Fundamentalist Atheists

[Reverend Rick]

I've always wished someone would respond to a judge in a court room when asked if they have anything to say with a fart.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Can we just make farting in public illegal.

Can we make perfume illegal as well?

 

[Uberpod]

Contemplate these words:

asexual
amoral
asocial
atheist

Would one apply the same word attack skills to all?

Define the root word and negate the existence of it. Self-identification is simply not a necessary part of the definitions.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Contemplate these words:

asexual
amoral
asocial
atheist

Would one apply the same word attack skills to all?

Word-attack skills? I don't know what that means.

Define the root word and negate the existence of it. Self-identification is simply not a necessary part of the definitions.

I'm pretty confused by your message. Can you expand on it -- say it a different way?

 

[Uberpod]

Word-attack skills? I don't know what that means.

:sorry1:
To arrive at the original meanings of words, you can dissect them and look at root words, prefix and suffix to build out the definition.

I'm pretty confused by your message. Can you expand on it -- say it a different way?

Words take on connotations and subsequent meanings, but my contention is that you cannot simply discount it's original essential meanings and pretend it is not a valid interpretation of the word. :yes:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

:sorry1:
To arrive at the original meanings of words, you can dissect them and look at root words, prefix and suffix to build out the definition.

Well, no... actually not. Words are not mathematical symbols. They are organic items, their meaning arising from usage. All linguistics students have that drilled into their heads. Some philosophers try to build words (like 'agnostic') but as soon as the word enters the language, it begins to mean whatever its users are trying to say with it.

Words take on connotations and subsequent meanings, but my contention is that you cannot simply discount it's original essential meanings and pretend it is not a valid interpretation of the word. :yes:

I'm sorry, but you really are mistaken. Etymology has no necessary connection to current meaning. It's a common misconception, easily disproven. Just browse through the Oxford English Dictionary or any other reference work which delves into the history of words.

 

[Willamena]

Define the root word and negate the existence of it. Self-identification is simply not a necessary part of the definitions.

There is no such thing as negated existence.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There is no such thing as negated existence.

So we can't add 'a-' to 'thing' and say that athing doesn't exist?

How perplexing life can be.

 

[Uberpod]

Well, no... actually not. Words are not mathematical symbols. They are organic items, their meaning arising from usage. All linguistics students have that drilled into their heads. Some philosophers try to build words (like 'agnostic') but as soon as the word enters the language, it begins to mean whatever its users are trying to say with it.

Language is a living, evolving entity for sure. But, the point is you cannot discount a current interpretation of the word because you have not used it that way especially when the word is constructed in a fashion that directly supports it.

I'm sorry, but you really are mistaken. Etymology has no necessary connection to current meaning. It's a common misconception, easily disproven. Just browse through the Oxford English Dictionary or any other reference work which delves into the history of words.

Some word definitions do become archaic, but in the case of atheist the basic person without a god belief must necessarily be included as one definition entry in any comprehensive attempt to define it given the construction of the word, the history of such constructions, and the fact that there currently exists a subset of users who interpret it this way.

 

[Willamena]

So we can't add 'a-' to 'thing' and say that athing doesn't exist?

Oh, no, you can say it all you like.

 

[Uberpod]

There is no such thing as negated existence.

I am negating your existence as of now. :beach:

 

[Falvlun]

Language is a living, evolving entity for sure. But, the point is you cannot discount a current interpretation of the word because you have not used it that way especially when the word is constructed in a fashion that directly supports it.

Some word definitions do become archaic, but in the case of atheist the basic person without a god belief must necessarily be included as one definition entry in any comprehensive attempt to define it given the construction of the word, the history of such constructions, and the fact that there currently exists a subset of users who interpret it this way.

As Ambiguous Guy already pointed out, words are hardly constructed in a way to demonstrate a specific definition.

Here's an explanation of what etymology is:
"Etymologies are not definitions; they're explanations of what our words meant and how they sounded 600 or 2,000 years ago." Online Etymology Dictionary

When you look up the etymology of "atheism", belief actually isn't even a factor. It is literally "without gods".

From the same site:
atheism (n.)
1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god" (see atheist). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist." Ancient Greek atheotes meant "ungodliness."

atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As Ambiguous Guy already pointed out, words are hardly constructed in a way to demonstrate a specific definition.

Error. Error. Does not compute. Words and definitions must fit into neat little boxes, or else reality is too messy and arbitrary. Error. Error. Self-destructing.

 

[Uberpod]

When you look up the etymology of "atheism", belief actually isn't even a factor. It is literally "without gods".

Sorry, you are being sloppy. You ignore the suffix -ist denotes a person who practices or is concerned with something -ism forms abstract nouns of action, state, condition.

 

[Falvlun]

Sorry, you are being sloppy. You ignore the suffix -ist denotes a person who practices or is concerned with something -ism forms abstract nouns of action, state, condition.

Take it up with the etymologists. I didn't make it up.


EDIT:
I particularly like that one of the earliest meanings was "ungodliness". You guys really need to do your homework before you start waving your "Etymology FTW!!1!!" banners.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Language is a living, evolving entity for sure. But, the point is you cannot discount a current interpretation of the word because you have not used it that way especially when the word is constructed in a fashion that directly supports it.

If my language culture isn't using it that way, then I have no choice but to discount that definition, no matter its construction. I'm all about trying to be understood.

Some word definitions do become archaic, but in the case of atheist the basic person without a god belief must necessarily be included as one definition entry in any comprehensive attempt to define it given the construction of the word, the history of such constructions, and the fact that there currently exists a subset of users who interpret it this way.

Only your last bit seems legitimate to me. I don't care how it was contructed or the history of such constructions. I only care about users who interpret it that way. But as I say, we were bombarded with Description! Not prescription! as young linguistics students. Every professor wrung out of us the notion that dictionaries are holy.

So I'll rarely argue about what a word should mean. I'm mostly just interested in describing how it is actually used by speakers.

 

[Uberpod]

Take it up with the etymologists. I didn't make it up.

Actually, the etymologists are fine. You make faulty assumptions. Atheist or atheism never meant without gods or ungodliness, rather there were related words with those meanings that included the prefix and root word but not the suffix.

EDIT:
I particularly like that one of the earliest meanings was "ungodliness". You guys really need to do your homework before you start waving your "Etymology FTW!!1!!" banners.

You attempted homework but your analysis is muddled. You get partial credit at best.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You attempted homework but your analysis is muddled. You get partial credit at best.

So you are a trained linguist? Maybe even a professor of linguistics?

 

[Falvlun]

Actually, the etymologists are fine. You make faulty assumptions. Atheist or atheism never meant without gods or ungodliness, rather there were related words with those meanings that included the prefix and root word but not the suffix.

You attempted homework but your analysis is muddled. You get partial credit at best.

I didn't make any assumptions. I looked up the etymology of "atheism", and I reported exactly what I found. If you have found something else, please share, and I will reassess what I have said. Otherwise, I must assume you are mistaken.

 

[Uberpod]

So you are a trained linguist? Maybe even a professor of linguistics?

One of my degrees is in English which included classes in linguistics and etymology, not that that matters much. I did not pursue that field professionally.