I don't think so. Language is not a machine. — Coben

Language definitely isn't a machine. But if I use the definition of atheism that says "no belief in God," than having no believe in God is sufficient to be an atheist (aside: I don't think it's very useful to extend the term to include babies; "no believe in God" is incomplete - it's "capable of beliefe, but no belief in God"). So when I'm saying I'm an atheist under that definition, then I'm implying he's one, too, under that definition. I'm not insisting he use this definition. But if he's insisting that he's not an atheist period, I just don't know how to respond to that. Basically, I would have to grant him the right to use his definition, while he doesn't pay me the same courtsey. I can't call myself an atheist.

When we're talking every-day pragrmatics, how is this fair?

Agnostic and atheist are not the same thing, the former is a position in relation to belief in god and the latter is a position about knowledge of god. — DingoJones

Agnostic and atheist are not things. They're words.

Atheist is a word with a long journey behind and some different meanings. In modern times, when Voltaire, d'Holbach and others were opposed to religion it was understood as the denial of the existence of God. Anyone who claimed that "God does not exist" was an atheist. And this is the dominant sense among experts today.
Agnosticism was coined by Thomas Huxley as an alternative to theism and atheism (in the traditional sense). He said that neither theism nor atheism have conclusive evidence, therefore the rational position is abstention. He defined his position as a form of skepticism.
As you can see, the use of these words was not based on belief or knowledge, but on the main proposition of both ideologies: Yes, no, abstention.

To designate someone who does not believe in gods, always existed the words unbeliever or non-believer. To designate one who denies that God exists because he has any reason to do so, there is no special word because it is understood that the vast majority of atheists (in the academic sense of the word) think they have reason to be so. An atheist irrationalist is almost nonexistent.

Then there is a question that I always asked and no one has answered until today:
The words atheist and agnostic have always been used traditionally and in the academic world. They have precise meanings. Here is my question:

Why do we need to change them?

I am waiting for your answer.

I'm a little rusty with the term used like this, — Dawnstorm

"Rusty"? Why?

Language definitely isn't a machine. But if I use the definition of atheism that says "no belief in God," than having no believe in God is sufficient to be an atheist (aside: I don't think it's very useful to extend the term to include babies; "no believe in God" is incomplete - it's "capable of beliefe, but no belief in God"). So when I'm saying I'm an atheist under that definition, then I'm implying he's one, too, under that definition. — Dawnstorm

Sure, you are. But people use the term in a couple of ways, so there is no reason for him to accept that label when he has a perfectly good label. If you want to think of him as an atheist because that is your definition, I think that makes sense. But in a discussion with him, it seems to me a rather civilized and polite thing to accept his even more clear self-label. Otherwise I begin to suspect something else is going on.

I'm not insisting he use this definition. But if he's insisting that he's not an atheist period, I just don't know how to respond to that. — Dawnstorm

Why not let it go. He believes in using history to determine the actual meaning of a word. He feels that there were political intentions between a shift from what we could call now the positive atheist, who believes there is no God, and the negative atheist who merely lacks a belief. He's rather not potentially contribute to what he considers and obfuscation. And, in fact, regardless of how one determines the meaning of a word, if he were to call himself an atheist many people would misunderstand. And here he is using agnostic, which works quite well.

Basically, I would have to grant him the right to use his definition, while he doesn't pay me the same courtsey. — Dawnstorm

Ah, but there's a third option. Resist his defining of you, allow him to define himself. I have argued with him around his campaign to get everyone to use the word the way he thinks it should be used by telling them they are wrong. I think it's fine if he tries to get us to move to what he considers a more rational schema, but I have issues with saying those who use atheist differently are wrong. I am in the current use camp. IOW I resist on this issue both sides for telling the other they should lable themselves X. There would be situations where I would argue against self-labeling. 'I am a medical doctor' would be an example where I would have certain specific criteria that might not be met. In this case, I am happy to have him call himself an agnostic.

I can't call myself an atheist. — Dawnstorm

I think you can. And I had a discussion with him in this or another thread where I argued this case, and in fact, he listened quite respectfully. I don't think I changed his mind, but it seemed like he heard me and considered it. The word does have a mixed history as far as its meanings, so this is all not too surprising given the charge around the issues. But I think people need to let others choose their self-labeling on it, especially if the labels are, in the end accurate.

Or, another issue is getting played out underneath and it's better, I think that the discussion shift to that one.

You can see my post where I challenged his approach to others here.....
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/387688

And his response, here....
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/387688

The ideal situation is that we all agree on what the terms mean, but right now that is not on the table. The next best is we respect each other's self-labeling and perhaps argue in favor of more specific and clear definitions.

My message would be the same to you: as long as you have a self-label that is reasonable given current usage, keep using it and resist someone telling you to use another. And if it reaches a deadlock, I would suggest no longer discussing it. No one can force anyone to change.

If I may!

The "solution" you mentioned is the one I use...I describe my position rather than rely on a descriptor. This argument has just come up because some people in this forum are INSISTING that I...all other agnostics...and all babies and toddlers...

...must accept the descriptor ATHEIST, because some dictionaries describe it that way.

Here is the description I use for my personal agnosticism. No reasonable person would ever consider it to be an atheistic position:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

But since they are insisting...I am insisting back.

The change in usage in philosophical academia is due to the evolving argumentation in philosophy. The usage changes as new words come into play (like agnosticism) and in response to new arguments being made. In the case of atheism and the distinction of lacking belief rather than believing no god exists etc etc became necessary when Christian apologetics began using semantic games as part of their arguments. (Concerning belief)
Thats not even a difficult question to answer for anyone whose studied the arguments in academia. One is free to not use the academic usage of course but if the academic usage is what we are talking about then what Ive said on the subject is accurate.

Another thing in play here is the discussion that led to all of this. (You can read about it early in the thread.)

The question ended up being: Which is the more sensible, more useful definition of the designator “atheist”…

a) EVERYONE who lacks a “belief” that any gods exist (including agnostics, newborn babies, toddlers, and people who not only lack a “belief” that any gods exist, but who also lack a “belief” that no gods exist…or...

b) Just people who lack a “belief” that gods exist AND who either assert that no gods exist…or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one exists.

As far as I am concerned, option “b” wins that one hands down. Using “b” makes the word MUCH more functional…and allows people who do not assert that no gods exist or that it is more likely that no gods exist…to be relieved of having that designation applied to them.

That seems a reasonable topic for a Philosophy forum. Unfortunately, when they realized they were about to be blown out of the water in that argument…the EVERYONE people abandoned ship.

The change in usage in philosophical academia is due to the evolving argumentation in philosophy. The usage changes as new words come into play (like agnosticism) and in response to new arguments being made. In the case of atheism and the distinction of lacking belief rather than believing no god exists etc etc became necessary when Christian apologetics began using semantic games as part of their arguments. (Concerning belief) — DingoJones

Among experts, whether academic or not, the terms atheist and agnostic are still used in their usual meanings: to affirm that God does not exist and to refrain from affirming or denying. It is among non-experts that the change has been popularized - especially on the Internet-, but I don't know why. Certain "linguistic games" of theists are mentioned, but it never is explained what they are. What "semantic games" do you mean? Can you explain this point?

Well Im not getting my information from the internet, but from a university degree. Ive attended academia and learned from philosophy professors. Im just relaying what I learned there. Like I said, what weight that holds is your prerogative. Im not making an appeal to academic authority, just relating what it says on the matter.
The semantic game im referring to in a nutshell:
Theist “do you believe in god”
Atheist “no”
Theist “so you dont think god exists, right?
Atheist “right”
Theist “ah, so you believe no god exists. You are a believer, we’re the same, operating on faith”
Atheist “oh, I see what you did there. No, I lack a belief in god, lacking belief in something isn't itself a believe.”

Christian apologists used the semantics of the words thinking, knowing, believing etc to create a false equivalence between atheism and theism. Thats how the usage evolved, as part of the ongoing debate in academia.
Obviously there is more to it, hard and soft atheism, hard and soft agnosticism, and many different arguments on all sides, but thats the gist of that particular reference I made.

"Rusty"? Why? — David Mo

I haven't used the "theist->agnostic->atheist" partition in years (I'd guess around 15 years, but I don't remember exactly), and I'm a creature of habit. There were some transition hiccups, but I don't remember them that well either.

And if it reaches a deadlock, I would suggest no longer discussing it. No one can force anyone to change. — Coben

That's not the problem, really. I don't much like conflict. I've typed up replies I chose not to post pretty much since the beginning of this thread, because I was dissatisfied with them. A discussion I don't engage in can't reach a deadlock. It's more a matter of feeling like contributing but finding no opening. I'm aware it's really a personal problem of mine. But under such conditions letting it go also feels wrong. Disrespectful? Patronising? I don't know. Something in this direction.

I replied to your post because I found it easier to open up the thread for me, but pretty much immediately after replying I felt it was maybe a bit impolite to talk about Frank Apisa rather than to him. I sometimes think I worry too much.

This argument has just come up because some people in this forum are INSISTING that I...all other agnostics...and all babies and toddlers...

...must accept the descriptor ATHEIST, because some dictionaries describe it that way. — Frank Apisa

See, I find this terribly confusing. If I use the grid-based definition (a)theist/(a)gnostic, then of course you are an atheist under that definition. I'm aware you reject that definition, and that's fine with me. But you seem to be so vehemently against being called an atheist, that it's nearly impossible to even posit that definition. If that's the case, though, why make such a thread?

The grid-based approach is a different discriptor attached to the same label. You're being labeled an atheist, not described as one the way you understand the term, and I'm fairly sure you understand that. So if, beyond rejecting the label, you reject the underlying descriptor - then you invalidate any opposing point of view from the get go, and conversation is impossible.

So:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction... — Frank Apisa

Yes, this is an agnostic position, because it's about knowledge. I doubt anyone would disagree. However, the grid-based approach doesn't see agnosticism and atheism as mutually exclusive, so at this point people who use the grid-based approach don't have enough information to label you an atheist. You're definitely an agnostic, though.

It's when you add:

...so I don't. — Frank Apisa

that we can start to make a guess. One of the reasons I do remember why I made the switch from the three-category to the four-category (grid-based) approach is that quite a few of the Roman Catholics around me also subscribe to the position that they don't know whether or not God exists. But they react differently to this: it's that lack of knowledge, they tell me, that gives meaning to their faith. Under the three-category model, they'd be theists, because they believe in God. The four-category (grid-based) approach accomodates for these similarities with the categories itself, though: agnostic atheists and agnostic theists have something in common.

Of course, there's a trade-off: "atheist" is no longer a label for a positive belief. To get that back, you add subdivisions like "hard atheist". But there's no reason I couldn't do the equivalent under the three-category model, by subdividing theists. Which you choose will depend partly on what you're used to talking about more.

So:

The question ended up being: Which is the more sensible, more useful definition of the designator “atheist”… — Frank Apisa

I'm not that interested in the "more sensible" part, but the "more useful" part depends on the person and context. I personally made the switch from the three-category definition to the grid-based model, simple because I like variable based grids. You can simply expand them by adding another variable should one become relevant, for example. I like them. They fit the way I think, and so I expand less energy thinking. That's what makes them useful.

Unfortunately, when they realized they were about to be blown out of the water in that argument…the EVERYONE people abandoned ship. — Frank Apisa

Is this a debate? If so, I'll abandon ship, too.

The question ended up being: Which is the more sensible, more useful definition of the designator “atheist”… — Frank Apisa

I am fine with your preferred definition. A long time ago I tried to think of terminology that would capture more of the beliefs on this matter.

Gnostic Theist
Believes you CAN know and it does exist.

Gnostic Atheist
Believes you CAN know and it does NOT exist.

Agnostic
Believes you CANNOT know or is unconvinced.

Agnostic Theist
Believes you CANNOT know or is unconvinced, but thinks it's likely or has faith.

Agnostic Atheist
Believes you CANNOT know or is unconvinced, but thinks it's unlikely or has faith.

Undecided
Not sure if you can know.

Without Belief
Does not have a belief (e.g. newborn baby).

Theist “ah, so you believe no god exists. You are a believer, we’re the same, operating on faith” — DingoJones

This semantic game has nothing to do with the use of "atheist". The word atheist does not appear in the conversation in your own text. It would be the same if you replaced the name "atheist" with "agnostic". It is not a reason to prefer one or the other.

The "atheist" in your example allows for cheating by defining it in terms of belief rather than propositions. If you say, "I neither affirm nor deny that God exists," you disable the trap from the beginning.

In any case, it is a very harmless trap. Your "atheist" ends with it in a single sentence.

In conclusion: I see no reason to change the academic and traditional meanings of atheist and agnostic.

I insist, academic. I would like to know who taught you that "atheist" means "lack of belief". How many relevant experts do you know who do that in the academic world? This is not a trick question. I'm interested to know.

Additional information:

Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

(Draper, Paul, "Atheism and Agnosticism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy], https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ )

Note how Antony Flew, who is cited as the leading representative of defining atheism in terms of belief, does not use this term in his latest book There is God. Instead he uses "a-theism" as a synonym for "agnostic" (p. 53).

and I'm a creature of habit. — Dawnstorm

This is not a reason.

I would suggest no longer discussing it. No one can force anyone to change. — Coben

Well then, let it not be said that I use the terms in a way that favors theism. That is a provocation to the debate, isn't it? And besides, it's not true. As I just demonstrated above.

I don't really understand what you are saying here, nor how you are taking my quote which was about a specific response to a specific type of situation. I don't know what you are referring to with 'it' in the second to last sentence. And I don't think I have said anywhere that your position or you support theism. I found this response in general confusing.

I don't know what you are referring to with 'it' in the second to last sentence. And I don't think I have said anywhere that your position or you support theism. — Coben

You said the debate on the meaning of "atheism" was not relevant.
I was explaining to you why I'm discussing this issue. That is, because the main reason given for discussing this issue is that the traditional meaning of "atheism" - which I support - favours theism.
And I maintain that "it," that is, this reason, is not true.
It was an explanation of my position on the interest of discussing this issue.

I hope that my answer is now clear.

If I use the grid-based definition (a)theist/(a)gnostic, then of course you are an atheist under that definition. I — Dawnstorm

That MISTAKE is the entire reason for the controversy...a reason you seem willing to simply disregard, Dawn.

(a) theist, resulting in a meaning of "without a belief in any gods" IS A MISTAKE. It never happened. It couldn't happen, because the word "atheism" came into the English language BEFORE theism. It is an etymological construct that makes as much sense as supposing "abate" means without "bate" or "aardvark" meaning without "ardvark" or "abridge" meaning without a"bridge."

I am NOT an atheist under any reasonable definition of "atheist" and neither are any babies or toddlers.

Mostly this doesn't come up outside of Internet discussions, because most people not intent on pretending they are not doing "believing" (a pretense apparently necessary to atheistic life on the Internet)...realize the significant difference between "agnosticism" and "atheism" has to do with "belief"...NOT with knowledge.

Anyone using the word "atheist" as a descriptor...HAS A BELIEF (or a guess) that "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods." The former fancy themselves "atheists"...the latter prefer "agnostic atheist." But the function of the "atheist" is to inform of a "belief" or guess that there are no gods or that it is more likely that there are no gods....which, of course, is merely a blind guess in the opposite direction from theists who blindly guess in the opposite direction.

The true agnostic does not share that "belief."

This semantic game has nothing to do with the use of "atheist". The word atheist does not appear in the conversation in your own text. It would be the same if you replaced the name "atheist" with "agnostic". It is not a reason to prefer one or the other. — David Mo

I was explaining the evolution of the word in philosophical academia, and not positing it as a reason to prefer one over the other. Im not trying to get people to use an academic definition, Im relaying what that definition is. You disagree that academia uses the word that way. I mean, i learned that in an academic setting, and from professors who attended a range of universities including Stanford and Oxford, and by both theist and atheist scholars both. Its possible Ive been misinformed but Im pretty doubtful.

I insist, academic. I would like to know who taught you that "atheist" means "lack of belief". How many relevant experts do you know who do that in the academic world? This is not a trick question. I'm interested to know. — David Mo

The only people who I know in academia who do not, are Christian apologists.

Note how Antony Flew, who is cited as the leading representative of defining atheism in terms of belief, does not use this term in his latest book There is God. Instead he uses "a-theism" as a synonym for "agnostic" (p. 53). — David Mo

He did define it that way, and wrote about it but he does not represent all of academia. Its controversial, because he changed his views from atheism. He was an intelligent design guy, so I do not accept him as the final authority on the word. Finding one or a few dissenting opinions in academia doesnt make your case, it doesnt change the general consensus in academia which is what Im referencing.
Im not sure what to tell you, googling and referencing an encyclopaedia of philosophy is not a substitute for a formal education. Flew was one of the philosophers we studied, and your reference material doesnt tell you the whole story, as Im talking about the centuries of argumentation that resulted in the current academic definitions. Your single point references do not move me, Im sorry to say.
Again, Im not particularly attached to the academic definition, im not a dogmatic person enslaved to what experts say and am open to discussing different ways of defining atheism but if you want to know what the generally accepted definition of atheism is in academia, Ive given you the answer. (As far as I know, which of course you are free to dismiss as me being misinformed, or lying or whatever you like.)

You said the debate on the meaning of "atheism" was not relevant. — David Mo

Did I? What did I say it was not relevant to? or that it was not relevant to whom? I did make a very specific suggestion to a person when he or she (not sure) finds him or herself in a very specific situation. A very specific possible version of a discussion of the meaning of these terms with certain demands. At least, that's what I was doing in what you quoted in your first post to me.

I hope that my answer is now clear. — David Mo

Somewhat.

It is an etymological construct that makes as much sense as supposing "abate" means without "bate" or "aardvark" meaning without "ardvark" or "abridge" meaning without a"bridge." — Frank Apisa

This is funny. How do you deal with other prefixes like "anti"? Is antimicrobial ok, or just microbial?

It couldn't happen, because the word "atheism" came into the English language BEFORE theism. — Frank Apisa

I hadn't heard this claim before. I didn't find reference to it either. Do you have a reference?

Anyone using the word "atheist" as a descriptor...HAS A BELIEF (or a guess) that "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods." — Frank Apisa

It's odd to me that you rail against the idea that people would label you incorrectly, and then in the same thread insist that your definition be applied to how someone else would self-identify. Don't you think this is somewhat hypocritical? Why not just inform someone how you plan to use a word with multiple known usages so you can have a meaningful conversation?

This is funny. How do you deal with other prefixes like "anti"? Is antimicrobial ok, or just microbial? — CeleRate

"Anti" has a specific meaning. The letter "a" at the beginning of a word does not. Agreed? Or do you think "agreed" means being without "greed?"

I hadn't heard this claim before. I didn't find reference to it either. Do you have a reference? — CeleRate

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=atheis

atheist (n.)
1570s, "godless person, one who denies the existence of a supreme, intelligent being to whom moral obligation is due," from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts).


https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=theist

theist (n.)1660s, from Greek theos "god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendent god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as believing in a personal God and allowing the possibility of revelation.

It's odd to me that you rail against the idea that people would label you incorrectly, and then in the same thread insist that your definition be applied to how someone else would self-identify. Don't you think this is somewhat hypocritical? — CeleRate

Sorry you find it odd.

But I am NOT insisting that they use that descriptor. I MUCH prefer that people set out their take in words...rather than using a descriptor...and have said so many times here.

There is no hypocrisy on my part at all.

Why not just inform someone how you plan to use a word with multiple known usages so you can have a meaningful conversation? — CeleRAte

What is the matter with you? Do you read these threads before shooting off your mouth?

I DO INFORM PEOPLE. I have set out my agnosticism several times already. Here it is again for the slow learners who want to suggest that I do what I have been doing regularly:


I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

THAT...is not the take of an atheist. It is the take of an agnostic.

Do you read these threads before shooting off your mouth? — Frank Apisa

Such an angry little man you are. I'm asking questions and challenging your positions to test their validity. If you can't handle skeptical criticism of your ideas, then you probably shouldn't be in a philosophy forum.

Such an angry little man you are. I'm asking questions and challenging your positions to test their validity. If you can't handle skeptical criticism of your ideas, then you probably shouldn't be in a philosophy forum. — CeleRate

You are NOT doing that. You essentially accused me of being a hypocrite for doing something that I did NOT do...

...and then you suggested a course of action to correct what you perceived to be my errors THAT I HAVE BEEN DOING ALL ALONG.

So get off your nonsense that you are merely asking questions and challenging positions to test validity...IF YOU HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THE COURSE OF THE DISCUSSION.

I have been participating in Internet fora since the late 1990's...and know how to handle criticism. But I do expect at least a modicum of diligence from someone presuming to criticize.

That MISTAKE is the entire reason for the controversy...a reason you seem willing to simply disregard, Dawn. — Frank Apisa

Yes, I'm perfectly willing to disregard this "mistake". First, and foremost, I'm willing to disregard this "mistake" because etymology isn't destiny. I'm willing to use the word atheist this way, because a lot of people use the word this way, and because I like it.

Whether or not this is an actual honest mistake, or whether it's a series of little mistakes, or a politically motivated deliberate re-interpretation, or whatever else might have led to the current usage doesn't matter much to me at this point.

But apart from this, I'm really not sure how you think language works, or what etymology does. When
you're saying this in a follow-up post:

"Anti" has a specific meaning. The letter "a" at the beginning of a word does not. Agreed? — Frank Apisa

I just don't know how you can say this. Anti- is a prefix with a determined meaning, and a- is also a prefix with a determined meaning (although there's more than one "a-"; from the etymology site you're linking to).

Of course, a word-initial "a" isn't always a prefix. It's not in "aardvark", to use your example in my reply to me. The a- in atheist and the a- in agnostic are the same prefix.

"Agreed" very obviously has nothing to do with greed, since the uninflected verb form is "agree". The a- is definitely a prefix, though. Etymologically a variant of "ad" as the etymology site tells me.

The part of grammar that deals with wordformation is morphology. It's important to understand morphology if you're going to do etymology.

(a) theist, resulting in a meaning of "without a belief in any gods" IS A MISTAKE. — Frank Apisa

Yes. When the word was originally coined, we didn't tag "a-" onto "theism". But according to the link you provided it's from Greek "a-theos", and the site even specifies the "a-" as "a (3)", which is referring to their own site and the linke I provided above. So it basically meant "without god" rather than "without theism".

It never happened.

It didn't happen when the word was coint. Something happened later, or nobody would be using it like that now. You can call it a "mistake" if you like, but we'd have to go through the history of the word to see what really happened. Langauge is, has been, and will be messy.

It couldn't happen, because the word "atheism" came into the English language BEFORE theism. It is an etymological construct that makes as much sense as supposing "abate" means without "bate" or "aardvark" meaning without "ardvark" or "abridge" meaning without a"bridge."

Once again, if you're going to argue from etymology you should demonstrate a better sense of morphology. "a-bate" is the same prefix as "a-gree", and not the same prefix as "atheist". "Bate" doesn't exist, I think, as a standalone English verb, but it does survive in phrases like "with bated breath". The "a-" in "abridge" is the same "a-" again, as in "abate", and "agree". But "bridge" (romanic) in "abridge" is unrelated to the noun bridge (germanic). The a in "aardvark" isn't a prefix at all.

The more you talk about etymology, the less persuasive you actually become.

Yes. When the word was originally coined, we didn't tag "a-" onto "theism". But according to the link you provided it's from Greek "a-theos", and the site even specifies the "a-" as "a (3)", which is referring to their own site and the linke I provided above. So it basically meant "without god" rather than "without theism". — Dawnstorm

YES...it means with a god...NOT without a 'BELIEF" in a god.

That is my point.

Some atheists here are saying I must be classified as an ATHEIST, because i lack A BELIEF IN A GOD.

How many ways can that be brought to your attention.

Yes. When the word was originally coined, we didn't tag "a-" onto "theism". But according to the link you provided it's from Greek "a-theos", and the site even specifies the "a-" as "a (3)", which is referring to their own site and the linke I provided above. So it basically meant "without god" rather than "without theism".

It never happened. — Dawnstorm

The "it never happened" refers to the contention that the word atheist happened by someone prefixing a "a" to the word "theist."

THAT NEVER HAPPENED. The word atheist was a part of the English language BEFORE the word theist.

The more you talk about etymology, the less persuasive you actually become. — Dawnstorm

Then leave the conversation if you think I am not up to the job...or if I am annoying you with my advocacy.

Anyone actually listening to what I am saying about the entire situation sees my point completely. I am not an atheist by dint of that preposterous, unnecessary "definition"...and neither is any baby, infant, or toddler.

If you cannot see that, the deficiency is in you...not in my arguments or presentation.

Yes or No - Are you GODLESS (i.e. Do you LIVE a theistic g/G Belief-FREE, theistic Religion-FREE life ... re: ἄθεος) -

(a) because of sufficient evidence (or lack thereof)?
(b) because of sound inferences (or lack thereof)?
(c) because of subjective-psychological needs (or lack thereof)?
(d) because of traumatic or numinous experiences (or lack thereof)?
(e) because of familial and/or cultural tradition (or lack thereof)?
(f) because of aesthetics (e.g. 'style')?
(g) because of ethics (e.g. 'conscience')?
(h) because of ???

(indicate those reasons which apply)

I was explaining the evolution of the word in philosophical academia, and not positing it as a reason to prefer one over the other — DingoJones

It has been argued that consensus among experts on the meaning of "atheism" is not unanimous . Antony Flew is the only exception of the consensus that I know. I have shown that this is not exact. Other exceptions come from secondary sources or outside the academic world.

Experts criterion on an issue should be respected if you have not any reason to don't do so. No reason has been argued here... or elsewhere, in my opinion.

Im not really sure what you mean by most of that, but it has a dismissive tone to it. I take it that we’re done here?

I live my life the way I live my life. I am not answerable to any gods...or religious convictions.

Many of the matters I hold dear...ARE part of many religions. "Live and let live" is a diredct function of "Do unto others..."...and I hold that thought in high regard.

But if the question "Are there any gods or do no gods exist?" is proposed to me, my answer is a resounding, "I have no goddam idea whatsoever."

That often is expressed in a more moderate tone by inserting my take on the matter:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Its controversial, because he changed his views from atheism. He was an intelligent design guy, so I do not accept him as the final authority on the word. Finding one or a few dissenting opinions in academia doesnt make your case, it doesnt change the general consensus in academia which is what Im referencing. — DingoJones

Good point. It's also been asserted elsewhere on this thread that there are no credible uses of the word atheism if not used as an active claim (i.e., proposition). Interestingly, it was Flew who suggested that the term could be defined as a psychological state. I've also seen several Oxford debates and Oxford-style debates in which the person taking the position on atheism did so on the basis of a psychological state, or from a position of skepticism and empiricism.

One of the positions from several atheist's was that, epistemologically, the atheist was in a position without sufficient knowledge to assert atheism as a proposition. Those individuals, therefore, defined their agnosticism in matter of degree.

While there still were ontological, teleological, cosmological etc propositions that were argued (for and against), arguments generally leaned toward how to establish justified true belief.

In the end, the interlocutors couldn't proceed with the debate until each defined their terms.