Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Llyricist · 07-22-2003, 01:24 PM

Vylo,

Autonemisis is not using an "incorrect definition", just one that isn't found in the dictionary you are copying and pasting from. But one that is arguably "more correct" than that found in the dictionary. The ETYMOLOGICAL definition. The prefix A- actually literally means "without", So his defintion is the most basic and historical definition for the word.

Vylo · 07-22-2003, 01:25 PM

I don't see that definition, I see this one:

Atheist:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods

Vylo · 07-22-2003, 01:31 PM

From english oxford dictionary:

Atheist

1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.

Apparantly whatever site you recieved your definition from did not complete it.

Vylo · 07-22-2003, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Vylo,

Autonemisis is not using an "incorrect definition", just one that isn't found in the dictionary you are copying and pasting from. But one that is arguably "more correct" than that found in the dictionary. The ETYMOLOGICAL definition. The prefix A- actually literally means "without", So his defintion is the most basic and historical definition for the word.

Actually the preffix a- can actually mean against or oppiste, and since Atheism is define as such, that would seem to be what is meant by the terminology.

Mageth · 07-22-2003, 01:36 PM

Vylo, the word atheism literally means without a belief in a god or gods. I and I suspect many other Atheists find many dictionary definitions of "atheist" and "atheism" to be sorely lacking if not just plain wrong.

Vylo et al, we all may benefit from reading this.

Spenser · 07-22-2003, 01:40 PM

I got the definition from Dictionary.com, probably the most popular dictionary online...

Edited to add:

And the following is clipped from www.atheist.org :

Also, the word "Atheism" simply means "free from theism," The word "agnostic" simply means free from gnostic, or knowledge.... Therefore, Atheism is freedom from theism, freedom from religion.

And from this website itself:

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.

But if it makes you feel better label the baby agnostic (free from the knowledge of God)...

Llyricist · 07-22-2003, 01:45 PM

Looking here:
http://www.dekalb.k12.ga.us/~columbi...20complete.htm

and here:

http://vms.cc.wmich.edu/~dlouhy/astrsu02/coursepack.pdf

and here:

http://snow.utoronto.ca/Learn2/mod5/prefixes.html

I could go on, but there are three different tables describing the meanings of prefixes and two of them ONLY say without, and one says without or not.
NONE say it could mean against or opposite.

SignOfTheCross · 07-23-2003, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spenser

This is the kind of reasoning that really irks me. The fact that a good chunk of the world is not very educated, and the majority of these uneducated masses believe highly in religions doesn't seem to be a factor when throwing forth useless statistics.

Oh please, not one of those 'atheists are smart, theists are stupid' arguements again. Face it, there are smart theists, and there are smart atheists, but smarts has nothing to do with it. No, statistics aren't objective "proof" a deity exists, I never said that, my point being, should God exist and you reject Him, your defence being "oh, I couldn't bring myself to believe in you because you didn't give me any proof of your existence", would certainly NOT be a valid one, considering 86% of the world can do just that knowing there is no objective proof of a God or gods existence.

Quote:

Here's one for us: Did you know that less than 1% of prison inmates in America claim to be atheists? Sounds cool but does it really prove anything?

No shit.

Here's one for you. 9/10 Americans profess belief in a deity compared to only 2/3 of New Zealanders. Americans have by far a higher education standard than New Zealand. Sounds cool, but does it really prove anything?

Quote:

Which rock are you running and hiding under? I thought you were Catholic? If they don't believe in your God, your way then what good are they for evidence in your argument? Some believe in multiple Gods, some believe in the Earth and some are Buddhist and some are freaky deaky Scientologists. Besides, there was a time when the majority of the known world believed that the Earth circled the sun. Guess what, they were wrong. Hmmm, didn't your church only just recently issue some apologies to some rather famous dead astronomers???

Your addressing issues that have nothing to do with my arguement, so I wont waste my time answering these.

Quote:

I have an idea, why not have an argument rather than a bunch of empty useless assertions... :notworthy

Why not just accept fault for not believing in God, should He exist?

Peace,
SOTC

Jack the Bodiless · 07-23-2003, 02:28 AM

Quote:

I never said that, my point being, should God exist and you reject Him, your defence being "oh, I couldn't bring myself to believe in you because you didn't give me any proof of your existence", would certainly NOT be a valid one, considering 86% of the world can do just that knowing there is no objective proof of a God or gods existence.

It is a valid defense for a just being. We cannot justly be blamed for not believing without adequate evidence: nobody can.

Quote:

Here's one for us: Did you know that less than 1% of prison inmates in America claim to be atheists? Sounds cool but does it really prove anything?

No shit.

Here's one for you. 9/10 Americans profess belief in a deity compared to only 2/3 of New Zealanders. Americans have by far a higher education standard than New Zealand. Sounds cool, but does it really prove anything?

Yes. It proves that you don't consider the distinction between "truth" and "falsehood" to be important. Why am I not surprised?

It is true that atheists are under-represented in prison populations, whereas it is false that Americans have by far a higher education standard than New Zealand.

Quote:

Why not just accept fault for not believing in God, should He exist?

Why not just place the blame where it belongs, with God? What's your problem with that?

Superman is a fictional example of a non-omnimax being who seems to have no difficulty convincing people of his existence. Why is the omnimax God unable to do what Superman can do?

xsquid · 07-23-2003, 02:45 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
... my point being, should God exist and you reject Him, your defence being "oh, I couldn't bring myself to believe in you because you didn't give me any proof of your existence", would certainly NOT be a valid one, considering 86% of the world can do just that knowing there is no objective proof of a God or gods existence.

Ever hear the saying "If fifty million people believe in a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing"? Argument from numbers cuts no ice here.

Why not just accept fault for not believing in God, should He exist?

Because that's called "covering your ass" where I come from, and it's used mostly by people who aren't sure of themselves. If your God does exist, then he knows I don't believe and why.

IF He's as benign as His followers say, then He'll understand. If He isn't, He'll still understand but send me to Hell. But if He doesn't exist, where's the fault? That means I prayed to Nothing, I believed in Nothing, I thought Nothing was sacred (ouch!), and it was all a big mistake. And why should I accept fault for something I did not do, hm? Nothing can blame me, Nothing can accuse me, and Nothing can make me believe something I'm not convinced of. God, if He exists, can see that; I can't see why you don't.

07-22-2003, 01:40 PM	#76
Spenser Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Don't you wish your boy friend got drunk like me, Posts: 7,808	There are more Dictionaries than just yours... I got the definition from Dictionary.com, probably the most popular dictionary online... Edited to add: And the following is clipped from www.atheist.org : Also, the word "Atheism" simply means "free from theism," The word "agnostic" simply means free from gnostic, or knowledge.... Therefore, Atheism is freedom from theism, freedom from religion. And from this website itself: Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. But if it makes you feel better label the baby agnostic (free from the knowledge of God)...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-22-2003, 01:24 PM	#71
Llyricist Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Fort Lauderale, FL Posts: 5,390	Vylo, Autonemisis is not using an "incorrect definition", just one that isn't found in the dictionary you are copying and pasting from. But one that is arguably "more correct" than that found in the dictionary. The ETYMOLOGICAL definition. The prefix A- actually literally means "without", So his defintion is the most basic and historical definition for the word.

07-22-2003, 01:25 PM	#72
Vylo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: washington, NJ 07882 Posts: 253	I don't see that definition, I see this one: Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods

07-22-2003, 01:31 PM	#73
Vylo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: washington, NJ 07882 Posts: 253	From english oxford dictionary: Atheist 1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God. 2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man. Apparantly whatever site you recieved your definition from did not complete it.

07-22-2003, 01:36 PM	#75
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Vylo, the word atheism literally means without a belief in a god or gods. I and I suspect many other Atheists find many dictionary definitions of "atheist" and "atheism" to be sorely lacking if not just plain wrong. Vylo et al, we all may benefit from reading this.

07-22-2003, 01:45 PM	#77
Llyricist Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Fort Lauderale, FL Posts: 5,390	Looking here: http://www.dekalb.k12.ga.us/~columbi...20complete.htm and here: http://vms.cc.wmich.edu/~dlouhy/astrsu02/coursepack.pdf and here: http://snow.utoronto.ca/Learn2/mod5/prefixes.html I could go on, but there are three different tables describing the meanings of prefixes and two of them ONLY say without, and one says without or not. NONE say it could mean against or opposite.

07-23-2003, 02:45 AM	#80
xsquid Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: oasis in the ocean Posts: 353	[QUOTE]Originally posted by SignOfTheCross ... my point being, should God exist and you reject Him, your defence being "oh, I couldn't bring myself to believe in you because you didn't give me any proof of your existence", would certainly NOT be a valid one, considering 86% of the world can do just that knowing there is no objective proof of a God or gods existence. Ever hear the saying "If fifty million people believe in a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing"? Argument from numbers cuts no ice here. Why not just accept fault for not believing in God, should He exist? Because that's called "covering your ass" where I come from, and it's used mostly by people who aren't sure of themselves. If your God does exist, then he knows I don't believe and why. IF He's as benign as His followers say, then He'll understand. If He isn't, He'll still understand but send me to Hell. But if He doesn't exist, where's the fault? That means I prayed to Nothing, I believed in Nothing, I thought Nothing was sacred (ouch!), and it was all a big mistake. And why should I accept fault for something I did not do, hm? Nothing can blame me, Nothing can accuse me, and Nothing can make me believe something I'm not convinced of. God, if He exists, can see that; I can't see why you don't.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.