Here we go again. There is a huge misunderstanding of the the etymology of atheism by the typical culprit, infidels.com, and their grip on Wikipedia's articles on atheism that can be edited by any moron. The proper derivation of atheism is not without-theism. It is "without-theos" ism. In other words the 'ism' that there is no deity. The prefix 'a' is never used to negate an 'ism'. One who 'lacks the belief' in a particular 'ism' simply isn't labeled. If one abides by capitalism, he is a capitalist. If not, there is no label for him, and no reason to label him in relation to capitalism. Same goes for theism. One who doesn't abide by theism simply isn't labeled. The term 'atheism' is specifically meant to signify those who abide by 'atheos'. That there is no diety. Theos signifies a diety. Atheos signifies the absence of a diety. Not the absence of belief in a diety. The idea that the 'a' in atheism signifies the absence of belief is not only incorrect, but a blatantly thoughtless and baseless derivation terminology. There are no words in proper language in which 'a' is used to negate an 'ism'. This is because if one doesn't abide by an 'ism', there is simply no reason to label him. Moderator edit. I am cleaning up this thread, which was moved over from Religion where the rules are different. This opening post is correct and I will leave it alone.
This thread also addresses a common misconception that often arises in many discussions. Thus, the next time somebody tries to claim atheism is without-theism, we need not repeatedly explain why that is not so. All we have to do is link to this thread which clears things up. Bury it, shut it down, move it, or whatever you want. It's a perfectly legitimate topic.
Except the term has historically been applied to anyone without religion, not just people who disbelieve, but people without belief, such as primitive peoples in the jungle, infants, the mentally ill, people of other religions, etc...
That link gave three words: Areligionism. Abaptism. Ageotropism which showed your contention is incorrect. Moderator edit: Damped down flame war.
People who are on the fence on the matter lack the belief in a deity, but aren't by standard, refered to as atheists. Nor do they tend refer to themselves as atheists. Same goes for infants and the mentally ill. Normal people don't refer to them as atheists when they don't seem to have any sense of whether or not there is a diety. It's sites like infidels and their like that wish to group these people under atheism. As for people outside of more advanced civilization, they all either have some osrt of spiritualism or belief. The last thing anybody calls them is atheist. Unless you're part of the infidels doctrine that wish to group them as such.
Lix, What standard is that? Your own? The acceptable usage of the term goes beyond typical or normal usage. The Roman Pagans used to call Christians atheists because they disbelieved in the Roman pantheon. Does that make Christians atheists? Yes, in some sense they are, even though the word would not commonly be used that way in modern times.
The standard of common usage including the standard the term was created to be used for. 'Atheism' has always and continues to be used to imply a universe without a diety. As such 'atheist' is a label for those with such a perspective. Even if one despises the thought of believing something, he can't deny that he has a perspective. Atheism is essentially a perspective of Godlessness. Yet to attempt to apply such a perspective to infants and those nontheists who don't necessarily abide by that perspective is a faulty use of the term. It is just as much absurd and incorrect to label an infant an atheist as it is to label him a theist. (Unless of course his parents are atheist or theist which, though literally incorrect, is a common practice in society.)
Correct, except that I have come across those words previously in other literature. Edited by Moderator to damp down flame war.
Those are given operating definitions. As such, it is not an issue. Edited by Moderator to damp down flame war.
I know what you are saying, and that is indeed how I use the term, but common usage among our contemporaries does not define all possible uses of the term.
I never said it did. I was simply clarifying common usage. Including this thread which describes the proper breakdown of the term. There are alot of radical ideas out there about how things should be or redefined. Altering the usage of atheism isn't one of them. As rediculous as the terms 'weak atheism', 'strong atheism', and 'agnostic atheism' are, we all know what somebody means when he uses them. No problem. But what is a problem is when people try to claim that those terms are standard usage. And to alter the etymology to make it seem like atheism means 'without belief' is going to far. This is what they did on Wikipedia, and people who buy that garbage faithfully and fanatically uphold it like a religion. Then cry when people refer to 'atheism' as a religion. Actions speak for themselves. Of course it's an issue. I remember the day Cris arbitrarily put up those definitions despite many people disagreeing with them. Either way, what is your point? And how is it relevant to a discussion about whether or not the definitions in that thread are legitimately accepted in the real world?
Yes. Nobody is refering to 'ism' in any other context. The post was about how there is no such thing as 'a' being used to negate an 'ism'. 'Ism' being in the context of a belief. Unlike the words you made up which don't even use 'ism' in this context.
No. I'm clarifying the fact that the word that the 'a' negates is 'theos'. Hence atheos. Without deity. Edited by Moderator to damp down flame war
No doubt, the terminology certaintly has gotten better on this forum. I remember a time when they took the infedels definitions much more seriously. So I shall break this down. First of all, while this is an improvement over previous definitions, it is certainly over elaborate. 1. Let's start with this: "Many atheists will leave open the possibility that gods might exist providing appropriate evidence is provided." This statement has no validity. It is IMPOSSIBLE to not leave open or closed the possibility of the antithesis position. It simply has no existence. You cannot leave possibility open or closed. This is because, it doesn't matter how 1 million % you believe in your current position, you can and will change to the antithesis position if compelled to do so whether you like it or not. The idea of leaving open/closed the possibility is completely pointless. 2. Moving right along, the idea that atheism is a reaction to theism is actually a decent start. So is the clarification that atheism doesn't include infants and those who haven't considered the issue. The problem is that atheism is not just a reaction. It's an outright refutation of theism. Both atheism and theism refute one another. 3. Moving on to this: I would consider them atheists if when asked they answered with anything that resembled a disbelief in the claims of theists. What exactly does this even mean? Maneuvering around the wording, it is probably pointing to those who want to be considered apathetic to the matter, and therefore, atheist by default. Which is probably the source of the whole issue. That we've been undergoing some sort of political correctness for atheists. Thus, we cannot just say that they believe there is no God as that would be politically incorrect and hurt their feelings. But what exactly is their view? Is there a God? Is there no God? Are they unsure? All feelings and politcal correctedness aside, it has to be one of the 3. All labels aside, the only question is, which is it?
Infidels as in www.infidels.com. It was a website that was propagating radical usages for the term 'atheism'. Radical doesn't always mean bad, but in this case their definitions simply serve no purpose. In fact, if you look at Wikipedia's history, they used to have the etymology for atheism explained as a-theism. "Without belief". In which they referenced the infidels website as a source. Fortunately, even Wikipedia has been corrected. I'm not sure if Infidels is still around.
OK, so clear up the confusion. When historically, the term atheism was never about merely a lack of belief in theism, but a term meant to signify the refutation of theism (as in athe-ism), why then do people continue to purport the idea that atheism was meant to signify without-theism (as in a-theism) which is something completely different?
This is correct. The Greek prefix a does indeed mean "without," but it only applies to the first element in the following compound, not the entire -ism. Atheism literally means the philosophy of being without gods, not the condition of being without theism. Would that this were true, but the coinage of new words in our language has become rather unruly and you will see quite a few that have been built wrong. Nonetheless your way is the proper way, if there is such a thing in English any more. Would an acapitalist not be a person who believes in an economy with no surplus wealth?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! * * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR * * * * Luke's argument is correct. Next time you guys have a disagreement over an issue of linguistics, come here first, before embarrassing yourselves by trusting some crap you picked up on the bottom of your shoe in the dark alleys of the internet. Dewey's position is not exactly wrong because the English language has progressed from merely democratic to blatantly chaotic, but Luke's position is completely right. You're not going to find many people my age who take the side of linguistic chaos,Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm sure that coinage is in print in a report from some third-rate university, and may have been picked up by a newspaper that believes everything that comes out of a university must be correct, and finally ended up on a TV news program, a.k.a. "The News For People Who Can't Read." But it is an abomination. I get paid to edit crap like that and I would send it back to the writer with instructions for using a thesaurus. Correct again. The word this lazy writer didn't bother to find is "agnostic," literally "one who professes to be without knowledge." * * * * ANOTHER NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR * * * * This thread was moved by the Moderator of the Religion board, where of necessity the rules are somewhat different than the rest of the forum. I am very hard-nosed about anything that even looks like a flame war. I will leave all of the above posts in this thread until tomorrow, then I will bring out the broom and give it a thorough cleaning.
Really? So you didn't mean this bit?: No? Dagobert D. Runes, Dictionary of Philosophy, 1942. Is "not theistic" the same as "without theism"? Dewey? WTF? So I'm not exactly wrong but Luke is completely right? Good going. Third-rate university? Hmm, Cambridge Dictionary and/ or Merriam-Webster not good enough for you? Or maybe the RBG at Kew... in 1956, when, as we're all aware, the News was sooo frivolous in those days and disreputable organisations like the Royal Horticultural Society/ Royal Botanic Gardens would pick up these cheap sound bites.
