aelf
Ashen One
That doesn't strike me as a very educated way to argue. It seems suspiciously reminiscent of l337 speech. If you think reading and acquiring bits of knowledge = education, you are sorely wrong. Besides, you don't seem to understand the information you learned.
Great Librarian said:I wrote an article dispelling such myths, here is an excerpt.
The Real English Etymons
The French Words Enter English
The (Middle) French word athée, 'atheist; godless' is first attested in English use as atheist, 'one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of god' in 1571. The French athée comes from the Latin atheos which was transliterated into Latin from the early Ancient Greek atheos (ἄθεοςby Cicero as noted. However the meaning attested in 1571 corresponds to the meaning in Modern English, it must be noted that the connotation of the word and its use as grievous insult would have meant that the term would not have actually been used by anyone who would privately call herself an atheist until the 18th century. Indeed, writers of the time who would retrospectively have the terms atheist or atheistic applied to them avoided, sometimes at the cost of intellectual honesty, the use of language which could have implicated them as atheists.3,4,5,6,7
In about 1587 the first attestation of the English word atheism is found. The word comes from the French athéisme which comes from French athée and from then follows the etymology of athée back to the Greek. The -isme suffix in French is derived from the Latin -ismus which comes from the Greek -ismos (ζςμος
Theist and Theism
Theist is actually an English adaptation of the early Ancient Greek work theos (θεός
The Modern English definition of theism is ' belief in the existence of a god or gods'. It, however, usually carries the connotation of monotheistic religions and would then mean 'belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world that transcends yet is immanent in the world'.8
Debunking the Etymological Fallacy
This fallacy requires a person to apply to the terms atheist and atheism the meaning of the early Ancient Greek atheos (ἄθεος
That is just trying to BS your way with loads of facts that do not even answer the question. Right, so whatever you say is true, but so what? How do they answer the question at hand?
Let's look at it this way, if you are asked if you believe in god(s), you must answer "yes", "no" or "don't know", right? Any of these, even a "no", is an answer. There is no way of running away from it. Depending on your answer, you either profess to be religious, atheist or agnostic. If you have no belief, how do you make such statements at all? In fact, it is impossible to have no belief, even if you profess not to know, which just means you believe that you don't know enough.
What you seem to be doing is to dig into piles of books in your library
mischief and find bits of information to try to answer the question in a roundabout way without actually getting to it, ignoring the very basic facts and understanding. You mean to bamboozle your opponents with 'impressive' knowledge or what? Besides, you started off trying to run away from the argument in the first place, which kind of betrays your lack of a certain stance. You only came up with all these useless facts when pressured. How old are you?I think I know why you are a Great Librarian, rather than a Great Library Scholar
