The knowings and Unknowings of our Existence

[Acriku]

I'm not making this hard at all. My definitons are quite clear, quite simple, exhaustive and without unnecessary overlap.

You are making it seem more complicated than it really is. Your definitions were inaccurate, as I've explained before.

I'm not the one trying to bring such in undefined concepts as 'neutrality'

Wrong, I did define neutrality. I'll say it again: neutrality in this case is not having a positive assertion, such as: There is a god, There isn't a god, etc.

I'm not the one trying to group two very different things under the same word

Could you explain? You can't expect me to know what you're talking about if you don't specify.

and I'm not the one making bizzare distinctions as to who's making a 'positive assertion', and so on.

Bizarre distinctions? I have made none. When there is a belief involved, it is deemed a positive term, such as the belief in a god - or theism. When there isn't a belief involved, such as the lack of belief in a god - or atheism - it is neutral. If not positive, then neutral. I'm surprised you haven't heard of the term "positive assertions" Nema.

I'm just asking the simple question "What do you believe", to which there are effectively three answers: True, false, and no opinion (for whatever reason). I

don't see why we have to group no opintion withj false any more than we

have to group it with true.

Because agnosticism is a characteristic of its own, it is independent of belief or no belief. Just as someone can be characterized as atheist or theist, someone can be characterized as agnostic or gnostic. I am gnostic towards the fact that there are planets beyond Pluto. I believe that there is enough knowledge to conclude this. I am agnostic towards the fact that there is life beyond Pluto. I do not believe that there is enough knowledge to conclude this. I am an agnostic atheist. I lack a belief in a god, and I also do not believe that there is enough knowledge to conclude that there is no god. I am an gnostic atheist. I lack a belief in a god, and I also believe that there is enough knowledge to conclude that there is no god. Do you want more examples, or is that enough?

"That's the casual, and incorrect, definition."

Uh, are you going to give any evidence whatsoever for this assertion?

I have demonstrated this many times before. Theism is the belief or doctrine in a god. When you attack the prefix a to a word, you bring it to mean without the word you attached it to. In other words, when you attach a to theism you bring it to mean without the belief or doctrine in a god.

How would you define sexual? Involving sex, I suppose. Now, attach the prefix a and you get asexual - without sex, or without the involvement of sex. It's a simple concept that I could teach my brother and sisters.

You define atheism as lack of belief in a god - but you accept that what you call explicit atheism is equivalent to what I call atheism - but contest that what I call agnostic is implying atheism as a whole... something implicit means, but does not directly state the equivalent in explicit terms. It just makes no rational sense.

If someone calls himself an agnostic and refuses to call himself an atheist or a theist because he doesn't believe in a god and he also doesn't believe that there is no god (using his definitions), then he is in fact an atheist. This is simply because he lacks a belief in a god. All newborn babies are atheists. All insects are atheists. All dogs are atheists. All mosquitos are atheists. This isn't an attempt to "add more people or things to the atheist pool" it's simply a fact that they do not have a belief in a god. That is why I contest that agnosticism used as a middle option is actually atheism.

"Option 3 can be theism or atheism,"

How can the statement 'I don't know' be construed to mean 'I believe in a god'? Option 3 is neither saying there is nor there isn't a god. It is hence completely independant of both sides.

It can't be construed that way. But, there can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. That is what I was saying.

[emprworm]

funny to read all this mumbo-jumbo about the different 'sects' of atheism.

interesting observations:

[Acriku]

funny to read all this mumbo-jumbo about the different 'sects' of atheism.

interesting observations:  Acriku asserts himself as neutral.  he positively claims himself to have a position of no positive claim

I don't see how that's interesting?

[emprworm]

I don't see how that's interesting?

lol!

amusing maybe is a better word

[nemafakei]

"Your definitions were inaccurate, as I've explained before."

I don't see how! All you've done is tried to fit them to your own model. I've taken my definitions solely from what is possible - unless I've made an error (which you've not pointed out with any evidence or specifics), all I've done is post what has to be true!

"When there isn't a belief involved, such as the lack of belief in a god - or atheism - it is neutral. If not positive, then neutral"

Ok, so if you define Atheism as neutral, you accept it to mean that you are making no positive claim. Therefore, you accept that the stronger (or more explicit) it becomes, the more it clearly makes no positive claim. And so, you must also accept that explicit atheism does not make the positive claim that there is no god, because 'atheism is a neutral term'. Therefore atheism refers to someone I would call an agnostic, and you are lacking a term for people who do make a positive claim (no matter how weakly positive) that there is no god.

"Do you want more examples, or is that enough?"

But you are not referring to a middle ground, but a different axis entirely.

As to the rest of your post, it seems we are differing on one point entirely: the meanind of the word atheist.

I would accept the word non-theist for your use of the word atheist, because non-theist would mean someone who is not a theist. Just so, (what I call) theists and agnostics could be grouped together under the term non-atheist.

But the privative of the word atheist is dependant on the stem, not on thye ending - it is in a different language as the ending, for a start. That is to say, the a- refers to the the- not the -ist. That means you are:

(athe)ist, not a(theist)

Why? Because the -ist suffix is etymologically separate from the stem - it is tacked on in order to convert the word. Were we to mean "anything but a theist", we would have to take the word theist, and add on a privation in the most recent language used in the word, to keep the bracketing order correct, or our own language - and since we are speaking English, it amounts to the same thing.

Now, have you any kind of linguistic argument to support your claims that I'm wrong, or are you going to continue telling me that my understanding of the Greek and English languages (as well as principles of philology) are poor with no explanation or evidence whatsoever?

[Acriku]

"Your definitions were inaccurate, as I've explained before."

I don't see how! All you've done is tried to fit them to your own model. I've taken my definitions solely from what is possible - unless I've made an error (which you've not pointed out with any evidence or specifics), all I've done is post what has to be true!

You never mentioned your reasoning that led you to your definition. I demonstrated mine.

"When there isn't a belief involved, such as the lack of belief in a god - or atheism - it is neutral. If not positive, then neutral"

Ok, so if you define Atheism as neutral, you accept it to mean that you are making no positive claim. Therefore, you accept that the stronger (or more explicit) it becomes, the more it clearly makes no positive claim. And so, you must also accept that explicit atheism does not make the positive claim that there is no god, because 'atheism is a neutral term'.

I figured this would confuse things, anyways explicit atheism isn't atheism, it's a specific type of atheism. You have the general term atheism (also known as implicit atheism), and then you have the specific term explicit atheism (also known as gnostic atheism, which both are positive terms). Ok, how about we drop explicit atheism and implicit atheism for sake of simplicity? If you can't understand the basics of what I'm saying, then they will just confuse you even more.

Therefore atheism refers to someone I would call an agnostic, and you are lacking a term for people who do make a positive claim (no matter how weakly positive) that there is no god.

Wouldn't you agree that explicit atheism is making a positive claim? I explained above.

"Do you want more examples, or is that enough?"

But you are not referring to a middle ground, but a different axis entirely.

No, you were referring to the middle ground. I was disagreeing in that there is no middle ground. There's atheism, or theism. You either have the belief, or you don't. If you do, you're a theist. If you don't, you're an atheist. Get rid of preconceptions of what atheism is, it is a very general and neutral term to describe the lack of a belief in a god.

As to the rest of your post, it seems we are differing on one point entirely: the meanind of the word atheist.

I would accept the word non-theist for your use of the word atheist, because non-theist would mean someone who is not a theist. Just so, (what I call) theists and agnostics could be grouped together under the term non-atheist.

What's the difference between non-theism and atheism? The prefix a means without, which is compatible with non.

But the privative of the word atheist is dependant on the stem, not on thye ending - it is in a different language as the ending, for a start. That is to say, the a- refers to the the- not the -ist. That means you are:

(athe)ist, not a(theist)

Why? Because the -ist suffix is etymologically separate from the stem - it is tacked on in order to convert the word. Were we to mean "anything but a theist", we would have to take the word theist, and add on a privation in the most recent language used in the word, to keep the bracketing order correct, or our own language - and since we are speaking English, it amounts to the same thing.

Ok, now I see what you're saying. However, how would you apply the prefix to both? Or can you say implicit atheism to mean what it?

[nemafakei]

"You never mentioned your reasoning that led you to your definition. I demonstrated mine"

Are we talking about the reasoning leading to the definition of atheist, theist, agnostic - if so, see post with greek in it I linked to earlier. I can't find your reasons for defintion except a statement that you prefer the a- to govern the whole word (with no reason why, and not quite in those terms).

If we are talking about defintions of neutral, I wasn't the one trying to use the word, I was just trying to understand what you meant.

If you meant something else... say.

"Wouldn't you agree that explicit atheism is making a positive claim?"

That's my point. It's supposed to be a proof by contradiction. Assuming atheism is neutral, then explicit atheism is a giant misnomer, since it is quite definitely not neutral.

"What's the difference between non-theism and atheism? The prefix a means without, which is compatible with non"

Non-theism is not being a theist.

Atheism is belief in there being no god.

It's just a question of whether the negation is applied to the question of the existence of the god, or to the belief.

"Ok, now I see what you're saying. However, how would you apply the prefix to both? Or can you say implicit atheism to mean what it? "

Well to apply the negation to a whole word, you must take the word in either its most recent language or the one you're using, and add a prefix native to that language.

Hence, a non-theist, or untheist (un being native, and peculiar, I think, to English) would mean someone who does not have a belief in a god. That includes (in my terms) atheists and agnostics: options 2,3,4.

A non-atheist would be everyone except ( those who have a belief thet there is ( no god ) ). This includes agnostics and theists (1,3,4).

A non-agnostic includes everyone who has a belief either way, so 1,2, but not 3,4.

As to most of the rest of your post, the linguistics should solve it.

[Acriku]

Ok, I see what you're saying now Nema. I have no choice but to agree with you for now, so I'll concede on the etymological reasoning why atheism cannot be my definition on the grounds that the prefix does not apply to -ism, only the root word. However, someone referred me to OED's definition of atheism (Oxford's English Dictionary):

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.

Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).

To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.

To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.

So, it seems that OED recognizes all aspects of what atheism is defined as.

[nemafakei]

Must find a full OED. I know who has one...

The other problem is that dictionaries often try to keep meanings open to interpretation, since they are (more recently, at least) more a record of general use rather than a defintion of meaning.

Hence: "atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god" could mean it covers options 2, 3, and 4, or just 2, since disbelief is ambiguous; it depends what sense they're using it in.

[Anathema]

Acriku, I have seen you use the word "gay" when you were actually referring to homosexuals. Originally the word means joyful. In fact, this change of meaning is far more recent then that of the word "atheist". So explain your hypocricy.

[Acriku]

Acriku, I have seen you use the word "gay" when you were actually referring to homosexuals. Originally the word means joyful. In fact, this change of meaning is far more recent then that of the word "atheist". So explain your hypocricy.

Because homosexuals call others and themselves gay. If you have a problem with it take it up with them.

[Anathema]

Except you I haven't encountered a single atheist who experienced emotional trauma because of linguistic mistakes. Wich brings us to another point, even by the accepted definition you are not an agnostic, you're still an atheist. So if agnostics had a problem with the definition of "atheist", let them speak for themselves.