False perceptions about Atheism and Agnosticism

[Statler Waldorf]

According to the Greek language. "Theism" is belief in one or more gods. The "a" prefix means "lack of the following". So atheism is lack of belief in one or more gods.

Nope, the “a” does not modify “ism” as you seem to have asserted, it modifies “the”, so the word literally means a belief in no God. That’s still a belief, not a lack of belief.

Says someone who violated them in the very post in which he made this assertion (and is debating a subject he evidently knows very little about).

Which rule did I violate? I cited my sources, so I was not relying upon my own authority as you seem to be.

Since Huxley invented the term, according to him. It's not really the answer to a question, though, it's a position - "do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable".

And it’s a position very distinct from atheism, which is exactly the opposite of what the OP was asserting.

One can self-identify as both an atheist and as an agnostic. (Many here do.) One can also self-identify as a theist and an agnostic.

You’re assuming those who self-identify as both an agnostic and an atheist are logically consistent, which they are not.

Since atheism isn't "God doesn't exist", it's a nonsensical challenge. If you're a Christian, "prove that 2 = 3" is about as "fair".

Atheism is the positive belief in the non-existence of any gods; that includes the Christian God, so if you’re going to hold the positive belief that the Christian God does not exist you’re going to have to prove it.

No, because that's not what it says. He's saying that when you understand why you reject the notions of Isis, Jove, Odin, etc., you'll understand why non-Jews reject the notion of Yahweh and non-Christians reject the notion of God (which is the English name of the Christian god).

Yes, and the reason I reject the existence of those gods is because they are not Yahweh, so he rejects the existence of all gods because they are also not Yahweh since he claims our reasons are identical.

To quote someone else in this post, "According to whom? You?" Oh, and you're wrong. The word isn't "the", it's not "ism", it's theism - from the Greek "belief in one god".

According to Greek. No, you’re wrong again, atheism is a three part word deriving from the Greek terms “a” “theos” and “ismos”; it literally translates in English to mean belief (ismos) in no (a) god (theos). The “a” modifies theos, not ismos.

Christian sources have Christian definitions.

We define words using the dictionary, not your personal opinion, sorry.

It's not "suspension" of disbelief, it's disbelief itself. This is one of the worst dictionary [mis]definitions of "atheism" I've ever seen - it's not just biased, it's completely incorrect.

It’s one of the most prestigious encyclopedias of philosophy in the world, what’s your source? Your own opinion?

You can't argue that "it doesn't mean what he said it means because ..." if you want to be taken seriously.

I am not arguing anything close to that, I am arguing that the term is not synonymous with atheism as smax asserted, which it is not.

Really? Evidently we all missed that post. (Dictionaries don't give definitions, they give usage.)

That’s hilarious. They give both. You’ve cited nothing to support your case by the way, so I am writing it all off as your own personal opinion.

I cited the Greek language, from which the word was taken.

No, you didn’t; theism is an English word derived from two different Greek words (theos and ismos), you’re not very good at this.

Actually it's a valid appeal to authority, in one sense - that atheists get to define what we are.

Fine, then as a Christian I am defining theism to be “the true belief that God exists”- and you cannot argue with me because dictionaries do not give definitions, encyclopedias of philosophy are all wrong, and as a theist I get to define my own position. By the way, how do you know smax is an atheist?

Little Monkey does not have the credentials to define the term atheist for all of us. Do you have anything better?Greek. Your "'a' modifies 'the', not 'ism'" seems to be totally lacking in citation, reference, authority, validity, sense ...

That’s amusing considering you have not cited anything. “A” modifies “the” and not “ism” because “ism” is merely a suffix; prefixes (in this case “a”) do not modify suffixes they modify the element (which in this case is “the” from the Greek word theos), thanks for playing.

Now prove God does not exist.

The word "Atheist" comes from the greek word "ἄθεος", meaning "Without god, knowing and worshipping no God"

According to what atheist website? I’ll need a reference because when I look up the term in the Greek it comes back as meaning “denying the gods”. Also the English word atheism didn’t exist until the 16th century, at which point it was defined as someone to affirms the non-existence of God or gods.

As evidence that this term was meant to, nor did it, denote a denial of god, early Christians were often branded "Atheists" for their LACK OF BELIEF in multiple gods.

No, early Christians were called atheists because they affirmed the non-existence of the Greek and Roman gods.

ἄθεος, (Θεός) (from Pindar down], without God, knowing and worshipping no God, in which sense Aelian v. h. 2, 31 declares ὅτι μηδείς τῶν βαρβάρων ἄθεος; in classic authors generally slighting the gods, impious, repudiating the gods recognized by the state, in which sense certain Greek philosophers, the Jews (Josephus, contra Apion 2, 14, 4), and subsequently Christians were called ἄθεοι (or Atheists) by the heathen (Justin, Apology 1, 13, etc.).

Absolutely no mention of “lack of belief”, that’s interesting. I’ll stick to the way philosophers define the term.

With all due respect, man, I suspect you are an educated man. You just got a poor and misguided education. Between this error and the crap you believe about Joseph's father, it's clear to me that you were not educated responsibly.

Shame on me for using philosophical sources and references to define my philosophical terms!

The fact that Christians were called "Atheists" leaves no room for debate on this subject, as it makes clear what the initial meaning behind the word was, and what the long accepted definition of it was.

So since the Greeks called Christians atheists, are you asserting that Christians are atheists? If the term really means lacking a belief in God or gods how can Christians be atheists? The term has always meant in the philosophical sense a positive belief in the non-existence of God or gods, it’s not my fault it’s not a defensible position.

Little monkey might be a wafflist instead of an atheist, it hardly matters. Deal with his wafflism - bitching about whether or not his conception of atheism conforms to your definition of it is pointless. Handle the meat, and not the packaging.

-or-
Bitch and moan like an impotent prick because that's all you've got.

Your call.

I will not apologize for caring about what the actual philosophical definition of atheism has always been. Definitions matter, and you are not allowed to re-define your position in a self-serving manner, it’s not theists’ fault that you have adopted an indefensible position. I suggest you adopt a different position.

Am I bound to the definition of the word in a book, or am I bound to the beliefs I actually hold, and the rules of logic? Irrespective of what anyone else has interpreted the word to mean, I have my own beliefs, and I won't allow them to be warped and taken out of my hands by others; you can define words however you want, but in the end you're just engaging in doublespeak, and I'm not obliged to alter my beliefs based on what you've said.

You’re free to believe whatever you want, but do not self-identify yourself as something you’re not, it’s irrational.

I believe that there is not sufficient evidence to justify belief in a god, and furthermore I self identify as an atheist based on a common definition that conforms to my beliefs.

What definition is that? It’s not the common philosophical one.

Since I'm not making a positive claim- regardless of whatever definition you prefer to deploy- I have no burden of proof. So... hey.

You are making a positive claim though.

Do you actually expect us to go "Oh, shit: Statler's presented a definition of atheism that would require a burden of proof; I'd better change my beliefs to comport with this."

If I were dealing with rational folks I would expect you to realize that you shoulder just as much of the burden of proof as the theist does. I am not surprised you do not realize that though. Keep in mind that I am not the one who started this thread, so apparently atheists do believe the philosophical definitions of these terms matter as well.

But let's say I even accept that our beliefs are defined by definitions: which one? Because there's more than one, depending on where you go; we've already had multiple definitions bandied about here, from the one I ascribe to, to several hostile ones from christian apologists. Why does your definition have primacy over all the other ones? Because it's convenient to your argument?

Both articles I cited from the encyclopedias of philosophy were written by atheists. Philosophers use these as references for defining terms, if you do not like the manner in which these words have always been defined in the philosophical community that is not my problem.

Even more: words change. It's a living language. The words themselves aren't bound to your definition any more than I am. In the end, all you're accomplishing is... well, nothing. You can assert your definition as much as you like; no part of the world around you is going to bow to it.

This is rather amusing, the thread starts with an atheist imploring others to see the importance of defining terms correctly and correctly understanding how burdens of proof work; but then when a theist comes in and corrects all of the mistakes in the original post all of the atheists begin crying in unison “but the definition of a term doesn’t really matter!” You cannot make this stuff up; I love this site.