Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dmallind

(10,437 posts)
19. I understand the appeal of this thinking, echoed in the article, but I disagree with it
Tue Jun 12, 2012, 11:57 AM
Jun 2012

I can't with intellectual honesty insist on a precise usage of the term atheism to make a point and then condone incorrect usage to make another point, however tempting or valid that latter point is.

'a' as a prefix from Greek roots means without or lacking. Without one or without a million is no difference because without means you have none at all. I'm not without shirts just because I don't own yours, as long as I have one or more of my own. A person with belief in any god cannot be an atheist properly defined. They can and usually do lack belief in all or almost all other gods than their own, but that does not make them without god belief, as long as they believe in one or more.

The key point is true. Whatever reasons theists have to find other god-claims but their own unconvincing are indeed the same reasons we find all of them unconvincing, including theirs (although the majority of them generally have one other reason we lack - the claim of ontological monotheism in their own faith) BUT that simply means they approach the claims of, say Scientologists the same way atheists do, not that they are atheists.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

No Religion? 7 Types of Non-Believers [View all] Rhiannon12866 Jun 2012 OP
I'm most of those things OriginalGeek Jun 2012 #1
I wish I could Like this, it gave me the smile I so greatly needed today.nt amyrose2712 Jun 2012 #10
The software may not count it OriginalGeek Jun 2012 #12
Needless subdivision that is either false or irrelevant dmallind Jun 2012 #2
+1 laconicsax Jun 2012 #3
You know that. I know that... BiggJawn Jun 2012 #4
Yep. Crap article. PassingFair Jun 2012 #8
Well, I never go there. Rhiannon12866 Jun 2012 #14
I didn't think you had "motives"! PassingFair Jun 2012 #15
Well, you could say the same thing about Christians to ShadowLiberal Jun 2012 #16
True, but few people think Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists etc are not all Christians dmallind Jun 2012 #26
The need to minimize people into neat, divided catagories lindysalsagal Jun 2012 #5
Well, I thought it was pretty interesting, since I've never examined the nature of my beliefs Rhiannon12866 Jun 2012 #6
This article is just silly. For instance, Unitarians run the gamut of beliefs. PassingFair Jun 2012 #9
Insulting or disturbing? Not really. dmallind Jun 2012 #11
A little bit of all... I guess mostly weenie-agnostic-humanist-skeptic. wyldwolf Jun 2012 #7
I’m an atheist. I have frogmarch Jun 2012 #13
God is imaginary. lindysalsagal Jun 2012 #21
Self-identification suffers from lack of verifiability. daaron Jun 2012 #17
Welcome to awake. lindysalsagal Jun 2012 #20
Minor point: laconicsax Jun 2012 #22
Hm. My understanding was --> daaron Jun 2012 #23
That wedge has been tried already. laconicsax Jun 2012 #25
but strong and weak atheism are broader definitions IMO dmallind Jun 2012 #24
All of those religions listed are atheistic too... urgk Jun 2012 #18
I understand the appeal of this thinking, echoed in the article, but I disagree with it dmallind Jun 2012 #19
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Atheists & Agnostics»No Religion? 7 Types of N...»Reply #19