Update: I have since changed my mind somewhat on this position based on some good points and arguments by others.
This was originally said by Sam Harris and when it comes to down to it I have to agree. We don't use words to describe people that are not scientists, non-drivers, non-Doctors, Non-Teachers, etc. The word Atheist to describe someone that is not a Theist is absurd, and of absolutely no practical use in the 21st-century modern day. I think it's time this word gets removed from the dictionary.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 16%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: words         
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Whether they are a Doctor or not.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: religious individual.Whether    Atheist   Doctor    
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
The word "theist" should be removed but maybe not.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 78%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 75%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: New-speak    words   reason   bit  
  Relevant (Beta): 23%  
  Learn More About Debra
This would be the point I am trying to make, just in the most sarcastic way possible. The infamous dystopian book 1984 depicts a future in which the state controls people's thoughts by limiting language and changing documents to suit their needs on a whim. One way they accomplish this is by removing words that have opposites and then adding the prefix "un" to mean the opposite.
So for example "good / bad" = "good / un-good" or "great /horrible" = "good / un-good"
Another way is through the use of "double-think" which is the holding of two contradictory beliefs as truth. The idea is to make it so that holding a single opinion is not possible.
For example: "We should remove the word atheist" or "we should remove the word theist" = "We should remove the word theist unless but not also atheist"
So there are two arguments here: the first is that Orwellian language is , and having opposite redundant words is not a problem.
The second is that although declining, it would be superior to remove the word "theist" as they are still the global majority. This would however imply either you are normal or atheist, and that has obviously negative repercussions.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
That's all very interesting reading but would you mind explaining what you're in favor of or not of in simple terms and why you are in favor of it or not? @Happy_Killbot
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 56%  
  Learn More About Debra
It's neither, they are their own thing. We might call them a "cultural Christian" or "non-denominational" or make up some other term, but the point is that language is messy, so even though some words may be redundant, it is not a good argument to say we should remove them because of it.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I do think this word will disappear eventually, when religion is no longer something people take seriously. But for now still the vast majority of humans are religious, and it makes sense to have a word to describe the minority having statistically unconventional stance on religion.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: vast majority    religious beliefs   historical reasons   overwhelming majority of humans  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 22%  
  Substantial: 22%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: christian fanatics    slur   Crybaby    
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Now, I can see how it might seem like this is an inaccurate assumption given how the word "Atheist" is tossed around so much by lots of people attaching different meanings to the word to suit themselves. However, the truth is that they are quite literary binary terms by definition; the actual true meaning of the word. Taking into the account of how it is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as well as it's etymological roots. To epitomize this I usually try to get people to think of the word Atheist as "A-Theist." Notice the hyphen? It's Richard Dawkins that takes the credit for the hyphen here which was mentioned in a video titled "Should we call children Atheists?" Note, however, that I am not suggesting this right because of Richard Dawkins saying so; I think this is correct as it agrees with reason, at least with me anyway. It does appear that multiple people (and I used to be one of these people) think of the word "Atheist" as "Athe ist" as opposed to "A-Theist" where the latter exemplifies the true meaning of the word. And the inaccurate assumption on my part was when I used to think of the word "Atheist" as "Athe ist." The A denotes a negation of belief.
Here's another point:
Imagine you never shop and never buy anything at Walmart then you are not a buyer from that shop. On the other hand, regular buyers of that shop are well, regular buyers. Now, if someone asks you do you ever shop at Walmart you can either say "No" or you can say "I'm an A-Walmart shopper." The latter to me just seems silly. Likewise, given the true meaning of the word A-theist, I also think this is a silly way to describe someone that does not believe in God (aka Theos, Greek origin).
Given the true meaning of the word Atheist then they are Atheist by definition yes. Similarly, someone that is not a Buddhist but finds Buddhism a good source of moral knowledge is simply not a Buddhist. Furthermore, anyone that is not a Theist is simply an A-Theist by definition; it's the only logical inference unless you mean something different when you use the word Atheist.Maybe. But I could equally say that it's not a good argument to keep redundant words simply because one likes the sound of them or for some other personal reason.
With all that being said I may still identify as an Athiest myself but according to the true meaning of the word. In other words, I don't believe there is no god; I just don't believe that there is one. @Happy_Killbot
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
To make this less confusing, lets just consider numbers and superposition.
You mean to equate belief there is a god (theism) = 1, belief that there is no god (atheism) = 0.
I would argue that this is not right..
The way I see it, belief in god (theism) = 1, belief that there is no god (atheism) = -1, and agnostic = 0, lacking the knowledge of = null.
There is a subtle semantic difference responsible for this realization. Atheism is not absence of belief, it is believing that there is no god. Agnosticism would be zero belief, because it is nether for nor against, not belief in or not belief in.
Now for the big reveal: we do not have a word that means "unaware of the possible existence of god".
Sometimes people will say "everyone is born an atheist because nobody knows about god at birth" but this is technically correct, but it is also inaccurate.
To demonstrate this, lets consider superposition, a term I am stealing from quantum. The TL;DR is that a particle before it is measured has an unknown quantum state, that is not one state but all possible states, until observed. Reality is weird. Anyways, the same is true with god beliefs.
So let me make up a god, Cupkateur, goddess of cupcakes, Who is responsible for making all cupcakes delicious, and curses those who do not like them.
Now the critical question: Before you knew about the potential existence of Cupkateur, did you lack a belief in her? Certainly now you do, (probably) but until you know that there is something for you to lack a belief in, you can neither have a belief in it or not have a belief in it. In other words, your state of belief in Cupkateur is undefined, or in superposition until knowledge of her sacred goodness is revealed to you, at which point you will snap into one of 2 positions, theist or atheist.
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 58%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yet we do so for non drinkers .....teetotalers, people against violence ....... pacisfists , people against meat eating .....Vegatarians , non Capiitalists etc , etc , these are non drinkers , non violence , non meat eating as you know
I disagree with Harris the term cuts away all awkwardness as in “ do you believe in god “ reply “ no “ ok so what are you Buddhist “ etc , etc . Also where I come from in the past to admit being an atheist resulted in discrimination , victimisation and getting shunned by the sheeple now people like Harris want to do away with the phrase , I totally disagree it’s a hard won descriptive term that says it all in one word
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 78%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: term cuts    descriptive term   Non-Teachers   people  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: term cuts    descriptive term   stringent way   Non-Teachers  
  Relevant (Beta): 56%  
  Learn More About Debra
Whether they are a Doctor or not.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: religious individual.Whether    Atheist   Doctor    
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.14  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
even the phrase "or lacks belief" can be interpreted in two ways, however it would be redundant from the first part, "a person who disbelieves" so we can assume that it has a unique meaning.
If anything, I think the compromise we could agree on is that the definition should be changed to remove the "or lacks belief" and then it becomes less ambiguous, having only a positive meaning, that meaning being someone who believes there is no god, gods, or other mythical beings.
The definition should be "A person who disbelieves in the existence of god or gods"
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: atheist    agnostic      
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Happy_Killbot I am agnostic in terms of Deism. I'm an Atheist in terms of Theism.
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: atheist    agnostic   terms of Deism   terms of Theism  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
If people did not fight over differences in religions, they would find other reasons to fight (and they have; most of the wars of the 20th century had little to do with religion, for example).
I do not think using labels to define groups in itself leads to any negative consequences. It is what meaning people give to those labels that counts. If, say, people see words "Arab" and "Jew" as nothing more than a difference in historical origin, then everything is fine. It is when they start seeing "Arab" and "Jew" as fundamentally different creatures, collectively responsible for some systematic misdoings, that problems arise.
I used to see labels denoting groups as fundamentally problematic and seek a society in which, for example, words "man" and "woman" are not really used. Nowadays I think instead that people are too afraid of labels: they should be used openly and with no shame, one of the reasons being that this is the best way to render them powerless.
Nothing wrong with saying "I am a Muslim" or "I am an Atheist". It is saying "I am a Muslim and all non-Muslims are heretics", or "I am an Atheist and all non-Atheists are gullible sheep", that is problematic.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
The basic issue of atheist is it is an accusation that is then admitted to or denied.
Example: From an understanding given, explaining in a way every person can give proof of GOD yet most will still after learning refuse the burden of witness try to avoid tis responsibility as a choice. Many religions believe a person should not hold that ability to give proof of GOD exists. When giving proof literal or not, a difference is made which describes many religion as an independent principle. One that in truth not GOD and is a religion held in the beliefs of faith.
Who is the Atheist? When fact is introduced which details a improbability of a human birth being a possibility from a contact or relation, offspring such as son or daughter to GOD is not possible so no birthright exists for this child, are they who hold and teach this principle as possible then atheists? Is it the person who does not share the democratic ideology of GOD being capable of birth rights which are inherited from a father who are the Atheist?
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: proof of GOD    human birth   democratic ideology of GOD   person  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
And the wars fought with "little to do with religion" were, at least justified to the actors BY their "god". As Hitler said: " I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." Or, "Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless columns, and for the last time the Lord's Grace shined on his ungrateful children."
And on the other sides similar sentiments justified the wars. Today those feelings are even more intense. I agree, if a very large majority had similar thoughts to you, we would be better off. Sadly, I think there are still far too many "gullible sheep", with to many feeling that " …. my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator" … (whichever one that is) and that they are "collectively responsible for some systematic misdoings". I still say that "beliefs" in religion, if not the cause, FANNED, or gave the justification, for the wars of the 20th century.
Someday we (if we survive), will drop those "labels" …. Jews, Muslims, Christians, white, black, red etc., and then we could drop borders, religions, races etc. and become just "inhabitants of this world" with ONE governing body (without which there would STILL be chaos), the time of "Captain Kirk", you might say.
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 53%  
  Learn More About Debra
The definition of the word label is, "a classifying phrase or name applied to a person or thing, especially one that is inaccurate or restrictive." according to google. atheist is a phrase or name applied to a person or thing.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: above post    things      
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Apologies I hit the wrong key , your post was excellent and your honesty is totally refreshing and unique when it comes to such sites where people rarely admit they may have been in error . keep up the good work
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 55%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: wrong key    good work   Apologies   such sites  
  Relevant (Beta): 71%  
  Learn More About Debra
I do not quite agree that removing all labels and mashing all people into a grey mass is the way to deal with these issues. Labels help us make out various traits in people, and a large combination of those traits forms the individual. Without traits, there are no individuals, and such world is bleak indeed.
I have been quite shamelessly openly using the label "Asian" to characterise my romantic preference. Suppose we drop the label "Asian"; how should I now talk about my preferences? "People from Asia?" Same thing, but said in a longer way. "People with narrow eyes?" Not specific enough, plus sounds a bit prejudiced. "People who I prefer romantically?" Tautology. "People who like like this lady?" Too ambiguous and subjective.
Labels are fine, and they serve an important function. It is when people attach extra meanings to labels that are not inherent to them that problems arise. "He is a Muslim" is fine; "He is a Muslim, and Muslims are evil" is not.
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 67%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.9  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra
I hear you, and I do not call myself an atheist often; I usually just say that I do not take religion seriously, as it is far more specific and does not group me with other people many of whom I strongly disagree with.
At the same time, we should not be afraid of labels. Labels only have any power over us when we let them have it. The presence of people who respond in a very negative way to some neutral labels should not discourage one from using those labels, and it is by using those labels in a neutral manner that we break the cycle of their systematic misuse.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: presence of people    neutral labels   negative way   labels  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@AlofRI The negative connotations for this was my motivation for this post in the first place. Often times when someone comes out as an Atheist they are viewed as some hateful Anti-Theist, and that just isn't the case. However, due to the current lacking in critical thinking on an epistemic level I opt to state exactly what I mean by Atheism or if that doesn't work then I say that I am not a Theist who also doesn't have a problem with Theism so long as this isn't causing harm to oneself or others.
  Considerate: 52%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.54  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 59%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: practical use    word Atheist   following terms   Non-Teachers  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra