Atheist, agnostic, or non theist?

[Danmark]

Should the term 'atheist' be retired as too vague and misleading?
Is 'non theist' a better term for one who disbelieves in the human like 'God' portrayed in the Tanakh ['Old Testament']?
"Agnostic" may be the worst term of all since it stands for "Gee... I dunno."

"Non theist" recognizes 'theism' is a vague term that can mean different things. For the purposes of this debate 'theism' represents the classic belief in a god or gods who are personal, formed in the image of man, or that man was formed by in 'his image.' The 'theist' believes in a personal god who intervenes in human affairs and 'knows' us personally, a 'God' who walks with us and talks with us; a god in the fashion of the 'God' in Job who walks with Satan and communes with Job.

The non theist finds the concept of this god of popular theism absurd and of obvious human creation, while still being open to a higher power beyond human description.

[William]

[Replying to post 69 by wiploc]

Only because we are delving into the details of atheism. We can make the asymmetry skew the other way by considering details of theism:

The problem with this is that not everyone arguing for atheism agrees that there are 'details' to consider. We all have witnessed enough times on this board when an accusation is brought forth regarding behaviors of atheists, only to see the returning arguments along the lines that "atheism is only a position of lack of belief and does not go further than that".

What are folk supposed to do with that kind of jumping around?

Perhaps identify those who are behaving as if they have strong beliefs as "strong atheists"?



Better to simply avoid use of the term "atheist" altogether and simply refer to them all as "non-theists".

[Tcg]

Better to simply avoid use of the term "atheist" altogether and simply refer to them all as "non-theists".

Let's examine the meaning of these terms to see the advantage of this recommendation:

• Atheist - one who is not a theist
  
  Non-theist - one who is not a theist

Not sure what problem this resolves nor what advantage it provides. It looks like much ado about nothing.


Tcg

[William]

Better to simply avoid use of the term "atheist" altogether and simply refer to them all as "non-theists".

Let's examine the meaning of these terms to see the advantage of this recommendation:

• Atheist - one who is not a theist
  
  Non-theist - one who is not a theist

Not sure what problem this resolves nor what advantage it provides. It looks like much ado about nothing.


Tcg

Lets see what I wrote, then, and sort the 'problem'.

• Post 70: Wed May 20, 2020 11:17 am
  
  "The problem with this is that not everyone arguing for atheism agrees that there are 'details' to consider. We all have witnessed enough times on this board when an accusation is brought forth regarding behaviors of atheists, only to see the returning arguments along the lines that "atheism is only a position of lack of belief and does not go further than that".
  
  What are folk supposed to do with that kind of jumping around?
  
  Perhaps identify those who are behaving as if they have strong beliefs as "strong atheists"?
  
  
  
  Better to simply avoid use of the term "atheist" altogether and simply refer to them all as "non-theists"."

Ah yes - it appears the problem is that you quoted out of context and branched off upon some other track, unrelated to what I had written.

This is not an uncommon tactic, although it doesn't belong in serious debate or even in decent honest discussion.



I will be happy of course to discuss the context of what I wrote with you and any other theist or non-theist.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to post 69 by wiploc]

Only because we are delving into the details of atheism. We can make the asymmetry skew the other way by considering details of theism:

The problem with this is that not everyone arguing for atheism agrees that there are 'details' to consider. We all have witnessed enough times on this board when an accusation is brought forth regarding behaviors of atheists, only to see the returning arguments along the lines that "atheism is only a position of lack of belief and does not go further than that".

What are folk supposed to do with that kind of jumping around?

Perhaps identify those who are behaving as if they have strong beliefs as "strong atheists"?



Better to simply avoid use of the term "atheist" altogether and simply refer to them all as "non-theists".

It's not a problem but avoidance of a problem.T eh problem often being that debators will confuse the actions of individual atheists with possibly relevant interests or activities. The basic simple definition of atheism is best kept clear of that because that is the one universal and defining characteristic of atheists and so far as I know, nothing else is. They don't have to be rationalists, they don't have to be Bible critics and they don'y have to be activists. They don't even have to know that atheists is what they are, but if they don't believe in any god - claim, atheist is what they are.

I was thinking of getting into the alternative terms and how they are ok if they are ok, but I sorta got attached to 'atheist'. I was even thinking of discussing Leonidas Polk whose story I was watching as part of a 'Civil war generals' series. With reference to how his conversion appeared to make no difference to his attitude towards slavery. But he was as sure a Christian believer as any. Just sayin'.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to post 69 by wiploc]

Only because we are delving into the details of atheism. We can make the asymmetry skew the other way by considering details of theism:

The problem with this is that not everyone arguing for atheism agrees that there are 'details' to consider. We all have witnessed enough times on this board when an accusation is brought forth regarding behaviors of atheists, only to see the returning arguments along the lines that "atheism is only a position of lack of belief and does not go further than that".

What are folk supposed to do with that kind of jumping around?

Perhaps identify those who are behaving as if they have strong beliefs as "strong atheists"?



Better to simply avoid use of the term "atheist" altogether and simply refer to them all as "non-theists".

It's not a problem but avoidance of a problem.T eh problem often being that debators will confuse the actions of individual atheists with possibly relevant interests or activities. The basic simple definition of atheism is best kept clear of that because that is the one universal and defining characteristic of atheists and so far as I know, nothing else is. They don't have to be rationalists, they don't have to be Bible critics and they don'y have to be activists. They don't even have to know that atheists is what they are, but if they don't believe in any god - claim, atheist is what they are.

I was thinking of getting into the alternative terms and how they are ok if they are ok, but I sorta got attached to 'atheist'. I was even thinking of discussing Leonidas Polk whose story I was watching as part of a 'Civil war generals' series. With reference to how his conversion appeared to make no difference to his attitude towards slavery. But he was as sure a Christian believer as any. Just sayin'.

[TRANSPONDER]

Very sorry about the duplicate post. I really don't know where they come from.

[AquinasForGod]

Better to simply avoid use of the term "atheist" altogether and simply refer to them all as "non-theists".

Let's examine the meaning of these terms to see the advantage of this recommendation:

• Atheist - one who is not a theist
  
  Non-theist - one who is not a theist

Not sure what problem this resolves nor what advantage it provides. It looks like much ado about nothing.


Tcg

I agree. There is no reason to replace atheists with non-theists unless "non-theists" takes on a new definition that better categorizes a type of people.

[TRANSPONDER]

Better to simply avoid use of the term "atheist" altogether and simply refer to them all as "non-theists".

Let's examine the meaning of these terms to see the advantage of this recommendation:

• Atheist - one who is not a theist
  
  Non-theist - one who is not a theist

Not sure what problem this resolves nor what advantage it provides. It looks like much ado about nothing.


Tcg

I agree. There is no reason to replace atheists with non-theists unless "non-theists" takes on a new definition that better categorizes a type of people.

Yep. There's an awful lot of stuff associated with atheism but is not atheism. anti -religion, itself a subset of non religion may well be atheist, but the Theists can be irreligious and even anti -religious, too. Irreligion is not atheism. Humanism is very much an ally of atheism, but theists can be humanists, too. Humanism isn't theism. Non -theism, is close enough so I don't see a difference. I suppose it's like saying: 'I'm an angler'. "A what?" "I catch fish...as a hobby." Same thing, but one is a name, the other a descriptor. 'Agnosticism' of course is something else entirely.

[PolytheistWitch]

There's nothing wrong with the word atheist, it doesn't need to be retired. If I'm engaging with conversation with someone and they state any religious belief I would continue asking questions to find more specifically what they believe in. So if someone says "I'm an atheist" I would still continue to ask probing questions to see exactly what that atheism entails. I realize that there are plenty of spiritual practices that don't involve belief in a god so there's no reason to assume when the word atheist is said that that's the end of it and there's no other questions I need to ask.

[TRANSPONDER]

There's nothing wrong with the word atheist, it doesn't need to be retired. If I'm engaging with conversation with someone and they state any religious belief I would continue asking questions to find more specifically what they believe in. So if someone says "I'm an atheist" I would still continue to ask probing questions to see exactly what that atheism entails. I realize that there are plenty of spiritual practices that don't involve belief in a god so there's no reason to assume when the word atheist is said that that's the end of it and there's no other questions I need to ask.

By all means. Non -theist is just a synonym for atheist, pretty much. Apart from that, other things like anti - religious or secularist can be things that may apply or not. It's better to just to ask whether a particular atheist goes along with some spiritual - type practice or not.