Tcg wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:15 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 2:06 pm
#
historia wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:58 pm
Tcg wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 4:24 am
It's those over there, they are theists. Us over here, we aren't.
brunumb wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 8:12 pm
If the word 'atheist' was eliminated, what would you suggest as an alternative to use for someone who identifies as not believing in any sort of gods?
To reiterate a point I made
above, different labels are useful in different contexts:
If all you want to do is distinguish between those who believe in God and those who don't, then may I suggest the labels 'theist' and 'non-theist'. That accurately describes the distinction you are trying to make, and won't cause any problems.
Using the term 'atheist' for this purpose, on the other hand, can be problematic, because that term previously had a narrower definition (i.e., one who believes God does not exist) which is still used by many people -- including, importantly, by philosophers -- today.
This would be like repurposing the term "Republican" to mean "anyone who is not a Democrat." And then, when people complain that that is confusing, coming up with qualifiers like "soft Republican" and "hard Republican" or "implicit Republican" and "explicit Republican" to distinguish between actual members of the Republican party and Independents who are just being subsumed under this redefined label.
brunumb wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 6:21 pm
I don't think categories like hard and weak help either.
I appreciate this perspective, but would just point out that these and other qualifiers are necessary work-arounds to the problem introduced by using an overly-broad definition for 'atheism' in the first place.
There is still a need -- at least in some contexts -- to distinguish between different non-theistic positions on the proposition of God's existence. If you don't like these qualifiers, then just use the older definitions of atheism and agnosticism, as they serve the same purpose.
Theist and non -theist will do. I'm just sorta attached to the name Atheist'. I would rather amend what atheist means (at one time it meant Christians, because they did not believe in the Emperor -cult) than shun the term as though (accepting the accusations) I was ashamed of it. I suspect it could blow up in our faces too.
"Don't let these non -theists fool you - they're really atheists by another name."
"Is that true?"
"Well...er...."
"Well, get out of here you...737 Maxers!"
As a rule I think that subterfuge and cover - up is a bad idea. It's why I firmly rejected Dennet's "Brights" and will have nothing to do with it.
And I would totally NOT recommend using some 'old' definition conflating atheism and agnosticism because (like a lot of these old, usually theistic, and therefore not to be trusted definitions) it is not in line with what atheism actually is today, and likely plays in the hands of Theist polemicists, whether intended to do so or not.
I agree with you about weak and hard atheists. 'Hard' implies a position more extreme than atheism as such and, as such would probably not be logically tenable as it would imply certainty that we simply cannot have. We do have differing understanding of the evidence and case for or against the god -claim, but in the end, one either believes the claim or does not. I don't really credit a postulated undecided wad of fence -sitters, because they have not decided yet to believe, have they? There are no agnostics in the belief position, only in the Knowledge position.
"So if you don't yet believe, that makes you atheist".
"Hang on, I don't say that a god doesn't exist!"
"Nobody said you should, but do you believe in it?"
"Well...er..."
"Then you don't believe - yet - which makes you atheist".
"But I
want to believe.."
"But you can't.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Let me know when you can and we'll say you're theist."
(ther's always Some spelling to correct)
This is just a personal thing, but "Weak Atheist" which I suppose could be applied to me, sounds like I'm on the verge of becoming a theist. Like any minute I'm going to confess, "Okay, I believe in God again." I'm about a million miles from that.
I use the word atheist to describe myself because I want to show that we all aren't baby eaters or something. I was a theist a great deal of my life and now I'm not. Guess what has changed concerning my morality? Pretty much nothing other than that I no longer consider gayness problematic.
Maybe it's futile, some surveys have shown that an atheist is the last person folks would vote for in an U.S. presidential race. One showed they'd be voted for at the same level as a rapist would be. It's astonishing and again on a personal level quite painful to be considered so lowly. Thankfully I have a partner (a theist by the way) who assures me I'm not a horrible person. Wow, thank goodness. Most of the Western world thinks I am simply because I say, "I'm not convinced", about one single issue.
Tcg
Yes. 'Weak' and 'strong' atheist does seem to have some pejorative baggage with it, like one is pathetic and the other arrogant. And I just see an atheist as atheist or not. That's it, plus the 'weak and strong' thing only applies to knowing as how good the case is for a god. And yes, I do perceive that once deconverted, the atheists is unlikely to be persuaded again.And to adapt the old saying, that which was believed without good evidence and was rejected with better evidence is unlikely to convince without extraordinary evidence.
But the problem, mainly in the US, is a massive prejudice against atheism. Avowed non -belief would debar anyone from getting elected to public office. It just isn't the same in Yurrup where nobody cares much about a person's religion, only their policy on closing the borders to Immigrants. Televangelism would not, I think, ever become a million Euro earner. The grossly profitable swindle seems only possible in the US. The only other being some of the old Swamy Fakir swindlers in India and the performing ministers in some places in Africa.
But here, it is almost expected that people don't bother with religion and while ceremonial lip service to the Church is paraded by some as some spurious proof of their moral rectitude, fervent believers are regarded a bit odd, like flat earthists, Nessie - hunters and UFO - enthusiasts. I imagine it would be a shock for me in the US where it is assumed that everyone is a believer and Churchgoer. Or pretends to be.