Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Easy Be · 05-06-2002, 06:19 PM

Quote:

jlowder : Here's the question: if the majority of people who speak English define atheism one way, why fight it? The meaning of words can change over time, so why not just adopt strong atheism as the definition of atheism?

This isn't how the english language works. Their are many words that can be defined more than one way. While it would be nice to have one definition for each word our language doesn't permit this. IMO I think it's our job as atheists to inform people that their exists more than one definition of the term atheism and while one person may be an atheist they may have different views compared to another atheist.
I'm agnostic.

Quote:

Frankly I don't know why they just don't define everything relative to the statement 'God exists':
Those who say 'God exists' is false are athiests.
Those who say 'God exists' is true are thiests.
Those who say 'God exists' is unknowable are agnostics.

This is good concept but it makes people to close minded. This would mean, if I were an agnostic I would claim the lack of ability under any given circumstance to know whether God exists. I would be saying that even if God came down and showed him self to me tomorrow I would still claim that God is unknowable. In general I don't like the term agnostic. Not a Theist stated a good example.
I think there is a difference in saying that I lack knowledge that a unicorn exists in Smallville. Or saying that whether or not a unicorn exists in Smallville is unknowable. I could go to Smallville and see whether or the unicorn exists. This also applies to atheism.

jlowder · 05-06-2002, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by vixstile:
I would also like to add; The definitions of words mite change frequently, but syntax doesn't. The definition of theist is the same as it has always was. Slapping an A in front of a word still means "without or lack of" what ever that word is

Even if this syntactical argument were correct, this would still be consistent with a change in popular usage of the term. But I think the syntax of the word is ambiguous. As Theodore Drange points out in his <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html" target="_blank">excellent essay</a>:

Quote:

... it is not completely clear that the correct translation of the Greek prefix "a" is "without." It might also mean "no," in which case "a-the-ism" could be translated as "no-god-ism," or "the view that there is no god."

jlowder

jlowder · 05-06-2002, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:


I would agree with this. The way the words are used in the English language today when someone claims they are agnostic it implies they are taking the position 'I don't know if God exists'.

(snip)

Quote:

To be most accurate an agnostic would have to say 'I am God agnostic' for agnosticism (as it is defined) does not claim lack of knowledge on any particular subject.

I agree. I would add that if we are talking about popular usage of the term "agnostic," it is assumed by default to refer to God belief.

Quote:

Frankly I don't know why they just don't define everything relative to the statement 'God exists':
Those who say 'God exists' is false are athiests.
Those who say 'God exists' is true are thiests.
Those who say 'God exists' is unknowable are agnostics.

Again, I'm not sure that popular usage of the word "agnostic" requires that an agnostic be a person who believes the existence of God is *unknowable*. To be sure, such a view is consistent with popular usage of "agnostic." But popular usage of "agnostic" is also consistent with the view that the existence of God is knowable, but there is no good evidence for or against the existence of God.

jlowder

jlowder · 05-06-2002, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pompous Bastard:
I see your point, Jeffrey, but I have to disagree.

Politically and socially, it's a losing battle if we allow theists to define the terms by which we identify ourselves. The fact is that many of us who would be agnostics in common parlance self-identify as atheists. I don't see surrendering our right to self-identify as such as a meaningful step in winning recognition for the validity of the atheist stance.

You have the right to self-identify however you wish. I am suggesting that it may be expedient to choose not to exercise that right in this case. Again, "Pick your battles." ...

Quote:

Further, "agnostic," as it used by the public, outside the nontheist community, generally implies a wishy-washy uncertainty.

I disagree. In my experience, theists view agnosticism as somehow more "open-minded" than atheism. The only persons I have ever heard accuse agnostics of being "wishy-washy" have been (strong) atheists. (Madalyn Murray O'Hair comes to mind.)

I would also point out that nontheists collectively (and especially nontheists on the 'net) have a reputation for being overly argumentative. If our goal is to improve our reputation, one way we can improve our reputation is by avoiding arguments over petty issues.

Quote:

I don't see it furthering our ends to divide ourselves into the "radical" atheists and the nonthreatening wishy-washy agnostics. Atheism is threatening to the public. It is, in many ways, the last great Western taboo. We all want more respect for atheists, and we aren't going to get that by calling ourselves agnostics in public and hiding that nasty word, "atheism," safely in the closet. Rather, IMO, we need to encourage our own variant of "We're here! We're queer!"

This is a non sequitur. Of course, we all want more respect for atheists. But that it is irrelevant to what the word "atheist" means. By analogy, I, as a heterosexual male, want more respect for homosexuals, but that doesn't mean it would be factually correct for me to "self-identify" as a homosexual.

Quote:

Finally, one of our major goals ought to be to educate the public regarding what, exactly, we do believe, or not believe, as the case may be. We can either point out misunderstandings when and where they occur or else we can, as you suggest, let those misunderstandings become truth , and redefine ourselves in accordance with them.

This begs the question by assuming the "truth" is that atheism is the lack of belief in God. That is precisely the point at issue.

Quote:

Oh, also, I don't really think this is an "Existence of God(s)" topic, but I'm not sure where to send it. Any suggestions? MRD maybe?

I think this topic is perfectly appropriate here.

jlowder

jlowder · 05-06-2002, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by not a theist:

Where does that leave someone like me who doesn't know but thinks that it is knowable?

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]

In popular usage, you would be an "agnostic."

jlowder

jlowder · 05-06-2002, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kvalhion:
How many trolls have come onto the board and incorrectly asserted that atheism is the denial of the existence of God, then went on to make other illogical and invalid analogies based upon the original invalid assertion?

Accepting the popular definition of atheism as strong atheism doesn't help fundamentalists one iota. Regardless of how one defines "atheism," anyone who claims that God exists still has the burden of providing evidence for that claim. Regardless of how one defines "atheism," anyone who lacks the belief that God exists has no reason to believe God exists until the theist provides a reason to hold that belief.

Quote:

In other words, accepting the position that atheists deny the existence of God would simply give fuel to irrational theists who believe they can use this to formulate reasons why we deny the existence of God, and usually spin it around to some rediculous argument like we really believe in God but hate him.

But so what? As you point out, such an argument is ridiculous and is easily refuted. One cannot simultaneously deny the existence of God and hate God. That's self-contradictory. If that's the worst that could happen by accepting the popular definition, then I'm happy to accept the popular definition.

Quote:

I see no benefit whatsoever to give in to public misconceptions of atheism. The problem is theirs, not ours. If they cannot learn the proper context of the word atheist, how can we reasonably expect to move the discussion onwards with any level of coherency?

This begs the question by assuming that "atheism = the belief that God does not exist" is a misconception. That is precisely the point at issue. Honestly, I don't see the harm in stipulating the definition. What would be harmful would be stipulating some derogatory belief about atheists. For example, stipulating the belief that "all atheists are immoral" would be harmful. Stipulating a mere definition is not harmful.

Quote:

The whole point of a logical argument is a solid foundation upon which it is built. Defining all atheists as denying a God's existence is not a solid foundation upon which to build arguments.

Defining all atheists as denying God's existence doesn't help theistic arguments one iota.

jlowder

copernicus · 05-06-2002, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by vixstile:
The original definition of agnosticism had little to do with god belief...
...A=without or lacking
(A)theism=without or lacking theistic belief


Actually, the word was borrowed into English as a noun from French, and it originally described people who denied the existence of God. Modern English has no "a-" prefix that attaches to nouns. The negative "a-" prefix is semi-productive, and it attaches to adjectives. Consider the adjectives asexual, areligious, apolitical, asymptomatic, etc. There are no nominal counterparts: *asex, *areligion, *apolitics, *asymptom. To argue that the meaning of the noun atheist should be broken down into its component parts (i.e. morphemes in linguistic parlance) ignores the fact that the analysis is flawed in terms of real English morphosyntactic rules.


You can be both an atheist as well as agonistic at the same time, they don't conflict in any way


One of the meanings of "atheist" is "a person who has no belief in god(s)". Another meaning is "a person who believes that the is/are no god(s)". As with most words in the English language, it can have more than one word sense. That is why dictionaries give several different definitions for most words. The context in which words are used resolves the ambiguity in running discourse. The components of a word and its historical meaning may or may not reflect its current usage. You can only determine a word's meaning by studying its popular usage.


I would also like to add; The definitions of words mite change frequently, but syntax doesn't. The definition of theist is the same as it has always was. Slapping an A in front of a word still means "without or lack of" what ever that word is...

The negative prefix "a-" only came into English through borrowings from Greek and Romance languages, and, as far as I know, it was never a prefix that English speakers attached to nouns. So, while "amnesia" may well mean "lack of memory", English speakers do not perceive "mnesia" to refer to "memory", nor do they perceive "apathy" as "lack of pathos".

I agree with Jeffery. The word "atheist" can have different meanings, but its more common meaning is "one who denies the existence of God". Myself, I am an agnostic until I know which of the seemingly innumerable definitions of deities we are talking about. Once I get that straightened out, I usually call myself an "atheist" on the grounds that most deities are implausible to me. I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny either, but I can't prove they don't exist.

Most of the time, I use "atheist" and "agnostic" as virtually synonymous. Atheism conveys the plausibility that I ascribe to the existence of most deities. Agnosticism conveys my inability to prove my skepticism. However, there are many times when I want the words "atheist" and "agnostic" to describe the difference between positive denial and neutrality. Language is flexible in this way.

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: copernicus ]

jlowder · 05-06-2002, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
Here's the question: if the majority of people who speak English define atheism one way, why fight it? The meaning of words can change over time, so why not just adopt strong atheism as the definition of atheism?

We shouldn't do that because the majority of people DO NOT define atheism that way. Here is a view of several dictionaries:

Webster's Online

Main Entry: athe�ism
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

This supports my argument. Webster's offers two definitions. The first it says is archaic. The second supports my argument: "the doctrine that there is no deity."

Quote:

Dictionary.com

1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
1b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

This also supports my argument: "denial of the existence of God or gods" ... "The doctrine that there is no God or gods."

Quote:

American Heritage

1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality

Again, this supports my argument.

Quote:

Infoplease.com Dictionary

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

This also supports my argument.

Quote:

Cambridge International Dictionary

someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

This also supports my argument.

Quote:

PlainEnglish Dictionary

Atheist (n.) One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

This also supports my argument.

Quote:

The Catholic Encyclopedia
<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm" target="_blank">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm</a>gives an extremely nuanced and detailed discussion of atheism.

(snip)

Indeed. But that discussion is probably not representative of popular usage.

jlowder

Pomp · 05-07-2002, 01:18 PM

jlowder,

You have the right to self-identify however you wish. I am suggesting that it may be expedient to choose not to exercise that right in this case. Again, "Pick your battles." ...

I understand that. I simply happen to think it is a tactical error to allow theists to define the terms by which we identify ourselves.

I disagree. In my experience, theists view agnosticism as somehow more "open-minded" than atheism. The only persons I have ever heard accuse agnostics of being "wishy-washy" have been (strong) atheists. (Madalyn Murray O'Hair comes to mind.)

Perhaps "wishy-washy" was a poor choice of terms on my part. It is my experience that most people in the theistic majority (or, at least, that portioon of the majority that I am familiar with

) interpret "agnostic" as "undecided." Yes, theists view agnostics as more "open minded," but only in the sense of "more likely to be open to potential conversion." To draw a broad stereotype, tell an American Xian you are "agnostic" and (s)he hears "I am uncertain what I believe. Perhaps if got to know Jesus better, I would accept Him as my personal savior." Again, this is my personal experience. Perhaps I've only met unusual theists.

In the public mind, the distinction between "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" doesn't matter. It's a fine philosophical point, but nothing that anyone concerns themselves with on a day-to-day basis. Both convey the message "I do not believe in any god," which is, IMO, exactly the message we want to convey in the nomenclature by which we self-identify. We need, IMO, to proclaim, in no uncertain terms, that we have fundamentally different beliefs from the theistic majority, and that they are going to have to get used to living side by side with us.

I would also point out that nontheists collectively (and especially nontheists on the 'net) have a reputation for being overly argumentative. If our goal is to improve our reputation, one way we can improve our reputation is by avoiding arguments over petty issues.

Bear in mind that the public views us as "argumentative" largely because we fail to submit to social pressure and "common sense" beliefs. We are less willing than others to allow fantasy to be passed off as truth in our presence without pointing out that the emporer has no clothes. As freethinkers, I think we ought to actively cultivate a reputation for being "argumentative" in this sense. I agree that we ought not argue petty issues but, as I've said, I don't think that self-identification is a petty issue.

This is a non sequitur. Of course, we all want more respect for atheists. But that it is irrelevant to what the word "atheist" means. By analogy, I, as a heterosexual male, want more respect for homosexuals, but that doesn't mean it would be factually correct for me to "self-identify" as a homosexual.

I am not an agnostic self-identifying as an atheist to help win respect for atheists. I am an atheist. I would no more self-identify as an agnostic for political reasons than I would ask a gay man to self-identify as a "curious" straight man for political reasons.

This begs the question by assuming the "truth" is that atheism is the lack of belief in God. That is precisely the point at issue.

The "truth" is that atheism, agnosticism, and nontheism in general are finely nuanced topics with a long history. To allow ignorant theists (not all theists, mind you, I'm using "ignorant" literally here) to redefine the terms of the nontheist tradition to fit their simplistic mold is to deny, IMO, that history, with all its nuance.

I apologize for my general inflexibility on this topic. It's an important issue for me. I'm not necessarily saying that you shouldn't seek to change the usage of the terms as you've suggested, but I am saying that, as a member in good standing of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, I'm voting against it at the next meeting.

05-06-2002, 07:38 PM	#27
copernicus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Bellevue, WA Posts: 1,531	Originally posted by vixstile: <strong>The original definition of agnosticism had little to do with god belief... ...A=without or lacking (A)theism=without or lacking theistic belief </strong> Actually, the word was borrowed into English as a noun from French, and it originally described people who denied the existence of God. Modern English has no "a-" prefix that attaches to nouns. The negative "a-" prefix is semi-productive, and it attaches to adjectives. Consider the adjectives asexual, areligious, apolitical, asymptomatic, etc. There are no nominal counterparts: asex, areligion, apolitics, asymptom. To argue that the meaning of the noun atheist should be broken down into its component parts (i.e. morphemes in linguistic parlance) ignores the fact that the analysis is flawed in terms of real English morphosyntactic rules. <strong> You can be both an atheist as well as agonistic at the same time, they don't conflict in any way </strong> One of the meanings of "atheist" is "a person who has no belief in god(s)". Another meaning is "a person who believes that the is/are no god(s)". As with most words in the English language, it can have more than one word sense. That is why dictionaries give several different definitions for most words. The context in which words are used resolves the ambiguity in running discourse. The components of a word and its historical meaning may or may not reflect its current usage. You can only determine a word's meaning by studying its popular usage. <strong> I would also like to add; The definitions of words mite change frequently, but syntax doesn't. The definition of theist is the same as it has always was. Slapping an A in front of a word still means "without or lack of" what ever that word is...</strong> The negative prefix "a-" only came into English through borrowings from Greek and Romance languages, and, as far as I know, it was never a prefix that English speakers attached to nouns. So, while "amnesia" may well mean "lack of memory", English speakers do not perceive "mnesia" to refer to "memory", nor do they perceive "apathy" as "lack of pathos". I agree with Jeffery. The word "atheist" can have different meanings, but its more common meaning is "one who denies the existence of God". Myself, I am an agnostic until I know which of the seemingly innumerable definitions of deities we are talking about. Once I get that straightened out, I usually call myself an "atheist" on the grounds that most deities are implausible to me. I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny either, but I can't prove they don't exist. Most of the time, I use "atheist" and "agnostic" as virtually synonymous. Atheism conveys the plausibility that I ascribe to the existence of most deities. Agnosticism conveys my inability to prove my skepticism. However, there are many times when I want the words "atheist" and "agnostic" to describe the difference between positive denial and neutrality. Language is flexible in this way. [ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: copernicus ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-07-2002, 01:18 PM	#29
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	jlowder, You have the right to self-identify however you wish. I am suggesting that it may be expedient to choose not to exercise that right in this case. Again, "Pick your battles." ... I understand that. I simply happen to think it is a tactical error to allow theists to define the terms by which we identify ourselves. I disagree. In my experience, theists view agnosticism as somehow more "open-minded" than atheism. The only persons I have ever heard accuse agnostics of being "wishy-washy" have been (strong) atheists. (Madalyn Murray O'Hair comes to mind.) Perhaps "wishy-washy" was a poor choice of terms on my part. It is my experience that most people in the theistic majority (or, at least, that portioon of the majority that I am familiar with ) interpret "agnostic" as "undecided." Yes, theists view agnostics as more "open minded," but only in the sense of "more likely to be open to potential conversion." To draw a broad stereotype, tell an American Xian you are "agnostic" and (s)he hears "I am uncertain what I believe. Perhaps if got to know Jesus better, I would accept Him as my personal savior." Again, this is my personal experience. Perhaps I've only met unusual theists. In the public mind, the distinction between "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" doesn't matter. It's a fine philosophical point, but nothing that anyone concerns themselves with on a day-to-day basis. Both convey the message "I do not believe in any god," which is, IMO, exactly the message we want to convey in the nomenclature by which we self-identify. We need, IMO, to proclaim, in no uncertain terms, that we have fundamentally different beliefs from the theistic majority, and that they are going to have to get used to living side by side with us. I would also point out that nontheists collectively (and especially nontheists on the 'net) have a reputation for being overly argumentative. If our goal is to improve our reputation, one way we can improve our reputation is by avoiding arguments over petty issues. Bear in mind that the public views us as "argumentative" largely because we fail to submit to social pressure and "common sense" beliefs. We are less willing than others to allow fantasy to be passed off as truth in our presence without pointing out that the emporer has no clothes. As freethinkers, I think we ought to actively cultivate a reputation for being "argumentative" in this sense. I agree that we ought not argue petty issues but, as I've said, I don't think that self-identification is a petty issue. This is a non sequitur. Of course, we all want more respect for atheists. But that it is irrelevant to what the word "atheist" means. By analogy, I, as a heterosexual male, want more respect for homosexuals, but that doesn't mean it would be factually correct for me to "self-identify" as a homosexual. I am not an agnostic self-identifying as an atheist to help win respect for atheists. I am an atheist. I would no more self-identify as an agnostic for political reasons than I would ask a gay man to self-identify as a "curious" straight man for political reasons. This begs the question by assuming the "truth" is that atheism is the lack of belief in God. That is precisely the point at issue. The "truth" is that atheism, agnosticism, and nontheism in general are finely nuanced topics with a long history. To allow ignorant theists (not all theists, mind you, I'm using "ignorant" literally here) to redefine the terms of the nontheist tradition to fit their simplistic mold is to deny, IMO, that history, with all its nuance. I apologize for my general inflexibility on this topic. It's an important issue for me. I'm not necessarily saying that you shouldn't seek to change the usage of the terms as you've suggested, but I am saying that, as a member in good standing of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy, I'm voting against it at the next meeting.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.