Atheism, part 3: Definitions

[Curious George]

No assumption, and no rough translation. A = without, theos = gods



Yes and. That was the definition according to the OED, not a breakdown . And it does follow.

The fact the word a-theos was a word tells me it was used, if you can show otherwise please feel free.

FYI, i am atheist, i lack belief i meaning i have no gods, i.e. i am without gods. I don't see why this concept is so difficult for you

I am not sure what you are going on about here. I have said nothing about a lack of understanding your “lack of belief.”

Please show how the word was originally used rather than simply making a claim that doesn't actually make sense

Perhaps this will do?

Atheism | Oxford Classical Dictionary

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I haven’t accused you of anything. But my statement needn’t be withdrawn. To suggest something other than that the original Greek word meant something different than the current definition of atheist is dishonest.
Do you think that is an unfair statement? Why?

I agree that it might maybe be best, if you ask me, to withdraw the statement about dishonesty. I just don't see why one can't make their point without accusing others of things, especially in the non-debate forum this thread is in.

 

[Curious George]

I agree that it might maybe be best, if you ask me, to withdraw the statement about dishonesty. I just don't see why one can't make their point without accusing others of things, especially in the non-debate forum this thread is in.

Oh sh… didn’t even see that this wasn’t a debate section. For that I apologize. I will delete my posts. As for withdrawing the statement? Nah. I haven’t accused anyone of dishonesty. I have merely stated to say something untruthful is dishonest.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don’t think you are following.

I followed her posts.
You should too.

 

[Curious George]

I followed her posts.
You should too.

Lol, holding a book doesn’t mean you can read.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lol, holding a book doesn’t mean you can read.

Reading a book doesn't mean you understand.

 

[Curious George]

Reading a book doesn't mean you understand.

Sure that metaphor works as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure that metaphor works as well.

Metaphor?

 

[Curious George]

Metaphor?

A metaphor is a literary device that is symbolic of another thing similar to an analogy but with no “like” or “as.”

 

[PureX]

"Existence as we know it". That's a key idea. Cosmologists would say that we know almost nothing about how the cosmos works. That lack of understanding does NOT prove the existence of anything supernatural.

You are ignoring the problem of 'pre-existence', which even the cosmologists have to face. And that, by definition, would be some kind of supra-natural state. So we have no logical or honest reason to be presuming that "nature" is all there is, as you seem to be implying.

 

[PureX]

I don’t think this addresses the actual definition when the word originated.

Every time we run to the dictionary to try and justify our interpretation of a word, all we get from it is the common use or misuse. We do not get a reasoned argument for the way we choose to use words, often because there is none. So using the dictionary to stand as the 'reasoned argument' for our chosen use of a word is pointless. As there are thousands of words in every dictionary that are being very unreasonably and illogically used, all the time.

If atheists want to define atheism as a "lack of belief", they should be able to explain logically and reasonably WHY we should accept their definition over any other. And especially in the context of debate. I have explained several times why I think that definition is not a reasonable nor logical, and I have offered a better, more succunct one, with a logical explanation of why I think it's better.

But as you can see, no one else can explain reasonably or logically why their content-less definition is better, or why mine is wrong. All they can do is point to the dictionary and keep repeating their mantra. And because they keep repeating this nonsensical definition over and over, the dictionaries keep recording their misuse of the word. Because that's what dictionaries do. Dictionaries do not validate the logic of our word usage. So they cannot be accepted as validation for this or any other particular word usage. If we want to validate the logic of a word's definition, we have to do it for ourselves.

I have done so. No one else here, has. Not even those atheists that are constantly claiming they are all about logic and reason.

 

[PureX]

Agnostic atheists make plenty of counter-claims in debates, but those are not normally "there is no God." Instead, they're claims like "evolution is more likely to be true than creationism" or "that prophecy was written after the event it prophesied."

But a debate on evolution vs creationism has nothing to do with a debate on theism vs atheism. Theism is not religion, and religion is not theism. Atheism is not science and science is not atheism. A debate on religion and science is not a debate on theism and atheism.

And the only claims an agnostic can make in regards to a debate on theism vs atheism is that we do not/can not know if God exists or not, because we do not have that ability/capacity.

So your complaint that they can't debate because they won't take a stand on anything is a non sequitur.

Taking a stand against religion is irrelevant in a debate on theism vs atheism. I see it happen constantly, because the atheist cannot logically dismiss theism, nor can he logically defend atheism, so he immediately tries to turn the debate into a debate about religion, where he can attack the mythology for being mythological, and the 'believer' for believing it's factual.

But I'm not religious, and I already understand what mythology is, and is for. So I'm here to discuss theism vs atheism, not religious superstition vs science. But in that arena, they've got nothing they can offer that they can defend.

It's a totally false claim you've fabricated to build up a strawman.[/QUITE]The 'straw man' is substituting religious superstition for theism so the atheist has something to 'beat up' on. Because in the theism vs atheism debate, the atheist's blind negation goes nowhere.

This is special pleading. If you can know what evidence to look for when it comes to leprechauns, then you know what evidence to look for when it comes to gods.

Please explain how you figure that. And please do so without just stupidly assuming that God is defined by some particular religious myth.

Both of them are supernatural beings that we derive our information about through mythology and folklore; we have the same sort of data on both entities.

Yup, there it is. You can't even discuss this without the straw man of religious mythology to give you something to beat up on and dismiss, can you.

We're done here until you can understand that myths 'exist'. That the characters in the myths also 'exist'. They are 'real' mythical characters that represent real concepts and experiences that we humans have of existing. This requires that your consciousness rise above the delusion that physicality is reality, and that you can use it to determine what is real and what isn't. Because neither of those presumptions is true,

 

[Revoltingest]

A metaphor is a literary device that is symbolic of another thing similar to an analogy but with no “like” or “as.”

I know what one is.
But I was surprised that you mis-used the term.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Taking a stand against religion is irrelevant in a debate on theism vs atheism. I see it happen constantly, because the atheist cannot logically dismiss theism, nor can he logically defend atheism, so he immediately tries to turn the debate into a debate about religion, where he can attack the mythology for being mythological, and the 'believer' for believing it's factual.

It kind of just sounds to me like you're misunderstanding the process of Debate, and interpreting it as "there should be two polar opposite positive sides", rather than how Debate actually works, which is "There is a positive and a negative side." Even the Burden of Proof is complicated, but if one knows Debate rules well enough, they can evade it if they want to, and they don't have to be an atheist to dance around it.

It just sounds to me like the atheists here know the rules of Debate so well, they get criticism over it. And some people, rather than upping their game when it comes to how to debate with formal Debate rules, want atheists to hold back their abilities in order to "meet them at their level".

 

[PureX]

It kind of just sounds to me like you're misunderstanding the process of Debate, and interpreting it as "there should be two polar opposite positive sides", rather than how Debate actually works, which is "There is a positive and a negative side." Even the Burden of Proof is complicated, but if one knows Debate rules well enough, they can evade it if they want to, and they don't have to be an atheist to dance around it.

It just sounds to me like the atheists here know the rules of Debate so well, they get criticism over it. And some people, rather than upping their game when it comes to how to debate with formal Debate rules, want atheists to hold back their abilities in order to "meet them at their level".

When they can't win a debate about theism, they switch it to religion where they can attack human superstition as if that were theism. What's to misunderstand? It happens in nearly every "debate" here on RF.

When did substituting a 'straw' debate for the real one because you can't beat up the real one become a legitimate debate tactic?

 

[Ella S.]

But a debate on evolution vs creationism has nothing to do with a debate on theism vs atheism. Theism is not religion, and religion is not theism. Atheism is not science and science is not atheism. A debate on religion and science is not a debate on theism and atheism.

And the only claims an agnostic can make in regards to a debate on theism vs atheism is that we do not/can not know if God exists or not, because we do not have that ability/capacity.
Taking a stand against religion is irrelevant in a debate on theism vs atheism. I see it happen constantly, because the atheist cannot logically dismiss theism, nor can he logically defend atheism, so he immediately tries to turn the debate into a debate about religion, where he can attack the mythology for being mythological, and the 'believer' for believing it's factual.

But I'm not religious, and I already understand what mythology is, and is for. So I'm here to discuss theism vs atheism, not religious superstition vs science. But in that arena, they've got nothing they can offer that they can defend.

The only arguments in favor of theism are superstition and pseudo-science, so debunking that is incredibly pertinent to the theism vs atheism debate. The theists come in with evidence for their God and then it's demonstrated to them that their evidence is more likely to be natural, not theistic.

There's only a perceived issue here because you want to reinterpret agnostic atheists as being gnostic atheists, but that's not the point of those debates.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm reminded of a friend who hates the fact that
language, ie, definitions, change. It's done by
nefarious political forces. Language should not
change without formal notice & good reason!
(Evolution is evil, be it biological or etymological.)
So he uses only dictionaries from around 1900.
(Apparently that's the gold standard for English.)
And from them, he selects which inference he
likes, insisting that all others are wrong!
It's very hard to understand & converse with him.

 

[Curious George]

I know what one is.
But I was surprised that you mis-used the term.

I would love to explain how one or both of these statements are incorrect, but this is not a debate thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would love to explain how one or both of these statements are incorrect, but...

...you can't.

 

[icehorse]

You are ignoring the problem of 'pre-existence', which even the cosmologists have to face. And that, by definition, would be some kind of supra-natural state. So we have no logical or honest reason to be presuming that "nature" is all there is, as you seem to be implying.

Fwiw, I'm not ignoring the thorny issue of how time works. Your assumption appears to imply a certain assumption that time moves in one direction. Maybe it does, but we don't even know that for sure.