In the post "Question for Atheists" by moonbeam, RPackman made comments regarding the word "atheism" that, because of his status on the Board, need to be addressed (again)

RPACKMAN STATED:

"We sometimes make the mistake of thinking that statements such as "X is a Christian" and "Y is an Atheist" are similar statements. Yes, they are grammatically identical, but logically they are very different (aside from being theologically different)."

"The "a-" prefix in "atheism" and "atheist" is the negative prefix in Greek, and it means simply "non-," "not." Atheist means, then, "not a theist." And that is ALL it means. (A "theist" is one who has some belief in a deity or deities.)"

"Therefore, to say "So-and-so is an atheist" is not an affirmative statement, but a negative one. It is like saying "So-and-so does not own a Ford." Or "So-and-so does not eat peanut butter." Or "So-and-so is not a Hindu." From these negative statements it is not justifiable to draw any further conclusions about So-and-so; there is no affirmative information in those statements."

"To put it another way, such a statement is not saying that so-and-so is a member of the atheist class, because there is no such class. At least, there is no such class about which any meaningful statement or generalization can be made. It is a class only definable in terms of the theist class, and thus it is not a meaningful class. That is, the only thing that atheists (non-theists) have in common is that one characteristic: non-membership in the theist class."

________________________________________________

COMMENT:

This is all very articulate. In fact, I could find only one thing wrong with it. IT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG!

First, you cannot ascertain the meaning of a word simply by dissecting it, and considering its etiological history. If you could then, "kindergarten" would mean childrens-garden. This is especially true when you highlight a Greek prefix in an attempt to ground the logic of an English word. It simply does not work. Words have derivations, yes; but meaning arises only through their current use and application. The best place to find that is in a dictionary!

Second, the word atheist, even if broken down to a-theist, does not logically entail non-theist, in the sense of lack of belief in God, as you, and others continue to insist. A theist is someone with an affirmative belief in God. The concept of "belief" is therefore essential to the meaning of the word. An a-theist, being a form of the word theist, also denotes a belief, however, a non-theistic belief; i.e. a belief that God does not exist. As such, both positions, theist and atheist, involve substantive beliefs. Therefore, there is no reason at all to accept your logic with respect to "a-theist" as being decoupled from belief, even if you choose to break the word down. A theist is someone who believes that God exists, and an atheist is someone who believes that God does not exist. So, on this interpretation the "a" in atheist denotes a non-theistic belief, rather than lack of a theistic belief.

More to the point, why not just ask "How is the word 'atheist' used in the English language;" or "What is the current standard definition of 'atheist' in the English language. Why not just look the word up, instead of stretching and reaching to try to find some linguistic preference for atheism? (For example, the ridiculous notion that it is a "default position.") If you do that you will discover that it means "a theory or belief that God does not exist." (Oxford) Note that this definition involves a substantive theory or belief, not merely the lack of belief in God.

So, to say that so-and-so is an atheist, is precisely to say that such a person has an affirmative, substantive belief that God does not exist. THat is the dictionary definition. And that fact, of course, puts them in a logical class of persons who share that belief, even though there may be a wide variety of subclasses of atheists, just as there are theists. So, your argument here is simply and plainly incorrect. And it doesn't matter what atheist celebrities have endorsed this argument. It is still wrong. And what's more, it is not a matter of interpretation; or preference. It is just wrong.

I have addressed this topic multiple times, and the resistance I get amazes me. You would think that atheists somehow feel offended by admitting that they have a substantive belief that God does not exist; i.e. that they have considered the issue on some level, and affirmatively believe that God does not exist.

Breaking down the word "atheism" is very simple and applicable in my personal world of seoarating fact from fiction.

To wit:

"a" means "without."

"theism" means "a belief in god."
_____


That totally works for me: I am "without a belief in god."

May I suggest that you quit trying to impose your preferred definitions of the term "atheism" on others and instead learn to accept how people personally define it for themselvees. That requires listening on your part, which you are not very good at.

If you can't or don't want to do this simple little exercise, then you can go to heckypoo.



Edited 13 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2013 10:13PM by steve benson.

BENSON: "May I suggest that you quit trying to impose your preferred definitions of the term "atheism" on others and instead learn to accept how people personally define it for themselvees. That requires listening on your part, which you are not very good at."

O.K. why don't we all just throw our dictionaries away. Then, we can adopt are "preferred" defintions and related arguments, and thereby convince our TBM friends and loved ones that Mormonism is false.

I have no problem with someone adopting a preferred definition as their personal choice, and stated as such. But that is not how this has been presented here. It has been consistently and repeatedly presented as a viable position or argument that supposedly gives atheism some advantage. In that context, you and others should be prepared to consider why the position is wrong--even if from someone you dislike.

Your response is another example of resistance to plain and clear logic and reason when it does not happen to go your way. Maybe it is just too difficult for people to see the truth and admit when they are wrong. But, that is a legacy or Mormonism, not atheism!

. . . throw away your ear wax and trying perking up to what people are saying as to how they personally define the term "atheism."

By the way, looking at the word's roots:

From French: "athéisme," from "athée," meaning "atheist"

From: Greek "atheos," meaning "godless"

a-: "without;" see "a-1 + theos," meaning "god;" see "dhs- in Indo-European roots"
_____


Now, as to how I regard my own atheism:

"Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This position is sometimes called 'weak atheism,' meaning 'the lack of belief in gods.' . . . 'Weak atheism,' the 'lack of belief in gods,' accurately describes the vast majority of atheists."

By contrast, "[s]trong atheism is the belief that gods do not exist."

https://sites.google.com/site/alexisbrookex/strong-atheism-vs-weak-atheism

I prefer the former over the latter definition, as it most closely describes my own brand of atheism. I do not have a belief in god(s) because I see no rational evidence to justify such a belief.
_____


Here's more on the definitions of "atheist/atheism" which you don't seem to get or accept:

"'Atheist' is a translation of the Greek: 'atheos.' using the alpha privative 'a' and the term for God 'theos.' It does not merge the alpha private with the ENGLISH TERM 'theist.' Rather, 'atheist' as a whole word is a translation of 'atheos,' the whole word. Were the original meaning drawn entirely from etymology it would mean simply 'godless,' 'ungodly' or 'without God.' . . .

" . . . [I]n recent times the definition has come under question by atheists themselves. . . . A softened definition of 'atheism,' [called] . . . 'negative atheism,' [is where] the atheist doesn’t carry any burden of proof since that burden is on the participant/s making a positive case of some sort: 'God exists' or 'God does not exist.' But to claim, 'I have no belief about God' is not a positive case and therefore requires no defense in contemporary debate formats. . . .

"[i.e.,] 'Negative/Weak/Soft Atheism--'no belief in God'"

Other related definitions for "atheism" include "Positive/Strong/Hard Atheism–'belief in no God'

"[T]hese [various definitions] are not standardized and do not necessarily reflect the long history or widescale contemporary usage of . . . 'atheist.'"

http://intelligentchristianfaith.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/defining-atheism-belief-in-no-god-or-no-belief-in-god/
_____


Let it go, Henry. You are being gawd-damnably obnoxious.



Edited 15 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2013 10:52PM by steve benson.

Dude, fer realz?

You seem to have a hard time with people telling you what they don't or do believe. Leave it alone, already.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Words have derivations, yes; but meaning arises only
> through their current use and application. The
> best place to find that is in a dictionary!

The best place? Wrong.

The BEST place to find the meaning of a word is directly from the person speaking/writing it. You can't get more current than that.

CURRENT usage is one of a dictionary's weak spots. As someone once said, a Dictionary is a book of history, not a book of law.

In the context of everyday communication, you may have a point. But in the context of an argument or intellectual discussion, where there is a history of communication, controversy and disagreement, definitions matter; and the substance and force of one's argument are dependent upon correct language use, as generally understood by the participants, current and historical. Changing a definition to suit one's argument is to commit the fallacy of equivocation.

Get down and feel the terra firma:

No evidence for god means no belief in god.

For Henry...
At this point, I find your argument a-logical, without references. You make a lot of assertions without reference to source (other than claiming the dictionary, which seems pretty lame really).

That being said, it's really, really hard to care about this (topic). Why then? I can't feel any reformation or relief from morminism here.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, do you always insist on quibbling over mundane points without actually discussing the roots of an issue?

If you wish to parse words than be my guest, just don't expect any reasonable discourse.

What a ridiculous argument.

I seriously doubt there is a god. I don't have to "believe" there is no god. No, the believers are the ones who must bring proof to the debate.
Redefining words doesn't satisfy your complete lack of evidence of any god's existence whatsoever.

There is no evidence. In fact for as many people who have died, not one has come back or managed to communicate that they met a god on the other side. Or that any part of them continues in any way that couldn't be construed to be a figment of an overactive imagination.

The ones making an assertion are the ones obligated to bring proof, atheists don't have to prove a negative. Prove there isn't a teapot orbiting Pluto, why don't you.

To the extent that belief and opinion are synonyms, there is a thread of argument to Bemis' claim. But not a strong one.

The problem is that for religious purposes, believe is a verb. And while one can opine, opining and believing are not the same thing.

believe
 
be·lieve
[bih-leev] Show IPA verb, be·lieved, be·liev·ing.
verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
verb (used with object)
2.
to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3.
to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4.
to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5.
to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.


For an atheist, they are not believing, but disbelieving.

disbelieve
 
dis·be·lieve
[dis-bi-leev] Show IPA verb, dis·be·lieved, dis·be·liev·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in: to disbelieve reports of UFO sightings.
verb (used without object)
2.
to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.

I think the dictionary is pretty clear. Atheists do not believe in god. They disbelieve god if you prefer.

Thanks, Henry. I'm so glad we have you here to tell us these things.

To think I could have gone through life without conforming to the dictionary definition of "atheist." I'll get on that right away.

Maybe later you could tell us the dictionary definition of "clown."

I for one don't believe anybody.

Applying Henry's comments to the word "Christian" in the dictionary (I checked two) means Christians should not try to say Mormons are not Christian. I hope Henry remembers to chastise them when they define Christian to apply to their own meaning in one dictionary and not another.

Besides, when you break up the word Christian it could mean something that the root and suffix or prefix doesn't mean!


Christ + ian

ian
suff.
1. Of, relating to, or resembling: Bostonian.
2. One relating to, belonging to, or resembling: academician.
[Middle English -ien, -ian, from Old French -ien, from Latin -inus, adj. and n. suff.]

The "Urban Dictionary" defines "Bemis" thusly:

"'A name for the toilet on those sloppy drunken nights'

"'How was your Friday night?'

"'I spent most of the night with Bemis'"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bemis



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2013 10:30PM by steve benson.

LOL:

Benson from the Urban Dictionary:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Benson

the act of being sexy
or irrasistable to the oppisite sex
You are so benson,
you are looking so benson today,
Im benson to all the girls

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
I like how the definition has misspelled words.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

The point is, some words and meanings stick and morph according to popular usage. I think that is happening with the word atheist.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2013 11:13PM by Susan I/S.

"'dagny':

"'A fun-loving, hot chick who loves to party and reads in her free time. This chick is smart, independent and knows what she wants in life. She can be quiet but get to know her and your world will be so much more alive. The best friend you could ever have. Meet a "dagny" and you'll love her. She's crazy, loveable and outgoing, flirty, loud and sometimes bossy but amazing!'

"'I had so much fun tonight, There must have been a "dagny" around.'"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dagny (corrected for spelling and punctuation)
_____


Any personal assessment from you on the accuracy of that defintion?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2013 11:03PM by steve benson.

Hmmmm. Well, they got the "reads in her spare time" part right. :-D


(Sorry, Sus I/S, that I had a lapse and included the definition above that you had to delete.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2013 11:27PM by dagny.

Who cares? People often define words differently. IMO, it isn't worth getting bent out of shape. The same goes for words like Christian or cult.Explain what your definition is and accept the others may see it differently.I am not saying words have no meaning but they have subtle differences to different people.

To add to that, over time the meanings in dictionaries can change due to popular use.

Or have more than one meaning.

Gotta love the raw hubris in the last paragraph.

"I have addressed this topic multiple times, and the resistance I get amazes me. You would think that theists like Henry Bemis would at some point feel silly for admitting that they have a substantially irrational belief that God does exist; i.e. that they have considered the issue on some lower level, and affirmatively believe that God does exist, despite the lack of evidence for that belief.."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2013 11:01PM by steve benson.

I'm more concerned about his learning disability.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2013 11:44PM by wine country girl.

Remember what Humpty Dumpty said to Alice:

"When *I* use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean and nothing else. Who's to be the master - me or the word?"

(or words to that effect)

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."

(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_an_Alice_in_Wonderland_quote_about_what_words_mean



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 12:44AM by steve benson.

Saying atheist means lacking a belief in god or gods, and nothing more, is pretty lame. Words almost always pick up additional baggage along the way that become part of the meaning.

Salary no longer means just the salt ration given to Roman legionnaires, though it still does have that meaning.

Irrational no longer just means not expressible as a ratio of integers, though that is still its technical meaning in mathematics. The Pythagoreans around 600 BCE were so upset to discover that there were simple mathematical relationships of real-world objects that could not be expressed as the ratio of two integers, that their reaction was "this makes no sense". Twenty six hundred years later, that is still the principal meaning of the word, Greek etymology be damned.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that the word atheist, as it is commonly used, carries with it some implications that go beyond the raw etymology of the word.

Or maybe you'd rather be paid in salt.

There are all kinds of meanings, and shadings thereof, for the word "atheist."

Therefore, I think that it's entirely appropriate for people to choose the one that best fits their personal perspective, then explain/clarify why that is so--instead of everyone merely assuming that a common-usage/understanding of the term works across the board.

The definition of words evolves all the time and over time. In that non-static process, one size does not fit all.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 12:35AM by steve benson.

Is it just me, or does it seem very Mormon to focus an argument on a dictionary definition?

It seems like at least one talk every Sunday starts of with "the so-and-so dictionary defines [whatever the topic is] as . . ."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 12:47AM by Onmywayout . . . someday.

Agreed. As I said earlier,"Who cares?" Really? This is silly. Words have meanings but they also have nuances. So what if someone's definition is slightly different than yours? It isn't as if anyone is saying that atheists really believe in God. Some Some people here are so touchy about the definition of atheist.

Dude why call out Steve and Richard? You know they're going to back up their stuff and own you. No point.

So, with the one size does not fit all idea, I take it that some atheists define themselves as R. Packman defined atheism and some atheists define themselves as Harry Bemis defines atheism.

So, everyone is in agreement here and doesn't know it?

|And not only are atheists "WRONG" who don't abide by Bemis's strict dictionary protocols per the "one true way" on defining their atheism, they are "ABSOLUTELY WRONG!"

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,952721,952721#msg-952721


You need to come to Jesus. :)



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 03:02AM by steve benson.

Theists don't control the word atheist any more than TBMs control the word exmormon. Think about how a TBM would define an exmormon: someone who once knew the "truth" but has fallen away. That is not how an exmormon sees him or herself.

I think it makes certain theists angry when atheists attempt to define their own experience.

. . . namely, in terms and context of "belief."

Theists are big into "belief"-thinking (a true oxymoron) and seek to control the court by telling atheists that they (atheists) "believe" in their own "religion" of atheism.

Religious processing of ideas through the use of "belief" language is the only kind of lingo that theists know and feel comfortable with. It therefore not only makes them angry, it makes them uneasy when they are confronted with non-believers who don't buy into their game of idea control through terminology control.

Deep down, theists may well realize that thinking is more grounded than believing. (For evidence of that, one need look no further than the futile and dishonest attempts by anti-science creationists to gain credibility by wrapping their religious beliefs in the trappings of scientific language).

Atheists scare the hell out of theists.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 03:06AM by steve benson.

So a better question is, "do you think there is a god."

Theists: yes.

Atheists: I lack a think?

Those in the scientific community who understand the importance of word-meaning don't "believe" in evolution any more than they "believe" in God.

Rather, they "accept" evolution as fact.

A few years ago I had the chance to do a 9-day white-water/calm-eddy river raft of the Colorado River, in the company of a group of various scientists (geneticists, biologists, anthropologists and physicists included).

It was an amazing and educating experience.

We camped out at night on the Colorado's sandbars and during the day--launching from a point in the Grand Canyon where the rocks, sediments and fossils were the oldest--steadily made our way along the river, examining the observable evidence for the long-term evolution of the Canyon.

What was particularly interesting was to have compare-and-contrast presentations made by scientists along the way regarding the real-science evolutionary vs. the pseudo-science creationary explanations for how the Grand Canyon physically came to be.

Among those on the rafting trip was Eugenie Scott, physical anthropologist and director of the National Center for Science Education (the group that organized the river expedition).

Eugenie has made it a point then and since that when educating supporters of evolution on how to deal with an remarkably uninformed and illiterate public, it is very important to "watch your language," so to speak. In efforts to defend and explain the realities of evolution to novices and (in particular) to anti-science religious believer types, language is a critically important tactical device for use in the delivery of facts.

Here's the text of an interview with her on the importance of using words precisely and meaningfully:

"Watch your language! It’s a common message from Eugenie Scott, a physical anthropologist and director of the National Center for Science Education (www.ncseweb.org), an organization dedicated to promoting and defending the teaching of evolution in public schools. Scott recently spoke with Science News writer Susan Milius.

"[Question to Scott]: 'So you urge scientists not to say that they 'believe' in evolution?!'

"[Scott's answer]: 'Right. What your audience hears is more important than what you say. . . .What [people] hear is that evolution is a belief, it’s an opinion, it’s not well-substantiated science. And that is something that scientists need to avoid communicating.

"'You believe in God. You believe your sports team is going to win. But you don’t believe in cell division. You don’t believe in thermodynamics. Instead, you might say you 'accept evolution.'

"Q: 'How does the language used to discuss new discoveries add to the problem?'

"Scott: 'To put it mildly, it doesn’t help when evolutionary biologists say things like, “This completely revolutionizes our view of X.” Because hardly anything we come up with is going to completely revolutionize our view of the core ideas of science. . . . An insight into the early ape-men of East and South Africa is not going to completely change our understanding of Neandertals, for example. So the statement is just wrong. Worse, it’s miseducating the public as to the soundness of our understanding of evolution.

"'You can say that this fossil or this new bit of data 'sheds new light on this part of evolution.'

"Q: 'So people get confused when scientists discover things and change ideas?'

"Scott: 'Yes, all the time. This is one of the real confusions about evolution. Creationists have done a splendid job of convincing the public that evolution is weak science because scientists are always changing their minds about things.'

"Q: 'So how do you explain what science is?'

"Scott: 'An idea that I stole from [physicist] James Trefil visualizes the content of science as three concentric circles: the core ideas in the center, the frontier ideas in the next ring out and the fringe ideas in the outermost ring. . . .

"'[We need to] help the public understand that the nature of scientific explanations is to change with new information or new theory — this is a strength of science — but that science is still reliable. And the core ideas of science do not change much, if at all.

"'The core idea of evolution is common ancestry, and we’re not likely to change our minds about that. But we argue a lot about … how the tree of life is branched and what mechanisms bring evolutionary change about. That’s the frontier area of science.

"'And then of course you have areas that claim to be science, like "creation science" and "intelligent design,” that are off in the fringe. Scientists don’t spend much time here because the ideas haven’t proven useful in understanding the natural world.

"Q: 'You’ve been on talk radio a lot. What’s your sense of what the public understands about evolutionary biology?'

"Scott: 'The public has a very poor understanding of evolution. People don’t recognize evolution as referring to the common ancestry of living things. Even those who accept evolution often don’t understand it well. They think it’s a great chain . . . of gradual increases in complexity of forms through time, which is certainly an impoverished view of evolutionary biology. That view is the source, in my opinion, of: “If man evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?” ... That’s probably the second most common question I get on talk radio.

"'It’s like saying, "If you evolved from your cousins, why are your cousins still here?" And of course the answer is, well, in fact, I didn’t evolve from my cousins. My cousins and I shared common ancestors, in our grandparents.'

"Q: 'What’s the current state of the effort to keep schools teaching evolution?'

"Scott: 'Sometimes it feels like the Red Queen around here, where we’re running as hard as we can to stay in the same place. The thing is, creationism evolves. And for every victory we have, there’s pressure on the creationists to change their approach. We constantly have to shift our response. Ultimately the solution to this problem is not going to come from pouring more science on it."

"Q: 'What should scientists and people who care about science do?'

"Scott: 'I’m calling on scientists to be citizens. American education is decentralized. Which means it’s politicized. To make a change . . . you have to be a citizen who pays attention to local elections and votes [for] the right people. You can’t just sit back and expect that the magnificence of science will reveal itself and everybody will . . . accept the science."

(Eugenie Scott, "Accept It: Talk about Evolution Needs to Evolve," in "Science News: Magazine for the Society for Science and the Public," vol. 176, #3, 1 August 2009, p. 32, at: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/45594/title/Comment__Accept_it_Talk_about_evolution_needs_to_evolve_)
_____


For a related thread, see: "Why I hate the phrase 'I don't believe in god.'" posted by "kolobian," on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 5 December 2011, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,357373



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2013 03:08AM by steve benson.

True story:

Just last week I tried to replace a fixture in my bathroom, it was broken at the hinge.

The plumbing company suggested that I check into a new replacement and suggested which brand. I did.

But, I fixed my bathroom fixture with a nifty fix of my own and you'd never know I ever had a problem with that hinge.

I was told that the replacement manufacturer for my TOILET SEAT was probably a BEMIS.

So I guess the dictionary term, at least in my mind, for the word BEMIS is now a manufacturer of TOILET SEATS.