We Are All Born Atheist
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="bloodling"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas.
BluRayHiDef
Keyword: sometimes. As in, sometimes not. I don't include newborns in my definition of an atheist personally, and it disregards the definition of atheist for the most part, since the global definition is not the lack of belief, but rather the disbelief.
This is an Appeal To Authority Fallacy. You're arguing that the global definition is the true definition because it is commonly used by most people. I'm arguing that the intrinsic definition, as can be inferred from the word's etymology is the true definition: Without Belief in God(s).
You never answered my question as to whether you find atheists put any thought into their decision. Since babies do not.....and you correlated that to atheism.
[QUOTE="bloodling"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas.
BluRayHiDef
Keyword: sometimes. As in, sometimes not. I don't include newborns in my definition of an atheist personally, and it disregards the definition of atheist for the most part, since the global definition is not the lack of belief, but rather the disbelief.
This is an Appeal To Authority Fallacy. You're arguing that the global definition is the true definition because it is commonly used by most people. I'm arguing that the intrinsic definition, as can be inferred from the word's etymology is the true definition: Without Belief in God(s).
That's not what I'm saying at all. The number of people thinking like me has no relevance to the definition. I'm saying that it contradicts my definition of an atheist. You can include newborns in your definition and still be right, I guess, but that's not what atheism is to me (and to a lot of people, not that it matters anyway).
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
[QUOTE="bloodling"]
Keyword: sometimes. As in, sometimes not. I don't include newborns in my definition of an atheist personally, and it disregards the definition of atheist for the most part, since the global definition is not the lack of belief, but rather the disbelief.
LJS9502_basic
This is an Appeal To Authority Fallacy. You're arguing that the global definition is the true definition because it is commonly used by most people. I'm arguing that the intrinsic definition, as can be inferred from the word's etymology is the true definition: Without Belief in God(s).
You never answered my question as to whether you find atheists put any thought into their decision. Since babies do not.....and you correlated that to atheism.No, they do not. One does not need to do anything in order to be without something. Lacking is effortless.
[QUOTE="theone86"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Which is why I answered I'd consider myself agnostic since that was your example dude. Now you are arguing it? Bolded for you.
LJS9502_basic
That's my point, an agnostic is not a skeptic. An agnostic is someone who believes that metaphysical matters cannot be proven. The person in my example believes that metaphysical matters CAN be proven and accepts the possibility of the existence of god, but requires more convincing. That's not a rejection of the belief in god (atheist), nor is it a rejection of the ability to prove the existence of god, it is simply skepticism.
Depends on how one self identifies as agnostic. I've heard people call themselves agnostic because they had not firm belief either way. Or because they were skeptical but could not prove or disprove either option.That's a mistake on their part, that's technically not agnosticism, at least not the first part. I'm not sure what that's called, but it's different from agnosticism. The second option would be agnosticism if they came to the conclusion that their failure indicates a universal inability to prove or disprove the existence of god, but if they are just undecided then that's what they are, not agnostic.
i was born neutral, i guess...
my mother baptized me when i was a few months old and I followed her lead for a bit before thinking for myself about religious doctrine and everything that encompasses it. Eventually I drifted away from the practice with it's usual belief/outlook on the Abrahamic or anthropomorphized diety that people call Yaweh/Allah etc and through research have been able to better understand this consciousness/energy that people vehemently WANT to call god and put a face to it and associated it to one particular sex.
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
[QUOTE="bloodling"]
Keyword: sometimes. As in, sometimes not. I don't include newborns in my definition of an atheist personally, and it disregards the definition of atheist for the most part, since the global definition is not the lack of belief, but rather the disbelief.
bloodling
This is an Appeal To Authority Fallacy. You're arguing that the global definition is the true definition because it is commonly used by most people. I'm arguing that the intrinsic definition, as can be inferred from the word's etymology is the true definition: Without Belief in God(s).
That's not what I'm saying at all. The number of people thinking like me has no relevance to the definition. I'm saying that it contradicts my definition of an atheist. You can include newborns in your definition and still be right, I guess, but that's not what atheism is to me (and to a lot of people, not that it matters anyway).
Well, your definition contradicts the intrinsic definition: Without belief in gods.
You never answered my question as to whether you find atheists put any thought into their decision. Since babies do not.....and you correlated that to atheism.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
This is an Appeal To Authority Fallacy. You're arguing that the global definition is the true definition because it is commonly used by most people. I'm arguing that the intrinsic definition, as can be inferred from the word's etymology is the true definition: Without Belief in God(s).
BluRayHiDef
No, they do not. One does not need to do anything in order to be without something. Lacking is effortless.
Uh no. To lack something one has to be privvy to the opposite. Otherwise...they are neither one nor the other.[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
Well, your definition contradicts the intrinsic definition: Without belief in gods.
bloodling
That's not the first and foremost definition of atheism, which is disbelief in dieties.
That is the intrinsic definition, based on the etymology of the word. Do you know what etymology means? Did you read the OP? Let me break the word down for you:
Atheism >>A >> Theism >>A: Without, Theism: Belief in gods. This is the most basic definition. There is no arguing against this. Any other definition is due to social colloquialisms which are not intrinsically implied by the word itself.
[QUOTE="bloodling"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas.
BluRayHiDef
Keyword: sometimes. As in, sometimes not. I don't include newborns in my definition of an atheist personally, and it disregards the definition of atheist for the most part, since the global definition is not the lack of belief, but rather the disbelief.
This is an Appeal To Authority Fallacy. You're arguing that the global definition is the true definition because it is commonly used by most people. I'm arguing that the intrinsic definition, as can be inferred from the word's etymology is the true definition: Without Belief in God(s). The intrinsic definition trumps the definition imposed onto it by most people. Something is true because it is true, not because of the number of people who say it is.
That's a fallcious argument, look up the etymology of just about any word and you'll see that its meaning has changed over the centuries. If we took every word to mean its literal meaning derived from the root then most of our words would mean something completely different than they do now. Inferred meaning is very important to language, just take this difference from French to English. If you translated I have a headache from French to English literally it would come out as I have bad in the head, but obviously we take the general meaning as opposed to the literal meaning. Similarly, if you take certain English sayings and transpose them verbatim into another language they make no sense. Similarly, taking roots of atheism which is derived from another language and using them literally is fallacious, those roots were selected to imply a certain meaning that is not necessarily in line with the literal meaning.
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You never answered my question as to whether you find atheists put any thought into their decision. Since babies do not.....and you correlated that to atheism.
LJS9502_basic
No, they do not. One does not need to do anything in order to be without something. Lacking is effortless.
Uh no. To lack something one has to be privvy to the opposite. Otherwise...they are neither one nor the other.I will make no further attempts to explain this. I'm "wrong". You "win".
By one definition of atheism, sure - but another (perfectly reasonable) definition is that atheism is a lack of a belief in God, and it's that definition which TC is using in this thread. I as an atheist believe that TNT explodes, water evaporates, alcohol makes you feel funny, and that God may or may not exist. As such, I neither believe he exists nor believe that he doesn't. I can't be sure either way.[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"][QUOTE="GazaAli"]
I truly don't get this attitude. You as an atheist believe in that TNT explodes, water vaporates, alcohol makes you feel funny, and God does not exist.
Not believing in anything is called being crazy I think.
GazaAli
Isn't that called being agnostic? if I got it right.
Agnoticism and etheism (or theism for that matter) are not mutualy exclusive.Atheism and theism are about belief in god. Agnosticism is about the knowability of God
[QUOTE="bloodling"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
Well, your definition contradicts the intrinsic definition: Without belief in gods.
BluRayHiDef
That's not the first and foremost definition of atheism, which is disbelief in dieties.
That is the intrinsic definition, based on the etymology of the word. Do you know what etymology means? Did you read the OP? Let me break the word down for you:
Atheism >>A >> Theism >>A: Without, Theism: Belief in gods. This is the most basic definition. There is no arguing against this. Any other definition is due to social colloquialisms which are not intrinsically implied by the word itself.
Are you arguing that there is no difference between someone who rejects a belief in god and someone who does not have a belief in god? That is utterly ridiculous, there's a difference of cognitive capacity and the formation of a cogent argument for a certain belief system.
You say that as if "Christ is saviour" was one minor belief. Believing Christ is son of God entails believing that Christ taught the right way to live, which in turn makes the bible a comprehensive guide to life. Sure, within the religion there are numerous disagreements, but you will find an overall rough set of maxims involving the ten commandments, sin, ressurrection etc. I say rough set because like the definition of "chair" you won't find a single determining factor in every chair but that's far from making it a meaningless term.[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]
[QUOTE="theone86"]
But that is all up to interpretation. There is such a wide range of beliefs under the banner of Christianity, can you give me one defining idea other than Christ as the savior that binds them all?
theone86
No, it's not a minor belief, it's THE central belief. Even with the ten commandments there are disagreements, some Christians believe that because it is in the Old Testament it's not really a hard and fast set of rules.
The chair thing, a chair has a single, distinguishing characteristic, that is it is something you sit on (rejection of a belief in god similarly defines atheism as a belief). From there you will find different types of chairs (armchairs, dinner chairs, lawn chairs, etc.), and similarly you will find different types of atheists (agnostic atheists, nihilistic atheists, etc.), but they all adhere to the one defining factor (rejection of a belief in god).
So if I make a chair out of matchsticks, I haven't made a chair, just because I never intended anyone to sit on it? Anyway, that's not a feature of the chair but the intention of its maker. We could do the same for "sport", "art" and countless others. This is exactly my point though, we don't define things by their properties alone but by their usefulness. "Atheist" is meaningful because it's useful, not because it's a system of common beliefs.[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
[QUOTE="bloodling"]
Keyword: sometimes. As in, sometimes not. I don't include newborns in my definition of an atheist personally, and it disregards the definition of atheist for the most part, since the global definition is not the lack of belief, but rather the disbelief.
theone86
This is an Appeal To Authority Fallacy. You're arguing that the global definition is the true definition because it is commonly used by most people. I'm arguing that the intrinsic definition, as can be inferred from the word's etymology is the true definition: Without Belief in God(s). The intrinsic definition trumps the definition imposed onto it by most people. Something is true because it is true, not because of the number of people who say it is.
That's a fallcious argument, look up the etymology of just about any word and you'll see that its meaning has changed over the centuries. If we took every word to mean its literal meaning derived from the root then most of our words would mean something completely different than they do now. Inferred meaning is very important to language, just take this difference from French to English. If you translated I have a headache from French to English literally it would come out as I have bad in the head, but obviously we take the general meaning as opposed to the literal meaning. Similarly, if you take certain English sayings and transpose them verbatim into another language they make no sense. Similarly, taking roots of atheism which is derived from another language and using them literally is fallacious, those roots were selected to imply a certain meaning that is not necessarily in line with the literal meaning.
Bullocks. The intrinsic definition always trumps the colloquial definition, especially when you're dealing with words which pertain to philosophy.
[QUOTE="GazaAli"]
[QUOTE="ihateaynrand"]By one definition of atheism, sure - but another (perfectly reasonable) definition is that atheism is a lack of a belief in God, and it's that definition which TC is using in this thread. I as an atheist believe that TNT explodes, water evaporates, alcohol makes you feel funny, and that God may or may not exist. As such, I neither believe he exists nor believe that he doesn't. I can't be sure either way.BuryMe
Isn't that called being agnostic? if I got it right.
Agnoticism and etheism (or theism for that matter) are not mutualy exclusive.Atheism and theism are about belief in god. Agnosticism is about the knowability of God
And what he described is not agnosticism, it is a form of skepticism, although his last sentence makes him agnostic.
[QUOTE="bloodling"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
Well, your definition contradicts the intrinsic definition: Without belief in gods.
BluRayHiDef
That's not the first and foremost definition of atheism, which is disbelief in dieties.
That is the intrinsic definition, based on the etymology of the word. Do you know what etymology means? Did you read the OP? Let me break the word down for you:
Atheism >>A >> Theism >>A: Without, Theism: Belief in gods. This is the most basic definition. There is no arguing against this. Any other definition is due to social colloquialisms which are not intrinsically implied by the word itself.
You know what your problem is? you think words represent reality. they really don't. It's just communication. The idea itself is not what is real.
[QUOTE="bloodling"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas.
BluRayHiDef
Keyword: sometimes. As in, sometimes not. I don't include newborns in my definition of an atheist personally, and it disregards the definition of atheist for the most part, since the global definition is not the lack of belief, but rather the disbelief.
This is an Appeal To Authority Fallacy. You're arguing that the global definition is the true definition because it is commonly used by most people. I'm arguing that the intrinsic definition, as can be inferred from the word's etymology is the true definition: Without Belief in God(s). The intrinsic definition trumps the definition imposed onto it by most people. Something is true because it is true, not because of the number of people who say it is.
I think you're talking about appeal to numbers.In the case of language though, the majority, the speakers of a language indirectly but decisevely, define their words.
A word is part of a languages vocabulary with definition x or y because the majority of natural speakers use the word with the x or y definition (with small deviations depending on contexts usually).
As it is, its hard for anyone to say which is the true definition. It depends on many things - for instance what the context of the conversation is.
The certain thing though is that you havent proven how the meaning inferred by etymology is the true one.
That is the intrinsic definition, based on the etymology of the word. Do you know what etymology means? Did you read the OP? Let me break the word down for you:
Atheism >>A >> Theism >>A: Without, Theism: Belief in gods. This is the most basic definition. There is no arguing against this. Any other definition is due to social colloquialisms which are not intrinsically implied by the word itself.
BluRayHiDef
I don't believe ethymology takes the cake over the dictionnary, but I have to admit you're 100% right if that's what we're arguing about (ethymology). What would be the word to say disbelief, then?
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
[QUOTE="bloodling"]
That's not the first and foremost definition of atheism, which is disbelief in dieties.
theone86
That is the intrinsic definition, based on the etymology of the word. Do you know what etymology means? Did you read the OP? Let me break the word down for you:
Atheism >>A >> Theism >>A: Without, Theism: Belief in gods. This is the most basic definition. There is no arguing against this. Any other definition is due to social colloquialisms which are not intrinsically implied by the word itself.
Are you arguing that there is no difference between someone who rejects a belief in god and someone who does not have a belief in god? That is utterly ridiculous, there's a difference of cognitive capacity and the formation of a cogent argument for a certain belief system.
No, I am not. A rejection of a belief in god necessitates a lack of the belief. However, a lack of a belief does not necessitate a rejection. A lack is the basis of a rejection, but the converse of this is not true.
[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
This is an Appeal To Authority Fallacy. You're arguing that the global definition is the true definition because it is commonly used by most people. I'm arguing that the intrinsic definition, as can be inferred from the word's etymology is the true definition: Without Belief in God(s). The intrinsic definition trumps the definition imposed onto it by most people. Something is true because it is true, not because of the number of people who say it is.
BluRayHiDef
That's a fallcious argument, look up the etymology of just about any word and you'll see that its meaning has changed over the centuries. If we took every word to mean its literal meaning derived from the root then most of our words would mean something completely different than they do now. Inferred meaning is very important to language, just take this difference from French to English. If you translated I have a headache from French to English literally it would come out as I have bad in the head, but obviously we take the general meaning as opposed to the literal meaning. Similarly, if you take certain English sayings and transpose them verbatim into another language they make no sense. Similarly, taking roots of atheism which is derived from another language and using them literally is fallacious, those roots were selected to imply a certain meaning that is not necessarily in line with the literal meaning.
Bullocks. The intrinsic definition always trumps the colloquial definition, especially when you're dealing with words which pertain to philosophy.
Bullocks to you, the use of the roots which make up atheism were never intended to be taken literally. Furthermore, you have refuted nothing I said above that the majority of the words that we use differ from their original and literal definitions.
That's a mistake on their part, that's technically not agnosticism, at least not the first part. I'm not sure what that's called, but it's different from agnosticism. The second option would be agnosticism if they came to the conclusion that their failure indicates a universal inability to prove or disprove the existence of god, but if they are just undecided then that's what they are, not agnostic.
theone86
Technically they can call themselves agnositic...
" a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable...."
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
That is the intrinsic definition, based on the etymology of the word. Do you know what etymology means? Did you read the OP? Let me break the word down for you:
Atheism >>A >> Theism >>A: Without, Theism: Belief in gods. This is the most basic definition. There is no arguing against this. Any other definition is due to social colloquialisms which are not intrinsically implied by the word itself.
bloodling
I don't believe ethymology takes the cake over the dictionnary, but I have to admit you're 100% right if that's what we're arguing about (ethymology). What would be the word to say disbelief, then?
Just that, disbelief. Atheism is not necessarily a positive refutation of belief in god. This is a misconception.
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
That is the intrinsic definition, based on the etymology of the word. Do you know what etymology means? Did you read the OP? Let me break the word down for you:
Atheism >>A >> Theism >>A: Without, Theism: Belief in gods. This is the most basic definition. There is no arguing against this. Any other definition is due to social colloquialisms which are not intrinsically implied by the word itself.
bloodling
I don't believe ethymology takes the cake over the dictionnary, but I have to admit you're 100% right if that's what we're arguing about (ethymology). What would be the word to say disbelief, then?
It doesnt.If it did then "smartypants" is a pair of trousers that are smart, "ladykiller" is a person who kills ladies (those are cases of non-literalism as a factor of semantic opacity) and "discount" means simply "abstract" (the verb).
And god know how many other words there are with misleading etymologies.
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
Theism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief in the lack of belief of a GOD. See I can play semantics tooo!!
Espada12
Now, you're just being foolish. Smoking cigarettes is a habit. Not smoking cigarettes is NOT a habit. Hence, not believing in god is not a belief. If you deny this, then there's no point in continuing.
Those aren't remotely the same thing.
A lack of belief in a GOD = believing there is no God, it's the same damn thing with different wording. If you deny this then there's no point in continuing.
All this look like is atheist trying to cop-out of having a belief system.
NO.Laking belief in God is not the same thing as saying god doesn't exist.
Lacking belief in god is not a religion, nor is it a belief. saying "God doe not exist" is a belief. One is a claim (the latter) and the other isn't.
[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
That is the intrinsic definition, based on the etymology of the word. Do you know what etymology means? Did you read the OP? Let me break the word down for you:
Atheism >>A >> Theism >>A: Without, Theism: Belief in gods. This is the most basic definition. There is no arguing against this. Any other definition is due to social colloquialisms which are not intrinsically implied by the word itself.
BluRayHiDef
Are you arguing that there is no difference between someone who rejects a belief in god and someone who does not have a belief in god? That is utterly ridiculous, there's a difference of cognitive capacity and the formation of a cogent argument for a certain belief system.
No, I am not. A rejection of a belief in god necessitates a lack of the belief. However, a lack of a belief does not necessitate a rejection. A lack is the basis of a rejection, but the converse of this is not true.
THat's exactly what I'm saying, and because a lack of belief does not necessitate rejection it cannot be lumped under the same label as a rejection of a belief.
[QUOTE="bloodling"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
That is the intrinsic definition, based on the etymology of the word. Do you know what etymology means? Did you read the OP? Let me break the word down for you:
Atheism >>A >> Theism >>A: Without, Theism: Belief in gods. This is the most basic definition. There is no arguing against this. Any other definition is due to social colloquialisms which are not intrinsically implied by the word itself.
BluRayHiDef
I don't believe ethymology takes the cake over the dictionnary, but I have to admit you're 100% right if that's what we're arguing about (ethymology). What would be the word to say disbelief, then?
Just that, disbelief. Atheism is not necessarily a positive refutation of belief in god. This is a misconception.
Yet the word came about because the ideology of a god existed.[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
[QUOTE="theone86"]
Are you arguing that there is no difference between someone who rejects a belief in god and someone who does not have a belief in god? That is utterly ridiculous, there's a difference of cognitive capacity and the formation of a cogent argument for a certain belief system.
theone86
No, I am not. A rejection of a belief in god necessitates a lack of the belief. However, a lack of a belief does not necessitate a rejection. A lack is the basis of a rejection, but the converse of this is not true.
THat's exactly what I'm saying, and because a lack of belief does not necessitate rejection it cannot be lumped under the same label as a rejection of a belief.
I never said it did.
[QUOTE="theone86"]
That's a mistake on their part, that's technically not agnosticism, at least not the first part. I'm not sure what that's called, but it's different from agnosticism. The second option would be agnosticism if they came to the conclusion that their failure indicates a universal inability to prove or disprove the existence of god, but if they are just undecided then that's what they are, not agnostic.
LJS9502_basic
Technically they can call themselves agnositic...
" a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable...."
Right, unkowable, but just because an individual doesn't know if god exists does not mean they think the existence of god is unkowable.
Uh no. To lack something one has to be privvy to the opposite. Otherwise...they are neither one nor the other.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
No, they do not. One does not need to do anything in order to be without something. Lacking is effortless.
BluRayHiDef
I will make no further attempts to explain this. I'm "wrong". You "win".
lol why you let him troll you like that anyways?? should've just said that in the first place when he started his semantical spin
[QUOTE="bloodling"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
That is the intrinsic definition, based on the etymology of the word. Do you know what etymology means? Did you read the OP? Let me break the word down for you:
Atheism >>A >> Theism >>A: Without, Theism: Belief in gods. This is the most basic definition. There is no arguing against this. Any other definition is due to social colloquialisms which are not intrinsically implied by the word itself.
BluRayHiDef
I don't believe ethymology takes the cake over the dictionnary, but I have to admit you're 100% right if that's what we're arguing about (ethymology). What would be the word to say disbelief, then?
Just that, disbelief. Atheism is not necessarily a positive refutation of belief in god. This is a misconception.
What is the opposite of theism then?
[QUOTE="bloodling"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
That is the intrinsic definition, based on the etymology of the word. Do you know what etymology means? Did you read the OP? Let me break the word down for you:
Atheism >>A >> Theism >>A: Without, Theism: Belief in gods. This is the most basic definition. There is no arguing against this. Any other definition is due to social colloquialisms which are not intrinsically implied by the word itself.
Teenaged
I don't believe ethymology takes the cake over the dictionnary, but I have to admit you're 100% right if that's what we're arguing about (ethymology). What would be the word to say disbelief, then?
It doesnt.If it did then "smartypants" is a pair of trousers that are smart, "ladykiller" is a person who kills ladies (those are cases of non-literalism as a factor of semantic opacity) and "discount" means simply "abstract" (the verb).
And god know how many other words there are with misleading etymologies.
But both those examples are obviously metaphorical - as you say, non-literal.[QUOTE="bloodling"]
I don't believe ethymology takes the cake over the dictionnary, but I have to admit you're 100% right if that's what we're arguing about (ethymology). What would be the word to say disbelief, then?
BluRayHiDef
Just that, disbelief. Atheism is not necessarily a positive refutation of belief in god. This is a misconception.
The disbelief would be called "atheonism" from what I've googled, but it was commonly accepted as atheism. One word, two definitions. I guess we're both right.
[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
No, I am not. A rejection of a belief in god necessitates a lack of the belief. However, a lack of a belief does not necessitate a rejection. A lack is the basis of a rejection, but the converse of this is not true.
BluRayHiDef
THat's exactly what I'm saying, and because a lack of belief does not necessitate rejection it cannot be lumped under the same label as a rejection of a belief.
I never said it did.
That's exactly what you're saying, you're saying that a rejection of a belief and a lack of belief are both considered atheism, I'm saying they're not.
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"][QUOTE="bloodling"]
I don't believe ethymology takes the cake over the dictionnary, but I have to admit you're 100% right if that's what we're arguing about (ethymology). What would be the word to say disbelief, then?
LJS9502_basic
Just that, disbelief. Atheism is not necessarily a positive refutation of belief in god. This is a misconception.
Yet the word came about because the ideology of a god existed.That doesn't change its meaning. If someone posited that there's an invisible creature standing on my left shoulder, I'd re-affirm the default position regarding that matter: A lack of belief in it. Yes, I'd be consciously against it, but I'd still be in accord with the default position; I'd be defending it. I didn't believe in an invisible creature prior to being told about it, nor do I believe in one afterwards. I was without belief and I remain without it and will defend that position if need be.
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
[QUOTE="theone86"]
THat's exactly what I'm saying, and because a lack of belief does not necessitate rejection it cannot be lumped under the same label as a rejection of a belief.
theone86
I never said it did.
That's exactly what you're saying, you're saying that a rejection of a belief and a lack of belief are both considered atheism, I'm saying they're not.
But no source agrees with you.[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Uh no. To lack something one has to be privvy to the opposite. Otherwise...they are neither one nor the other._R34LiTY_
I will make no further attempts to explain this. I'm "wrong". You "win".
lol why you let him troll you like that anyways?? should've just said that in the first place when he started his semantical spin
Au contriare....BluRay started us down the semantics argument.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]It doesnt.[QUOTE="bloodling"]
I don't believe ethymology takes the cake over the dictionnary, but I have to admit you're 100% right if that's what we're arguing about (ethymology). What would be the word to say disbelief, then?
jimmyjammer69
If it did then "smartypants" is a pair of trousers that are smart, "ladykiller" is a person who kills ladies (those are cases of non-literalism as a factor of semantic opacity) and "discount" means simply "abstract" (the verb).
And god know how many other words there are with misleading etymologies.
But both those examples are obviously metaphorical - as you say, non-literal. But I did give an example which isnt obvious."Discount".
And I have another in the blog of mine I linked in the first pages where I elaborately explain why inferring meaning from etymology can be very misleading.
It is a fact that there are words whose morphology corresponds to their meaning (semantically compositional words) and words whose morphology doesnt correspond to their meaning 100% (semantically opaque words).
The reasons of opacity can be: non-literalism, complexity of the meaning which cant be adequately represented by the form, the evolution of meaning (roots that change their meaning or even have different meaning -probably still related- when part of different words), loan-words (atheism has a prefix which is greek for instance, although I dont if that causes problem in this case) - English has a ton of them etc.
Yet the word came about because the ideology of a god existed.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
Just that, disbelief. Atheism is not necessarily a positive refutation of belief in god. This is a misconception.
BluRayHiDef
That doesn't change its meaning. If someone posited that there's an invisible creature standing on my left shoulder, I'd re-affirm the default position regarding that matter: A lack of belief in it. Yes, I'd be consciously against it, but I'd still be in accord with the default position; I'd be defending it. I didn't believe in an invisible creature prior to being told about it, nor do I believe in one afterwards. I was without belief and I remain without it and will defend that position if need be.
But you still have to have the one to have the other...
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]It doesnt.[QUOTE="bloodling"]
I don't believe ethymology takes the cake over the dictionnary, but I have to admit you're 100% right if that's what we're arguing about (ethymology). What would be the word to say disbelief, then?
jimmyjammer69
If it did then "smartypants" is a pair of trousers that are smart, "ladykiller" is a person who kills ladies (those are cases of non-literalism as a factor of semantic opacity) and "discount" means simply "abstract" (the verb).
And god know how many other words there are with misleading etymologies.
But both those examples are obviously metaphorical - as you say, non-literal.Elite originally meant chosen, now it means especially skilled. The definition of murder has changed significantly before only pertaining to certain types of unlawful killing and now referring to all types of unlawful killing. Sycophant used to mean an informant, now it means an abject flatterer. There are literally millions of examples of words that are not taken literally.
But both those examples are obviously metaphorical - as you say, non-literal.[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]It doesnt.
If it did then "smartypants" is a pair of trousers that are smart, "ladykiller" is a person who kills ladies (those are cases of non-literalism as a factor of semantic opacity) and "discount" means simply "abstract" (the verb).
And god know how many other words there are with misleading etymologies.
theone86
Elite originally meant chosen, now it means especially skilled. The definition of murder has changed significantly before only pertaining to certain types of unlawful killing and now referring to all types of unlawful killing. Sycophant used to mean an informant, now it means an abject flatterer. There are literally millions of examples of words that are not taken literally.
Thank you for the examples. :DI cant easily find them in English.
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Yet the word came about because the ideology of a god existed.LJS9502_basic
That doesn't change its meaning. If someone posited that there's an invisible creature standing on my left shoulder, I'd re-affirm the default position regarding that matter: A lack of belief in it. Yes, I'd be consciously against it, but I'd still be in accord with the default position; I'd be defending it. I didn't believe in an invisible creature prior to being told about it, nor do I believe in one afterwards. I was without belief and I remain without it and will defend that position if need be.
But you still have to have the one to have the other...Yes, which proves my point. This is what I said in the OP. I said that we're all atheist by default; we aren't required to be consciously aware of the concept of god in order to be without it. However, we can consciously reject the idea (but we don't have to). If we do choose to consciously reject the idea, all we'd be doing is defending the default position in which we are without belief in god. Hence, one definition of atheism defends the other.
[QUOTE="theone86"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
I never said it did.
jimmyjammer69
That's exactly what you're saying, you're saying that a rejection of a belief and a lack of belief are both considered atheism, I'm saying they're not.
But no source agrees with you.From Oxford:
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.
But you still have to have the one to have the other...[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
That doesn't change its meaning. If someone posited that there's an invisible creature standing on my left shoulder, I'd re-affirm the default position regarding that matter: A lack of belief in it. Yes, I'd be consciously against it, but I'd still be in accord with the default position; I'd be defending it. I didn't believe in an invisible creature prior to being told about it, nor do I believe in one afterwards. I was without belief and I remain without it and will defend that position if need be.
BluRayHiDef
Yes, which proves my point. This is what I said in the OP. I said that we're all atheist by default; we aren't required to be consciously aware of the concept of god in order to be without it. However, we can consciously reject the idea (but we don't have to). If we do choose to consciously reject the idea, all we'd be doing is defending the default position in which we are without belief in god. Hence, one definition of atheism defends the other.
No it doesn't...since an infant is incapable of having either....But both those examples are obviously metaphorical - as you say, non-literal. But I did give an example which isnt obvious.[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]It doesnt.
If it did then "smartypants" is a pair of trousers that are smart, "ladykiller" is a person who kills ladies (those are cases of non-literalism as a factor of semantic opacity) and "discount" means simply "abstract" (the verb).
And god know how many other words there are with misleading etymologies.
Teenaged
"Discount".
And I have another in the blog of mine I linked in the first pages where I elaborately explain why inferring meaning from etymology can be very misleading.
It is a fact that there are words whose morphology corresponds to their meaning (semantically compositional words) and words whose morphology doesnt correspond to their meaning 100% (semantically opaque words).
The reasons of opacity can be: non-literalism, complexity of the meaning which cant be adequately represented by the form, the evolution of meaning (roots that change their meaning or even have different meaning -probably still related- when part of different words), loan-words (atheism has a prefix which is greek for instance, although I dont if that causes problem in this case) etc.
You did, and I completely missed that. Still, there is a function expressed by the word which connects godless tribesmen and godless westerners. Why deny the word that meaning?But no source agrees with you.[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="theone86"]
That's exactly what you're saying, you're saying that a rejection of a belief and a lack of belief are both considered atheism, I'm saying they're not.
theone86
From Oxford:
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.
From Webster's: without a god; the belief that there is no god.[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] But you still have to have the one to have the other...LJS9502_basic
Yes, which proves my point. This is what I said in the OP. I said that we're all atheist by default; we aren't required to be consciously aware of the concept of god in order to be without it. However, we can consciously reject the idea (but we don't have to). If we do choose to consciously reject the idea, all we'd be doing is defending the default position in which we are without belief in god. Hence, one definition of atheism defends the other.
No it doesn't...since an infant is incapable of having either....Yes it does. An infant is without belief in god since they know nothing about the concept. What's so hard to understand about this? If you know nothing about the concept of god, you lack the knowledge of god and subsequently, you lack the belief in god. Hence, you are without belief. To be without means to be lacking. I won't bother to explain this again. It's a waste of time.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment