Atheism

[LegendarySandwich]

I'm not fighting for a definition.  I stated a number of possible definitions, but if I'm fighting about anything, it's against the idea that there is only one definition of the word atheism.

It seems like a pointless debate to have, but if semantics matter that much to you, then, eh.

[Davin]

No problem, just realize that it is you that has the need to nitpick at this and bring it up again.

Just to recap, the main question for me is whether or not the word 'atheism' means just 'the absence of theism' as you claimed in this post.  You were unambiguous in arguing that this is the only possible meaning of the word because you said in the same post that atheism "just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that" in the same post.

It's just the nature of the Greek prefix "a, an" that it means the "lack of", "absence of", "without", "not"... etc. of the word it is affixed to. Same thing for "asynchronous", whatever "synchronous" is, "asynchronous" is not that. Whatever "typical" is, "atypical" is not that. Anything that the Greek prefix "a, an" is attached to just means "not whatever that is."

It is in the nature of a quote that it is taken out of context, which is why it is important for the person quoting someone to be as true as humanly possible to the original intended meaning of the full statement being quoted, which I think I have been whenever I have quoted you.

I refer back to this shoddy quoting of what I said that you did as well as the misdirected correction:

3) And roughly means "with god" - Disagree - Theos means God, if you're talking objectively rather than assigning a subjective, personally-chosen definition to the word Theos. Looking at the matter objectively, any concept of 'with' can only be deduced according to the context in which the word 'Theos' appears. This is a minor point though and my broader analysis of our disagreements about the word theist is not dependent this minor matter of disagreement.

You appeared to dishonestly attempt to show that I was referring to "theos" as meaning "with god" when anyone who has a basic grasp of English can tell that I was referring to the word "theist" as roughly meaning "with god" in the sentence: "Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god"." I don't see how claiming that I meant that "theos" meant "with god" is in anyway taking that sentence in it's intended context.

To avoid the accusation that I have taken this out of context, I will quote your paragraph again in full.

You could just not take what I say out of context to avoid accusations that you're taking me out of context. The above is a clear example of taking what someone said out of context.

You said,

The word "atheist" was first used in like the 1400's by adding the Greek 'a' to the front of the word "theist." Theist is derived from "theos" and roughly means "with god". The prefix 'a' means "without," "lack of," "absence of," "not" so when applied to the word "theist" it means "without god." Atheism is the same, it just means absence of theism. That's it. Don't try and make the word mean any more than that.

You went on to re-state your claim that atheism is the "absence of theism" in a subsequent post as follows:-

I was technically incorrect when I said that the "a" was added to the word "theism", not when I said atheism means the absence of theism.

I think the matter of whether atheism means "absence of theism" is a huge question.  I disagree that the word 'nitpicking' describes my responses.  It is good that you find the debate entertaining and amusing because I would not want you to take it to heart.  I am not disagreeing with detail just for the sake of it.  The whole purpose of my contributions is to make it as clear as I can what I fundamentally disagree with you about, which is your statement, which you have not retracted, that you think that atheism means the "absence of theism" and that it can't mean anything else.  It is because you have continued to stand by this statement that I have felt the need to describe a number of other meanings.  I am sorry you think of my contributions as nitpicking.  I think my arguments are comprehensive.

Nitpicking is when you're taking something I said that was colloquial that I had already retracted, and still bringing it up. It's consistently prodding at things because of technicalities. You could just say that you disagree with my statement that "atheism just means the lack of theism", and provide your reasoning behind that, however you decided to nitpick at technicalities.

I am sorry I have not had the time to answer here every point you made in your last post.  I really have run out of time I'm afraid and I now have other priorities.  However I do not think I am avoiding the issues because I do believe that I have already covered everything you have raised throughout this thread.

Doesn't bother me, I couldn't care any less if I tried.

[hackenslash]

Thanks again, hackenslash for responding.  I'm afraid I disagree with a number of your arguments.

Don't be afraid. I won't bite.

I disagree.

Oh, you disagree, do you? Oh, well then, I should just give up

I do think it is possible for somebody to say something is correct or incorrect.  I do not think it is possible for someone to be correct or to be incorrect.  Correct and incorrect are concepts that depend on objectivity, and while somebody may be able to say they are correct, this is different from being correct, which to my mind is strictly speaking neither possible nor helpful in this conversation, since we are all subjective beings who are separated from an objective viewpoint.

Was this supposed to be an argument? What you think is of no consequence whatsoever. I gave very specific reasons that the definition is robust, and you must defeat those reasons, or you have no argument. I'm pretty sure I pointed this out already. What I gave was the closest thing to an objective reason for a definition that it is possible to have, by giving a universal application that works for any definition. It doesn't matter that we are subjective beings, because when a definition removes all variables, specifically by applying to the full set that it describes, it is necessarily an objective definition.

I disagree.  Your logic was rather superficial, being based on the idea that somebody saying they are being objective is the same as them being objective.

Again, you can disagree all you like, yet while you accuse my logic of being superficial, you have provided none of your own in support of your 'argument'.

I disagree.  From my point of view you statements seem to break down very quickly in the light of what I have already said in this post.

And yet I have already eviscerated what you said in this post, which doesn't remotely address the evisceration. You'll have to do better, because all you have so far is your personal disagreement, which is entirely worthless. Your opinion has only the value of the evidence and arguments you can provide in support of it, and so far all we've had is hot air and lame disagreement.

I disagree.  I have identified a number of points of disagreement and I think I have already expressed my view of the concepts of 'correct' and 'incorrect', and by implication 'right' and 'wrong' in this argument.  

Again, I don't care what you agree or disagree with, as my argument is on solid ground, and all you have is disagreement. What is the support for this? Nothing.

I meant it is a new concept to this conversation.

What has that got to do with the price of fish in Singapore? It is not a new concept, and if you don't understand the value of this already before it was introduced here, then you have no bloody place in this discussion. Your disagreement is based on not having the slightest clue about how language and discussion work, and you really need to go away and work on that. Find out precisely what value your opinion and disagreement carry in discourse (zero) and find the value of logically and robustly supporting your arguments, which you have utterly failed to do here.

I'm not even going to address the rest of your post, as it's just more repetition of your disagreement with no support whatsoever, and I won't be replying further until you provide some indication that you have more than your personal disagreement to bring to this discussion, because you simply aren't up to it so far. Nobody cares what you think, they only care what you can support. You cannot support your position until you address the support I have given for my definition, which is robust and will stand up to scrutiny. Demonstrate that you actually have something to bring to this discussion other than hot air, and I will be happy to engage further.

[hackenslash]

Just noticed this, and I should respond to it:

To summarise the remainder of your post you mention robustness again, I disagree with your point about context, and to words like ridiculous, petard-hoisting, my alleged educational deficits, you add several concepts like 'nonsense', 'mockery' of me and say that I have 'no argument'.  I prefer to prioritise rational arguments put to me on this and other forums which are not accompanied by suggestions of mockery and ridicule, so I hope you will accept my apology for being unable to find the full length of time required to respond to these specific arguments from you with the same care and attention to detail that I did to the earlier arguments in your post.

I didn't ridicule you, I ridiculed your ridiculous argument, because it is ridiculous.

[Existentialist]

Fair enough. I didn't read your whole conversation, it just seemed similar to the conversation we had a week ago or so. However if you simply provide URL's to some reasonably used word definition repositories to support your case you then won't have to argue.

Thanks Stevil.  As this conversation has become quite long I have moved to the stance that none of us can really be objective, we are all subjective, therefore claims to authoritative sources of objectivity can't really add anything.  Tempting as it is to provide several URL's, I'll resist the temptation - I don't think it's really going to result in the argument not being necessary as you suggest.  It's more likely that if I start providing sources it'll provide us with more things to argue about such as interpretations of the sources.  I'm just stating my opinion now, because it's just as valid as anyone else's.  I'm just sharing what I think.

[Existentialist]

I'm not fighting for a definition.  I stated a number of possible definitions, but if I'm fighting about anything, it's against the idea that there is only one definition of the word atheism.

It seems like a pointless debate to have, but if semantics matter that much to you, then, eh.

Meaning is important to me, yes.  Isn't it important to you too?

[Existentialist]

It's just the nature of the Greek prefix "a, an" that it means the "lack of", "absence of", "without", "not"... etc. of the word it is affixed to. Same thing for "asynchronous", whatever "synchronous" is, "asynchronous" is not that. Whatever "typical" is, "atypical" is not that. Anything that the Greek prefix "a, an" is attached to just means "not whatever that is.

We're discussing atheism, not asynchronous or atypical.  Asynchronous and atypical don't have an -ism suffix, which makes a lot of difference.  The a- prefix can be attached to anything, such as the root greek word 'atheos' which in part forms part of the word atheism.  Atheism can mean many things other than 'the absence of theism' as you claimed.

[Existentialist]

What you think is of no consequence whatsoever.

Gee thanks

[Stevil]

Thanks Stevil.  As this conversation has become quite long I have moved to the stance that none of us can really be objective, we are all subjective, therefore claims to authoritative sources of objectivity can't really add anything.  Tempting as it is to provide several URL's, I'll resist the temptation - I don't think it's really going to result in the argument not being necessary as you suggest.  It's more likely that if I start providing sources it'll provide us with more things to argue about such as interpretations of the sources.  I'm just stating my opinion now, because it's just as valid as anyone else's.  I'm just sharing what I think.

Well, when I was arguing with you I thought you were a bit crazy and stubborn and had just made up your own definition of the word until I found a page on the internet that referenced (as a side note) a definition that was similar to the definition you were advocating. Once I had seen that page I then stopped arguing with you. Sure someone could argue the validity of the source but the point is that the definition isn't simply your own. Although I hadn't even found a source of your definition I was OK once I had just found a reference to your definition. Otherwise it can be frustrating to talk to a person who has potentially invented their own definition of common words. Language is for communicating between multiple parties after all, if everyone held different definitions then communication would be incredibly difficult.

[wildfire_emissary]

Wittgenstein would have loved this thread.

[Tank]

Wittgenstein would have loved this thread.

[Davin]

It's just the nature of the Greek prefix "a, an" that it means the "lack of", "absence of", "without", "not"... etc. of the word it is affixed to. Same thing for "asynchronous", whatever "synchronous" is, "asynchronous" is not that. Whatever "typical" is, "atypical" is not that. Anything that the Greek prefix "a, an" is attached to just means "not whatever that is.

We're discussing atheism, not asynchronous or atypical.

I'm discussing the Greek prefix "a, an" which appears on many more words than just atheism and atheist, all the examples give my argument precedence. Just because you don't have any precedence to back up your argument, doesn't mean that I have to give up mine.

Asynchronous and atypical don't have an -ism suffix, which makes a lot of difference.

You seem to think so, will you explain why it makes a lot of difference? More specifically, explain how having the "ist" or "ism" suffixes on a word with the Greek prefix "a, an" changes how prefixes work in order to come to the definition that you claim the words mean? Is it only these two words that are the exception to how prefixes work or are there any other examples? If it's just these two examples, I can't take that convenience seriously.

The a- prefix can be attached to anything, such as the root greek word 'atheos' which in part forms part of the word atheism.

Since you appear to like to argue technicalities: the root Greek word is not "atheos", "a" is the Greek prefix which is on the Greek root word "theos". The Greek prefix "a, an" can be attached to "theos" and "theism" and means the same thing in both cases, in that it means "not theos" and "not theism" respectively.

Atheism can mean many things other than 'the absence of theism' as you claimed.

This kind of statement would be more useful if it had more than just a baseless assertion. Otherwise it's just equal to "nuh uh", which would have saved you some typing and time.

Thanks Stevil.  As this conversation has become quite long I have moved to the stance that none of us can really be objective, we are all subjective, therefore claims to authoritative sources of objectivity can't really add anything.

How convenient for you, so does that mean you're done arguing?

Tempting as it is to provide several URL's, I'll resist the temptation - I don't think it's really going to result in the argument not being necessary as you suggest.

Oh please do provide the sources, I don't mind being wrong, I enjoy it. What disappoints me is when someone says I'm wrong when I'm not actually wrong.

It's more likely that if I start providing sources it'll provide us with more things to argue about such as interpretations of the sources.

This is what is known as discussion. No one should just accept something on the say so of another. There is no reason for me to accept or deny something I don't understand and doesn't have evidence to back it up. So just some schmuck on a random website to a professor of the Greek language are equally useful/useless depending on what reasoning and evidence they have. In short: no appeals to authority.

I'm just stating my opinion now, because it's just as valid as anyone else's.  I'm just sharing what I think.

While I think that you're right that any baseless opinion is just as good as any other, my argument comes from things outside of my opinion. My points have a basis that people can independently verify. I came to my current opinion because of the things I'm providing (the meaning of the Greek prefix "a, an", how prefixes work, examples of how the prefix works... etc.), if you're just going to provide baseless assertions, then why even keep responding other than to troll?

[Existentialist]

In my opinion

a) I support free speech.  As far as I am concerned, 'atheism' can mean anything anybody wants it to mean.

on the basis of a), atheism can mean

b) disbelief in gods
c) the belief or position that there is no god
d) the absence of theism

I support free speech because I support free speech.  Even if all the internet pages in the world were saying that free speech is a bad thing and should not be supported, I would still support it.  As I believe in free speech, it follows that I must concede everybody absolute freedom to speak freely.  People have absolute freedom to say what they want to me, as far as I am concerned.  If I were to restrict in any way people's freedom to use the word 'atheism' to mean anything they wanted, then I would be contradicting my own support for free speech.  If I were to require everybody who wanted to use the word 'atheism' to mean something which could not be evidenced by another web page, then I would be restricting their freedom of speech.

I have said that Davin's use of the word 'atheism' to mean 'absence of theism' is not a definition I agree with.  By this I mean it isn't a definition that I would use.  When I use the word 'atheist' I use it to mean some close approximation to 'the belief or position that there is no god'.  This does not prevent me from having a conversation with other atheists, it just means that I would probably disagree more with other atheists who claim that atheism means 'absence of theism' - people like Davin, for example, who maintains the position that we shouldn't in his words 'try and make the word mean anything more than that'.

I do not think that my disagreeing with Davin would conflict with my belief in free speech.  Davin is free to say what his opinion about the word 'atheism', I too am free to do so.

My belief in free speech and my beliefs about atheism aren't held in isolation from other beliefs.  I believe everybody should be treated with dignity and respect, I do not use bad language, I do not suggest that what other people think is of no consequence whatsoever, I don't agree with mocking people.

On the subject of free speech I agree that if everybody used their own definitions of words then conversations would be chaotic and unsatisfactory.  In my opinion that is a big 'if'.  I tend to find most people are trustworthy and when they talk or write, they're usually trying to be understood.  This generally means they keep to common meanings.  Where they don't keep to common meanings, I have enough trust that they are trying to get across a meaning that they have thought about deeply and can only get across by using an unusual meaning.  This is a legitimate means of communication for me.  I believe in free speech.

I understand that an empiricist - someone who demands empirical evidence before they positively believe something is true - would not take the same stance as me.  They would be quite insistent that the meaning of any word must be verified by a source.  I realise this is a cause of friction in this conversation, and I'm sorry about that, but I'm not an empiricist, my position is more that of an existentialist, which is characterised by a more subjective thinking.  For me all things flow from the position that we, as human individuals, have absolute freedom.

On the subject of not believing or accepting the truth of anything which is not supported by evidence, when it comes to concepts, the most compelling evidence for me is always the internal logic and internal consistency of the argument that is being put forward.  External references tend to get in the way.  For example it has been argued doggedly that the greek prefix a- or an- can only ever apply to the whole word it is preceding.  If this is correct then to my mind the suffix -ism must also be applied to the whole word it suffixes.  This is a major logical problem to apply to any word that has an a- prefix and suffix -ism, like for example the word 'atheism'.

 It seems to me it is just as legitimate to apply the suffix -ism to the root 'athe-' as it is to apply the prefix a- to the word 'theism'.  In that case, the rule being argued for cannot possibly be consistent with itself.  I can see that by discounting the word 'athe-' as not being an english word then the only acceptable combination would be to add the prefix a- to the word theism.  The problem is that I don't see why it is legitimate to discount the root word 'athe-', and I wouldn't accept any rule of that kind anyway.

In any case, atheism can mean whatever anybody wants it to mean.  I believe in free speech.

[Asmodean]

In any case, atheism can mean whatever anybody wants it to mean.  I believe in free speech.

...What does "believing in free speech" have to do with the meanings of words..?  

[LegendarySandwich]

I believe in free speech too. If you want to say that the word "banana" means "to dive off of cliffs while wearing tuxedos", then that's fine -- just  don't expect people to understand you. We have dictionaries for a reason. A common meaning to words is essential for any meaningful conversation.