I do love a good neologism.
With woo woo some dictionaries have caught up, with woo, I didn’t find any. Using a duckduckgo search engine, wordnik was the first dictionary that popped up:
woo woo
n. A person readily accepting supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations.
n. Those beliefs.
n. An alcoholic cocktail consisting of peach schnapps, vodka and cranberry juice.
Dictionaries are a good starting place, but as Samuel Johnson used them, they are a guide, shouldn’t be considered as absolute, in which he stated the worst is better than none, and the best cannot be expected to be quite true. I’m personally surprised in this internet age that most dictionaries still don’t have a woo entry the way many are using it on the internet, and of the twenty or so I looked at, only a handful even have a woo woo entry the way SD and other places often use it in Wordnik’s first entry. Seems like Randi might have invented the term “woo woo”, but if not, he sure helped popularize it.
Randi is up in years now, he says when he is gone, he doesn’t want any of his fans to bother with building a museum of magic in his name or having a fancy tomb. He says he wants to be cremated, and to have his ashes blown in Uri Geller’s eyes. 
Don’t forger “woo woo” is only a label nothing more.
Webster once said: “Thoughts fly with the eagles, while words can only plod along in pursuit.”
Feelings can not be translated into words, they are a poor system of symbols.
He did? When?
Well, he didn’t put it in words, its how he felt.
What lekatt fails to recognize, that while it is indeed difficult to put some feelings into words - its much easier to convey those feelings if you use words that make sense and follow the generally accepted definitions.
Saying one is an ‘atheist’ but still believes in a god-like being - is total nonsense.
That quote not only doesn’t seem to come from Daniel Webster, lekatt-it doesn’t even seem to exist outside of your post. Where did it come from?
Perhaps he was referring to Webster the TV series.
Believe it or not, I actually checked that out!
All the words come from Webster, just not in that order.
I’m inclined to say that all Humans need some sort of faith. Whether it be faith in a deity, faith that our spouse will not commit adultery, or faith that science will provide us with the right answers.
Imagine a world where no-one had faith. We would not have trust. Without trust, we have excessive caution. With excessive caution, we have hermit-crab tendencies… we’re naturally a social species.
So in a way, even if you do not believe in a God, faith, is forever ingrained into your life.
Just my 2-cents anyways.
Did you read any of the other pages? I thought this was covered quite extensively. I think we are concerned with the kind of faith that is of a belief that doesn’t rest on any material evidence or logical proofs. When one has a overwhelming amount of evidence going against a particular belief, but choosing to believe in it anyway, you could truly say you had faith. If you have faith that your spouse is not committing adultery, when in fact there is overwhelming amount of evidence that he/she is, how is this the kind of faith one needs? Would you rather not know?
I suppose some people have this kind of faith in science. They are foolish. Those who actually understand science realize that it has given us answers which explain reality over the past few hundred years, but that all of these answers are provisional.
Plus science at times does not provide answers - like telling us both the location and velocity of a subatomic particle.
Provisional acceptance, with higher levels of confidence as you see more data, is not faith in any sense.
Then stop doing it.
We agree again. I am an atheologist not an atheist. Is that a neologism?
There is no such thing as an ‘atheologist’ - I am atheist (I do not believe gods exist) - but I absolutely believe ‘theology’ (The study of gods/religion, etc) exists - I just think its all bunk.
So - you are an ‘anti-theoligist’ - but its still a 'made up word.
It sounds like you are is a ‘Deist’ - believes in ‘God’ but rejects all of ‘revealed’ religion.
Atheologist is evidently a neologism in your lexicon as would be atheologism.
I’m more a Taoist than a Deist.
Aloha
“neologism”
A newly invented word or phrase
The act of inventing a word or phrase
means nothing if the new word /phrase is not accepted - makes people sound like ‘self important’ asses when they continue to spout things that ‘sound impressive’ but have already accepted words/meanings/phrases to describe it.
Not that “atheologist” sounds impressive - it actually sounds quite idiotic.
jsutter - do you agree that religion and the study thereof exists? do you believe that the study of ‘gods’ exist? then you are not an ‘atheoligist’ -
from my earlier post:
I see what you mean.
People study god and religion endlessly are called theologians.
I think their efforts are at best useless and at their worst, destructive.
Perhaps “atheologian” to describe me suits you better.
Aloha
Doesnt matter if it suits me - why ‘create’ a word when there are already words available that describe what you mean - Deist as an example - secondly - the word you are trying to create ‘atheoligans’ breaks the ‘rules’ that are already established for adding ‘a’ to the beginning of a word example -
"theist’ believes in god/gods
“atheist” does not.
Since you clearly believe in ‘theoligans’ - but dislike what they teach/believe/whatever - you are not ‘atheoligan’ (does not believe in its existance) you are “anti-theoligin” - opposed to their belief system or believe exactly the opposite (matter/antimatter).
In essence - you can describe exactly what you believe without having to try and ‘craft’ words that end up creating more questions than answers - and even worse, don’t describe accurately what you have described.
just because “atheism” has been conflated does not mean you need to further conflate words ‘just because’.