False perceptions about Atheism and Agnosticism

[Gilgamesh]

He's desperate to win this point because, on some level, he understands that his absolutely impossible-to-prove gnostic theism puts him on an intellectual tier below agnostic atheism as long as he holds it, which leaves him with two options: abandon a positive assertion he cannot demonstrate to be true, or do his best to redefine our position so it looks like we're all just as fucking stupid as he is.

It's a pattern I notice very frequently with almost every argumentative theist on this site; at least part of their argument almost always involves either equivocating us with their beliefs because there's no other way for them to pretend their argument displays any intellectual weight, or comparing the actions of their allegedly perfect and omnigood god to that of the not-perfect or omnigood humans they, themselves, are taught to believe are nigh-infinitely inferior to their god in every way. I argued from that side of the fence once, I know the mindset.

And, what this all boils down to is that Waldorf's understanding of English is so poor that he doesn't know the difference between the prefixes a- and anti-. Are asexuals positively against sexuality, or do they just not want to have it? If you are amoral, do you hate morality or just lack it? "Theism" is the belief in a god. "Atheism" is lacking that belief. The people who initially coined the term used it improperly, the term 'antitheist' is the accurate word to describe what Waldorf insists is atheism. We're simply fixing their mistake, though Waldorf knows better and uses it incorrectly on purpose.

Bro, are you serious? First off, whether he was desperate or not is debatable and irrelevant, you fucks. Why even say that? Second off, his insistance to prove a point is based on all the information he currently khad told him he was correct; it doesn't stem from all this personal bullshit you're bringing up. Up until my most recent post, there was no reason to believe he was anything but right (although I was questioning his assertion that the prefix 'a' means anything but the definition of the prefix.) You guys really are fucks. Why can't we have a nice debate about the semantics and etymology behind a word without you attempting to delve into the psyche of your opponent, questioning his character, his motivation, his sincerity, ect?

[pocaracas]

Well, I go by the dictionary, not what some philosopher or group of philosophers think a given word means.
And the dictionary I tend to use these past few years is dictionary.com

So you care more about what Noah Webster thought a word meant more than the actual philosophers? Just giving you some grief, at least you are using something as a reference.

Well, it says so in the dictionary that it is a credible reference... isn't that the same standard you hold for your holy book?

noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1565–75; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist
Note the "OR" in there.

Sure, but denying or disbelieving in the existence of God is not the same thing as merely “lacking a belief” in God or gods, you’re still taking a position. This has been my argument from the beginning; the whole “lacking a belief in god” is not an accepted definition for the term and stems from intellectual laziness more than anything.

Actually.... disbelief has two parts dis- which means negation, or a simple not, and -belief... .... put them together and you get what? no belief, absence of belief.... lacking belief...
"Lacking a belief" seems a lot like disbelief to me.

Sadly, you do see a lot of gnostic/strong theists

I see no reason why a person having enough intellectual and philosophical fortitude in order to take a position on the matter and defend it is something to be sad about; I wish more non-believers did the same.

It's sad because some of them end up taking people out because they don't believe in the same deity as they.

and yep, non-believers don't generally claim to know for sure that there is no god whatsoever... Would we be honest if we would claim such a thing?

Nope, because the “a” is not modifying belief (-ism), so you still have a belief, it’s a belief in (atheos) no god.

So -ism means belief... does it?....

Communism
Socialism
Schism
Sectarianism
Racism
cannibalism
Extremism
etc
etc
etc

How about we use that Webster guy?

-ism
a suffix appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form action nouns from verbs ( baptism ); on this model, used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc. ( criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism; intellectualism ).
Compare -ist, -ize.

Origin:
< Greek -ismos, -isma noun suffixes, often directly, often through Latin -ismus, -isma, sometimes through French -isme, German -ismus (all ultimately < Gk)

Enjoy the reordering of your brain.

[Ryantology]

That’s total non-sense. Christian-theism is provable, but even if it weren’t that does not mean weak-atheism is superior to it because weak atheism is not logically defensible because it incorrectly asserts that there is a default position on such matters. Believe me, fi anything I am doing you a favor by trying to get you to correctly define your position.

Then, I expect you'll have no trouble proving it for everybody. I'll wait.

Why is the assertion that atheism is a default position incorrect? Demonstrate the fact that people have religious beliefs at birth.

They value the use of correct definitions? I do not blame them.

You value the use of an uncommon definition, and only because it supports your position.

Oh brother, a-sexual-ism would be the belief in no sexuality, just like a-moral-ism would be the belief in no morality. You’re trying to argue that the prefix of the word modifies the suffix of the word rather than the element, which is downright laughable. Learn your English.

'Asexualism' would be the lack of belief in or practice of sexuality. 'Amoralism' would be a lack of belief in or practice of morals. 'Atheism' is the lack of belief in gods or practice of believing in them. If the term 'asocialist' existed, would that automatically mean that asocialism indicates a positive adherence to an opposing system, or the belief that socialism certainly doesn't exist? Both would be stupid assertions, so of course not.

Nope, because the “a” is not modifying belief (-ism), so you still have a belief, it’s a belief in (atheos) no god.

Lack of belief in God. No belief in God. The prefix a- does not indicate a definite belief in a lack of god. Since there's no term for this, there are the terms 'positive' and 'negative' atheism to differentiate. There exists no term to describe what you think atheism is, probably because there are very few positive atheists out there.

Definition of Atheism
“...the exact meaning of 'atheist' varies between thinkers and caution must always be shown to make sure that discussions of atheism are not working at cross purposes. ”

Atheism is a complex term to define, and many definitions fail to capture the range of positions an atheist can hold. Perhaps the most obvious meaning to many people now is the absence or rejection of a belief in a God, or gods. However, it has been used through much of history to denote certain beliefs seen as heretical, particularly the belief that God does not intervene in the world. More recently, atheists have argued that atheism only denotes a lack of theistic belief, rather than the active denial or claims of certainty it is often associated with. This is held to follow from its etymology: it stems from the Greek adjective atheos, deriving from the alpha privative a -,'without, not', and 'theos', 'God'. It is not clear, however, that this could not equally mean 'godless' in the earlier sense as meaning a heretical or immoral person.

Going by this, neither of us may be wrong, though your attempt to deny our self-definition is evidence that your goal is to define us according to your own opinions rather than to clarify the term. Language evolves, after all. Does the term 'gay' not mean 'homosexual' just because it once didn't?

[Esquilax]

Sure, but denying or disbelieving in the existence of God is not the same thing as merely “lacking a belief” in God or gods, you’re still taking a position. This has been my argument from the beginning; the whole “lacking a belief in god” is not an accepted definition for the term and stems from intellectual laziness more than anything.

Gotta take issue with this "intellectual laziness," thing: you're mistaking honesty for laziness. Like, here, you went on to say this:

I see no reason why a person having enough intellectual and philosophical fortitude in order to take a position on the matter and defend it is something to be sad about; I wish more non-believers did the same.

Why are you so desperate for everyone to have an answer, any answer, even if we don't have enough information to formulate one that has even the vaguest hopes of being correct? What's so wrong about admitting we don't know? Why is brashly sticking to one answer without sufficient information a positive trait, to you?

What this is is having an open mind, Statler. You say you can prove your position, and my position is that I'll weigh the evidence and see if it convinces me. Given that as of yet nobody has been able to prove a god to me, isn't this position where I might be convinced better- both in general and for you specifically- than one where I assert there is no god?

What's wrong with admitting you might be wrong, Statler?

Why did you ignore my point? Is my hypothetical person a Muslim or not? It has a huge impact on the debate because it means atheists share the burden of proof.

No, your hypothetical person wouldn't be a muslim, any more than he would be a muslim if you went up to him while he was eating a hotdog and loudly asserted that all people who eat hotdogs are muslim. Even if a number of philosophers also said that all eaters of hotdogs are muslim.

Hell, even if a bunch of hotdog manufacturers said that.

You do not have the root meaning of the word on your side at all; it means belief in no god. You’re right about one thing though, I cannot force you to correctly self-identify yourself, if you wish to call yourself a Buddhist or Muslim go right ahead, but you’re not any less one of those than you are an atheist in the philosophical sense.

So argue against the Smorkulist position. Like I said, the word isn't the key part of the debate.

[Cato]

Hey, Waldork...

You proclaim to have cited two sources, yet have actually never cited any source. You throw around the term 'encyclopedia of philosophy', but never invoke one. Stanfords?

If it's Stanford's, then it is clear that you have never read the articles starting with the word 'evidence'.

[Whateverist]

Statler,

You do realize that the vast majority of the participants here agree with the definition provided in the OP, right?

But, by all means, embarrass the hell out of me!

That’s irrelevant, I am sorry but a majority of users on an internet forum do not have the authority to determine the proper definition of a philosophical term, that’s done by philosophical references and they all define it as an affirmation in the non-existence of God. You’re no different than the majority of Christians today believing the Trinity is defined as “God is one person and three persons.”- the majority of people are often wrong.

A rose by any other name ...

Okay, on your authority, Waldorf, suppose I put aside the word "atheist". Does it make any difference if we come up with a new word to mean someone who has no belief in gods? I'm willing to call myself a don't-give-a-shit'ist. Definition: a "dontgiveashitist" holds no belief in gods and can't be bothered to explain why its okay not to believe in something that, so far as any sane person can tell, doesn't exist. Dontgiveashitists do not believe gods positively do not exist. As a highly questionable concept, there really isn't anything to say for or against gods, and dontgiveashitists realize this. Of course some people are naive enough to get caught up in arguing that whatever gods may be, they certainly don't exist. I guess these will be the only ones that can go on using the A word. Of course when you start counting what % of the population is theist and what % is not, guess which group dontgiveashitists will be grouped with?

[smax]

Martin goes on to cite sveral other well-known nontheists in history who used or implied this definition of "atheism," including Baron d'Holbach (1770), Richard Carlile (1826), Charles Southwell (1842), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), and Anne Besant (1877).

The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses "atheist" to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that yhe term "god" has no importance, or possibly no meaning, to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.

When we examine the components of the word "atheism," we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of "a-" and "-theism." Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix "a-" can mean "not" (or "no") or "without." If it means "not," then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means "without," then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.

[Gordon Stein (Ed.), An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, p. 3.
Prometheus, 1980.]

[Zen Badger]

Hey Statler, good to see you back.

How's that whole anisotropic light propagation thing going?

[Statler Waldorf]

Well, it says so in the dictionary that it is a credible reference... isn't that the same standard you hold for your holy book?

Touché, but no

Actually.... disbelief has two parts dis- which means negation, or a simple not, and -belief... .... put them together and you get what? no belief, absence of belief.... lacking belief...
"Lacking a belief" seems a lot like disbelief to me.

No, disbelief is not the same as lacking belief (unbelief), it’s simply a refusal to believe or even a negative belief. It’s still a position and therefore bears proof. That’s even if we’re using the simple dictionary to define these philosophical terms, which philosophers don’t use.

So -ism means belief... does it?....

Yes, in regards to philosophical terms it means a doctrine, system of beliefs, or belief (i.e. empiricism, rationalism, and pragmatism). There is nothing in the word atheism itself to indicate it means a lack of belief because the “a” is modifying “the” (from theos), not ism (from ismos). Another way you can put it is that “ism” is modifying “atheos”.

Then, I expect you'll have no trouble proving it for everybody. I'll wait.

I wouldn’t, but that’s not the point of this thread.

Why is the assertion that atheism is a default position incorrect? Demonstrate the fact that people have religious beliefs at birth.

Because there is no default position on such matters because there’s no neutrality. Additionally, we do not determine what ought to be the philosophical default positon on matters by what newborns believe, that’d be absurd.

You value the use of an uncommon definition, and only because it supports your position.

Please try to keep up, the definition I adhere to is the traditionally accepted definition of the term, and is currently still supported by all encyclopedias of philosophy. You’re accepting a revisionist’s definition that no philosophical reference accepts; you use this definition simply because it’s self-serving and you’re too intellectually lazy to do the necessary groundwork in order to support your own position.

'Atheism' is the lack of belief in gods or practice of believing in them.

Not according to all of the appropriate authorities on the matter, but nice try.

Lack of belief in God. No belief in God. The prefix a- does not indicate a definite belief in a lack of god.

Why do you keep pretending that “a” has anything to do with “ism” (belief)? It modifies “the” (from theos), so atheism is every bit as much of a belief as theism because nothing changes in regards to “ism” in either term; so if theism is a belief then so is atheism.

Going by this, neither of us may be wrong, though your attempt to deny our self-definition is evidence that your goal is to define us according to your own opinions rather than to clarify the term. Language evolves, after all. Does the term 'gay' not mean 'homosexual' just because it once didn't?

You really believe that the definition of the term “atheist” is solely up to atheists? Ok, how do you know who the atheists are so we can ask them what the term means?

Why are you so desperate for everyone to have an answer, any answer, even if we don't have enough information to formulate one that has even the vaguest hopes of being correct? What's so wrong about admitting we don't know? Why is brashly sticking to one answer without sufficient information a positive trait, to you?

I am not desperate for everyone to have an answer, agnostics do not have an answer and that’s completely fine. However, you’re an atheist, you’re not an agnostic; so that term has a particular meaning and that meaning requires you to provide proof. If you want to still identify as an atheist but do not provide support for your position then you’re just being intellectually lazy.

What this is is having an open mind, Statler. You say you can prove your position, and my position is that I'll weigh the evidence and see if it convinces me. Given that as of yet nobody has been able to prove a god to me, isn't this position where I might be convinced better- both in general and for you specifically- than one where I assert there is no god?

It’s impossible to have an open mind, that’s the old fallacy of pretended neutrality. The atheist is just as close minded as the theist, that’s why a lack of belief on this issue is not possible.

No, your hypothetical person wouldn't be a muslim,

Wait, why not? I thought you said that as a Muslim he is allowed to define his own position, what changed? Why are atheists allowed to define their own position but not our poor Muslim?

So argue against the Smorkulist position. Like I said, the word isn't the key part of the debate.

No, but the position the word describes is. If I am debating an empiricist, I expect to be debating someone who actually hold’s to empiricism; the same goes for if I am debating a self-described atheist. What you claim to believe is not atheism.

Hey, Waldork...

You proclaim to have cited two sources, yet have actually never cited any source. You throw around the term 'encyclopedia of philosophy', but never invoke one. Stanfords?

If it's Stanford's, then it is clear that you have never read the articles starting with the word 'evidence'.

If you’re going to assert that I have never done something in this thread at least show the common courtesy to actually read all of my posts in this thread. In Post # 25 I directly quoted both the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In Post # 52 I quoted a letter from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy again. Why would you reference Stanford’s article on Evidence (an article that ironically never references atheism) if you’re not going to accept their definition of atheism?

Okay, on your authority, Waldorf, suppose I put aside the word "atheist". Does it make any difference if we come up with a new word to mean someone who has no belief in gods? I'm willing to call myself a don't-give-a-shit'ist. Definition: a "dontgiveashitist" holds no belief in gods and can't be bothered to explain why its okay not to believe in something that, so far as any sane person can tell, doesn't exist. Dontgiveashitists do not believe gods positively do not exist. As a highly questionable concept, there really isn't anything to say for or against gods, and dontgiveashitists realize this. Of course some people are naive enough to get caught up in arguing that whatever gods may be, they certainly don't exist. I guess these will be the only ones that can go on using the A word. Of course when you start counting what % of the population is theist and what % is not, guess which group dontgiveashitists will be grouped with?

Are you suggesting that you’re just ignorant on the issue? That you’ve never given it thought so you do not know what you believe? Claiming that only those who are insane believe in the existence of a god or gods is an absurd statement by the way.

---

Martin goes on to cite sveral other well-known nontheists in history who used or implied this definition of "atheism," including Baron d'Holbach (1770), Richard Carlile (1826), Charles Southwell (1842), Charles Bradlaugh (1876), and Anne Besant (1877).

The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses "atheist" to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that yhe term "god" has no importance, or possibly no meaning, to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.

When we examine the components of the word "atheism," we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of "a-" and "-theism." Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix "a-" can mean "not" (or "no") or "without." If it means "not," then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means "without," then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.

[Gordon Stein (Ed.), An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, p. 3.
Prometheus, 1980.]

---

Gordon Stein (a Biologist) does not have the proper credentials to define a philosophical term. His ignorance on the matter was well evidenced when he tried to debate his position at U. C. Irvine.

Hey Statler, good to see you back.

How's that whole anisotropic light propagation thing going?

Hey Bud,

Still going good! How’s life been treating you? I hope well.

[smax]

---

---

Gordon Stein (a Biologist) does not have the proper credentials to define a philosophical term. His ignorance on the matter was well evidenced when he tried to debate his position at U. C. Irvine.

Ah yes, selective reasoning, the true cornerstone of religion.