The meaning of Atheism.

[Existentialist]

1. Believes there is no God
Strong Atheist

Four things wrong with that

a) Strong and weak cannot help but borrow patriarchal inferences of masculine and feminine: macho and cowardly and therefore unnecessarily introduce the risk of attempts to humiliate, which isn't helpful to a rational debate.
b) The idea that there is no God cannot be placed on a continuum with the idea that there might be a god or idea that there might not be a god. It's a concept about absolutes not relativities.
c) There is an emerging section of campaigning that says that a strong atheist is someone who actively opposes religion and a weak atheist is someone who says we shouldn't be too hard on religion.
d) Strong atheist is two words, not one word.

2. Doesn't believe there is no God but doesn't believe there is a God either
Weak Atheist / Agnostic Atheist

Another three things wrong with that
a) Weak and strong - see the macho references above. Admittedly, relative concepts are easier for people who revolve around the agnostic camp to accept.
b) Popular usage suggests that atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive.
c) These are two words, not one word.

3. Believes there is a God
Theist

Big problems with that. In usage, if not etymology, a theist is someone who follows a theological pattern of religious observance, i.e. a religion. The term anti-theist has been used to describe an anti-religious position which calls into question the literal meaning of the term theist. But in my mind it is possible to be a theist and atheist at the same time – an atheist priest for example, of which there are probably quite a lot in most mainstream churches.

I think we have a fundamental problem with the words that are being used and if we don’t come up with new ones sometime soon, we will end up running forums which are entirely about what words mean, not the validity of the concepts the words attempt to describe.

I don't believe that these are the only 3 positions you can have.

There are only 3 positions you can have on the subject of belief about God. If you want to introduce the concept of “knowing” then inevitably you have to have a scale which describes the possible combinations of knowing and not knowing.

[Shell B]

When somebody feels the need to add a statement like "simply" and "simple" to any definition, it tends to suggest that it is not quite as simple as is being suggested, otherwise the simplicity would be self-evident and the statement would be unnecessary.

This simplicity is self-evident, if you can wrap your mind around the fact that you're making a complex matter of something simple. (not you in particular) However, so many people want to ascribe so much more to atheism than is actually there. In my case, I add the simply out of exasperation. It's my polite way of saying, "You're thinking too deeply into it. Stop trying to make atheism something it isn't to suit your own purpose and realize how simple it is." Somewhere in the back of my mind I name call at the same time. As you can see ( ), you can read more into a turn of phrase than you can into the word "atheist."

The question is, do I believe the people when they claim they see it as simple? I cannot help feeling it is simple in the same way that a bottle top screwed down on a pressurised liquid is simple. It hides terrible potential beneath. It has the feel of the lady doth protest too much. Methinks.

Therein lies the problem. You don't understand how simple the concept is, so you, like so many others, give it more credit than it deserves.

You can't change a definition because you don't think it suits your feeling.

[Existentialist]

You can't change a definition because you don't think it suits your feeling.

Another "dictionary says no" atheist. If I decide an atheist is a coffee pot, I'm happy to change the definition. To be honest, the way that a lot of people are using the word atheist at the moment, telling other people they can't use it to mean what they think it means, adding other words to it to try and give it a clarity that doesn't exist, I'm seriously thinking it might be better employed as a coffee pot.

[Shell B]

Another "dictionary says no" atheist. If I decide an atheist is a coffee pot, I'm happy to change the definition. To be honest, the way that a lot of people are using the word atheist at the moment, telling other people they can't use it to mean what they think it means, adding other words to it to try and give it a clarity that doesn't exist, I'm seriously thinking it might be better employed as a coffee pot.

How often do you try to fit people into little prefabricated categories? Oh look, another "I can't understand atheism, so I'll blame atheists" dude. If more people would just accept that some people just don't believe in god, I would not have to have this conversation ad infinitum.

[Tiberius]

a) Strong and weak cannot help but borrow patriarchal inferences of masculine and feminine: macho and cowardly and therefore unnecessarily introduce the risk of attempts to humiliate, which isn't helpful to a rational debate.

Erm, how is that relevant? You asked for the words that describe the statements you presented. I gave you them. A "strong atheist" is someone who believes that there is no God. Your objections are merely your opinion; your dislike of certain words. You don't understand the words in the context they are in; you put your own context on top of them. To explain, there is nothing better about a "strong" atheist than a "weak" atheist. The word "strong" is to signify the strength of the belief in comparative terms; the strong atheist believes (actively) that there is no God, and the weak atheist has a more passive disbelief.

b) The idea that there is no God cannot be placed on a continuum with the idea that there might be a god or idea that there might not be a god. It's a concept about absolutes not relativities.

How is it placed in that continuum? Where did "there might be a God" come into it? I reject your statement that it is an absolute though. Strong atheism is a belief; nothing more. This is why I said there was a difference between gnostic atheism and strong atheism. You can be a strong atheist and still be fully accepting that there might be a God. It is only if you are a gnostic atheist (i.e. you believe you can prove God doesn't exist) that you are unable to accept there might be a God.

c) There is an emerging section of campaigning that says that a strong atheist is someone who actively opposes religion and a weak atheist is someone who says we shouldn't be too hard on religion.

No...there are words for that too. "anti-theism" and "anti-religious". Strong atheism is connected to neither. You can be a strong atheist and not be an anti-theist.

d) Strong atheist is two words, not one word.

...and when was the rule is written that only one word is needed to accurately describe a statement? Like I said, there are perfectly good words that exist already; and they can be used in conjunction with "atheism" and "theism" to create the words you wanted. I don't see any reason to re-invent terms when they already exist in perfectly understandable forms. If you really want to reduce confusion; try teaching people what words actually mean, rather than trying to come up with new ones.

a) Weak and strong - see the macho references above. Admittedly, relative concepts are easier for people who revolve around the agnostic camp to accept.

See above for objections.

b) Popular usage suggests that atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive.

Argumentum ad populum? Popular usage does not automatically mean such usage is correct. In academia (especially in philosophy) the terms agnostic and atheism are very well understood, and are understood to not be mutually exclusive. I'd tackled this problem far many times to count, but if you want to explain how the terms are mutually exclusive, I'll take pleasure in showing you why you are wrong.

c) These are two words, not one word.

Again, see above objections.

Big problems with that. In usage, if not etymology, a theist is someone who follows a theological pattern of religious observance, i.e. a religion.

No, in usage that is usually "religious" or "religious person". I've never heard a religious person being referred to in a blanket statement as a "theist". Theism is the belief that at least one deity exists. If you are trying to redefine words here, I'm going to object at every possible corner. We've had theists come here and try that before. Guess what? Definitions are the accepted terms for the usage of words; if you disagree, then you are going to be adding to the confusion, not helping it.

The term anti-theist has been used to describe an anti-religious position which calls into question the literal meaning of the term theist.

The term anti-theist has been used against *some* religions because those religions are theistic. The comparison stops there. Hitchens is an anti-theist, and he attacks Christianity and Islam, as well as Judaism sometimes. I've never seen him attack Buddhism...I wonder why.

But in my mind it is possible to be a theist and atheist at the same time – an atheist priest for example, of which there are probably quite a lot in most mainstream churches.

This whole sentence is so full of fail I don't even know how to respond. You think a person can be a theist and an atheist at the same time? Well, you are wrong. Stop redefining words that have been around for centuries, and when they do not need redefinition. An atheist priest (in the sense that they enjoy the religion, just not the "god" part) would be a religious atheist, not a "theistic atheist". It really is quite simple; if you believe in God, you are a theist; if you don't believe in God, you are an atheist. You can't be both.

I think we have a fundamental problem with the words that are being used and if we don’t come up with new ones sometime soon, we will end up running forums which are entirely about what words mean, not the validity of the concepts the words attempt to describe.

I think the fundamental problem is that you want to wage war on the dictionary. If you don't understand what a word means, look it up. There is no need to invent new words. You may need to string a few words together to make a term more descriptive (agnostic atheist for instance), but just because you can't have one specific word for each individual stance on something, doesn't make it a problem. Do you want there to be separate words for "blue car", "red car", and "yellow car"? I think not. We use adjectives to add descriptive power to the noun; it's a literary technique, not a problem.

There are only 3 positions you can have on the subject of belief about God. If you want to introduce the concept of “knowing” then inevitably you have to have a scale which describes the possible combinations of knowing and not knowing.

Actually, if you want to be accurate, there are only two positions on the subject of "belief in God". Theism and Atheism. You have to be one or the other; however much you want to complain. However, when you dive more into the different types of atheist and theist you have, you need to add more descriptors, like agnostic, ignostic, strong, weak, etc.

[Existentialist]

If more people would just accept that some people just don't believe in god, I would not have to have this conversation ad infinitum.

If more people would just accept that some people just believe there is no god, I would not have to have this conversation ad infinitum.

[Minimalist]

Another "dictionary says no" atheist.

Either words have meaning or they don't. If you want to make up your own words and definitions you have that right but prepared to be misunderstood and rejected by those of us for whom plain English is sufficient.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Yup,it's the same Leveni. Same hobby horse,same intransigent attitude.


I really don't know if he's a troll or just an adolescent with an idee fixe. I guess he could be an adult,but I hope not.


PS could someone tell me how to do accents over letters? There should be a grave over the firsts 'e' in
'indee'. An umlat would also be useful.

[Shell B]

If more people would just accept that some people just don't believe in god, I would not have to have this conversation ad infinitum.

If more people would just accept that some people just believe there is no god, I would not have to have this conversation ad infinitum.

It's the same thing, unless you don't want it to be. Therefore, if your problem is the wording of the phrase, your problem ends here, unless you simply want to have a problem. Same thing=no more ad infinitum discussion. You want to change the definition of atheism, you're screwed.

[Existentialist]

I think the fundamental problem is that you want to wage war on the dictionary.

War? I think not. But when people start telling me that I must conform to a dictionary, that I am "wrong" if I don't conform, it automatically causes me to feel rebellious. I think that's ok. I oppose cultural totalitarianism in all its forms. Apart from anything else, I am well aware of two sets of people in my family, one very old and one very young, who use words in a way that would not be recognised in any dictionary, but who, with a little patience by the listener, are fully able to get their meanings across using their nonconformist definitions. Whether god exists or not is just as relevant to them as it is to me, so I include them in the debate. Words are not the sole domain of educated, compos mentis adults.

I think the problem is that dictionaries were only invented in the 18th Century. Were people able to function before then without dictionaries? I suspect so. Your stance is that words in the language must broadly retain a static, unchanging meaning and that any dispute can be solved objectively by a dictionary, and there is no need for us to spend time and effort getting to know each other's definitions. (I say broadly, I imagine even you would make some allowance for a proportion of words in the dictionary to change their meanings according to need - say 1% per decade?). The view that words must remain broadly static is actually a bit sad and rather dictatorial, especially if your class allegiances are to the power stratum that produces dictionaries and swears by them to impose concepts like "the government has run out of money" or "redundancies are inevitable". I'm not saying you are, by the way, just that there is an ideological level on which this debate is relevant and I want to make it quite clear that I am aware of that. From where I stand, there is no right or wrong when it comes to the definitions of words. Dictionaries simply add to the debate. We're not playing Scrabble. I see logicalities and illogicalities in the concepts that words represent, but I'm keen on personal linguistics - the way people use the same words to describe things that are subtly or even not very subtly different.

Do you want there to be separate words for "blue car", "red car", and "yellow car"? I think not. We use adjectives to add descriptive power to the noun; it's a literary technique, not a problem.

Oh please, I was not disputing the need for adjectives in language. My point was about tautologies and logical impossibilities in their use ("reddish rouge", "piano drumbeat", "agnostic atheist")

Actually, if you want to be accurate, there are only two positions on the subject of "belief in God". Theism and Atheism. You have to be one or the other; however much you want to complain. However, when you dive more into the different types of atheist and theist you have, you need to add more descriptors, like agnostic, ignostic, strong, weak, etc.

Actually, I'm not complaining. I'm putting forward rational alternatives to your point of view. That is ok, isn't it? Theism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive concepts. Not in my mind. The term atheos already has a presence in the ancient greek form of expression which means a set of ideas specifically around the non-worship of a particular set of deities. English adds -ism to this pre-existing word. The word theos in greek simply means god (but feel free to dispute my use of the word "simply" in this context I am not profoundly wedded to it). Theos does not carry any particular statement of a person's stance on the existence of god, atheos definitely does. The two words have profoundly different provenance and different masses of meanings behind them right up to the way we are using them now. Intuitively most people would not use the words as opposites, and far from being an argument arrived at by popularity, I think most people would rightly be tapping into the very different histories that attach to both words.

---

It's the same thing, unless you don't want it to be. Therefore, if your problem is the wording of the phrase, your problem ends here, unless you simply want to have a problem. Same thing=no more ad infinitum discussion. You want to change the definition of atheism, you're screwed.

Here's a good idea. Let's just discard the word atheism and the word agnostic and only talk in terms of people who don't believe in god on the one hand, and people who believe there is no god on the other.