What does the word Atheist mean? Is an Agnostic Atheist?

But see, I wouldn't consider a "not" operator to be the same as "reversing the meaning". "Reversing the meaning" is a description I would be very careful with indeed.If I say that something is not hot, does that make it cold? Cold is, to most people, the reverse of hot. But not-hot and cold aren't the same thing at all, for most people.If theists by and large are good, decent people, then I would be very offended indeed if someone insinuated that atheists were the reverse of that. You see what I mean?"Reverses the meaning" is at once a very nonspecific and very powerful statement, and I'd be very careful about how I threw it about.

You make a good point, crash, but it all depends on how absolute the term being modified via the 'a' prefix is. Consider 'abiogenic'.EDIT: changed 'reversed' to 'modified' above. Crash is correct at least to the point that my word choice was poor here.[This message has been edited berberry, 05-03-2004]

It's not so much your choice of words that I objected to as it was WT's; it wouldn't be the first time that somebody tried to define atheists as the opposite of theists so that they could take potshots at people who didn't believe the same thing as they.

But in common parlance 'atheist' is the opposite of 'theist'. Your point in this case becomes so technical it could almost be called pedantic.A theist believes in a god or gods of some sort. An atheist does not. Therefore, in this case the 'a' prefix, in its meaning of 'not', creates a term meaning the opposite of its non-prefixed form. One is either a theist or one is not a theist; i.e. a 'theist' or an 'atheist'. One is the opposite of the other.As I say, we're talking common parlance, not the Queen's English. You have a point, but insisting on it isn't going to get you anywhere. You might as well object to using words like 'transition' and 'office' as verbs, as I do. The point has to be conceded in formal writing, but people speak (and usually post) in the vernacular.

All nouns can be verbed, but that's neither here nor there. (I've never heard anyone use "office" as a verb. What's the typical usage and context, exactly? Weird.) Verbing nouns is one of the features of English that I love.It may be pedantic. I won't insist on the usage. But I don't think that it's pedantic to recognize a difference between the absence of something and the opposite of something, do you? Since that's really what we're talking about. Is atheism the opposite of theism, or is it the absence of theism?Does it matter? I have a feeling it will but you're free to disagree. I do think you have a point about splitting hairs, though.

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

All nouns can be verbed...

---

As you demonstrate with the noun 'verb'?Actually, although you're again technically correct, it isn't quite so simple as it sounds. The usage has to be accepted by most scholars to be considered proper in formal writing. Consider the word 'contact': until the mid-20th century 'contact' was used exclusively as a noun. Its use as a verb began in the media, I think sometime in the 50s, and was picked up in the vernacular. By the end of the 60s most scholars accepted the use of 'contact' as a verb and today such use is not considered incorrect even in formal writing.A similar transformation has more recently taken place with the noun / verb 'impact'.I hope the use of 'transition' will never be formally accepted. The presence of the suffix 'ion' should help to prevent it.'Office' was used as a verb in a series of advertisements for either OfficeMax or Office Depot a few years back. The usage was picked up a few times in the media, but it didn't seem to catch on, thank goodness.NOTE TO ADMINS: I realize we're getting off-topic here, but as yet there is no convenient way to quickly create a spin-off topic.

While I guess I agree in principle, I don't like the idea of some arbitrary body holding forth on what language is "proper" and what is not. I'm a strong language descriptionist.I think it's a mistake to assume that formal written English is "better" than other forms, like spoken vernaculars. Language is language, and while some dialects or accents may make listeners feel a certain way about the speaker, there's just no basis for assigning values to languages. What would one use instead? "Transit"?If it gets the point across - if it gives the listener the impression that the speaker intended - then I don't see the problem. It's a good word.

Willowtree, you posted some definitions of words that vary from standard definitions. For example: Your definition for theism is pretty close to dead when compared to the dictionary version, though the distiction of "knowable" might be a bit vauge, but then so is the dictionary definition: Your defintion for deism is way off: The deist movement seems to emphasize a distant god that doesn't continually change the laws of the universe. That is hardly the same thing as claiming god to be unkowable.As for your use of the prefix a- to mean against or to reverse a meaning, that definition is simply not born out in the dictionary definition. It is used primarily as a negation, or sign of absence, ie "not" or "without"

I see lots of potential problems in allowing whatever "gets the point across" in formal writing. What then would be the point in conjugating verbs or worrying about tenses? Why bother with precise spelling? We could follow the Elizabethan practice of simply stringing the correct phonetic sounds together.Try reading a few lines of a modern edition of any Shakespeare play, then read the same few lines from a facsimile reproduction of the corresponding lines in the original quarto or folio form. You'll clearly see how confusing our language can be sans strict rules of spelling and punctuation. Take away the grammer rules and we will simply create anarchy via language.

It makes no sense to demand pedantic precision in the use of the word 'atheist' while ultimately saying that there should be no authority on the matter.

No, like all group words, the authority would logically be those who identify in the group.For instance, since I'm an atheist, I get to weigh in on what that word means.We're way OT but I think you've confused my position with some kind of advocacy of language anarchy. I don't think such a thing is even possible - no more than it's possible to dictate language rules to a community from outside.

I think you did better than I generally do. Having English as a second language doesn't make things easier. I don't generally hold that position, however I tend to use 'weak' and 'strong' to differentiate between those who simply lack a belief and those that (dogmatically?) assert that god does not exist. Unfortunately unless and until athiests start using standard terms to distinquish between the two positions we will most likely have to explain which group we fall into and what the difference is, much like theists should given the wide range of meanings that 'god' seams to have.

---

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in
this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely
conceives it, wants it, and loves it.
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, from The Columbian Dictionary of Quotations

Who created the Meriam Webster Online Dictionary ?Answer: A person or body of persons.All of your defintions cloud and muddle the meanings.The definitions I provided are accurate to the foundations of the word."deism"/"deity"....an alleged supernatural personage/force, hence the word deity. This particular generalization is congruent with the traditional understanding of the word, that God created the universe BUT is not knowable."theism"/"theist"....in the original N.T. greek "theos" is the word and it means "god", hence all the derivatives including theology, but the context determines which god because the N.T. also refers to Satan as "theos of this world". Traditionally, theist/theism is the word used to differentiate from the impersonal deism/deist, hence the difference in this word(s) is that the alleged supernatural deity IS knowable.If you want to stipulate the additional meanings per your post then fine, but theist and deist are beliefs that are ONLY separated by the fact that God is/is not knowable.

DC85,I agree with Crash in post 6. I consider myself an agnostic atheist.In fact, I was on the losing end of this very debate where I separated agnosticism & atheism. In the end I bowed to the general concensus that there are (at least) two types of atheism.Mark[This message has been edited mark24, 05-03-2004]

Willowtree, if the defining idea between deism and theism is if god is "knowable" or not, could you please elaborate. As I mention earlier, the use of knowable in this context is vague at best.
As for definitions of words, words are only symbolic representations of ideas. You can assign various meaning to any word, however dictionaries are usefull in providing common meanings that people can agree on in most cases, and reflect common usage. There is nothing muddling or cloudy about using a dictionary to clarify meanings.
However, your point about personal use of words with specific meanings is fine, even in a debate. However, one of the fundamental points to a good debate is a clear definition of terms used in the debate which is agreed on by both parties. Your use of theism and deism, deism specifically, deviates from a common dictionary definition. I am not saying your definition is invalid, or even uncommon, but it is one that needs clarification. If you argue that both terms refer to a belief in a god with a characteristic of that god, being knowable or not, being the difference between the two, I would like a clarification of your use of knowable in this context.PS. So I take it you you accept the definition of atheist as meaning without god? Your original assertion that it meant against god is contrary to common usage. In fact, I doubt most atheists would consider themselves against god, therefore wouldn't be athiests by your definition. Its kinda hard to be against something you don't think exists.[This message has been edited Darwin Storm, 05-03-2004]