Defining "Atheism"

[Strongappleby]

Atheism is the opposite of theism.

Not really. The a- is a prefix to -theos, therefore atheism is the -ism of the athe-, not the a- of the theism.

Just a heads up E, this is a Atheist forum, not a grammar forum.

Just thought you'd like to know...........

I'd still say that what the prefix is, matters. Words like "theory," "philosophy," etc can be defined by looking at the etymology.

[Existentialist]

---

You should talk about the context of that really. But you can take it out of context if you like.

Context doesn't add or take anything away in this case. Anyone who can come up with a type of person who is a "atheistic theist" is someone who obviously bastardises the dictionary and likes to combine two antonyms for the hell of it.

Besides, I'd like to know how it negates my point about the importance of understanding positioning of

1) a-,
2) theos, and
3) -ism

The "ism" at the end is to illustrate the word is talking about an ideology, so the word stems that are important are "athe" and "the" (from theism), which come from the Greek "atheos" and "theos" respectively.

"theos" is Greek for "God", and "atheos" is the Greek for "without God". So, it is quite clear from this quick lesson in etymology that the word "theism" describes any ideology that involves a God, and "atheism" describes any ideology that is without a God.

You simply cannot have an ideology that both has and doesn't have a God. It is a blatant contradiction.

How can anyone possibly reach a view about one's preferred definition of atheism without determining which component among these three is primarily allied to which other?

The question of which components are allied was answered by the people who came up with the language, and I demonstrated this above. I'm not entirely sure what you meant by "one's preferred definition", but if you are going back to your old tactics of trying to make up new definitions for already existing words, I'm going to politely ask you to stop (and loudly remind you that such action is against the forum guidelines now!)

You mean, everyone? Every single person apart from me? Do you have any evidence of that? There are two debates really, one about belief and one about statements of the existence of god. One would need to deal with them as separate issues when reaching any conclusions about the definition of atheism.

No, I mean the philosophical community, which luckily does not count you as one of their members. No, there aren't two debates; there are debates involving statements about the existence of God, in which both sides either subscribe (believe) or do not subscribe (disbelieve) in the statements. A debate where statements about the existence of God are discussed without either side having a position of belief or non-belief comes across to me as (a) very boring, and more importantly (b) impossible by the very purpose of a debate, which is to discuss two opposing viewpoints (beliefs).

By all means talk again about the classical laws of logic or refer us to a previous proof. Merely citing them doesn't constitute proof.

I gave you the proof. Don't ignore it. To have any middle ground between "believing" and "not believing" is a violation of the 3rd law of classical logic, the law of the excluded middle. That is the argument.

Atheism isn't automatically about belief. One can surely make an a priori statement setting out a position on the existence of God.

Yes, but then we aren't talking about knowledge here; we are talking about belief. Beliefs are, by definition, not necessarily true. One can make an a-priori statement about the existence of gods, but one cannot make any statement without either having a belief or not having a belief in it. Even if one has given no previous thought to the statement, this still translates to non-belief (since it isn't belief). Again, demonstrated via the violation of the third law of classical logic if the opposite were true.

---

Adrian – there’s really no need to raise your voice at me, even metaphorically. I never broke your rule about dictionary definitions even before you invented it, so please don’t start talking ‘loudly’ at me about some Minority Report-style precrime that I’m supposed to be about to commit when you’ve never provided a morsel of evidence that I’m even a one-off offender against your new rules and regulations, either now or retrospectively. Thank you.

Luckily for me you may have the power to make false allegations against me here, but you don’t have the power to exclude me from the ‘philosophical community’, whatever elitist little imaginary club that may be, but even if you did have such a power, that wouldn’t stop me talking about philosophy. You can either be involved in the discussion or not. The choice is yours.

We can of course have a conversation about the etymology and evolution of the terms atheism and theism but I don't think it's going to help much here. Let's talk about modern language. Now you might need to check your dictionary to confirm this, but I’m pretty sure I’m right when I say that sticking the word ‘believe’ in parentheses after the word ‘subscribe’ doesn’t give it the same definition. But by using this device you merrily exclude the possibility that the discussion of atheism might not always compulsorily involve the concept of belief. That’s my point. A debate can be a debate between two positions and is not automatically ‘impossible’ just because the two positions don't meet the criteria of a belief. Please explain why you think they should.

It would be helpful if you could also stop asserting that you've provided a proof without then actually stating what the proof is, as to be honest it comes across as evasive. You say that one cannot make any statement without either having a belief or not having a belief in it. Is it not possible to exclude the concept of belief from the discussion? The third law of classical logic only applies to the concepts that are in play. If one chooses to exclude the concept of belief from the discussion, one can still make a statement that god does not exist.

Now I know I'm not infallible and I am exploring ideas here. I don't know what you think you're doing. By all means argue with me but please could you refrain from raising your voice, swearing at me, or mixing up your contributions as an equal participant in a discussion with your role as a dispenser of discipline. And while you're at it why don't you get rid of that stupid Hipster Hitler avatar? It's only funny if it's ironic.

---

If you can truthfully answer the question "do you believe in god" with the answer "no" then you are an atheist.

Yes but the thread is about defining atheism. You're doing it the other way around - taking a pre-defined concept and the selecting a word that fits it.

[Shinylight]

And while you're at it why don't you get rid of that stupid Hipster Hitler avatar? It's only funny if it's ironic.

Woah, now you define what is funny too?

P.s. you don't get to tell people what they can have as their avatar.

[Existentialist]

Woah, now you define what is funny too?

Woah, you don't know the difference between an opinion and a definition without it being spelt out?

[EDIT] P.S. You don't seem to know the difference either between telling somebody what their avatar is and asking them a question about it.

[Shinylight]

Woah, now you define what is funny too?

Woah, you don't know the difference between an opinion and a definition without it being spelt out?

Woah, you don't understand the difference between sincerity and a joke without it being spelled out?

You see, it was a joke based on the widely known fact, that you (Existentialist), like to throw out the dictionary's definitions and make up your own.

Tell that to 6 million Jews.

[Existentialist]

Woah, you don't understand the difference between sincerity and a joke without it being spelled out?

Woah, jokes I usually find humorous. That's the thing that I go by. Sorry your jokes all fall flat.

So Shinylight, would you like to contribute your views about the thread. I've put considerable effort into it. Just to take you back to the opening post - how do you define atheism? Is it a belief that there is no god? A lack of belief in a god?

[Paul the Human]

All it takes to be considered atheism is to lack a belief in gods. Holding a belief that there is no god is also atheism, but that belief is not necessary for a position to qualify as atheism, only the lack of belief is needed.

I do not understand why you cannot understand that.

[Existentialist]

I'd still say that what the prefix is, matters. Words like "theory," "philosophy," etc can be defined by looking at the etymology.

I agree. Suffixes matter too. Atheism has one of each!

[Shinylight]

Woah, jokes I usually find humorous. That's the thing that I go by. Sorry your jokes all fall flat.

Woah, a joke is still a joke whether you find it humorous or not, I would point you to a definition, but as has been demonstrated before, it would be futile.

So Shinylight, would you like to contribute your views about the thread. I've put considerable effort into it. Just to take you back to the opening post - how do you define atheism? Is it a belief that there is no god? A lack of belief in a god?

Atheism is a disbelief in God, positive or negative. If someone asks you "Do you believe in God", if your answer is anything other than yes, you are an atheist. Unless you answer "I like sausages", in which case you are probably Ralph Wiggum.

[Existentialist]

All it takes to be considered atheism is to lack a belief in gods. Holding a belief that there is no god is also atheism, but that belief is not necessary for a position to qualify as atheism, only the lack of belief is needed.

I do not understand why you cannot understand that.

Thanks Paul. It seems to me that the subject of atheism is an enquiry into the existence or non-existence of god. That is the primary issue.

Belief is a different subject.

Knowledge is a different subject.

If God exists, he will continue to exist whether humans believe it or not. He will exist whether humans have knowledge of his existence or not. He will exist whether humans have reasons to know or not to know whether he exists or not. It seems that in many discussions about atheism, the subject of whether or not God exists is getting mixed up with the subject of whether or not a human being has a belief or a lack of belief, and also with another subject again about whether a human can have knowledge of god's existence and then even whether he can have a reason to have knowledge of it. This seems to me to be making things very complicated. That is why I am having trouble understanding some of the things being said to me. When you add in a lot of unnecessary anger from certain quarters, it does not help the process of understanding, in fact it's a little bit like being at school - a bad one.