theist and atheist. Are these words really needed?

Post Reply New Topic

After all, we don't have a santist versus and asantist to refer to whether or not someone believes in Santa Claus, for instance, so we shouldn't have these terms. We don't have words to refer to whether or not one believes in ghosts, time travel, telepathy, teleportation etc. either. So why should we have words to refer to whether or not people believe in god(s)?

Because people still think it's a big deal. They are still very disruptive conversations, and should never be mentioned on a first date. Actually, if something is not that big of a deal, and has it's own word, it also shouldn't be mentioned on a first date. That's the real difference between the two.

I would think it should be mentioned on a first date, if it is that important, wouldn't it be best to know that you are in agreement?

I am quite sure we do.


Skeptic?

The assumption amongst many religious people is that there is a kind of unity amongst atheists as if there was a kind of atheist dogma. It's the same problem with intellect as if all people with intellectual accomplishment have something in common. And the same could be said about any religious group, as if all Muslims were automatic terrorists and all Christians were unthinking fundamentalists. It's a big problem that extends to many areas..

Let's throw away all linguistic heritage and make an artificial language with no precedent.

That's a different thread.

No it's not. The words theist, a-theist, miso-theist, anti-theist, are coined words. If someone wishes to coin words regarding things that people don't adhere to militantly, such as listing absurd things such as Santa or the four elements theory which are recognized falsities, then the words coined would still be actual even if the subjects are absurd. What is it with people that wish to argue against the existence of words?

YES!! !


Going back to the OP though, um.... if a distinction has social relevance then the word expressing this distinction would make sense to exist. It isn't as if language is just this thing out there for expressing ideas that people don't normally use, but rather language is driven by use. "Atheist" is a word because atheism is different than the normal population and because to many people belief is very important, so the word is still useful, even for atheists who to some extent use this term and other terms like "skeptic" to emphasize their counter-cultural community.

I applaud your enthusiasm and energy. It probably will take a decade or so to assemble a realistic and useful artificial language that is easily accepted by a large number of people. Be seeing you.

"I don't like these ideas, so I want to abolish the words for them."

Feel free. Nobody's forcing you to use them

that works great! let's go further! we don't need words for "homosexual" or "heterosexual" either! there's definitely no need to mention such abstract notions on a first date! speaking of things i don't need to mention on a first date, treatable STDs don't really need to be brought up either!

if you think those statements sound ridiculous, i have at least some respect for your ability to reason.


i definitely feel that a santist should identify herself as such no later than the first date. how upset would you be if you didn't find out she was a santist until you tried to have the "santa's not real" talk with your first born? no, really. think about that. think about it one more time. as silly and ridiculous as it sounds, this is definitely something that would be important.

if someone genuinely believes, with no rational evidence whatsoever, that there is a jolly, bearded guy who lives in a magical place from which he can see everything we do and judges us naughty or nice and then doles out rewards and punishments, we feel the need to tell them that this isn't true before they've completed their first decade of life.
if, on the other hand, someone genuinely believes, with no rational evidence whatsoever, that there is a jolly, bearded guy who lives in a magical place from which he can see everything we do and judges us sinful or righteous and then doles out rewards and punishments, it is considered inappropriate, at best.

i think that the terms "santist" and "asantist," as whimsical and silly as they are, have the ability to put into perspective something that we, as a collective society, refuse to address. would you vote for an admittedly santist president? i wouldn't.



of course, you can always try to marginalize my view by referring to me as a "militant asantist."

....in fact, i think i like that label. it's got a secular sexy feel to it. i think i'll keep it.

Last edited by waltur on 08 Apr 2010, 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There are no apothecaries around today, nor cartwrights, so currently these words have no meaning. Lets abolish them from the new prescriptivist dictionary.

To have this debate, yes. Otherwise, no.

Great link of atheist quotes ordered by awesomeness




it's important to understand that there is a distinction between things that are different. this is especially true when such things are contradictory. as much as atheists would like to think theism shouldn't be considered "default," we have to admit that it is the norm.