Why do we label ourselves as 'atheist' and 'theist'?

[Dremmer]

"atheist" and "theist".

Do we really need these words?. I mean, we don't have a santist, versus an asantist to refer to whether or not people believe in Santa Claus for instance. Nor do we have words to refer to whether or not people believe in time travel, telepathy, ghosts, the moon landing etc.

 

[Proton Soup]

asantists are vile, ignorant people

 

[HeLiXe]

I mean, we don't have a santist, versus an asantist

Oh gosh...there goes my sparkling water *wipes computer screen*

 

[ideasrule]

We don't really need the vast majority of English words. English is definitely not a minimalist language.

 

[JaredJames]

Nor do we have words to refer to whether or not people believe in time travel, telepathy, ghosts, the moon landing etc.

Oh but we do, we really do...

It just varies depending on who you speak to.

I'd also add that those theist and atheist are very good descriptive (if misunderstood in the latter case) words. Without them, how would you describe an atheist in one word? Or a theist?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I vote we get rid of philtrum. How often does that come up in conversation? As with everything else, the price of dictionaries is rising faster than inflation. Let's get a handle on the problem and start chopping unnecessary words.

 

[Chi Meson]

Words exist because people use them. When a word is no longer needed, it falls into the realm of arcane, and people look askance at you when you use it ("verily" for example). When an unnecessary word is invented it is either ignored or deemed spurious and it soon goes away ("copacetic" comes to mind). This completely precludes any debate over whether or not any particular word is needed.

 

[G01]

Do we really need these words?. I mean, we don't have a santist, versus an asantist to refer to whether or not people believe in Santa Claus for instance. Nor do we have words to refer to whether or not people believe in time travel, telepathy, ghosts, the moon landing etc.

We don't really need a word for the moon, but yet we have one.

People make words for things they consider important enough to talk about. (This is an absurdly obvious statement.)

Either way, the point is that the distinction between theist and atheist is considered an important distinction (by people on both sides). Thus, we have words to describe this distinction. The distinction between santist and asantist is arguably not as culturally important, thus these words are not part of vocabulary of the average English speaker.

 

[Evo]

Why is there satanist, but no asatanist?

 

[Lacy33]

Why is there satanist, but no asatanist?

Would that ever take a lot of talk. I like it.
I think atheist are great. I mean they have to be. It takes a lot to not believe in something that is not there in the first place. I don't think I would hire an atheist to do anything because they might be always thinking about what it is they don't delieve in and what belief is in the first place. And even if there was some god not to believe in it would have to be so far beyond our understanding that in short these atheist must be beyond genius!

 

[JaredJames]

Would that ever take a lot of talk. I like it.
I think atheist are great. I mean they have to be. It takes a lot to not believe in something that is not there in the first place. I don't think I would hire an atheist to do anything because they might be always thinking about what it is they don't delieve in and what belief is in the first place. And even if there was some god not to believe in it would have to be so far beyond our understanding that in short these atheist must be beyond genius!

Was this a joke or should I point out the flaws?

 

[Proton Soup]

I vote we get rid of philtrum. How often does that come up in conversation? As with everything else, the price of dictionaries is rising faster than inflation. Let's get a handle on the problem and start chopping unnecessary words.

with enough alcohol, it doesn't come up at all

 

[Femme_physics]

Even if you consider atheist the default position, it still needs to be defined. Memes determine how useful and common the word would be. If most people were atheists, I reckon then this term would go out of use because non-something does not need to be expressed in the face of minority. It's only when people expect you to be something that you have to express that non-something.

 

[HeLiXe]

I vote we get rid of philtrum. How often does that come up in conversation? As with everything else, the price of dictionaries is rising faster than inflation. Let's get a handle on the problem and start chopping unnecessary words.

That's what Ingsoc is for

Why is there satanist, but no asatanist?

I'm asatanist...or wait is that a satanist or asatanist nevermind...

 

[jhae2.718]

That's what Ingsoc is for

Newspeak.

 

[HeLiXe]

Doubleplusgood!

Edit------
Or did you mean Newspeak as opposed to Ingsoc? The punctuation leads me to wonder...

 

[jhae2.718]

Doubleplusgood!

Edit------
Or did you mean Newspeak as opposed to Ingsoc? The punctuation leads me to wonder...

Sometimes when I'm bored, I like to play with language...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Would that ever take a lot of talk. I like it.
I think atheist are great. I mean they have to be. It takes a lot to not believe in something that is not there in the first place. I don't think I would hire an atheist to do anything because they might be always thinking about what it is they don't delieve in and what belief is in the first place. And even if there was some god not to believe in it would have to be so far beyond our understanding that in short these atheist must be beyond genius!

I sometimes wonder what the point is of referring to oneself as atheist. It seems to be more a matter of concern for theists yet atheists seem to be the ones most concerned with its definition.

 

[ideasrule]

I sometimes wonder what the point is of referring to oneself as atheist. It seems to be more a matter of concern for theists yet atheists seem to be the ones most concerned with its definition.

Doesn't that make sense? If your opponents are concerned with labelling you X, you would be concerned about defining precisely what X means.

 

[JaredJames]

I sometimes wonder what the point is of referring to oneself as atheist.

To describe yourself as not theistic.

It seems to be more a matter of concern for theists yet atheists seem to be the ones most concerned with its definition.

Well in fairness, ensuring the definition is correct is a big thing to me. I don't mind people calling me atheist (it's true), but I can't stand it when people call me it and then describe me as something else by using an incorrect definition.

In that respect, I feel strongly about the definition. (This applies to any word, not just atheist, particularly ones that are assigned to me.)

 

[lompocus]

Oh no... oh no no no no no. Daily, no, by the hour, I've been hearing/reading/watching something, anything, related to the whole "God or no-God" topic/trope/theme/whatever. It's a trap, I tell you! Even something as innocent as this thread is out to get us somehow! The rate of this single topic appearing has been increasing, and the rate of that rate ramping up as well! It's a trap!

/end mindless rave of insanity

 

[HeLiXe]

and the rate of that rate ramping up as well!

What about the rate of the rate of that rate?

 

[Math Is Hard]

Oh no... oh no no no no no. Daily, no, by the hour, I've been hearing/reading/watching something, anything, related to the whole "God or no-God" topic/trope/theme/whatever. It's a trap, I tell you! Even something as innocent as this thread is out to get us somehow! The rate of this single topic appearing has been increasing, and the rate of that rate ramping up as well! It's a trap!

/end mindless rave of insanity

Coupled with the OP's thread on https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=488797", I have a gut feeling this thread is just a masked attempt to spark a debate on religion. We don't do that here.