Muslim scientists, scholars call for adoption of "Mecca Time".

Don't you see that both religions are essentially the same? They just go about it in different ways. It may seem like Christianity is a bigger threat than Islam, but trust me, it only seems so because Christianity is the majority in the U.S. Islam and any other religion would just as big a threat if it were the majority belief. Fear, hate, and bigotry will persist regardless of which religion we're talking about.
You've got that wrong, religion doesn't lead to bigotry. Some bigoted people just use religion as their vessel to spread their hate. Others use race, sex, shoesize, ice-cream flavours, whatever etc.

oh, and btw, how exactly did you come from my post to religion? What I said had nothing to do with religion at all.
 
To say that something exists 'under atheism (sic)' makes no sense. Atheists are not a group of people who share any necessarily common beliefs such that they can be considered a homologous group of people. They are only linked by their negative stance in regards to the question of the existence of a deity or deities and only by that negative stance. Atheism is not an ideology it is the absence of god belief. There can be fearful, hateful and bigoted Atheists but it's necessarily so, considering that Atheism does not constitute a set of ideological beliefs to which participants in Atheism must adhere, that these things cannot exist 'under atheism (sic)'.

The phrase 'under whatever religion' makes little sense either because people know very well that a particular religion is hardly an umbrella for the same sets of beliefs and perspectives. To ascribe evil to religion in general is percisely being fearful, hateful and bigoted. If you say that religious people share fear, hatred and bigotry, then many atheists certainly do too.
 
The phrase 'under whatever religion' makes little sense either because people know very well that a particular religion is hardly an umbrella for the same sets of beliefs and perspectives. To ascribe evil to religion in general is percisely being fearful, hateful and bigoted. If you say that religious people share fear, hatred and bigotry, then many atheists certainly do too.

I don't know what you are talking about. I never wrote that religion is evil or that only religious people share fear, hatred and bigotry. I believe I wrote that all people can. I rebutted someone on mistakenly using Atheism is the same sense that one can use the word Christianity or religion. There are necessary and contingent beliefs for someone to be Christian; there are things one must believe. I was simply pointing out that Atheists cannot be grouped together like the followers of a particular ideological faith.

Reading comprehension is a good skill to possess.
 
I don't know what you are talking about. I never wrote that religion is evil or that only religious people share fear, hatred and bigotry. I believe I wrote that all people can. I rebutted someone on mistakenly using Atheism is the same sense that one can use the word Christianity or religion. There are necessary and contingent beliefs for someone to be Christian; there are things one must believe. I was simply pointing out that Atheists cannot be grouped together like the followers of a particular ideological faith.

Reading comprehension is a good skill to possess.

Hold on before you insult me, friend. I said "If you say". First, there's the word "If", and then "you" doesn't necessarily refer to you, especially when there's no explicit indication that it does.

Language skills are good to possess.

Anyway, the person you rebutted is me, but, like I said, it makes as little sense to group religious people (even of the same faith) together and ascribe particular characteristics to all of them. If you (again, not referring to you personally - must this be made blindingly obvious?) want to use that logic, then I can reply with the same logic about atheism. There are necessary and contingent beliefs for someone to be atheist. Does it matter which has more? Put it another way, if Islam has more of those than Christianity, does it make Islam more of a religion than Christianity?
 
Now your asking me to pay attention. I haven't got time for this. I didn't even realize you were the same person, which really goes to show how much I don't care about this. There are not necessary and contingent beliefs for someone to be Atheist. As I wrote before there is only one thing necessary for someone to be Atheist: a non-belief in god(s). It's not a religion. A religion requires religious beliefs. I'm not going further than this on this subject. I loathe thread jacking and once again, I've lost interest. Who are you and what is the meaning of this dialogue? -Don't answer! If I lack language skills, I'm amazed you were able to respond to my gibberish at all.
 
Now your asking me to pay attention. I haven't got time for this. I didn't even realize you were the same person, which really goes to show how much I don't care about this. There are not necessary and contingent beliefs for someone to be Atheist. As I wrote before there is only one thing necessary for someone to be Atheist: a non-belief in god(s). It's not a religion. A religion requires religious beliefs. I'm not going further than this on this subject. I loathe thread jacking and once again, I've lost interest. Who are you and what is the meaning of this dialogue? -Don't answer! If I lack language skills, I'm amazed you were able to respond to my gibberish at all.

:lol: What a cop-out.

To be atheist, you have to believe that there is no god. That is also a belief. There is no such thing as a no-belief. And religious belief is ultimately a meaningless term. It is more descriptive than substantive.

Anyway, a lack of language skills doesn't make you a ****** who speaks gibberish.

I'm sure the Great Library can offer something better.
 
Great Librarian, aelf has beaten me to it. There ARE contingent beliefs necessary to be an atheist. Non-belief is a belief. If I do not believe in Santa Clause, that is both a non-belief - in Santa Clause - and a belief - in the non-belief of Santa Clause. To say otherwise requires what I like to call, bullsh*t logic. That is, logic that is total bullsh*t.

I think I am going to track down that discussion, because, without tooting my own horn, I believe I single-handedly became the first person to successfully argue that atheism is a religion. Although the opposition wasn't exactly Gorgias.
 
It is simply an absence of belief in god(s). - Atheism. Please, read that and reread it until it makes sense to you. As I said, I'm uninterested. Can we go back to Muslims being silly poohs now?
 
You did no such thing, Sharwood. I'm going to bed now. I'm not responding unless it has to do with Muslims being silly poohs. Still think the way you do? Check out rationalresponders.com and test your argument there. I have neither the time, patience, nor care to go any further with this.
 
Yep, that's what the guy I was arguing with at RottenTomatoes did too. Ran away when my argument defeated his, because I was right, and he was wrong. I notice you had no problem taking the argument in this direction - quite a way aways from "Muslims being silly poohs" - when you thought you had a chance of winning.
 
You've got that wrong, religion doesn't lead to bigotry. Some bigoted people just use religion as their vessel to spread their hate. Others use race, sex, shoesize, ice-cream flavours, whatever etc.

oh, and btw, how exactly did you come from my post to religion? What I said had nothing to do with religion at all.

If you read carefully, you can see how it could easily be construed that you're saying something about religion. Having revealed your true meanings, I shall withdraw my comments (as quoting you).
 
It is simply an absence of belief in god(s). - Atheism. Please, read that and reread it until it makes sense to you. As I said, I'm uninterested. Can we go back to Muslims being silly poohs now?

It's been addressed, but let me try my hand at convincing GL.

Are you telling me you do not believe in God? But you don't not have a belief that there is no God? So,you lack a belief in God, yet you do not believe that there is no God?

I myself am an atheist. So, none of the members here are trying to convert you or anything. The point is, do Christians believe there is a God? Yes. Atheists believe that they are wrong. We believe that there is no God.

From a completely objective view, atheism could be wrong. Deity-worship may be wrong, on the other hand. So it is a matter of belief on both sides.

For example, you flip a coin. A religious person calls "tails" before it lands. You call "heads" before it lands. Due to some factors, you each believe, albeit in different outcomes, that the coin will land and lie with your respective sides up. Can the coin land on its edge? That's the position you are taking right now. You have chosen a non-choice. There is a "you believe in God" and a "you don't believe in God." There is no "you don't believe."

Or, take binary for example. You have 0 and 1. You cannot have anything else.

Or a true or false question. God is real. True or false? A Christian would answer true because he believes in God. Compare: God is fake. True or false? How would an atheist answer? And why? (Hint: parallel structure with the previous T/F question)
 
Yep, that's what the guy I was arguing with at RottenTomatoes did too. Ran away when my argument defeated his, because I was right, and he was wrong. I notice you had no problem taking the argument in this direction - quite a way aways from "Muslims being silly poohs" - when you thought you had a chance of winning.

I didn't run away, I got bored and directed you somewhere where your argument can be addressed by people who won't get bored and who will actually take the time to properly argue against what you've proposed. As you don't seem inclined to do that, however, I've put your argument on the forums there myself. If I had more time and care, I'd search out the many threads where exactly what you propose is pwned, but I'll just quote the arguments against you here.

a_propagandist said:
It's been addressed, but let me try my hand at convincing GL.

Are you telling me you do not believe in God? But you don't not have a belief that there is no God? So,you lack a belief in God, yet you do not believe that there is no God?

No, that's not what I'm telling you. I wrote, 'Atheists have a non-belief in god(s). I also wrote that that is the only thing that defines an Atheist as such. The issue here is now whether non-belief is itself a belief. I argue that it is not a belief, because it would be a negative belief and would tend to validate theists' god beliefs.

a_propagandist said:
I myself am an atheist. So, none of the members here are trying to convert you or anything. The point is, do Christians believe there is a God? Yes. Atheists believe that they are wrong. We believe that there is no God.

I am not worried about conversion. Have I implicated myself as Atheist? I'm only defending a position. I do, happen to be Atheist, though.

I don't believe that Christians are wrong. I happen to know they're wrong about their god and have the ability to quote proofs as to why a supernatural and otherwise self contradictory god cannot exist (though it should be quite self-evident that it cannot simply by its definition).

This seems to be a problem with semantics. Apparently none of the people I've talked to yet are familiar with formal (or informal) logic. A belief is different from knowledge and a belief shouldn't be conflated to be knowledge.

a_propagandist said:
From a completely objective view, atheism could be wrong. Deity-worship may be wrong, on the other hand. So it is a matter of belief on both sides.

Is deity worship wrong? I don't know if i's necessary to worship to believe in a god. These are two separate things you're talking about now. Worship and the Atheist non-belief, when you probably mean to refer to god belief and the Atheist non-belief.

a_propagandist said:
For example, you flip a coin. A religious person calls "tails" before it lands. You call "heads" before it lands. Due to some factors, you each believe, albeit in different outcomes, that the coin will land and lie with your respective sides up. Can the coin land on its edge? That's the position you are taking right now. You have chosen a non-choice. There is a "you believe in God" and a "you don't believe in God." There is no "you don't believe."

Read above.

a_propagandist said:
Or, take binary for example. You have 0 and 1. You cannot have anything else.

Okay. The existence of god(s) is not a binary claim. There is on one hand the non-belief in god(s) (okay, or the belief that there are no god(s)) and the possible existence of an infinite number of god(s) or all those that are said to exist presently (take your pick). I don't see a zero or a one, unless you're talking about a single god claim.

a_propagandist said:
Or a true or false question. God is real. True or false? A Christian would answer true because he believes in God. Compare: God is fake. True or false? How would an atheist answer? And why? (Hint: parallel structure with the previous T/F question)

No. See above. If we're talking about only one god claim, then sure. 'God is not real.' would be the response from the Atheist, who would then, perhaps, need to defend that position, which depending on the god in question will result in a stalemate (some pantheist god claims, for example) or in the defeat of the god claim (the Christian god). It is not necessary for non-belief to be defended in this way until the Atheist makes a positive statement regarding the veracity of a god claim. All an Atheist must do is deny every possible and extant god claim.

Similarly to the Atheist a Muslim (or Christian, Jew, Pagan, Zoroastrian... ad infinitum) does not have an active belief about the non-existence of every other god claim, they simply have a non-belief in every other god. Practising a negative belief is not even possible and it can't be a valid position to take.

Do not confuse gnostic (knowledge) claims with other claims when it comes to the argument of the existence of gods. That is, while I don't hold to the particular position all the time and have many beliefs regarding the myriad of god beliefs that are extant as well as those that are possible, it is perfectly possible to be an agnostic Atheist, which is exactly the type of position I've been defending here all along. The agnostic Atheist makes no knowledge claims about the existence of god(s) but also has a non-belief in god(s).

I posted your replies here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/13730#comment-160634
feel free to check out the responses as they come. In the meantime I'll make a thread here so that we can stop jacking this one and carry out this boring mess there.
 
I didn't run away, I got bored and directed you somewhere where your argument can be addressed by people who won't get bored and who will actually take the time to properly argue against what you've proposed. As you don't seem inclined to do that, however, I've put your argument on the forums there myself. If I had more time and care, I'd search out the many threads where exactly what you propose is pwned, but I'll just quote the arguments against you here.
What I propose can't be owned, for it is correct. It would be like pwning 2+2=4.

No, that's not what I'm telling you. I wrote, 'Atheists have a non-belief in god(s). I also wrote that that is the only thing that defines an Atheist as such. The issue here is now whether non-belief is itself a belief. I argue that it is not a belief, because it would be a negative belief and would tend to validate theists' god beliefs.
You just said it yourself; a negative belief. A negative belief is still a belief, in the same way a negative comment is still a comment, a negative charge is still a charge, etc.

I am not worried about conversion. Have I implicated myself as Atheist? I'm only defending a position. I do, happen to be Atheist, though.
I'm pretty sure you mentioned you were an atheist at some point, but if you didn't, meh, it was pretty clear by implication.

I don't believe that Christians are wrong. I happen to know they're wrong about their god and have the ability to quote proofs as to why a supernatural and otherwise self contradictory god cannot exist (though it should be quite self-evident that it cannot simply by its definition).
This is wrong. You cannot prove that God does not exist in their fashion any more than they can prove he does exist. You can point out flaws in their argument - of which there are an absolute crapload but you cannot conclusively prove they are wrong about the existence of their god.

This seems to be a problem with semantics. Apparently none of the people I've talked to yet are familiar with formal (or informal) logic. A belief is different from knowledge and a belief shouldn't be conflated to be knowledge.
There is no problem with semantics here. Of course belief is different from knowledge. But so far, you yourself are displaying little knowledge, and a lot of belief. It's obvious from your arguments that you are not familiar with logic.

That really is semantics.

Okay. The existence of god(s) is not a binary claim. There is on one hand the non-belief in god(s) (okay, or the belief that there are no god(s)) and the possible existence of an infinite number of god(s) or all those that are said to exist presently (take your pick). I don't see a zero or a one, unless you're talking about a single god claim.
He used an example. Logic again. Not meant to actually pertain to a god or gods.


No. See above. If we're talking about only one god claim, then sure. 'God is not real.' would be the response from the Atheist, who would then, perhaps, need to defend that position, which depending on the god in question will result in a stalemate (some pantheist god claims, for example) or in the defeat of the god claim (the Christian god). It is not necessary for non-belief to be defended in this way until the Atheist makes a positive statement regarding the veracity of a god claim. All an Atheist must do is deny every possible and extant god claim.

Similarly to the Atheist a Muslim (or Christian, Jew, Pagan, Zoroastrian... ad infinitum) does not have an active belief about the non-existence of every other god claim, they simply have a non-belief in every other god. Practising a negative belief is not even possible and it can't be a valid position to take.

Do not confuse gnostic (knowledge) claims with other claims when it comes to the argument of the existence of gods. That is, while I don't hold to the particular position all the time and have many beliefs regarding the myriad of god beliefs that are extant as well as those that are possible, it is perfectly possible to be an agnostic Atheist, which is exactly the type of position I've been defending here all along. The agnostic Atheist makes no knowledge claims about the existence of god(s) but also has a non-belief in god(s).

I posted your replies here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/13730#comment-160634
feel free to check out the responses as they come. In the meantime I'll make a thread here so that we can stop jacking this one and carry out this boring mess there.
Here you just degenerate into nonsense.

I've already explained that you cannot defeat the God claim. Individual parts of the arguments, yes. An example of such would be the archaeological evidence that my namesake, Joshua, didn't conquer the entire Holy Land when the Old Testament claims he did. But as to whether or not Yahweh (or Elohim) exists, we can't say.

Of course people who believe in one religion disbelieve others. If I believe in the Islamic Allah, I cannot also believe in the Christian Jehovah, despite their similarities. And before you try and sidetrack the argument by screaming about the supposed differences between disbelief, belief, and non-belief, they're the same damn thing.

I'm an agnostic, and it is not possible to be an agnostic atheist. They are different things. Atheism is, as you said, the non-belief in god(s). Agnosticism literally means: without knowledge. I don't remember if it's actually Greek, or just derived from it, but Huxley coined it, and Darwin essentially 'converted' to his friend's ideas, so they were pretty much the first modern agnostics.

Agnosticism implies a lack of knowledge in whether or not god(s) really exist: therefore, one who follows the scientific method in his religious observance cannot believe in them. Likewise, the lack of god(s) is equally unknowable: therefore, one can also not believe in their non-existence. From these two things, comes the acceptance that we simply don't know whether one religion is correct, all of them are, none of them are, or something entirely unknown to us and different is going on, such as the old "teapot orbiting Mars rules the Universe" example I heard once.

So as we can see, one cannot be both an atheist and agnostic. They're two contradictory terms. It's like being both gay and straight. You can't. If you prefer the same sex, you're gay, the opposite, straight, both, you're bi. Obviously there are many more permutations, but you get the idea.

Good, make the thread, I'll find my argument from RottenTomatoes. But I see no need to sign up for another forum. I like this one.
 
What I propose can't be owned, for it is correct. It would be like pwning 2+2=4.


You just said it yourself; a negative belief. A negative belief is still a belief, in the same way a negative comment is still a comment, a negative charge is still a charge, etc.


I'm pretty sure you mentioned you were an atheist at some point, but if you didn't, meh, it was pretty clear by implication.


This is wrong. You cannot prove that God does not exist in their fashion any more than they can prove he does exist. You can point out flaws in their argument - of which there are an absolute crapload but you cannot conclusively prove they are wrong about the existence of their god.


There is no problem with semantics here. Of course belief is different from knowledge. But so far, you yourself are displaying little knowledge, and a lot of belief. It's obvious from your arguments that you are not familiar with logic.


That really is semantics.


He used an example. Logic again. Not meant to actually pertain to a god or gods.



Here you just degenerate into nonsense.

I've already explained that you cannot defeat the God claim. Individual parts of the arguments, yes. An example of such would be the archaeological evidence that my namesake, Joshua, didn't conquer the entire Holy Land when the Old Testament claims he did. But as to whether or not Yahweh (or Elohim) exists, we can't say.

Of course people who believe in one religion disbelieve others. If I believe in the Islamic Allah, I cannot also believe in the Christian Jehovah, despite their similarities. And before you try and sidetrack the argument by screaming about the supposed differences between disbelief, belief, and non-belief, they're the same damn thing.

I'm an agnostic, and it is not possible to be an agnostic atheist. They are different things. Atheism is, as you said, the non-belief in god(s). Agnosticism literally means: without knowledge. I don't remember if it's actually Greek, or just derived from it, but Huxley coined it, and Darwin essentially 'converted' to his friend's ideas, so they were pretty much the first modern agnostics.

Agnosticism implies a lack of knowledge in whether or not god(s) really exist: therefore, one who follows the scientific method in his religious observance cannot believe in them. Likewise, the lack of god(s) is equally unknowable: therefore, one can also not believe in their non-existence. From these two things, comes the acceptance that we simply don't know whether one religion is correct, all of them are, none of them are, or something entirely unknown to us and different is going on, such as the old "teapot orbiting Mars rules the Universe" example I heard once.

So as we can see, one cannot be both an atheist and agnostic. They're two contradictory terms. It's like being both gay and straight. You can't. If you prefer the same sex, you're gay, the opposite, straight, both, you're bi. Obviously there are many more permutations, but you get the idea.

Good, make the thread, I'll find my argument from RottenTomatoes. But I see no need to sign up for another forum. I like this one.

You're obviously too stupid to argue with. Visit rationalresponders.com and test your argument there, you don't need to sign up, you obviously haven't even checked it out. Also, why don't you check the net for resources that are easy to find and you'll find that there is such a thing as agnostic atheism. As well, there is such a thing as agnostic theism. One is a belief or non-belief and the other is a claim of knowledge, whether it can be had or not. Don't be stupid. Forget me starting another thread. I'm just going to ignore your ignorant tripe from now on.
 
You're obviously too stupid to argue with. Visit rationalresponders.com and test your argument there, you don't need to sign up, you obviously haven't even checked it out. Also, why don't you check the net for resources that are easy to find and you'll find that there is such a thing as agnostic atheism. As well, there is such a thing as agnostic theism. One is a belief or non-belief and the other is a claim of knowledge, whether it can be had or not. Don't be stupid. Forget me starting another thread. I'm just going to ignore your ignorant tripe from now on.
Allow me to respond in a fashion which you deserve:

Mwahahahahahahahahahahaha!
:rotfl: :lol: :rotfl: :crazyeye: :crazyeye: :rotfl: :aargh: :wallbash:

If I'm stupid, then you are, as Londo Mollari would say, "the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots." I'm sure there are people who call themselves agnostic atheists. Doesn't mean that they are both agnostic and atheists, as the two terms are mutually exclusive, in the same fashion that someone cannot be both a woman, and a man, as the terms are mutually exclusive.

Just for your own enlightenment, and anyone else who is interested, here is the argument I mentioned, which I just found. Enjoy.
 
Allow me to respond in a fashion which you deserve:

Mwahahahahahahahahahahaha!
:rotfl: :lol: :rotfl: :crazyeye: :crazyeye: :rotfl: :aargh: :wallbash:

If I'm stupid, then you are, as Londo Mollari would say, "the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots." I'm sure there are people who call themselves agnostic atheists. Doesn't mean that they are both agnostic and atheists, as the two terms are mutually exclusive, in the same fashion that someone cannot be both a woman, and a man, as the terms are mutually exclusive.

Just for your own enlightenment, and anyone else who is interested, here is the argument I mentioned, which I just found. Enjoy.
They are not mutually exclusive terms. Do you even know the definition of each?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheist

There are more resources than just the brief wiki article. You lose. And you fail to 'prove' that Atheism is a religion, but I could really care less about that. Also, you appear to be unfamiliar with the etymological origins of the word atheism as you think it is the opposite of theism. It predates the word theism in English and actually defines disbelief or denial in god(s).

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 (ἄθεος) by 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). Atheism in English is first used, like atheist, to describe a personal disbelief in god in the 18th century.3,4,5,6,8,9,10


Theist and Theism

Theist is actually an English adaptation of the early Ancient Greek work theos (θεός), 'god' + -ist. It is dated to 1662 and meant 'one who believes in a transcendent god but denies revelation'. Theism 'belief in a deity' is recorded in 1678.3,4,5,8

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) and to misrepresent that word as the etymon of the English terms and then to incorrectly translate the word as 'not a theist', though the word a does not feature in either the Greek or English and the privative a- in Greek does not equate with a- 'not' in English. As has been shown, the etymology of the words are very clear and the definitions throughout time and in each language are shown not to be 'not a theist' and even the last usage of the Greek word was 'denying the gods; godless; ungodly'. Clearly, this fallacy does not result in an accurate or meaningful definition of the term and must be avoided and corrected.3,11,12,13
 
They are not mutually exclusive terms. Do you even know the definition of each?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheist

There are more resources than just the brief wiki article. You lose. And you fail to 'prove' that Atheism is a religion, but I could really care less about that. Also, you appear to be unfamiliar with the etymological origins of the word atheism as you think it is the opposite of theism. It predates the word theism in English and actually defines disbelief or denial in god(s).

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 (ἄθεος) by 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). Atheism in English is first used, like atheist, to describe a personal disbelief in god in the 18th century.3,4,5,6,8,9,10


Theist and Theism

Theist is actually an English adaptation of the early Ancient Greek work theos (θεός), 'god' + -ist. It is dated to 1662 and meant 'one who believes in a transcendent god but denies revelation'. Theism 'belief in a deity' is recorded in 1678.3,4,5,8

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) and to misrepresent that word as the etymon of the English terms and then to incorrectly translate the word as 'not a theist', though the word a does not feature in either the Greek or English and the privative a- in Greek does not equate with a- 'not' in English. As has been shown, the etymology of the words are very clear and the definitions throughout time and in each language are shown not to be 'not a theist' and even the last usage of the Greek word was 'denying the gods; godless; ungodly'. Clearly, this fallacy does not result in an accurate or meaningful definition of the term and must be avoided and corrected.3,11,12,13
Yep, I know the definition of each. If you read my link, you'll see me write the definition of atheism. And I hate wiki, didn't use it for any of those definitions. And if their correct definition is used, they are mutually exclusive. I'll accept that if one uses slightly variant definitions they may not be exclusive, but the fact is those definitions must be incorrect for them to not be exclusive. I did just read that wiki article, before you accuse me of not looking at it. It does nothing to change my mind, although it is interesting to see that 'agnostic atheists' date back much further than I thought.

That article you wrote was interesting, as etymology interests me, even if I don't have the time to research it so much, but doesn't add anything to the argument. If one does not believe in the existence of a god or gods, then one, by defintion, cannot be agnostic, as agnosticism holds that the existence of god cannot be logically proven or disproven. If you can't prove or disprove it, then you can't logically accept or reject it, and if you choose one or the other, it's a matter of belief. Atheists make a 'leap of faith,' when they decide that god doesn't exist.

Therefore, your argument fails. Please continue though, I'm enjoying this.
 
Yep, I know the definition of each. If you read my link, you'll see me write the definition of atheism. And I hate wiki, didn't use it for any of those definitions. And if their correct definition is used, they are mutually exclusive. I'll accept that if one uses slightly variant definitions they may not be exclusive, but the fact is those definitions must be incorrect for them to not be exclusive. I did just read that wiki article, before you accuse me of not looking at it. It does nothing to change my mind, although it is interesting to see that 'agnostic atheists' date back much further than I thought.

That article you wrote was interesting, as etymology interests me, even if I don't have the time to research it so much, but doesn't add anything to the argument. If one does not believe in the existence of a god or gods, then one, by defintion, cannot be agnostic, as agnosticism holds that the existence of god cannot be logically proven or disproven. If you can't prove or disprove it, then you can't logically accept or reject it, and if you choose one or the other, it's a matter of belief. Atheists make a 'leap of faith,' when they decide that god doesn't exist.

Therefore, your argument fails. Please continue though, I'm enjoying this.

You're wrong. Rejecting the accepted definitions in place of your own for agnosticism and gnosticism does not make you correct. Agnostic and Atheist are not mutually exclusive terms and no variant definition of the terms was used. We appear to be at an impasse. I see no further point in continuing the dialogue if you're now simply going to reject the information I give you as well as resources that prove you wrong simply because you are mistaken but believe yourself to be correct.

Atheists do not make a leap of faith. That would be impossible. You're hardly making sense. Why don't you read some literature on the subject and educate yourself before you continue on. I'm not arguing any further, because as I stated, you simply are not responding to reason. I'm glad you're enjoying this though. That's nice.
 
You're wrong. Rejecting the accepted definitions in place of your own for agnosticism and gnosticism does not make you correct. Agnostic and Atheist are not mutually exclusive terms and no variant definition of the terms was used. We appear to be at an impasse. I see no further point in continuing the dialogue if you're now simply going to reject the information I give you as well as resources that prove you wrong simply because you are mistaken but believe yourself to be correct.

Atheists do not make a leap of faith. That would be impossible. You're hardly making sense. Why don't you read some literature on the subject and educate yourself before you continue on. I'm not arguing any further, because as I stated, you simply are not responding to reason. I'm glad you're enjoying this though. That's nice.
If you come up with a decent, rational argument that proves me wrong, I'll accept it. I used to be quasi-religious, until atheism presented a better argument, then I became agnostci before I'd even heard of the term. But you are NOT coming up with intelligent, reasonable arguments. Everything you say only serves to strengthen my argument.

I'm making perfect sense. I sincerely believe I'm more educated on the subject than you are. Even if I'm not, my education was certainly better, if not as comprehensive.
 
Top Bottom