Misused labels of Atheist and Atheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Damian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems my definition of ‘deist’ was sloppy and inaccurate. Thank you for the correction.
 
So they’re an Agnostic Deist.
If they claim to a specific deity of religion then I would call them an Agnostic Catholic for example.
 
Damian said:
theistic side of different levels of unbelief, what terms or labels they use for the differences I have presented, etc. Too many problems about this conversation is that both sides are using the same words but in sightly, but significantly different ways.
Click to expand...
There is a foundational belief that what we grow in is based on. "We believe in God the Father…

This belief draws us into deeper belief all the time!

Mark 9
And Jesus asked his father, “How long has he had this?” And he said, “From childhood. And it has often cast him into the fire and into the water, to destroy him; but if you can do anything, have pity on us and help us.” And Jesus said to him, “If you can! All things are possible to him who believes.” Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!”
 
Damian said:
Good to know, I am about communicating ideas with the best words as I know to use. If you have a better word to use to point out the same nuance I am, then let me know.
Click to expand...
Where the problem always occurs is in the different meanings for the same word. One reason for this for atheism is that is can be taken as either no belief in any God or gods, although there may be God or gods, vs belief that there is no God or gods.
 
Damian said:
I disagree with their definition of atheist though. There is a difference between I don’t believe your claim of X and I believe X is false. What term would you use for someone like me who does not believe in the supernatural because all the presentations and evidence has yet to convince me? I am not stating that I know it is not there, just that the theists’ reasons and evidence is lacking to convince me that it should be there.
I do not believe “there is no god”, I believe that the reasons and evidence to make that conclusion are not justified for that conclusion as of yet. I am responding only to the presentation for why someone believes.

If someone believes X and you are not convinced that X is there based on their bad reasons, this does not mean that you believe Y.
Click to expand...
For example: jar of marbles that no one can investigate. There is either an even or odd number of marbles. The theist claims there is an even number of marbles. I would say, I don’t believe you. Does that mean I believe there is an odd number of marbles? No, for the same reasons. So what is my position on the marbles? I didn’t make one. I only responded to your claim for why you believe it’s even.
 
Okay, but I don’t believe in the supernatural based on the reasons that theists have presented for why they do believe so far.
I can understand valuing something regardless if it is actually part of reality or not. The jewish culture does this for example. It is common to find a cultural jew that is atheist. That is also why you probably have an atheist in your own church and they don’t need to believe the supernatural to find meaning in the religion or the members.

What is the language used on the religious side to describe what I am talking about? What terms to the religious side use for the nuance of different levels of unbelief for example.
 
Last edited:
Damian said:
I keep running into conversations with people using the word “Atheism”. From an atheist, Atheism is an idea that doesn’t exist. Here’s how I and the other atheists use these words:
Click to expand...
Yeah, we have one of these pop up every few months.

Limit your use of the phrase “I and the other atheists” because there are a few atheists on this site that will be more than happy to let you know that you do not speak for them.
Damian said:
Knowledge vs Belief claims
Knowledge is a subset to beliefs.
Click to expand...
The Gettier problem proves that the difference between “knowing” and “believing” is arbitrary.

Which is why your device on;
Gnosticism vs Agnosticism…
Click to expand...
Lacks meaning.
This ain’t virgin snow you’re trying to ski on, friend.
 
Yes, I agree with you! However, it has come to my attention as a member of this Forum for several years that the words atheist and atheism do not have a passive or indifferent connotation for some believers. The latter think of atheists (even if not all) as having an agenda, which is, to put it bluntly, to eradicate religion. Let me be clear that I do NOT believe this is the case. These same people equate atheism with humanism, secularism, and relativism, all of which they regard as dangerous if not evil movements. So regardless of the way in which you define atheism according to logic and analogy, this is the mindset of certain members of CAF.
 
Last edited:
Damian said:
Why do I feel the need to point this out? - Many theist claim that they would not pursue someone who does not believe what they believe or if they found out later when dating them, that they would end all relationships with them. They would not date an atheist, they would work to destroy the relationship between their children and the atheist they are dating, etc. When pressed on why they would be bigoted this way, they state that they could not see a future with someone who does not value what they do about their religion. This is the problem that the pulpit lies to you about.
Click to expand...
You put this discussion in the terms of a relationship. Were I to choose a spouse with the desire of having and raising children in the faith (RCC), I would want and seek a spouse who is compatible with my goals. Maybe not the same denomination, but someone who believes as I do. An atheist does not, neither does the agnostic. The moral structure of my children consistent with the values and beliefs I instill in them is more important that a academic argument about the meaning of words.

Normal - according to a norm or structure. Abnormal - not according to a norm or a structure. Simple.

Theist - belief in a God. Atheist - not believing in a God. Simple

As Limbaugh has said, “words have precise meanings.” From an academic standpoint your argument has merit - in the classroom. Where the rubber meets the road, atheists do not believe in God. End of discussion.

Yes they can be nice people, having respect for others. Beyond that, “words have precise meanings”
 
Damian said:
40.png
joeybaggz:
atheists do not believe in God. End of discussion.
Click to expand...
That is the problem for why I come to these sites. Being ignorant is not someone’s fault if they are never exposed to the information. But stupid is when you are exposed to the information and you still don’t take it in or engage as to why you don’t agree. It’s just putting your head in the sand. I don’t care if you change your position if you explain it, but I do care if you don’t engage at all. IE: End of Discussion.
Click to expand...
Perhaps he prefers the enduring etymological definition of the word-

Atheist-
A-theos-ist-
No-God-Adherent.

How terribly ignorant of him, right?
 
Except that the meanings of words do evolve.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
Except that the meaning of words do evolve.
Click to expand...
Etymology does not.

And as this “evolution” of the word “atheist” is fairly novel, I’m sure you’ll forgive abstinence from joining the ideologically motivated bandwagon.
 
Vonsalza said:
Perhaps he prefers the enduring etymological definition of the word-

Atheist-
A-theos-ist-
No-God-Adherent.

How terribly ignorant of him, right?
Click to expand...
Why do you take ‘a’ to mean ‘no’ instead of ‘without’?

Also consider the difference when I insert hyphens:

a-theist
athe-ist
 
Damian said:
So they’re an Agnostic Deist.
If they claim to a specific deity of religion then I would call them an Agnostic Catholic for example.
Click to expand...
I think we’re not using those words the same way. I can’t be a Catholic unless I believe in God, in which case I’m not an Agnostic.
 
Dan123 said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Perhaps he prefers the enduring etymological definition of the word-

Atheist-
A-theos-ist-
No-God-Adherent.

How terribly ignorant of him, right?
Click to expand...
Why do you take ‘a’ to mean ‘no’ instead of ‘without’?

Also consider the difference when I insert hyphens:

a-theist
athe-ist
Click to expand...
I don’t see the progress, Dan.

It’s still a believer in the Greek negated form of “god”. “A” and “theos” aren’t the problems for the claim of passivity. “-ist” is.
 
Last edited:
Belief isn’t a choice though as far as I understand it. It’s my experience that when people talk about what they believe, they are talking about their internal model of reality. Such as, if I sit in a chair, I will tell you that I believe I am sitting in a chair. I can not believe otherwise unless new information about the event is presented and/or I learn a new way of interpreting the experience.
Can you explain how you can choose to believe or not believe something? because to me its just communicating your experience and understanding of reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top