Theism has been defined as:
Atheism then would be the absence or lack of this belief which theists possess.
Does theism require one to lack acceptance of this easily understood reality?
Tcg
Moderator: Moderators
Atheism then would be the absence or lack of this belief which theists possess.
Interesting. Although, I suppose some Christian sect or even denomination could affirm such a thing, it sounds rather silly. Thing is, when I read Romans 1 it seems to be saying just the opposite; there are those who no longer believe in god and will suffer for their disbelief and rejection of him.Tcg wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:00 amI agree and yet for some it seems to be a major issue. Some even refer to Romans 1 and suggest that it affirms that atheists don't exist.
No it doesn't. The word is atheist. Theists are the people who believe in god(s) and all the rest are atheists. Both products simply come in different flavours.
"Agnosticism" is a derivative of "gnosis," which refers to knowing, and when prefaced with "a" implies not-knowing rather than not-believing. So agnosticism is better defined as a lack of knowledge or the ability to know of god's existence. AND does not imply god does not exists.bjs1 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 1:47 am [Replying to Tcg in post #1]
I think that most theists can understand that some modern self-described atheists have moved away from classical atheism (the doctrine that there is no God) and closer align with classical agnosticism (a lack of belief about God).
Wrong. It tells us she is thinking that assertions of god's existence have not met their burden of proof. Hence, she has no reason to believe god exists.This does not free modern atheists of the challenges that go along with that concept. To give just one example, saying that someone “lacks belief in God” tells us what that person does not think, but it does not tell us what that person does think.
What kind of practical value are you thinking of? And what actions are you talking about?This has no practical value, especially when a person’s actions suggest a strong emotional attachment to their ideas about God.
Why? What does describing one's world view have to do with a lack of belief in god's existence?So calling oneself an atheist (in terms of lack of belief) is starting point, but the person would then need to find additional terms to describe the world view he does function under.
It's under "Atheist" in the dictionary. *sheesh!*The “lack of belief” definition of atheism also leaves us with the linguistic challenge of not having a word to describe someone who believes that there is no God.
This is a commonly made argument on this forum, but is based on a misunderstanding of the etymology of the word atheism.
historia wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:35 pmThis is a commonly made argument on this forum, but is based on a misunderstanding of the etymology of the word atheism.
The word atheism was not coined by taking the word 'theism' and adding the prefix 'a'. We know this because (1) the word atheism actually existed before the word theism, and (2) the word 'theism' originally meant what today we call 'deism.'
Rather, the word atheism was coined by taking the word atheist (athée in French) and adding the suffix '-ism'. The 'a' here is therefore not a negation of 'theism' (belief in God) but rather the negation of 'theos' (God). Etymologically, atheism means the belief ('-ism') that there is no God.
The word was coined in the 16th Century at a time when people were coining all kinds of '-ism' words to describe various systems of belief and practice, and so was intended to describe the beliefs of atheists.
Now, words change in meaning over time, of course, based on how people use them. And so, more recently, the word atheist has taken on this new, very broad definition of "lacking belief in God," which is now attested in some (but not all) dictionaries. That's fine. But that new definition is not derived from the word's etymology, and in fact is running somewhat contrary to it.
A rather superseded definition, reflecting religious hostility towards atheism. I noted recently that Websters had brought their definition more in line with the present day definition of atheist and dropped the 'Denial of God' usage that they had inherited from 'That old time religion' and was pointed out to be in the 80's.Miles wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 5:32 pmhistoria wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 4:35 pmThis is a commonly made argument on this forum, but is based on a misunderstanding of the etymology of the word atheism.
The word atheism was not coined by taking the word 'theism' and adding the prefix 'a'. We know this because (1) the word atheism actually existed before the word theism, and (2) the word 'theism' originally meant what today we call 'deism.'
Rather, the word atheism was coined by taking the word atheist (athée in French) and adding the suffix '-ism'. The 'a' here is therefore not a negation of 'theism' (belief in God) but rather the negation of 'theos' (God). Etymologically, atheism means the belief ('-ism') that there is no God.
The word was coined in the 16th Century at a time when people were coining all kinds of '-ism' words to describe various systems of belief and practice, and so was intended to describe the beliefs of atheists.
Now, words change in meaning over time, of course, based on how people use them. And so, more recently, the word atheist has taken on this new, very broad definition of "lacking belief in God," which is now attested in some (but not all) dictionaries. That's fine. But that new definition is not derived from the word's etymology, and in fact is running somewhat contrary to it.
Speaking of the word "atheism."
"In late 19c. sometimes further distinguished into secondary senses "The denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person" [Century Dictionary, 1897] and "practical indifference to and disregard of God, godlessness."
source
"The denial of theism" being the sense in which "atheism" is used today.
.
Some religious people don't even believe atheists exist. They're fine as far as still being theists, unless God is somehow an atheist by definition.nobspeople wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:37 amAside from being about opposites (god exist/god doesn't exist) I don't see theism or atheism requiring anything of each other.
Hopefully someone doesn't come along and prove you are God because that would break your seemingly iron-clad argument.Tcg wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:00 amI agree and yet for some it seems to be a major issue. Some even refer to Romans 1 and suggest that it affirms that atheists don't exist. Of course, here I for one am so obviously we've found yet another fallacy with the Bible. I suspect I'm not the only atheist either.
If I were God, it'd be free popcorn for everyone. Given that not everyone has popcorn, I'm obviously not God. Oh, and free health care, I'd do that too. And cats for everybody.Purple Knight wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:23 pm
Hopefully someone doesn't come along and prove you are God because that would break your seemingly iron-clad argument.
You couldn't do those things if you were God but didn't know it. If someone proved you were God that might not give you access to the powers of God, if it was you yourself who wished that they be taken away or put out of use for a certain period. It would depend on how omnipotence functions, and none of us know that.Tcg wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 12:56 amIf I were God, it'd be free popcorn for everyone. Given that not everyone has popcorn, I'm obviously not God. Oh, and free health care, I'd do that too. And cats for everybody.Purple Knight wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:23 pm
Hopefully someone doesn't come along and prove you are God because that would break your seemingly iron-clad argument.