Feb 27, 2012 -- 10:45AM, TemplarS wrote:

Anymore labels are shifty things.

People are now more willing to think things through for themselves, and they have access to the necessary information to think things through for themselves (whether they avail themselves of the information, or have time to do it justice, is a different question).

So there are bound to be shades of meaning in any category.

You can't assume all Christians think alike.  These days almost all Catholics are "cafeteria Catholics" in something or another.   Even the boundaries between faith and atheism are blurry. "Secular" Jews are common.  Guys like John Spong and Dom Crossan call themselves Christian, but I'll bet a lot of other Christians would like to call them atheists. 

Somebody calls themselves a "Christian", you need to dig a bit deeper to find out what they really believe.  I'd think the same about atheists/agnostics. 

Etymology is nice but it does not always align with reality.

Be that as it may, when you change the meaning of a word that is used for centuries in both philosophical and theological writings where it has a specific meaning and arbitrarily decide to change that, then try to have a discussion with someone who has spent decades studying philosophy and theology, you are going to be misunderstood and that misunderstanding will be your own fault. Getting angry about it doesn't help your argument one bit, particularly when there is another word already in existance to describe the thing you are misusing the first word to describe. One wonders since those who claim to be atheists also claim to be rational and scientific in their basis, that when ignoring the scientific definition of the word they are either being intentionally vague or merely displaying extreme ignorance on the level of what they accuse theists of.

Atheism would not exists without theism, as the word itself connotes. It is dependent on the idea of theism.  It is a negation of it. It is the other side of the same coin. It is  nothing in itself.

Some so-called atheists should start using "agnosticism" instead.

Feb 26, 2012 -- 11:07PM, Father_Oblivion wrote:

I submit that the vast majority of self-described atheists don't understand English nor the root derivative of the words 'atheist' or 'agnostic' if that is indeed the case. Simply because you adopt a word to describe your belief status does not change its actual definition. Atheism is at root a Greek word which combines theo as the main word ("God") with the prefix a which transforms the root to its negative ("Non-God") and is a declarative. Being a declarative, it therefore is an affirmative statement which means it cannot possibly refer to a lack of anything. Therefore, it means it is a declarative that 'God(s) do(es) not exist', not a lack of belief in same. Agnostic is also a Greek word, which combines Gnosis as the main word ("To Know") with the same prefix a which transforms the root to its negative ("To Not Know"), which precisely says a lack of knowledge. To use an example, a person may declare the food they are eating is vegan, and several people may agree, but if it is made from eggs and butter it is irrelevent what they believe, the definition of vegen says it isn't and to try to change the definition to fit their thinking doesn't actually change the definition.

I liked reading that dance. Thank you Father.

Shirley

More of that quote from Girlchristian's excellent source (thank you, Girlchristian, for linking to it):

"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."

"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. Michael Martin, a leading atheist philosopher, defines atheism entirely in terms of belief.[1] For him, negative atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief, positive atheism is the asserted disbelief in God, and agnosticism is the lack of either belief or disbelief in God. This suggests that negative atheism, the minimal position that all atheists share, divides neatly into agnosticism and positive atheism. It is worth noting that the 'positive atheist' need not have certainty that God doesn't exist: it is a matter of belief, not knowledge."

Let us assume that most people who claim to be atheists are not claiming to be heretical believers or claiming to be immoral people.  It is far more reasonable to assume that they mean godless in the more modern sense ...  to be without belief in any gods.

The interesting thing about doing so is that such an assumption ends up being correct for both "negative atheists" (also called weak atheists) and "positive atheists" (also called "strong atheists").  Both weak and strong atheists lack belief in gods, so if someone says they are an atheist you can safely assume they lack belief in gods.  Weak atheists (who are, in my experience, far more common than strong atheists) do not assert that no gods exist, so assuming that someone who calls themselves an atheist believes that no gods exist is going to be wrong a good portion of the time.  Any assumption that is wrong that often is a bad assumption IMO.

"One criticism of Martin's definition is that it is not what is commonly understood by 'atheism', and may therefore be confusing and unhelpful. As well as Martin's acknowledgement that dictionaries tend to define atheism positively, many surveys have shown that far fewer people identify as atheists than lack belief in God. For example, Greeley's 2003 survey found that 31% of Britons did not believe in God, but only 10% considered themselves 'atheist'."

Frankly, I don't blame them.  Given how widely hated atheists are, I myself hesitate to refer to myself as an atheist except in a safe environment.  Most people still seem to think, on some level, that atheist has the very old definition of 'immoral' (probably on the false assumption that morals have to come from belief in a god).

FatherOblivion wrote:

> Be that as it may, when you change the meaning of a word that is used for

> centuries in both philosophical and theological writings where it has a specific

> meaning and arbitrarily decide to change that, then try to have a discussion

> with someone who has spent decades studying philosophy and theology, you are

> going to be misunderstood and that misunderstanding will be your own fault.

Someone who has *claimed* to have spent decades studying philosophy and theology, but given how easy it is for someone to claim expertise on a subject over the internet without the slightest actual background, hopefully you'll forgive us if we don't just take your word for it that you are right.  And if you don't forgive us for not taking your unsupported word for it, I doubt anyone will care.

If you really want to convince others that you know what you are talking about, you should try less abuse and more links to qualified sources.