"A challenge for atheistic beliefs (theists are..."

Originally posted by rwingett
Atheism is the absence of theistic beliefs. Nothing more. It proposes nothing, nor claims any beliefs as its own. That there is a certain correlation between atheism and certain beliefs in no way demonstrates that one is logically contained within the other.

.... "atheism": why then is the word in use and why was the word even coined?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
.... "atheism": why then is the word in use and why was the word even coined?

???

As should appear obvious, the term is in use for those who are not theists (a=without, theism=the belief in one or more gods).

Originally posted by rwingett
???

As should appear obvious, the term is in use for those who are not theists (a=without, theism=the belief in one or more gods).

“In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.” - Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

My somewhat rhetorical question, rwingwett, was posed with this Sam Harris observation in mind.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
My somewhat rhetorical question, rwingwett, was posed with this Sam Harris observation in mind.

You may have missed it, but Sam Harris was arguing against religion at that point. He was basically saying that we only use the term 'atheist' because we give far to much respect for people suffering from the God delusion. I am inclined to agree with him.
Maybe in future, I should just say 'I am not superstitious' when people ask me what my religion or beliefs are.

I have in the past considered using 'infidel'.

But generally complement words are actually quite common in English and may be used whenever it is necessary to point out that something/someone is not part of a given group. Atheist will obviously be more heavily used in societies that are predominantly religious. I suspect that in parts of Europe and Asia it gets almost no usage.

Originally posted by sonship

Science may seem fantastic to us at first, but there tends to be good, solid explanations of why things happen, and principles that any of us can test for ourselves to verify we get the same results. The same can't be said for religion.

Could you relate to us a matter of spirituality that you tested and found you could not get the resul ...[text shortened]... e me the Bible promised result.
Give me the nature of the failure of your testing the matter.

I was promised that the Bible was all about love, respect for others, compassion, justice etc.

So I tested this hypothesis by reading the OT.

I found out that God kills young babies in revenge attacks for the actions of their parents, kills people for gathering sticks on a Sabbath, for being gay etc.

And tortures everyone who simply happens not to believe in him for all eternity, even if they were basically good and happened to be brought up in a different religion, in exactly the same way as the vilest genocidal dictator (though that may be in the NT).

Test failed.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
“In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make i ...[text shortened]...
My somewhat rhetorical question, rwingwett, was posed with this Sam Harris observation in mind.

If the belief that Elvis was still alive became widespread, and if those people tried to use state power to mandate the worship of Elvis, then a term specific to non-believers in Elvis would come into use. At present there is no need for one. The same could be said for any non-belief. The more inconsequential and trivial it is, the less need there is for a specific term.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
.... "atheism": why then is the word in use and why was the word even coined?

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Etymology_of_the_word_atheist

In early ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god"😉 meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the sense of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods", instead of the earlier meaning of "impious". The term ἀσεβής (asebēs) then came to be applied against those who impiously denied or disrespected the local gods, even if they believed in other gods. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.

In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587. The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God", predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571. Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577. Related words emerged later: deist in 1621, theist in 1662; theism in 1678; and deism in 1682. Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today's theism, but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.

Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist". Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god. In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God".

unquote

Check the link to avoid RHP's mangling of the Greek alphabet and " next to ).

Originally posted by JS357
Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577. Related words emerged later: deist in 1621, theist in 1662; theism in 1678; and deism in 1682.

So the word 'atheism' predates the word 'theism', I did not know that.

Originally posted by JS357
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Etymology_of_the_word_atheist

In early ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god"😉 meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious". In the 5th century BCE, the word began to indic ...[text shortened]... d".

unquote

Check the link to avoid RHP's mangling of the Greek alphabet and " next to ).

Quite an interesting historical perspective and helpful as usual. Thank you, JS. Please take a look at this thread in progress:

"The term Atheist only answers what someone doesn’t believe in not what the person does believe in." Thread 158016 (1/4)

Originally posted by twhitehead
You may have missed it, but Sam Harris was arguing against religion at that point. He was basically saying that we only use the term 'atheist' because we give far to much respect for people suffering from the God delusion. I am inclined to agree with him.
Maybe in future, I should just say 'I am not superstitious' when people ask me what my religion or b ...[text shortened]... are predominantly religious. I suspect that in parts of Europe and Asia it gets almost no usage.

Thanks... I was aware of his vantage point and purpose.

Originally posted by rwingett
If the belief that Elvis was still alive became widespread, and if those people tried to use state power to mandate the worship of Elvis, then a term specific to non-believers in Elvis would come into use. At present there is no need for one. The same could be said for any non-belief. The more inconsequential and trivial it is, the less need there is for a specific term.

What does "state power" have to do with theism or atheism?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
What does "state power" have to do with theism or atheism?

The long history of using state power to enforce their beliefs makes theism highly relevant to atheists.

Originally posted by rwingett
The long history of using state power to enforce their beliefs makes theism highly relevant to atheists.

Yes. However, isn't an individual's thought process free to entertain and choose either option privately?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Yes. However, isn't an individual's thought process free to entertain and choose either option privately?

The very public nature of theism is what makes 'atheism' a useful term.

Originally posted by rwingett
The very public nature of theism is what makes 'atheism' a useful term.

Agreed... a fact at least in the United States.