G.o.d (((((((((athiest))))))))))

[Skweeky]

Originally posted by Petri@18 August 2003 - 13:27

But you have to understand how greek words were put together to grasp the true meaning of the word. The root of the word atheist is not theist with the prefix 'a' added, that would imply without a belief in god. The root is theos - god with the prefix 'a' added first, meaning no god, then the end change to 'ist' meaning having a belief, in other words having a belief that there is no god.

I'd like to know your source for this.

Not that it really matters, though. Even if you were correct, meanings of words change... and what I quoted is the definition currently used by the majority of atheists.

It's very simple. The 'a' in front of the word just denies everything that comes AFTER it. Technically, it denies the belief in a god. It does not say it beliefs there is no god.

[thewizeard]

Originally posted by Skweeky+18 August 2003 - 14:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Skweeky @ 18 August 2003 - 14:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Petri@18 August 2003 - 13:27

But you have to understand how greek words were put together to grasp the true meaning of the word. The root of the word atheist is not theist with the prefix &#39;a&#39; added, that would imply without a belief in god. The root is theos - god with the prefix &#39;a&#39; added first, meaning no god, then the end change to &#39;ist&#39; meaning having a belief, in other words having a belief that there is no god.

I&#39;d like to know your source for this.

Not that it really matters, though. Even if you were correct, meanings of words change... and what I quoted is the definition currently used by the majority of atheists.

It&#39;s very simple. The &#39;a&#39; in front of the word just denies everything that comes AFTER it. Technically, it denies the belief in a god. It does not say it beliefs there is no god. [/b][/quote]
That&#39;s interesting.... we are lucky to have any words at all, considering the word alfabet?

[lynx]

Sorry, you can&#39;t just add &#39;a&#39; to the beginning of a word and claim that to be the opposite, ancient greek, which is the source of these words, just doesn&#39;t work like that.
The &#39;a&#39; at the start certainly denies what comes after, but you have to know which bit it denies. In ancient greek, if it meant not having a belief in god the &#39;a&#39; would not come before god it would come before the belief (and I suppose the resulting word would become something like theaist). It&#39;s very positioning means that it is god which is being denied, not the belief.

@Petri: since you agree with my definition of a theist, surely you can see that the author of your second article misconstrues this meaning, and attributes more religious conviction to theists than necessarily exists, which was what I was refuting.
And I&#39;m glad that you are able to speak for the majority of atheists without consulting them.

[Lamsey]

Well, this looks to have gotten serious again, so let&#39;s shift it away from the hijackers once more...

[Petri]

@Petri: since you agree with my definition of a theist, surely you can see that the author of your second article misconstrues this meaning, and attributes more religious conviction to theists than necessarily exists, which was what I was refuting.

Nope, I honestly can&#39;t.

And I&#39;m glad that you are able to speak for the majority of atheists without consulting them.

OK, you got me there. What I meant to say was "...a very large proportion (if not the majority) of atheists."

[Spider_dude]

god made himself, quite simply when you are an all powerful infallible being you will understand.
in·fal·li·ble
Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals

not everything in this world cn be explained. faith is one of these things. some say faith is just a safety net to stop people going insane, either way people should be allowed to believe in what they want without fear of prejudice or persecution.

if people want to believe in god then let them but please don&#39;t mock our beliefs.

thanks


p.s i&#39;ll agree that there are some fucked up things about the church but to suggest that all priests are child molestors is completely absurd, and quite frankly utter bullshit.

[Barbarossa]

When I was little I was led to believe that there were 3 "supreme beings" in my world:

1). The Tooth Fairy
2). Father Christmas
3). God

As I grew up I learnt that the first two don&#39;t exist, and I was lied to. I don&#39;t have any reason to believe that the existance of the third one is not a lie also.


People should be left alone to work out their own beliefs, and allowed to believe in what they want to believe, without persecution, I agree. However it seems that throughout history the most important thing for the church was to indoctrinate as many people as possible with their way of thinking, through fear and persecution.

It&#39;s something that still goes on today, and it&#39;s wrong.

[hobbes]

Petri,

I understand what you are trying to say, via your quotes, and I feel that weak Atheists are more correctly called agnostics.


An agnostic is one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. So he accepts no God, be reserves the right to change is mind as new information is revealed.



This is my logic:

Belief or Denial of God is absolute as these both require faith (belief without proof). These views occupy the opposite ends of the "belief" spectrum. Theists on one side and Atheists on the other. Agnostics spanning the grey zone in between.
A person can be a general Theist- Believes there is a God, but holds his own view as to what that means (religion as a personal interpretaion) or have a specific set of beliefs about God, as defined by his religion.
A general Atheist would believe that there is no God, and I suppose it could be broken down into Anti-Christains, Anti-Islamists, etc.



A "weak" theist (one who believes in the existence of God) is not one who "kind of" believes in God. You either believe or you don&#39;t. "Weak" theists cannot exist.
You can have a "weak" Catholic. One who does not go to church every Sunday and follow the exact rules of the Church, but this does not alter that he/she believes in God. This point is binary.
So by analogy that would mean that "weak" Atheists cannot exist.


So where do they belong? I would lump them into the Agnostic category. This protean group holds those who are searching for answers or are in doubt. We neither accept nor deny any religion. We allow the possibility that a God may exist, but do not feel that any Religion defines him properly. So we believe in no described God, but that does not mean that God does not or cannot exist.




Sorry about the "intellectual dishonesty" barb, it was a bit harsh. The problem is that when a discussion is placed in the "lounge" it is tainted with kids who just want to spout nonsense, rather than engage in a discussion. Since I did not know you, I let my expectations drive my observations.

Which leads to my next thread........

[titey]

Originally posted by Spider_dude@18 August 2003 - 09:22
god made himself, quite simply when you are an all powerful infallible being you will understand.
in·fal·li·ble
Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.

If there were a god... and he were infallible... then how do you explain man?

If man were created by an infallable entity, man would be perfect.

Man is hardly perfect.

[thewizeard]

Originally posted by hobbes@18 August 2003 - 17:16


Which leads to my next thread........

Hobbes&#33; Don&#39;&#39;t leave me in such suspense... The thread please....

@ titey, God created man, as he is, to contrast with his/hers infallibility. ( Is that helpfull?)