Posted: Jun 6, 08 1:12pm
If I do not believe in the existence of unicorns, am I an "aunicornist?"
If I do not believe in the existence of a minotaur, am I an "aminotaurist?"
If I do not believe in the existence of flogiston, am I an "aflogistonist?"
No. These are meaningless words invented as oppositions for erroneous, mythological or nonexistent entities steeped in the depths of time.
If I do not believe in the existence of theos, am I an "athiest?"
Yes? No? Why would this word be different from other meaningless words invented as oppositions for erroneous, mythological or nonexistent entities steeped in the depths of time?
It seems to me that in having a word for the opposition to, or lack of belief in, something is a form negative affirmation. If the existence of something is antithetical to ones belief system, clearly it is helpful to have a word that expresses "I don't belong there" or "I don't believe." But is it useful for such a word be such that it negatively confirms that which is inconsistent with ones beliefs? I think not.
The word "agnostic" is alright because it means, basically, "I don't know what to believe." Fine, such people are still working it out. They are seekers of evidence or persuasion that moves them to belief. In some cases, perhaps they do know what to believe but cannot bring themselves to confess or admit it. For social or other reasons, "agnostic" is a safer concept to espouse than to say, "I believe" or "I don't believe" in something.
But the word "atheist" is useless. It means, "opposed to theos, or god." It is a way one can identify a lack of belief in "theism." However, given the dichotomous nature of things, as the concept "white" conjures the concept of "Black," "atheism" conjures, and implicitly supports, the concept "theism." It's an arbitrary word invented to express opposition to erroneous, mythological or nonexistent entities. If theist belief systems with all their many labels are unsupportable by evidence, is there a need for an atheist belief system label? Probably. But is "atheist" the most accurate word to use for it? I don't think so. What other words could we use? Well, why not "science?" or "empiricism?" Proponents can be "scientists" or "empiricists" and opponents can be "ascientists" or "aempiricistis."
In my humble opinion, wherever seen or used, the words "atheism" and "atheist" ought to be replaced with the words "science" or "empiricism" and "scientist" or "empiricist." Let those who oppose science and empiricist thought and processes affirm them through whatever erroneous, mythological or nonexistent language steeped in time that they like.
I suggest that those who call themselves atheists, perhaps beginning with Richard Dawkins, might consider purging that particular label from themselves and their vocabulary and just stick to "scientist" and "empiricist." Affirm what they are, not what they're not.
As for me, I'm an Empiricist, by which I mean I prefer the application of the scientific method, rather than myth and theory, to determine the validity and reliability of things.
