paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Please give names of persons who coined words as suggested in Post #45, no compulsion whatsoever.The inability to do it is the evidence for one. Please
Regards
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists: If there's no God, then where did the word "God" come from?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
It is a term not a word. It is for this that OP mentioned:
P.S.
atom (n.)
late 15c., as a hypothetical indivisible body, the building block of the universe, from Latin atomus (especially in Lucretius) "indivisible particle," from Greekatomos "uncut, unhewn; indivisible," from a- "not" + tomos "a cutting," from temnein "to cut" (see tome). An ancient term of philosophical speculation (in Leucippus, Democritus), revived 1805 by British chemist John Dalton. In late classical and medieval use also a unit of time, 22,560 to the hour. Atom bomb is from 1945 as both a noun and a verb; compare atomic.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atom
Science has borrowed it lately from language as it has no language of its own.
atom (n.)
late 15c., as a hypothetical indivisible body, the building block of the universe, from Latin atomus (especially in Lucretius) "indivisible particle," from Greekatomos "uncut, unhewn; indivisible," from a- "not" + tomos "a cutting," from temnein "to cut" (see tome). An ancient term of philosophical speculation (in Leucippus, Democritus), revived 1805 by British chemist John Dalton. In late classical and medieval use also a unit of time, 22,560 to the hour. Atom bomb is from 1945 as both a noun and a verb; compare atomic.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atom
Science has borrowed it lately from language as it has no language of its own.
Try, try again, no harm in it and no compulsion whatsoever. Please
Regards
so, by your logic, you're admitting that you have NO EVIDENCE that humans cannot create words...except, wait, you just admitted that SOMETIMES humans CAN CREATE words...
As for the names of people who created words? James Joyce created the word "Quark." Lewis Carroll created LOTS of new words. So did Dr. Seuss. And I created one for you in my earlier post. Others have provided other examples. That most words do not have a single recognized creator is reasonable, considering that words have only been recently written down, and the other reasons that have been laid out for you regarding linguistics and the evolution of language.
And, your preferred kind of evidence is nonsense, since YOU can't even prove by the same method your own assertions that humans cannot create words for concepts that do not in fact exist: aside from the fictional animals, the geometric and arithmetic concepts do not exist, yet engineering, science, medicine, etc., depend on them.
And no one has called you yet on your assertion that humans can't create atoms: yes, yes we have, many, many times--by fusing two or more other atoms together, or by splitting large ones apart. We've even created anti-hydrogen atoms by creating anti-protons and anti-electrons. So, no compulsion whatever, how about YOU PROVE YOUR ASSERTIONS in the way you are demanding others prove theirs.
So I say once more: PROVE THAT HUMANS CANNOT CREATE ATOMS OR WORDS.
cambridge79
Active Member
I dont get it, is the opening post trying to suggest that since I can invent a word like "dragon" to describe a creature that looks like a lizard with wings and that spits fire than such creature really exists?
Is he even serious when he comes up with this kind of arguments?
Is he even serious when he comes up with this kind of arguments?
HekaMa'atRa
Member
I'm going to go with the ancient civilizations. Egyptians called God "Netjer" and I believe the Sumerian's used the word "Dingir". I'm not aware of what the Hindu word for God is..
cambridge79
Active Member
Ain't that lovely that in his effort to corner atheists he always uses arguments that most of the times backfire or are perfectly working for all other religions but than he dismisses those other religions in the same way an atheist would do cause he cares only about his own one?
I mean, by his own logic Egyptians couldn't possibly have pulled the Anubi's name out of their asses, therefore by his own logic Anubi actually exists.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Why on earth would the cosmos need a god ?, the cosmos does what it does by itself..........no fancy god needed lol.
Neither of those extremes are correct, actually.
When lecturing, course materials are used to support an agreed curriculum. There is, of course, a different method or emphasis given by each lecturer, but the basic course materials and theories are agreed.
These are not 'facts' in any true sense, but are instead interpretations based on peer-reviewed studies for the most part, although that depends largely on the topic being taught.
'Fact' in the sense that you seem to be using it is basically a word without sense. Anyone claiming to have the 'facts' on any complex set of concepts deserves to be questioned, since that is almost invariably NOT true.
I would ask you to read and consider what I'm saying on this, rather than jumping to a conclusion.
The way you tightly define what you would consider proof, and at the same time ignore that this is simply not how language develops (which is a much more organic process than you are crediting it with) makes me wonder if you have your own doubts, and are trying to set up a means to convince yourself you already hold the truth.
You may take that as an insult, I'm not sure, but it's certainly not meant as one. But either you are refusing to think this through, or you're trying to convince yourself, and I'm honestly not sure which at this point.
Consider the following, all of which I would consider 'facts' - as would anyone who has studied language;
1) Words both change meaning, and are 'invented' constantly. Language moves. Constantly. It is, simply put, organic.
2) In terms of a word changing meaning, consider 'nice' which once meant 'silly or foolish' but now means pleasant.
3) In terms of words being invented, consider 'eliminationism', which was not a previously listed word (it relates to fairly extreme political practices)
How exactly does your theory of language fit with these simple facts? People invent words, and people change the meaning of words all the time. Heck, even a cursory glance at the word 'atheist' will tell you that, and you can literally see various parties trying to move or hold the definition on the web on a daily basis.
If you like, you can obviously ignore my points here, and simply state that I am refusing your 'test' as raised in point #45. But I hope that you at least look at the example I've written above and consider it, and consider you own assumptions as well.
@paarsurrey
In case you are interested in further study on this, someone like Anne Curzan would provide a good blend of depth and approachability.
In case you are interested in further study on this, someone like Anne Curzan would provide a good blend of depth and approachability.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Are you serious or kidding me ?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
What's this letter ع , i think you need weeks just to spell it correctly.
https://translate.google.jo/?hl=ar&tab=wT#ar/ar/ع
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I feel that most of us are like little children, if we don't understand something we then make up something, and that is what is happening throughout the world, yes it sounds cute, but ignorance can be dangerous.
Consider Papua New Guinea.
Over 800 separate languages (not dialects) in a population of 4 million. And that is NOW. Historically, there would have been more languages, and vastly less people.
Word usage then blends and changes along (most commonly) trade routes. If I want to get an apple from you, we use a combination of words from each language, plus signing, to come to an agreement. Hybrid languages can be formed if this process is dynamic enough, and one such language (Tok Pisin) is now an official language of Papua New Guinea.
This is obviously simplified for space, but there is an enormous amount of literature available on this process. PNG is a linguist's dream. Some of the African nations are also informative.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
lol ... a "term" is a word (see definition provided below). So, you are confused. "God" is certainly a term as well, as it is used to describe a "concept" (again, see definition provided below).
Term: a word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept, especially in a particular kind of language or branch of study. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=term definition
McBell
Unbound
Please be so kind as to let the thread know what you think a "term" is?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I'm serious. Animals learned to communicate through experience. It didn't just happen magically one day. They interacted with each other and became able to read their movements, demeanor, etc. in order to communicate. What do you have issue with specifically?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Did babies learn how to suck milk once they born due to experience ?
How the instinct is learnt by experience ?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
A good question indeed.
Regards