"Atheism". Examining The Relationship Between Semantics, Ideology, And Ego

[First Draft] 
Today, in an anti-Bible social media group,

someone posted this meme:

In reply, a religious person (in this case, someone in a faction of Judaism) objected to the meme's use of the term "atheist". 

However, their underlying objection wasn't really about semantics. 

As a member of a fundamentally "fundamentalist" religion, 
they prefer to use words as 'polemics' against hated cultural, ideological, and personal enemies. 

 This helps them regulate their own "us vs them" identity politics. 

For that, they need a label for each-and-every people-group they call "the enemy".

Their culture has already locked onto using "atheist" as the black-and-white identifier for one of their most hated people-groups.
 
To legitimize that particular use of the term "atheist",
they obligate themselves (and attempt to obligate everyone else) to define that word as an expression of "willful rejection of (any and all possible God(s)";
which, of course, no literal baby can be "guilty" of. 

They obviously wouldn't want anyone using words in such a way where babies are "the enemy".

Thus, they need to make sure to never define "atheist" in a way which includes babies.

Meanwhile, there are still parts of the world where some intelligent adults have still never heard the word "god"; nor any of the varied descriptions used to define it.

Meanwhile,
various colonizing religions prefer to think of those people as "naively innocent" and thus not "enemies" in an active-sense.

As such, they prefer not to call those people "atheists". 

However, those people ARE "atheists". 
Because that term really just means "are not theists".

For anyone new to the English language, I'll explain.

In the word "atheist", the "root word" is "theist".
The "prefix" is "a".

In the English language,
the prefix "a" means "is not" or "is without".

Thus, it refers to any person who is "without" (or "absent of") any theology. 

This would include both:
a.) people who have heard of theologies but have not been convinced that any are true 
and 
b.) people whom have not heard any theologies.

Both sets of people are "without (a) theology".

Just as importantly, 
theistically-fundamentalist minds
 do not feel comfortable with looking at "theism" as something that spreads like a virus.

They prefer to think of "theism" as something that a Super-Entity "intelligently designed" all morally-minimally-adequate humans to intuitively feel ("he") exists, reason ("he") exists, and are glad ("he") exists. 

All of that helps them feel better about themselves; as morally superior to everyone who disagrees.

The greater the disagreement, the greater their own moral-superiority "must surely be". 

Moving forward from there, ... 
The philosophical community usually defines "atheism" as a claim that no deities exist.
However, that's only because they're only interested in talking about "positive claims".
It's not worth discussing a claim someone (either real or hypothetical) isn't making.

However, "on the streets" [the common person]
defines it as "not perceiving the existence of any literal entities which fit common descriptions for the word "god".

To avoid being misunderstood, some non-theists will use an expression like "non-theist", "not a theist", or "lacktheist".

However, most non-theists just use the term "atheist", because:

a.) That is a valid definition for "atheism".

b.) It's the word most most people use,
as a way to say "doesn't perceive that any literal deities exist" ["as defined by description"; so far as they're aware]

c.) In that moment, the self-identified atheist isn't really talking about "agnosticism". Gnostic vs agnostic refer to "knowledge".
It doesn't refer to "faith"; which is built upon feelings like hope. 
It only refers to what we "know".

 Although, I'd re-word that graph.
Instead of saying "is not possible to be 100% certain", I'd say "is not possible to objectively justify 100% certainty".

Why would I make that change to that graph?
 Because members of violent cults are often "100% certain". 

 We need to stop treating CERTAINTY as evidence for either objectively or accuracy. 

In reality, literally everyone in the world is "agnostic" about all possible Entities possessing any "omni"-properties; even if they don't realize it.
The reason I say that is because:
 Am omni-property being cannot demonstrate omni-properties to a non-omni being. 
 Thus, no such Being could prove they have those properties.

 As for literally-existing sentient BEINGS with Super-Powers ... who are finite beings?

  That's theoretically possible to exist AND theoretically possible to demonstrate.

Personally, I am NEUTRAL about whether or not any Super-People with unfathomable Super-Powers exist. 

I am also neutral about whether or not they DO things here in our world. 

Thus, I do not say "no such being exist".

Instead, I say "if some powerful and invisible beings exist,  
and if they DO things in our world to help randomly-chosen people, ...
then HINDUS, Muslims, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Wiccans, Native American Spiritualists, etc... are often "telling the truth".

But that would mean:
The Super-Beings do not give a crap about theologies.
  
Notice:
I'd call them "Super Beings". 

I wouldn't call them "god(s)".

The only available reason for calling any Entity "God" is:
Emotional reasons.

It is an emotional expression. 
By nature, those are entirely subjective propositions. 

All of this makes "agnostic" a term which is not usually considered useful for distinguishing theists from non-theists.

However, I personally DO claim to be a "Gnostic atheist".

I claim to KNOW that no literal gods exist.

I base that on merely this:
 Nothing worthy of that title 
could possibly exist.

This world's rampant and extreme, 
non-voluntary,
and mostly NOT self-caused TRAGEDIES 
are objective proof that no Super-Entities worth of the TITLE "God" could possibly exist.

If some Super-Entities exist (even if they created our entire universe), they aren't "God(s") to anyone with enough self-respect and COMPASSION (for others) to have a reasonable minimal standard for what counts as worthy to be granted such a title. 



It's also a self-canceling proposition, because the word itself invokes such an extreme social inequality (between humans and proposed Entities)
that:
No Super-Being who is psychosocially mature and healthy enough to MERIT that title ... would welcome it. 

This is the same point as saying "no Being worth of worship (by the religious definition of "worship")... would desire to be worshipped".

Instead,
a healthy mind 
would prefer as close to equal as they can get with us.
Thus, they-and-we would have no use for such a word as "God". 

 "Super-Father" could work for a healthy dynamic.
"God" would not. 

Thus, the very word "god" or "God" itself is a grievous ACCUSATION that our [theoretical] "creator" has an extremely dangerous social psychology. 

In other words, calling anyone "God" is a gross and ironic insult against them. 

Additionally, one of the definitions (perhaps the most common definition) for "agnostic" is "the position that nothing (at all) about a god can be known by any human".

[link] 

Most self-identified "atheists" suppose it might be possible to "know".
Therefor, they avoid calling themselves "agnostic".

d.) There is already a different word which means "claims that no gods exist". That word is "antitheist".
[Although,
I don't like this word because it can easily be misunderstood to mean "against people who are theist(s)"] 
----
The point of the meme:
It's not trying to argue a best definition for "atheism".
Instead, the point is this:

Various versions of "theism" only exist in our world because those ideas spread as "social contagions"; from person to person.

They are:
complex viral memetics.

They spread and behave like literal viruses.

Babies are immune; because their minds are literally incapable of generating the ideas specific to any theology

Very young children are only partially immune; because their minds CAN be caused to receive, process, and generate simplistic theological notions;

such as having an imaginary friend (or extra parent) who "plays favorites".

There is a range of cognitive and emotional maturation where those complex viral memetics can more comprehensively infect and manifest within a human mind.
 
Below that range,
[such as in very young children; and also adults with severely low IQs]
limited brain morphology and neurophysiology = less potential "unpacking" and "manifesting" (of "theologies" and "theodicies").

Above that range,
there are fewer and less-dramatic mental vulnerabilities for such a mind-virus to exploit as "points of entrance".
Thus,
there is less opportunity to overtake and rewrite a human's cognition.
Granted, there are many cases were genius-level IQ adults have become very deeply "theist".

However, that's due to an ironic convergence of:
a.) exposure to such a mind-virus,
b.) pattern seeking, c.) pattern creating, 
and
d.) desperate emotional needs.

That culminates in seeing things which the mind is all-too-adept at creating.
At the same times, they aren't self-aware enough to realize that's what has happening to them.

If we look back far enough,
we see that some very very ancient ancestors gradually moved from a spooky and foggy sense of "agency" for mysterious events,
... to eventually making up stories which more specifically ascribed literal personhood.

With that transition of paradigm,
they made-up biographies for those imagined entities.
That included descriptions of the super-powers and emotions which were causing mysterious events (such as lightning, volcanic eruptions, failed crops, untimely deaths, illness, etc.).

This is why polytheist developed long before monotheism developed. 
They were "social animals".
Their entire lived experience was set within the context of their relationships within social groups. 
  
Thus, they imagined "gods" as such. 

They were a deeply ignorant, uncritical, and superstitious species of great apes.
They felt finally relieved and "clarified" about life's many mysteries.

Now, they had "explanations" which could help them sometimes avoid those events (by flattering the invisible super-people). Even when those efforts failed, they could at least "make sense" of things they couldn't control.

It wasn't objectively real.
But it was useful. And it held great emotional appeal.

Those far-distant ancestors had no sense of how destructive those ideas would become for humans in their far-distant future.
Nor would they have cared, regardless.
But here WE are.
And here we are dealing with those consequences.
Thus, here and now, we are forced to care.

Thus, groups like that one,
memes like that one,
and discussions like these ...
are all part of an evolving effort to console each other, and to wake others up;
to help reduce the frequency and severity of tragedies in our word.

Religions divide us;
helping predators in "governing systems" conquer and exploit us.
--
Either together, we rise.
Else, divided we fall.