Subject:
Re: Is Peter an atheist?
Date:
13 Oct 1999 11:33:41 GMT
From:
Chris Ho-Stuart < >mailto:>>
Organization:
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Newsgroups:
aus.religion.christian,aus.religion,nz.soc.religion
In aus.religion.christian Tigger < >mailto:>> wrote:
> Peter wrote in message <38009AC0 >...
>>Tigger wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you say such a thing Peter? You are an atheist. By all normal and
>>> acceptable definitions of the word, by the actual meaning of it.
>>
>>I wouldn’t have thought so.
>
> Yeah, I know. Can you at least settle for the fact that by my definition of
> the word, you are an atheist? Then we can tell everyone that my definition
> of an atheist is “a person who does not hold a positive belief in the
> existence of god(s)” and let everyone else make up their own minds.
>
> Shall we hold a vote? You did say once that you didn’t like to call yourself
> an atheist, and didn’t think that was the meaning of the word.
>
> So, others listening in, given that Peter does not have a positive belief in
> any gods, using whatever definition you like, is Peter an atheist?

No.

Words are tricky things; and carry all kinds of extra baggage.
It is common for usenet atheists to use the word “atheist” as meaning lacking a positive belief in God. Peter does, I suppose, fit this particular definition; but it is not the only meaning or implication of the word in common use, and language is indeed to a large extent defined by usage rather than etymological argument.
I for one consider this particular word to be a case where it is not appropriate to apply to one formal definition across the board. I think tolerance and sensitivity mean that we should be careful of using this word of people who do not use it of themselves.
Thus though I understand that Peter does not actually believe in God, I will not simply say that he is an atheist.
My opinion on this is powerfully influenced by the example of Albert Einstein; his beliefs were what I would call atheistic; but they were not what he would call atheistic; and so I do not call Einstein an atheist. The word he preferred for himself was agnostic. He did on some occasions speak of himself as an atheist, but by and large he sought to be a challenge to atheists, and that is a good thing.
I am, by the way, an atheist, in both weak and strong senses of the word.

Cheers-Chris Ho-Stuart

Related Articles:

• Syria February 2012: Two Perspectives
• EGYPT: THE GROSS INSECURITY OF THE DHIMMI
• Female Circumcision in the Maldives, the Islamic Movement and Islamophobia
• Australia Day message
• Republicans/Democrats: Is there a Christian Alternative?

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.