What would it take for you to believe in God?

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: totalcommand
prophet bamacre, please answer why God won't do this for us.

Prophet? :roll:

And secondly, the question...

"want the son of a bitch to show up and explain the killing, raping, pedophilia, torture and wars that his followers claim were done for him, in his name and with his approval,"

...is just ignorant. I can't give you a logical answer to an illogical question.

And if you want to know why God does not interfere in attrocities as those, my answer is "I don't know." I have never claimed to know why God does or does not do anything. God gave man free will, he gave man the capability to do Good and to do Evil. One cannot blame God for the actions of man.

I'm just sayin, there are a lot of "miracles" our there, but there are just as many "sh!t outta luck" and heinous situations out there as well. (And sometimes the latter seem to overwhelm the former.)

IMO, there is no proof of God, there is only pure belief. I do not logically justify my belief in God in any way, like using miracles. I simply believe and that is that.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Crono
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. " - Romans 1:18-32

Oh! I remember you! You were that guy on the subway this morning;the one that wouldn't STFU when everyone else was trying to mind their own business.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: busmaster11
No. Please stop putting your foot in your mouth. You said JESUS meant Jew God. Now explain it.

Christianity is not a greek religion. Its revolves around a JEW who was the Son of God. After He left the earth, the Great Commission began to be fulfilled by people such as Luke, Peter, Paul, Timothy, etc. Paul preached to the Jews first, for whom as a Pharisee would be natural. They were hardened so he went to the gentiles, including Romans and Greeks, but not exclusively them.

The divinity of Jesus was documently in dozens of gospels written at most, a few decades after his birth. Four of which, believers know are divinely inspired.

Its sad how one can be so enthralled with gnosticism and obscure works and completely deny the sheer volume of manuscript supporting everything from His miracles to his resurrection though so many eye witness accounts. But this only goes to prove my point. no facts or evidence or miracles or anything seen withthe eyes of unbelievers can bring about faith. Faith to believe comes from God - and begins with repentance, brokeness and humility.

Christianity is a Greek religion. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. There are no known Gospels or Epistles that were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Look at the Pauline Epistles written to the first churches: Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Phillipi, Colossae, and Thessalonica are all Greek cities (in Greece, Macedonia, or Asia Minor). The congregations spoke Greek. They were Gnostics. And let's not even go into the Johannine works -- that's pure unadulterated gnosticism.
Sorry, man, this is your faith. You should learn more about it. It was until 325 that the Catholic church deified Jesus.
And I don't see why you should be so offended. If you have so much faith, then you shouldn't need the book.

Are you debating anything I've said, if not, you're just splitting hairs. That, and subtly abandoning your point which I questioned about the name Jesus.

Each of the four Gospels specifically testifies to Jesus's divinity. Each were written WELL before 325 and probably before 70 AD.

So tell me how Jesus was diefied in 325. Or, tell me just which point you disagree on.

Plus, if you think Christian faith is a blind faith independent of the Word, that would be a grave misconception.

Sigh...

No, they don't. Unless you choose to interpret them as such.

Council of Nicea.

The misconception is yours. "The Word" as presented in the Gospel of John is a blatant mistranslation into the English, especially when interpreted in the typical neo-fundamentalist manner. It NEVER mean the Gospels or the Bible (neither of which existed in John's lifetime anyway). The Greek word Logos means the "rational thought" (or "intelligence" if you prefer). The concept of Logos has a considerable history in Greek philosophy, particularly among the Gnostics. It is the power of the mind that expresses itself rationally and creatively. To interpret Logos as the Bible or Gospels themselves is simply ridiculous.

The Jews at John's time had the Septuagint, or at least, the Pentateuch. Call it what you want, but it was the scripture from God.

I use the word "Word" interchangeably to refer to the Bible, or God's Word. If you want to split hairs there, count me out. Anyone can copy and paste and pretend they know things they don't.

If you do not believe that all four of the gospels point to Jesus's divinity as widely held, the burden of proof is on you. Please cite your sources.

Comments? Sources? Retractions?

 

[meltdown75]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: 6000SUX
There would have to be some sort of evidence.

Like what?

Some tangible piece of evidence. Something that can be measured/observed and recorded.

Not some story about someone's interpretation of an event that must be the will of a God.

But then it wouldn't be believing, I would be acknowledging a truth. I do believe in something beyond what we know now, because there's so much more to be explained about life and the universe. But for me to believe in some germanic father figure in the clouds, or some guy that chose a specific group of people...I can't do that. For me to deny some sort of god like being, I cannot do that either.

:thumbsup:

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Garth
I said:

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Tuktuk

Actually he is correct in his definition of atheism, and atheists are just as wrong to defend their beliefs as being the end of the debate. You may be thinking of agnostics.

No, he isn't. Agnosticism is not a theistic position. Trust me on this. It will save us both a lot of keystrokes.

To which you said:

Originally posted by: Tuktuk
Yes, he is. Trust me on this, it will save us both a lot of keystrokes.

Note first and foremost the glaring omission in your lame parody. You weren't willing to contradict my statement that agnosticism is not a theistic position. Implicit is your acknowledgment that agnosticism is not a theistic position, despite your earlier insistence that agnosticism is some kind of "middle ground" between theism and atheism.

So let's examine the terms in question: theism, atheism, and agnosticism.

First let's deal with yours and RapidSnail's sophomoric assertion that atheism is the affirmative belief that no god exists. We begin by defining the root: theism. Theism is a belief in the existence of a god. That is simple enough. Atheism, then, because of its construction with the "a-" prefeix must be the negation of theism.

But what is negation, and what can we derive from negation? It should be obvious that negations create dichotomies. Consider "symmetry," and it's negation, "asymmetry." Obviously, geometric shapes are either symmetrical or they are not. There is no "in between" symmetry and asymmetry. The two are dichotomous. Likewise it is with many other dichotomies: chomatic & achromatic, hydrous & anhydrous, sexual & asexual.

So it is with theism. A person is either a theist, or he is not. If he is not a theist, he is an atheist.

So what does this mean? It means that anyone without an affirmative belief in the existence of a God is an atheist. Theists say "I believe God exists." Atheists say "I do not believe God exists."

What you and RapidSnail claim in your collective ignorance, however, is that we can derive from "I do not believe that God exists" a new positive affirmation: "I believe that no gods exist." Logically, this is an absurdity. One cannot derive "I believe not-X" from "I do not believe X." Of course, neither you nor RapidSnail knew this because the two of you are morons, but luckily for the both of you I am here to illuminate your idiocy.

Where does agnosticism fit, then? Of course, agnosticism is part of its own dichotomy; the one between gnosticism and agnosticism. This dichotomy deals with knowledge, which we can discern from its root "gnosis." As it relates to a person's theistic position, their position with respect to gnosticism describes his/her confidence about theism or atheism. If a person is an agnostic theist, then we have said that this person believes God exists, but does not feel s/he has true and justified belief, or knowledge.

So we can see that the dichotomies between theism & atheism and gnosticism & agnosticism are orthogonal. Agnostics can be of the theistic or atheistic variety, therefore. Moreover, atheists are not just those that affirmatively believe that no god exists, but rather they are also those that simply do not believe a god exists for lack of justification. These are often called "strong" and "weak" atheists. All you would've had to do is read Wikipedia's page on Atheism and you would've found that to be the case.

Instead, you have obviously chosen not only to wallow in your own ignorance, but to revel arrogantly in it when you submitted your lame parody post in a style reminiscent of schoolyard mockery and jeers. One can hardly fault you, I suppose, since it is evident that your mental capacity would barely exceed that of a grade-schooler anyway. Rather, one can only pity you.

Tuktuk: where the curves of ignorance and arrogance intersect at their respective maxima.

-Garth

only the english translation of theism has added the "belief" attachment to the definition.

theism comes from the greek word theos, meaning god.
the word Atheism is derived from the greek word atheos... meaning godless.
so the not from the prefix a- is applied to the noun god, not belief.

I believe there is no god

more accuratly represents atheism, as opposed to

I do not believe there is a god

 

[Tuktuk]

Garth -

"Why would I need to replace my own definition in my own arguments? "

This proves you lack the understanding of how a basic argument works. In order for debate to be productive, terms used must be consistent. Therefore, even if you believe in a seperate definition, the terms already set forth in the debate must be used or you must clearly state in your rebuttal that you are using a different definition. Since this argument was not originally on the definition of the word "atheism," you are cannot say his usage of the word is wrong. You can set forth your own definition then continue to use the term how you see fit in your rebuttal.

edit: oh yea you're dumber than my little sister, you smell funny and your nose is too big. That makes my argument more effective right?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Authorities you can trust:

http://www.bartleby.com/68/98/2298.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html

Wow, did you all take some 'ludes tonight, or what?

I don't doubt that there is a legitimate etymological fallacy, but it isn't a formal fallacy. That means that just because someone argues from etymology doesn't mean his claims are false.

Nor did I say you were false. I'm simply saying there are multiple definitions. One based on etymology, and one based on commonplace usage.

You act like your opinion on this topic is actually the only possible way; in reality it is not.

I did not say that there are no other possible usages. I'm simply showing that people who use it differently are ignorant, and they are.

No they are not. They simply justify their definition using the majority usage of the word; you justify your usage with etymology.

The point is that there are multiple definitions for atheism: there is yours, and the others put forth here.

And the others are less useful, less descriptive, less consistent, and less accurate than mine. That's why only idiots use them.

They are accurate for what they want to believe. And, since the majority of people use their definition, I'd say it's very useful, very descriptive, and quite consistent for the context they use it in - everyday life.

It's not such a big deal having multiple definitions for a word. Just replace your definition for the word in all your arguments.

Why would I need to replace my own definition in my own arguments?

If there is a misunderstanding as to which definition a word is referring to...as in this case...

At this point I think you are speaking out of your arse. If you're still in school, you still have much to learn buddy.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Your own comments verify that both definitions are accurate. Damn those dictionaries again! You are so ignorant. In your 'brilliance' to prove that such a definition is not true, you've proven it is!

I think you need to pay closer attention.

I was rebutting the claim that atheists are not those that disbelieve a god exists, but instead they are those that believe no gods exist. Obviously, the latter group must be a subset of the former. The point is that the larger group represents atheism proper.

Definitions are not "correct" or "incorrect." They are useful, or unuseful. They are descriptive or non-descriptive. They are accurate or they are inaccurate. The simplistic definition that you rubes continue to argue from is plainly less useful, less descriptive, and less accurate. That is why it reveals you for the imbeciles that you are when you use it.

Wait. What?

Read it slowly and sound out the words. You can do it.

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Tuktuk
Actually he is correct in his definition of atheism, and atheists are just as wrong to defend their beliefs as being the end of the debate. You may be thinking of agnostics.

No, he isn't. Agnosticism is not a theistic position. Trust me on this. It will save us both a lot of keystrokes.

I thought definitions are not correct or incorrect? If that's the case, how could he be wrong? There's no such thing as incorrect definitions?

You'll have to forgive my briefness. I was hoping to avoid this protracted and unnecessary argument, and for that reason I simplified things drastically in my initial response.

Signs of your ignorance are just popping up everywhere.

How eager and jealous you are of my ability to demonstrate the idiots to be themselves.

Let me know when you graduate to Jr. High.

If your intelligence is an indication of Jr. High, I think I'll stay where I am.

That may have made sense to you, but here among the grown-ups it fell a few meters short.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: sao123

only the english translation of theism has added the "belief" attachment to the definition.

theism comes from the greek word theos, meaning god.
the word Atheism is derived from the greek word atheos... meaning godless.
so the not from the prefix a- is applied to the noun god, not belief.

I believe there is no god

more accuratly represents atheism, as opposed to

I do not believe there is a god

Absolutely preposterous. It is the -ism which identifies the belief component to theism. Then the "a-" prefix negates it.

To put it in terms of your presentation, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theos" means "godless" or "without god."

Naturally, then, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theism" signifies "without theism," or "without belief in god." That is most easily described by "I do not believe in god." A belief in no-god is an entirely distinct proposition.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Garth
I think you need to pay closer attention.

I was rebutting the claim that atheists are not those that disbelieve a god exists, but instead they are those that believe no gods exist. Obviously, the latter group must be a subset of the former. The point is that the larger group represents atheism proper.

And exactly where do you get the idea that one is larger than the other? And even if one is larger, the other still exist and is therefore still a valid definition.

Keep trying.

Read it slowly and sound out the words. You can do it.

Sorry, I'm just getting dumber with every one of your post. Must... maintain.... intelligence....

You'll have to forgive my briefness. I was hoping to avoid this protracted and unnecessary argument, and for that reason I simplified things drastically in my initial response.

Yeah, un huh. :roll:

How eager and jealous you are of my ability to demonstrate the idiots to be themselves.

:laugh:

You have definitely proven there is an idiot in the midst. I have to give you that.

That may have made sense to you, but here among the grown-ups it fell a few meters short.

Is that really the best you can do? That's the best comeback you've got?

Sad.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Nor did I say you were false. I'm simply saying there are multiple definitions. One based on etymology, and one based on commonplace usage.

And the "common" one suffers from a dearth of accuracy, consistency, usefulness and descriptiveness.

You act like your opinion on this topic is actually the only possible way; in reality it is not.

I did not say that there are no other possible usages. I'm simply showing that people who use it differently are ignorant, and they are.

No they are not. They simply justify their definition using the majority usage of the word; you justify your usage with etymology.

Of course they are! It is obvious in the ridiculous conclusions they draw from their moronic understanding of what atheism really is.

The point is that there are multiple definitions for atheism: there is yours, and the others put forth here.

And the others are less useful, less descriptive, less consistent, and less accurate than mine. That's why only idiots use them.

They are accurate for what they want to believe. And, since the majority of people use their definition, I'd say it's very useful, very descriptive, and quite consistent for the context they use it in - everyday life.

You can say what you want. I showed that you are wrong.

It's not such a big deal having multiple definitions for a word. Just replace your definition for the word in all your arguments.

Why would I need to replace my own definition in my own arguments?

If there is a misunderstanding as to which definition a word is referring to...as in this case...

...then... what?

At this point I think you are speaking out of your arse. If you're still in school, you still have much to learn buddy.

As we have all seen, what you think is worth only slightly more than the drool on your chin.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

only the english translation of theism has added the "belief" attachment to the definition.

theism comes from the greek word theos, meaning god.
the word Atheism is derived from the greek word atheos... meaning godless.
so the not from the prefix a- is applied to the noun god, not belief.

I believe there is no god

more accuratly represents atheism, as opposed to

I do not believe there is a god

Absolutely preposterous. It is the -ism which identifies the belief component to theism. Then the "a-" prefix negates it.

To put it in terms of your presentation, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theos" means "godless" or "without god."

Naturally, then, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theism" signifies "without theism," or "without belief in god." That is most easily described by "I do not believe in god." A belief in no-god is an entirely distinct proposition.

Good god. Are you on some medication tonight?

You talk about "distinict proposition"s like you actually have knowledge of logic, and then you dismiss his argument with simply "absolutely preposterous"?

He's absolutely correct - one etymology could be "atheos" + "ism" The "atheos" was created in greek and the "ism" added later.

My authorities:

http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/A0495200.html

SYLLABICATION: a·the·ism
PRONUNCIATION: th-zm
NOUN: 1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.
ETYMOLOGY: French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a?1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Appendix I.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth
I think you need to pay closer attention.

I was rebutting the claim that atheists are not those that disbelieve a god exists, but instead they are those that believe no gods exist. Obviously, the latter group must be a subset of the former. The point is that the larger group represents atheism proper.

And exactly where do you get the idea that one is larger than the other?

By definition, supersets must contain their subsets.

And even if one is larger, the other still exist and is therefore still a valid definition.

Keep trying.

No, really, it isn't. Definitions can be invalid, and in this case the definition of atheism as "the belief in no-god" is certainly invalid. It is invalid because it does not describe people that are not theists and yet do not believe in no-god.

{snip}

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

only the english translation of theism has added the "belief" attachment to the definition.

theism comes from the greek word theos, meaning god.
the word Atheism is derived from the greek word atheos... meaning godless.
so the not from the prefix a- is applied to the noun god, not belief.

I believe there is no god

more accuratly represents atheism, as opposed to

I do not believe there is a god

Absolutely preposterous. It is the -ism which identifies the belief component to theism. Then the "a-" prefix negates it.

To put it in terms of your presentation, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theos" means "godless" or "without god."

Naturally, then, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theism" signifies "without theism," or "without belief in god." That is most easily described by "I do not believe in god." A belief in no-god is an entirely distinct proposition.

Whatever. Regardless of your stance on the ability of a dictionary to present a 'valid' definition, it presents a 100% valid source of a word. Go back and check those dictionary sites. That root, 'atheos', is dead on.

It's not too late to simply say, 'Fine, it's a valid definition even if I don't think it's a correct one.' I think you'd actually gain respect with that, even though we all know it'll never happen.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Vic

Atheists say "I do not believe God exists."

This is not a passive statement, Garth. That makes your post here more than a bit uncalled-for arrogant in its tone.


And let's be clear about something else: God or gods, it doesn't matter. If Zeus came down to earth like the Second Coming, the Christians wouldn't be pissed. He'd be God. They'd be ecstatic. If there are 10 trillion gods but collectively they create the whole of reality, then they are God. A thing is defined by what it is and what it does, and not by what we choose to label it.

That is the most moronic statement and shows you have a COMPLETE disconnect with the Christian faith. Go into a Christian church and make that statement? Seriously, I need a good laugh. I'll DEFINITELY be laughing my ass off when they throw you out.

And let me clear this up for you Vic, as you're likely to make another moronic assumption about me. I KNOW what you are trying to say, but Christians will simply not see it that way.

That's good, because I'm not Christian.

I never said you were. And since you think it is good to have a disconnect from their faith, maybe you shouldn't speak on their behave and suggest they would act a certain way. Because you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

You missed my point entirely though. I'm not concerned what they would say TODAY, I was referring to what they do given your hypothetical situation.
Let me refresh your memory on that:

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Quite the contrary. I would LOVE to see Zeus come down from the clouds and appear infront of the world. I'd be laughing my ass off at the expression on all the Christians' faces. LOL, man, that would be great! And let me tell you, me being wrong would never have felt so good.

Umm, it sounds like the problem lies with YOU. Again, another incorrect assumption. This situation takes place today or sometime in my lifetime, as I suggested I would be there laughing. Am I missing something? I didn't think it would be that hard to understand.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

only the english translation of theism has added the "belief" attachment to the definition.

theism comes from the greek word theos, meaning god.
the word Atheism is derived from the greek word atheos... meaning godless.
so the not from the prefix a- is applied to the noun god, not belief.

I believe there is no god

more accuratly represents atheism, as opposed to

I do not believe there is a god

Absolutely preposterous. It is the -ism which identifies the belief component to theism. Then the "a-" prefix negates it.

To put it in terms of your presentation, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theos" means "godless" or "without god."

Naturally, then, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theism" signifies "without theism," or "without belief in god." That is most easily described by "I do not believe in god." A belief in no-god is an entirely distinct proposition.

Good god. Are you on some medication tonight?

You talk about "distinict proposition"s like you actually have knowledge of logic, and then you dismiss his argument with simply "absolutely preposterous"?

I calls 'em as they is.

He's absolutely correct - one etymology could be "atheos" + "ism" The "atheos" was created in greek and the "ism" added later.

My authorities:

http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/A0495200.html

SYLLABICATION: a·the·ism
PRONUNCIATION: th-zm
NOUN: 1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.
ETYMOLOGY: French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a?1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Appendix I.

In what way do you think this contradicts anything that I've said?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Nor did I say you were false. I'm simply saying there are multiple definitions. One based on etymology, and one based on commonplace usage.

And the "common" one suffers from a dearth of accuracy, consistency, usefulness and descriptiveness.

By whose authority? Yours?

Accuracy, consistency, usefulness, and descriptiveness are all a matter of context.

You act like your opinion on this topic is actually the only possible way; in reality it is not.

I did not say that there are no other possible usages. I'm simply showing that people who use it differently are ignorant, and they are.

No they are not. They simply justify their definition using the majority usage of the word; you justify your usage with etymology.

Of course they are! It is obvious in the ridiculous conclusions they draw from their moronic understanding of what atheism really is.

haha, what an empty statement. no real argument at all in there, just personal attacks.

The point is that there are multiple definitions for atheism: there is yours, and the others put forth here.

And the others are less useful, less descriptive, less consistent, and less accurate than mine. That's why only idiots use them.

They are accurate for what they want to believe. And, since the majority of people use their definition, I'd say it's very useful, very descriptive, and quite consistent for the context they use it in - everyday life.

You can say what you want. I showed that you are wrong.
[/quote]

again, you haven't shown anything, you just state that you have.

It's not such a big deal having multiple definitions for a word. Just replace your definition for the word in all your arguments.

Why would I need to replace my own definition in my own arguments?

If there is a misunderstanding as to which definition a word is referring to...as in this case...

...then... what?

At this point I think you are speaking out of your arse. If you're still in school, you still have much to learn buddy.

As we have all seen, what you think is worth only slightly more than the drool on your chin.

Wow, are you just neffing? There wasn't an argument in this whole post, just attacks.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

only the english translation of theism has added the "belief" attachment to the definition.

theism comes from the greek word theos, meaning god.
the word Atheism is derived from the greek word atheos... meaning godless.
so the not from the prefix a- is applied to the noun god, not belief.

I believe there is no god

more accuratly represents atheism, as opposed to

I do not believe there is a god

Absolutely preposterous. It is the -ism which identifies the belief component to theism. Then the "a-" prefix negates it.

To put it in terms of your presentation, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theos" means "godless" or "without god."

Naturally, then, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theism" signifies "without theism," or "without belief in god." That is most easily described by "I do not believe in god." A belief in no-god is an entirely distinct proposition.

Wrong again...
-ism comes from the greek suffix -ismos, which means to put into action or practice.
-ism is defined as the state of, the condition of, the action of, the process of or the practice of...

Belief does not come into play at all... see the words:
communism, botulism, feminism, voyeurism, sexism, heroism, racism, eliteism...

-ism is in no way connected to the word belief, which by the way in greek is "pistevo".

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

only the english translation of theism has added the "belief" attachment to the definition.

theism comes from the greek word theos, meaning god.
the word Atheism is derived from the greek word atheos... meaning godless.
so the not from the prefix a- is applied to the noun god, not belief.

I believe there is no god

more accuratly represents atheism, as opposed to

I do not believe there is a god

Absolutely preposterous. It is the -ism which identifies the belief component to theism. Then the "a-" prefix negates it.

To put it in terms of your presentation, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theos" means "godless" or "without god."

Naturally, then, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theism" signifies "without theism," or "without belief in god." That is most easily described by "I do not believe in god." A belief in no-god is an entirely distinct proposition.

Whatever. Regardless of your stance on the ability of a dictionary to present a 'valid' definition, it presents a 100% valid source of a word. Go back and check those dictionary sites. That root, 'atheos', is dead on.

That you think this affects anything about the validity of my argument only cements the fact that you are incapable of rebutting it.

It's not too late to simply say, 'Fine, it's a valid definition even if I don't think it's a correct one.' I think you'd actually gain respect with that, even though we all know it'll never happen.

There is no need.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

only the english translation of theism has added the "belief" attachment to the definition.

theism comes from the greek word theos, meaning god.
the word Atheism is derived from the greek word atheos... meaning godless.
so the not from the prefix a- is applied to the noun god, not belief.

I believe there is no god

more accuratly represents atheism, as opposed to

I do not believe there is a god

Absolutely preposterous. It is the -ism which identifies the belief component to theism. Then the "a-" prefix negates it.

To put it in terms of your presentation, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theos" means "godless" or "without god."

Naturally, then, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theism" signifies "without theism," or "without belief in god." That is most easily described by "I do not believe in god." A belief in no-god is an entirely distinct proposition.

Good god. Are you on some medication tonight?

You talk about "distinict proposition"s like you actually have knowledge of logic, and then you dismiss his argument with simply "absolutely preposterous"?

I calls 'em as they is.

He's absolutely correct - one etymology could be "atheos" + "ism" The "atheos" was created in greek and the "ism" added later.

My authorities:

http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/A0495200.html

SYLLABICATION: a·the·ism
PRONUNCIATION: th-zm
NOUN: 1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.
ETYMOLOGY: French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a?1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Appendix I.

In what way do you think this contradicts anything that I've said?

The etymology is.

a + theos = atheos

"a" meaning negative, and theos meaning god. atheos means "no god"

then "atheos" + "ism" = atheism

so "belief in no god". NOT "no belief in God".

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

only the english translation of theism has added the "belief" attachment to the definition.

theism comes from the greek word theos, meaning god.
the word Atheism is derived from the greek word atheos... meaning godless.
so the not from the prefix a- is applied to the noun god, not belief.

I believe there is no god

more accuratly represents atheism, as opposed to

I do not believe there is a god

Absolutely preposterous. It is the -ism which identifies the belief component to theism. Then the "a-" prefix negates it.

To put it in terms of your presentation, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theos" means "godless" or "without god."

Naturally, then, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theism" signifies "without theism," or "without belief in god." That is most easily described by "I do not believe in god." A belief in no-god is an entirely distinct proposition.

Whatever. Regardless of your stance on the ability of a dictionary to present a 'valid' definition, it presents a 100% valid source of a word. Go back and check those dictionary sites. That root, 'atheos', is dead on.

That you think this affects anything about the validity of my argument only cements the fact that you are incapable of rebutting it.

It's not too late to simply say, 'Fine, it's a valid definition even if I don't think it's a correct one.' I think you'd actually gain respect with that, even though we all know it'll never happen.

There is no need.

I can play this game too:

Clearly since you can't even understand our arguments, you really have no way of proving them wrong.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

only the english translation of theism has added the "belief" attachment to the definition.

theism comes from the greek word theos, meaning god.
the word Atheism is derived from the greek word atheos... meaning godless.
so the not from the prefix a- is applied to the noun god, not belief.

I believe there is no god

more accuratly represents atheism, as opposed to

I do not believe there is a god

Absolutely preposterous. It is the -ism which identifies the belief component to theism. Then the "a-" prefix negates it.

To put it in terms of your presentation, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theos" means "godless" or "without god."

Naturally, then, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theism" signifies "without theism," or "without belief in god." That is most easily described by "I do not believe in god." A belief in no-god is an entirely distinct proposition.

Wrong again...
-ism comes from the greek suffix -ismos, which means to put into action or practice.

-ism is defined as the state of, the condition of, the action of, the process of or the practice of...

As in... to practice a belief? Seriously, that you think this actually contradicts my claims is just silly.

Belief does not come into play at all... see the words:
communism, botulism, feminism, voyeurism, sexism, heroism, racism, eliteism...

-ism is in no way connected to the word belief, which by the way in greek is "pistevo".

It is obvious that you misunderstood me, and that I gave you too much credit.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth
I think you need to pay closer attention.

I was rebutting the claim that atheists are not those that disbelieve a god exists, but instead they are those that believe no gods exist. Obviously, the latter group must be a subset of the former. The point is that the larger group represents atheism proper.

And exactly where do you get the idea that one is larger than the other?

By definition, supersets must contain their subsets.

Really? Now that's that's clear, mind answer the question? Which one is larger of the two belief systems? And I'd like to seem to uncontroversial evidence on this.

And by the way, you still haven't answered how there can be two different types of Atheist if there is only one definition of Atheism.

And even if one is larger, the other still exist and is therefore still a valid definition.

Keep trying.

No, really, it isn't. Definitions can be invalid, and in this case the definition of atheism as "the belief in no-god" is certainly invalid. It is invalid because it does not describe people that are not theists and yet do not believe in no-god.

{snip}

[/quote]

So 'the belief in no-God' in invalid. This is a definition from the link YOU provided and profess to believe in.

The definition of atheism as a "belief" or "doctrine" reflects a view of atheism as a specific ideological stance, as opposed to the rejection or simple absence of a belief.

So what, even atheist don't know what they believe? Their own definition isn't valid?

You truly can't say "I'm wrong", can you?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

The etymology is.

a + theos = atheos

"a" meaning negative, and theos meaning god. atheos means "no god"

More accurately: "without god"

then "atheos" + "ism" = atheism

so "belief in no god". NOT "no belief in God".

No, so "without god belief" or "no belief in God."

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: totalcommand

The etymology is.

a + theos = atheos

"a" meaning negative, and theos meaning god. atheos means "no god"

More accurately: "without god"

then "atheos" + "ism" = atheism

so "belief in no god". NOT "no belief in God".

No, so "without god belief" or "no belief in God."

No, so "belief in without God"