:lol:
Thank you for putting in the effort on that one.

Apparently you are one of those people who cannot acknowledge being wrong...so instead you distort.

No problem. It is one of the things I supposed about you that I see is correct.

I'm still having fun with you and your echo, so do continue.

I am an agnostic who has clearly stated my agnostic position — Frank Apisa

In my experience, most people do not know the proper definition of "agnostic" and used it mean "atheist", while understanding "atheist" as "anti-theist". Lots of confusion.

Usages of words change. If someone defines their view of atheism as, "without a belief in God," that seems consistent with one of the term's common usages.

One: To the people who point to dictionaries on this issue, it should be noted that dictionaries do not truly define words. They tell us how they are most often used…at a particular period of time. — Frank Apisa

There are people that have stated that they are uncomfortable with using the word as it gives credence to the idea of a God. One might say, "I don't need the word A-fairyist to declare that I don't believe in fairies, so why do I need a word to indicate that I don't believe in a God or Gods"?

There are people that have stated that they are uncomfortable with using the word as it gives credence to the idea of a God. One might say, "I don't need the word A-fairyist to declare that I don't believe in fairies, so why do I need a word to indicate that I don't believe in a God or Gods"? — CeleRate

I would like to know why defining oneself as an atheist in one way or another favors belief in God. This is a statement that I have read at times with no one to back it up. Would anyone like to explain it to me? Thank you.

I suppose that coining the word atheism is useful so as not to have to repeat "person who does not believe in the existence of God" or "person who believes that God does not exist". These are very long expressions. If belief in fairies were as common as belief in gods we would surely have a term similar to "fairist" and "a-fairist". It is a matter of usefulness.

One: To the people who point to dictionaries on this issue, it should be noted that dictionaries do not truly define words. They tell us how they are most often used…at a particular period of time. — Frank Apisa

That's how words are defined, by how we use them. There is no other authority beyond us to define them. Etymology might lead one to believe X about the meaning of a word, but if we no longer use it that way, then it means something else. And the word atheist has a few meanings. We have to live with that, since language is a flexible tool or set of tools. That flexibility and often ambiguousness being both positive and negative. So, if one wants to be clear about something one may need to add other clarifying terms or words to make sure the meaning is clear. But one cannot say that others are wrong if they are using the word as defined by us and via dictionaries. One can suggest, of course, that we should move the word back to original meanings or have one meaning. And make a case for why this is a good idea.

There are people that have stated that they are uncomfortable with using the word as it gives credence to the idea of a God. One might say, "I don't need the word A-fairyist to declare that I don't believe in fairies, so why do I need a word to indicate that I don't believe in a God or Gods"?
— CeleRate
I would like to know why defining oneself as an atheist in one way or another favors belief in God. This is a statement that I have read at times with no one to back it up. Would anyone like to explain it to me? Thank you.

I suppose that coining the word atheism is useful so as not to have to repeat "person who does not believe in the existence of God" or "person who believes that God does not exist". These are very long expressions. If belief in fairies were as common as belief in gods we would surely have a term similar to "fairist" and "a-fairist". It is a matter of usefulness. — David Mo

The problem with your analysis is that atheist does not derive from "a" (without) + "theism" (a 'belief' in a god) = without a 'belief' in a god. Atheism came into the English language BEFORE theism. It cannot have that meaning...and for most of its existence, DIDN'T. Atheism, until the mid to late 20th century meant "a belief that there are no gods" or "a denial that there are any gods."

Atheists of the mid-20th century decided they did not want to be saddled with a burden of proof for their "beliefs"...and decided to change the meaning of the word.

Its use does not derive from its "usefulness" as you outline it. It derives from the usefulness of people who use the word to be absolved from having to defend a position that cannot logically be defended.

One: To the people who point to dictionaries on this issue, it should be noted that dictionaries do not truly define words. They tell us how they are most often used…at a particular period of time.
— Frank Apisa

That's how words are defined, by how we use them. There is no other authority beyond us to define them. Etymology might lead one to believe X about the meaning of a word, but if we no longer use it that way, then it means something else. And the word atheist has a few meanings. We have to live with that, since language is a flexible tool or set of tools. That flexibility and often ambiguousness being both positive and negative. So, if one wants to be clear about something one may need to add other clarifying terms or words to make sure the meaning is clear. But one cannot say that others are wrong if they are using the word as defined by us and via dictionaries. One can suggest, of course, that we should move the word back to original meanings or have one meaning. And make a case for why this is a good idea. — Coben

Please see my comment above.

Let's assume your analysis is correct. IOW that the reason it changed was due to certain motivations amongst some people. To me that doesn't matter. The current use of the term includes both meanings and if someone wants to move on and clarify or a listener/reader must have clarification, then so being. There are words like this throughout the language, where in certain contexts the word works well on its own, in other contexts some other words may be necessary to clarify the meaning precisely for that particular context. Your response above does not counter what I said, which is that meaning comes from the way humans use that word. There is no deeper authority.

That said, could you link to some source for the etymology of atheist. I can only find etymologies that have word as coming from a + theist, without theism.

Such as....

In early ancient Greek, the adjective átheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more deliberate and active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods".

where the original meaning might not even clarify a belief or lack of one.

OK I found someone arguing your point of view, just now in this edited version.

https://lastedenblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/21/the-etymology-of-atheism/

but even granting this...it seems like the greek conception of the idea was ambiguous, so who gets the authority?

And then motivations are not a good argument, to me, for why, once a word is established, we should change its meaning to meet some earlier period in history.

And further, the whole thing seems like a turf fight over nothing. Let people use it as they want to. Theists who follow your etymology can use it their way and so can those atheists who use it your way, and they exist also. And others can use it in the other way that fits common usage and dictionary definitions.

None of this provides evidence related to the existence of God. There are people who simply do not believe in God and neither believe God does not exist nor are they anti-theist. And they are not agnostics either.

Okay...but what if I use the word one way and someone else uses it another way. Do we put its "proper" use up to a vote next election?

Not being a wise ass here, Coben...just asking a way to resolve such situations.

There are people here who insist that all babies, toddlers, and agnostics are "atheists" by dint of a definition that SOME dictionaries use...defining the word as someone lacking a 'belief' (in) any gods.

My opinion is that is absurd...a use of the word in a way that is much less useful than defining it as "a person who denies that any gods exist" or "a person who asserts it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does."

I've never heard an argument that effectively disputes that.

Do you have one? If so, let's discuss it.

Okay...but what if I use the word one way and someone else uses it another way. Do we put its "proper" use up to a vote next election? — Frank Apisa

As I said, there are many words that have several meanings and require further clarification in some situations. Atheist works fine in a great deal of contexts, even if we do not know if the person denies the existence of gods or simply lacks a belief. This is language it is a floppy, ambiguous thing and even the grammar stakes paradigmatic claims without proof.

Not being a wise ass here, Coben...just asking a way to resolve such situations. — Frank Apisa

If one needs to know, ask. If one wants to clarify, clarify. I don't see how claiming that the atheists are using the word wrong resolves the conflict. Does that approach seem to be getting converts to your preferred usage?

My opinion is that is absurd...a use of the word in a way that is much less useful than defining it as "a person who denies that any gods exist" or "a person who asserts it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does." — Frank Apisa

First of all, there is a difference between suggesting that we change the meaning with a supporting why we should change it, and telling people they are wrong to use it the way they are, when in fact they are following current usage. I have already said that I think that is fine. This is different from telling people their use is wrong because really dictionaries are wrong and current use, generally, is wrong due to etymology. Language changes and current use is not wrong. So, now moving on to the next issue is it better to use it the way you would like.

I have no idea how to measure the usefulness. I'm a theist. In most instances in my life it does not matter to me the way the other person is using and the general category of does not believe in God satisfies my interests. In philosophical discussions I don't think I have ever found the other person's position ambiguous, since they tend to be asserting something from their position. If we restrict the word atheist to those who assert there is no God or gods, then we need another word. Some people use the phrase strong atheist, or negative vs. positive. I haven't noticed one problem over the years. Honestly I feel like the animosity between atheists and theists gets played out over this word
and it would be much more honest to just deal with the real source of the animosity. Now would it be better if we had one word for the negative atheism and one word for the positive atheism and what would that word be? I don't know. It feels to me like Dad and Mom are arguing over a sock left on the floor when one of them has been having an affair and the other one demeans the other one all the time. So, we can all focus on the sock on the floor or we can focus in different threads on the real issues of difference and we can ask for clarification in those very specific situations where further clarification is needed or wanted. And then

what would happen with this new word being out there? I don't know.

I see language riddled with words that cover a few meanings and humans tend to deal with that with phrases or asking for clarification. I wouldn't fight an attempt to change the language, but I think it is better approached not by immediately telling those with the other use that they are wrong, but ruather by appealing to them with a more effective system. I oppose the telling them they are wrong on the grounds that they are not, but also in practical terms. It sure will not increase the chances of changing anyone's mind. If you really want to start what you consider a better use of language, then I would suggest approaching it as, hey, I think it might be in all our interests to have clear unambigous, single word terms for these things. If you want to have pyrrhic victory, by all means try convincing them they are being wrong and following manipulative poor etymologists from the past. You can view what happens in the thread as you calling them out on what they did wrong, but I truly doubt it will lead to a change in the language. Nor should it, I would say. If you have a better schema, with I would think a new term included, this would, it seems to me, serve everyone. Of course, deciding to fix language is very hard, but it does happen sometimes.

as an addendum some words in philosophy that often need further clarification:
theist - which religion, pantheism, polytheism, panentheism...I can't tell you the number of times I have had to clarity that my theism is not the one the other person is arguing against, or had to point out that they are saying belief in God entails and then what follows is only applicable to Christianity or Abrahamism.
empiricism - there is not just one
metaphysics - this means different things to many people, but generally works as a category in a forum
mind - the conscious mind, the entire mind, an entity that is not the brain in substance dualisms
Materialism - Marxist, the synonym for physicalism, and then which kind therein
Buddhism - which one
Hinduism - which one
Holism - what kind
Dualism - which one
Consciousness -

I could make a much much larger list. These are generally dealt with either via adding an adjective (elminative materialism) or by people asking for clarification, etc. And while these can be charged issues, very little is as charged as the atheist/theist debate, so people just tend to linguistically tweak away any ambiguities, just as we do in everyday life where we have to use and the words that have several different meanings.

Your lecture has been received and is being considered. I thank you for your take on the issue.

If I use a single word to describe myself...it is agnostic. I suspect the distinction I am making about this issue is of greater importance to someone using that descriptor...than to someone using "theist."

There is no goddam way I want any person using the descriptor "atheist" to insist that because I lack a "belief" in any gods...that I am perforce an "atheist."

Fact is, I DO lack the belief that any gods exist...but I am NOT an atheist.

I also lack the belief that no gods exist...but I am NOT a theist.

Here is my take on the issue:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

I consider that to be a logical, reasonable, intelligent position to take on the issue. There is no logical reason whatever for that to be considered an atheistic position. If the atheists of the world were to adopt that position...I WOULD PROUDLY DECLARE MYSELF TO BE AN ATHEIST. I have nothing against the word...but I do not want it applied to me considering my stated position.

So...if you have any comments on that, Coben, I'd love to hear them. Thank you for discussing the issue with me.

There are people here who insist that all babies, toddlers, and agnostics are "atheists" by dint of a definition that SOME dictionaries use...defining the word as someone lacking a 'belief' (in) any gods. — Frank Apisa

Dictionary definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive, and they're good for providing spellings and usages of words. We can have a more meaningful conversation with an interlocutor provided that each party agrees on the use of the terms during a conversation.

As you point out, if what people mean by atheist is a-without, theist-person who believes in a God (one of the usages given in the Oxford dictionary), then it's more economical to use this word in conversation.

My opinion is that is absurd...a use of the word in a way that is much less useful than defining it as "a person who denies that any gods exist" or "a person who asserts it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does." — Frank Apisa

I'm not sure what you mean by "less useful". It seems that the usefulness of a word is in whether speakers and listeners can respond in ways that produces outcomes each party finds valuable.

If I use a single word to describe myself...it is agnostic.

Here is my take on the issue:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't. — Frank Apisa

Well, seems to me (at least), that an "agnostic" who walks like a ... and who quacks like a ... is indistinguishable from a ...

... practical atheist. :smirk:

Dictionary definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive, and they're good for providing spellings and usages of words. We can have a more meaningful conversation with an interlocutor provided that each party agrees on the use of the terms during a conversation.

As you point out, if what people mean by atheist is a-without, theist-person who believes in a God (one of the usages given in the Oxford dictionary), then it's more economical to use this word in conversation. — CeleRate

If that is what the person using it means...and what the person hearing it accepts...then it is a more economical use in conversation.

But for many...perhaps most of the world except for Internet atheists...use of the word "atheist" denotes and implies a denial that any gods exist.

It is not "more economical" if it misleads.

I'm not sure what you mean by "less useful". It seems that the usefulness of a word is in whether speakers and listeners can respond in ways that produces outcomes each party finds valuable. — CeleRate

If the word "atheist" were used to denote a person who denies the existence of any gods...or who "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...no modification would be necessary....and that would be more useful. Not doing so...is less useful.

And it allows the reasonable refusal of people with my take to have the word erroneously applied to them...to not have to go through all this crap whenever atheists start that insistence.

For people who do not deny that any gods exist...and who do not "believe" it is more likely that therer are no gods than that at least one does...the word agnostic is fine. For those who perfer not to u ses it...they can simply explain their position each time.

Well, seems to me (at least), that an "agnostic" who walks like a ... and who quacks like a ... is indistinguishable from a ...

... practical atheist. :smirk: — 180 Proof

I agree!

I walk like an agnostic...I talk (or quack) like an agnostic...so I AM AN AGNOSTIC.

Every person I know who uses the word "atheist" as a descriptor in any form and with any modification...DOES either deny the existence of any gods...or DOES "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Why do you think it appropriate that I be included in that group just because they insist?

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence; — Frank Apisa

This, to me, appears to be a position about knowledge. "I do not know" is a claim that you lack knowledge. I think it would be appropriate to say that you are agnostic about a theistic claim (i.e., a-without, gnostic-knowledge). This would be a common usage of the term, agnostic.

For people who do not deny that any gods exist...and who do not "believe" it is more likely that therer are no gods than that at least one does...the word agnostic is fine. — Frank Apisa

I think it's fine as long as people are careful to define their terms. I personally use agnostic to describe my position on topics beyond theism. Ex: do I think a person's motivation to behave in a given way is the one described by a third party? Without sufficient evidence I might reply by saying that I am agnostic about the person's motivation.

I also don't know how to justify a claim that a God does not exist; similar to Russell's teapot example. It's possible there's a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and the sun, but I will remain skeptical and agnostic until such time as sufficient evidence has been presented.

CeleRate
3
I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
— Frank Apisa

This, to me, appears to be a position about knowledge. "I do not know" is a claim that you lack knowledge. I think it would be appropriate to say that you are agnostic about a theistic claim (i.e., a-without, gnostic-knowledge). This would be a common usage of the term, agnostic. — CeleRate

If one were to choose 1000 people at random...and put my take to them along with the questions:

Is this an agnostic position?

Is this an atheistic position?

...I dare guess 99% or more would respond "YES" to the first...and "NO" to the second.

Not sure of where you are going with your comments...or why you are going there...but do continue. I thank you for discussing the topic with me.

4
For people who do not deny that any gods exist...and who do not "believe" it is more likely that therer are no gods than that at least one does...the word agnostic is fine.
— Frank Apisa

I think it's fine as long as people are careful to define their terms. I personally use agnostic to describe my position on topics beyond theism. Ex: do I think a person's motivation to behave in a given way is the one described by a third party? Without sufficient evidence I might reply by saying that I am agnostic about the person's motivation.

I also don't know how to justify a claim that a God does not exist; similar to Russell's teapot example. It's possible there's a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and the sun, but I will remain skeptical and agnostic until such time as sufficient evidence has been presented. — CeleRate

Okay...we are 5 x 5 here.

But that does not address the fact that I, and many (perhaps MOST) agnostics do not want the descriptor "atheist" applied to them...nor to new born babies or toddlers.

Will you address that?

Is this an agnostic position?

Is this an atheistic position? — Frank Apisa

I reply based on my current understanding of the words gnostic and theist, but I have no general objection to others using the terms in other specified ways. I also have no insistence that an interlocutor define the term as I do. I accept that people use the term atheism to mean that they believe God does not exist. If that's how the person is using the term, then I'd ask if the person has evidence to support the claim that a God does not exist.

I, however, remain unconvinced by the evidence or arguments that I've heard, so that is how I use the term atheist. As I lack sufficient knowledge about the theistic claim, I might describe my position as an agnostic atheist.

To take a contrasting position, I could be an agnostic theist and say that, although I don't know, I believe that there is a God.

agnostics do not want the descriptor "atheist" applied to them...nor to new born babies or toddlers.

Will you address that? — Frank Apisa

I think the best one can do is to say, "This is what I mean when I use this term". You can always reject a person's use of a given word, but it may be an equivocation.

If the person said, "I think the baby is without a belief in God," probably neither the person in support of the proposition nor the one against it could disprove the other's argument. However, given what's known about language development and reasoning, I would suspect that the null hypothesis would be that an infant has no more of an opinion on God than it does for determining if socialism is better than capitalism.

We're just going back and forth to no avail.I thought there could be more substance.

My position is clear.

You seem to be agreeing with it...but making sure you do not specifically say, "I agree."

Whatever is causing that...you are entitled to it.

There is no goddam way I want any person using the descriptor "atheist" to insist that because I lack a "belief" in any gods...that I am perforce an "atheist." — Frank Apisa

Fair enough. Resist. There are some who would say that atheist agnostic is possible. But I think that agnostic has a particular meaning, generally around the potential for positive knowledge of God. So, to me it is a fairly precise term (not completely, since some people use it to mean they are not sure, but still, in general in philosophy forums it means what I am guessing you mean by it). I see no reason for you to be placed in a category you think does not fit, especially given what you take atheist to mean.

Well, seems to me (at least), that an "agnostic" who walks like a ... and who quacks like a ... is indistinguishable from a ...

... practical atheist. 
— 180 Proof

I agree! — Frank Apisa

:clap:

I walk like an agnostic...I talk (or quack) like an agnostic...so I AM AN AGNOSTIC.

:monkey:

jhj

If one were to choose 1000 people at random...and put my take to them along with the questions:

Is this an agnostic position?

Is this an atheistic position?

...I dare guess 99% or more would respond "YES" to the first...and "NO" to the second. — Frank Apisa

I don't think it would be 99%, but probably high. However, it reminds of a riddle we used as kids:

What is the capitol of Kentucky, Louisville (pronounced Lew-iss-ville) or Louisville (pronounced Lew-ee-ville)?

Almost everyone says #2 (Lew-ee-ville). Unfortunately, the right answer is Frankfort.

Atheists of the mid-20th century decided they did not want to be saddled with a burden of proof for their "beliefs"...and decided to change the meaning of the word.

Its use does not derive from its "usefulness" as you outline it. It derives from the usefulness of people who use the word to be absolved from having to defend a position that cannot logically be defended. — Frank Apisa

If that is the main reason, it is absurd. Sooner or later the atheist/agnostic - that is, the one who simply declares not to believe in God - will be forced to argue his position and define himself as a "gnostic atheist" or "atheist agnostic. Unless he chooses not to enter the debate, in which case he need not define himself in any way. So, I don't know why he participates in debates like this with such passionate manners.

The choice is so irrational that I suppose other psychological reasons are hidden.

My conclusion is that atheists/agnostics - that is, those who simply claim not to believe in God - should argue their skepticism and stop fussing with "the true meaning of atheism" and "the burden of proof". These are pseudo-problems.

It's linguistic evolution. How words are pronounced, spelled, and defined change over time. It's why we speak so many different languages. Words do not have intrinsic meaning.

I believe that the possibility of a creator agent is unfalsifiable. I don't have to label it, I can just state it. I don't care if people call my position atheistic or agnostic or agnostic atheist. I only care that I've communicated my position.

Would I like to see the language we use to be more rich and better defined? Sure. But it's not the case. So I just speak plainly.

I believe that the possibility of a creator agent is unfalsifiable. — Malice

What do you mean?
a) God (very) probably doesn't exist.
b) You can't tell if God exists or not.
c) The existence of God is a pseudo-problem.

Thank you.