Atheist vs Atheism

[Az]

What do these words mean to people? I think there may be some issues locked up in a slight variance between these words other than just their grammatical differences. To me the word Atheist simply means someone that is without a belief in god(s). But atheism, with its suffix -ism, seems to pick up a more pronounced definition. Namely that it represents an active belief that there is no god(s).

Similar to the need to differentiate between calling us the Democrat Party vs the Democratic Party is there a significant difference between Atheist and Atheism? And should it be noted and approached as such?

[YankeyMCC]

1. I don't think the 'ism'

adds an affirmative portion of the definition.

An atheist is anyone who holds no beliefs concerning gods.

Atheism is any belief system (ethical or moral system) that does not include gods.

[salvorhardin]

2. I think atheism incorporates the whole range of non-theistic, atheistic and anti-theistic beliefs

I suppose it could even encompass pantheism and maybe H.G. Wells' cosmotheism*. So yeah, it's a much broader. It all comes back to the simple idea that if someone tells you they are an atheist, then they really haven't told you anything about themselves except that they don't have a belief in any god.

*Note: I don't think Well's cosmotheism incorporated either the white nationalism separatist elements or panendeism of William Luther Pierce's Cosmotheism.

[enlightenment]

3. I don't think there is a difference - but I do see a difference

between your statement: "active belief that there is no god(s)" and Yankee's: "anyone who holds no beliefs concerning gods".

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but the first implies a belief while the second implies the absence of belief.

For me, the "ism" of Atheism is not a belief, but the absence of belief within the individual - it does not imply any sort of belief or guiding principle, it simply indicates an attribute of that person. Rather like the term "colloquialism" simply references words that are colloquial - not that there is some sort of belief of specific principle associated with colloquial words.

Both atheist and atheism denote what is not, rather than what is (to me) - so I guess (to try and answer your question) I don't see any reason to differentiate between them. They are both nouns - one describes the person, the other an attribute of the person.

"Bob is an atheist."
"Bob practices atheism in his daily life." (not a particular good sentence, sorry . . . it's early in the morning)

[Warpy]

4. The sentences could be

"Bob is an atheist."

"Bob's atheism is troubling to his religious grandmother."

While "ism" suggests dogma or belief in most instances, it can be a descriptive for no belief in the instance I suggested.

Semantic hairsplitting makes my brain hurt.

[enlightenment]

5. Yes - well I did admit I was hair-splitting.

Bottom line is that we tend to go with the most popular definition of -ism- but that isn't the only definition and in this case I prefer the other.

Guess it just depends on who is doing the defining. A religious person is going to define atheism as a dogma or belief. Nothing I can do about that - those folks have more problems than I can solve, starting with magical thinking and moving on from there. However, just because they choose to define it that way, it doesn't mean I have to do the same.

I'm not going to play their game or get caught up in their fantasies - that's why I don't engage them here on DU. It's amusing for a little while, but it really just strengthens their delusions.

Saying that makes me sound like I'm copping out, I suppose, but I've never been activist about this stuff unless I feel my rights are being abrogated in a real way. Not in the that "ooh - the fundies are out to get us" fashion that occasionally rears it's head in A/A, but an actual threat. Which is not to say that I criticise those who feel that they need to push back all the time.

Logic works when you're dealing with logical people. Using logic on the religious is really not any more effective than using it on a three-year old. It's fine to explain, logically and patiently, that the stove is hot and will burn little Billy's hands - the tot might even grasp a little of what you're saying, but in the end, he'll still reach for the stove and you'll still end up simply removing him from the room. The logical argument fails because he hasn't reached the point of abstract reasoning - only the concrete proof of the burn will penetrate (and none of us want him to do that).

People who engage in magical thinking are, by definition, illogical. Doesn't matter what you say to them, they can't grasp it.

If I give the word "atheism" a definition as a belief or dogma it reduces me to the same illogical level as the believers. I can't stop them from doing it on their own but I'm not going to capitulate and agree.

jmho ;)

[Az]

6. Semantics are often vital in our particular dialog

When matters turn to discussion of logic and reason the splitting of hairs and the setting of angels dancing on pins is often a problem. Such things need to be discussed and understood. Otherwise the various sides will just be sitting there shouting nonsense at each other because each side hears a different meaning in the words.

[progressoid]

7. Bob is living large.

Bob has a generous swelling of pride thanks to Enzyte.



Oops sorry, I got caught up in the Bob moment. :blush: