivist perception. In terms of absolutes there is either a yes or a no. It's perfectly fine to be agnostic, in the sense that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god, but logically its unsound to say you are an agnostic, but not an atheist. You are either uncertain, but you believe or you are uncertain, but you don't believe. I'm not saying that deciphering these middle (uncertain grounds) isn't important, I'm just saying that calling someone an atheist and calling that same person an agnostic is possible and true, logically.

You know, that LSAT question where you ask, "True or false, all agnostics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostic." That answer, my sly friend, is true!

[Libis]

Hmm. Hadn't thought of it that way. Good point, well made.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Again. This was a reply to Mikeavelli not Max.

EDIT 2: That is not to say Max's point wasn't good.

[Shadowed]

I'm not trying to argue semantics that far. I'm certain there are atheists who believe that god doesn't exist, but the very fact that the actual word, when broken down, has an entirely different meaning should be changed. Or, in the very least, have a second definition added; they do that, too.

[Taskmienster]

I'm looking at the bigger picture, though from a positivist perception. In terms of absolutes there is either a yes or a no. It's perfectly fine to be agnostic, in the sense that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god, but logically its unsound to say you are an agnostic, but not an atheist. You are either uncertain, but you believe or you are uncertain, but you don't believe. I'm not saying that deciphering these middle (uncertain grounds) isn't important, I'm just saying that calling someone an atheist and calling that same person an agnostic is possible and true, logically.

You know, that LSAT question where you ask, "True or false, all agnostics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostic." That answer, my sly friend, is true!


Haha. Well... that's a matter of opinion. I'm not atheistic at all. Though I'm in no way a believer in god either. I tend to just stay pure agnostic, I study religion and philosophy in order to attempt to understand or figure out which one is the way I should be swayed. Since I have yet found a way to prove that god is real or isn't I'm still in the middle studying. If I can ask a question about whether my belief is true, then I don't really believe it. Any questions that can be poked into my mindset are those that make me continue to remain agnostic.

I'd like to believe that there isn't a god, because I don't like having the idea of someone else running my life. Then again, I would love to believe in a god because that would mean that I would have someone to believe in that is beyond myself and something that is much stronger and much bigger than me that I could rely on.

Being agnostic, I believe in myself. Just me. That's the middle ground.

[Lord Anglekos]

Haha. Well... that's a matter of opinion. I'm not atheistic at all. Though I'm in no way a believer in god either. I tend to just stay pure agnostic, I study religion and philosophy in order to attempt to understand or figure out which one is the way I should be swayed. Since I have yet found a way to prove that god is real or isn't I'm still in the middle studying. If I can ask a question about whether my belief is true, then I don't really believe it. Any questions that can be poked into my mindset are those that make me continue to remain agnostic.

I'd like to believe that there isn't a god, because I don't like having the idea of someone else running my life. Then again, I would love to believe in a god because that would mean that I would have someone to believe in that is beyond myself and something that is much stronger and much bigger than me that I could rely on.

Being agnostic, I believe in myself. Just me. That's the middle ground.
What he said.

[Jericho]

Huh. Interesting.

I'm trying to fit together a precise understanding of your viewpoint, Shadowed. So, supposing an "athiest" answered the question:

Q: Does Got exist?
A: No.

Does this person believe that God does not exist, or just not believe that God exists?

The distinction (if I understand you correctly) kinda sounds like agnosticism. "Believing that God does not exist" suggests that your experience/evidence has convinced you that there is no God. Whereas "Not believing that God exists" suggests that your experience/evidence has not been sufficient to convince you that he does. So, your style of atheist would answer:

Q: Does God exist?
A: I don't have enough evidence to say, one way or another. For that reason, I currently don't believe so.

...mreh?

[Serilliant]

You know, that LSAT question where you ask, "True or false, all agnostics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostic." That answer, my sly friend, is true!

I don't want to pull the incredibly juvenile, "I teach the LSAT and did way better on it than you" routine, but...

As someone who teaches the LSAT and did way better on it than you, I can say that the correct answer is actually false; not all agnostics are atheists.

As you identified earlier, atheism is the inverse of theism. Similarly, agnosticism is the inverse of gnosticism. While the former refers to the belief in a god/gods, the latter refers to your knowledge about your conclusion. You can be an agnostic theist or a gnostic atheist (meaning unsure but believing, and sure in non-belief respectively). Agnosticism is a subset of atheism like apples are a subset of oranges.

See also: nifty chart (http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/atheist_chart.gif).

[Max Dirks]

Serilliant, if you're unwilling to commit to something (a non-religious definition of agnostic), then it can be said that you didn't commit to something. For example, if I'm unwilling to commit to judging a thread, then I certainly didn't commit to judging the thread. In the context of religion, if you're unwilling to commit to a belief that god exists, then can't it be said that you didn't commit to the belief that god exists? Then, if you don't commit to the belief that god exists, doesn't that make you an atheist per the Webster definition (one without a belief in a god)?

I think so. Take your LSAT score and stuff it.

[Visla Eraclaire]

Belief and knowledge are different things.

Thank goodness Serilliant posted that response and saved me from having to trudge through this topic.

[Max Dirks]

Belief and knowledge are different things.

Thank goodness Serilliant posted that response and saved me from having to trudge through this topic.Maybe you should have.

The context of the thread is that Shadowed dislikes it when people call him an atheist based on his specific views of religion (i.e. nihilism). This is due to changing/muddled meanings of the words, usually brought about by opposing viewpoint. He thinks it feigns ignorance when he's called atheist. While, I agree with him about the words changing, I also think that he shouldn't mind it because the plain meaning of the words indicates that all pure* agnostics and nihilists cannot be anything but atheists (even though those people might have meant something different when they said it).

*I added the pure caveat for Serilliant (at the zero point). If you can't believe because you can't know, then you don't believe, but if you believe you can't know, then you can still believe (which is what that chart is for). Notice the positioning of the word "can't." I'm referring to the former in my discussion, Serilliant to the latter. Our different views simply reflect the changing definitions of the words that Shadowed noted.

(Yes, I realize all my argument sounds just as clever as a retort like "Of course I'm happy" to the comment "You're gay," but it was a fun intellectual journey. I fucking hate philosophy)

[Visla Eraclaire]

Maybe you should have.

. . .

I fucking hate philosophy

No, I'm fairly confident I made the right choice. I can't be certain, but I believe I did. Just like my views on god(s). I'm fairly confident there are none. I don't claim actual knowledge or certainty, but if I required that of all my beliefs, I'd never believe anything.

[Shadowed]

Erm, Max, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the definition of atheist used to describe me is the wrong definition. Me being a nihilist has nothing to do with it, since I'm also an atheist under the proper definition. All I'm saying is, atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief of lack. That's it.

[Rayse Valentino]

I'm not trying to argue semantics that far. I'm certain there are atheists who believe that god doesn't exist, but the very fact that the actual word, when broken down, has an entirely different meaning should be changed. Or, in the very least, have a second definition added; they do that, too.

Heh heh... this is the very definition of 'arguing semantics'.

[Sighter Tnailog]

Just to correct a misconception...

Agnosticism is simply an epistemology which holds that one can only claim as knowledge that which is testable. There are a lot of folks who add all sorts of things on top of that, but at base it is an epistemology that restricts the spheres of what humans can claim as knowledge.

For example, Leslie Weatherhead's The Christian Agnostic. I find some of his positions untenable, but it is hardly a logical fallacy to be an agnostic believer...agnosticism only concerns itself with what is claimed as knowledge.

As for the original argument vis-a-vis atheism, um, what? I know plenty of Christian non-theists who have a problem with the term "Christian" as applied to them because of the cultural assumptions that the term carries with it -- i.e. fundamentalist, theist, dogmatist, etc. But they still accept the label even as they try to change and model a new way of being Christian apart from the one the culture breathes into everyone, believer or not.

If language is your problem, make a claim that "atheist" means what you intend it to mean -- someone who does not profess a belief in God. And work for that definition to be acceptable and operative. Just know that there are a lot of atheists who will fight you on that definition, and make precisely the opposite argument: that to be atheist requires more than simply the lack of a belief, but the presence of a belief in no god.

As for this "oh these people are really anti-theists not atheists" claim, I prefer to refer to people by the labels they choose to use, not the term I assign them.