An Atheist By Any Other Name . . .

Carl Sagan would disagree:

quote:

---

An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid.

---

Pulled from the wiki page on him"By some definitions..."Sometimes, you'll see people trying to narrow the definition of atheism. Like Rahvin did in Message 27:

quote:

---

"Atheist" simply means "no belief in god(s)." That's it.

---

But if you look at the wiki page on atheism, you'll find that it can mean a lot more than just that.

quote:

---

A diagram showing the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism. Explicit strong/positive/hard atheists (in purple on the right) assert that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement. Explicit weak/negative/soft atheists (in blue on the right) reject or eschew belief that any deities exist without actually asserting that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement. Implicit weak/negative atheists (in blue on the left) would include people (such as young children and some agnostics) who do not believe in a deity, but have not explicitly rejected such belief. (Sizes in the diagram are not meant to indicate relative sizes within a population.)

---

So, as you noticed: You're right. Today's non-believers are already reclaiming the word(s) atheist/atheism. One of the negatives of the strong atheism position, is the irrationality of comming to a gnostic position that god does not exist (as Carl pointed out). So its not just negative connotations with the word, its also negative aspects of the position that need to be "de-claimed".I think the man-in-the-street associates the word atheist with the more gnostic position. I've been talking with people in person and had a guy chime in with "Oh, well I'm an atheist"... to which the others reply with disbelief: "How could you know that god doesn't exist", and then he goes: "Oh... No, I don't know that he doesn't, I just lack the belief that he does" *trollface* Its a "gotcha" moment, but the others just roll their eyes.I think that adds to some of the appeal of using the word atheist in particular; being a smart-ass and playing gotcha with people (in the off-line community) On the other hand, in the online community, its becomming much more popular these days to don the atheist label and just be plain old mean to religious people. Just take a look at some christian videos on youtube for some quality examples.I find the agnostic atheists to be a much better group of people. I think the other groups of atheists are gonna smear your reputation a bit, so it might be a good idea to find another word. Be it via reclaim or whatever.The word "heathen" isn't doing it for me, it implies more than just not believing in gods. I think the simple "non-believer" works well.

And part of that problem is that there are plenty of jerks running around waving the atheist label and making the more palatable of the bunch look bad.

I guess you're right, that any term is going to be able to be hijacked. I just don't think that rebranding the term atheism to disclude the negative aspects is the best option and that a new term could be a better idea. A more inclusive, or general, term like "non-believer" wouldn't implicate you with the jerks just because they were non-believers too. There'd already be plenty of different kinds of non-believers that it wouldn't really add any qualitative descriptions. But if the term being used is already smeared, then shifting to a different one could be easier, or better, than going through all the rebranding.The other hoops might be easier to jump through...

I wouldn't call it concern I was going the other way: a broader term, more inclusive, term to wash away any association with the jerks and, too, the historical connotations.

"None." Not really, but there's a big difference in these approaches:-what religion are you? "None, I don't have a religion.".-what religion are you? "lol, I'm an atheist!". Outside of places like this, which seem to be the only places where I see the reclaiming of the word to mean simply a lack of belief in gods, I find the latter to be more common than the former.That's why I think its a good idea for you people (the ones here doing the reclaiming), to just find a better word to describe yourselves. I don't think people are as adamantly opposed to you simply not having a belief in god as you seem to be implying they are. I think that when people here "atheist", they're thinking of something different than what you really are.That's why the word needs the reclaiming in the first place. Or you could just go with a different word - like nonbeliever, or unbeliever. I don't think those would bring along the same negative connotations.

Sort of... but its both. I'm saying that I'm seeing more stupid little 4channers joining the "Athiest Tribe" than I am from your kind, and that it'd be a better idea for you to seperate yourselves from them. Its becomming more popular, the tribes growing... I didn't think your kind would be so eager to join up. I've noticed an interesting correlation; that the more rational position goes with the more rational behavior; the /b/tards tend toward the strong atheist position, while the other side is reclaiming the title towards a more agnostic position.The Heathen thing is just another tribe. It even admits that its like a religion. It belongs to the people who self-identify as/with it. Males... now that's a good tribe to be in. And we could judge them by their behavior. The tribe is going to be judged by the behavior of those that identify as it. More so from the loudest and most adamant. Because you want to identiy with a tribe, and make sure other are judging it accurately.

I dunno, but here's what not to do:Join up with all your non-stamp-collecting buddies to make non-stamp-collecting groups with non-stamp-collecting websites and then be very vocal to everybody that you don't collect stamps and its not really a hobby.

To maintain a rational position that's easily justiable.Its a lot harder to maintain the positive position that there is no god than it is the position of lacking a belief in a god. The latter is an unconvinced and uncommitted position... piece of cake.But its no big deal either: a lot of people don't know about a lot of things.

Only if you assume they're mutually exclusive. That is, that "atheism" is a gnostic position.But that's the point that the soft atheists are making, that their's is not a gnostic position, they don't know that god doesn't exist, but they also lack any belief that he does. They're both agnostic and atheistic.Its only when atheism is taken as a positive position that god does not exist, that it it moves out of agnosticism.

Yeah, pretty much. If you think that your evidence has lead you to a position of tentatively knowing that god(s) don't exist, then you've taken a positive position. I think you need a little more doubt than just a simple lack of absolute certainty to get both feet into the agnostic camp... as you say, that's more "trivially agnostic". I don't think that's worth distiguishing. I'm comfortable saying that I know that animals evolve, and that I know its because of RM+NS, etc. I can take a positive position on that even though I don't claim absolute certainty and I wouldn't say that I'm agnostic on evolution.The real test is to answer this question succinctly:Does god exist?If you say "No", then your a positive atheist. "I doubt it" or "probably not" would be more agnostic positions. And I don't think saying "No" should imply that you're claiming absolute certainty.

Not necessarily. Agnosticism gets boken down into strong and weak positions as well.Technically you're right, that True Agnosticism is the position that we cannot know if god exists or not. But its also used to describe an uncommitted position that doesn't rely on it being unknowable. Wiki gets into it:

quote:

---

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")

​

The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

​

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")

​

The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, when there is evidence, we can find something out."

---

Sounds like positive atheism to me. Although, it would be stronger if you left out the 'concept of' part: "I know that humans invented god(s)"'Cause, ya know, humans invented the concept of evolution too. Its just that we know its an accurate conception. Not exactly the same way... you know this. Are you trying to play Gotcha?

I used to be too. But that's because "atheist" means something different to you. It made me wonder why they'd even want to use a word that other people's impressions of do not describe them. Too, what with the whole reclaiming it from a stronger to weaker position.I still don't really get it, which is why I'm on the side of picking a better word to describe their position. But then, that has more to do with what "atheist" means to me. And the meanings of words evolve so its really no big deal either way.

Even if the universe was created last thursday, I would still know about evolution. I'd just be wrong.Me knowing about evolution doesn't rule out Last Thursdayism, because you can't evidence against it, so I can take a positive position towards evolution while being agnostic to Last Thursdayism.

Right, but also: Answering the question 'does god exist?' with a "no" could just be you expressing your belief that it does not exist. The questions don't have to be seperate. Some here would disagree. But saying 'no' still leaves the ambiguity to the question of whether or not you believe that they don't exist.You'd have to add: "Do you believe there isn't a god?"