Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is something from:
The Etymology of the word "Atheism"
Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god"), is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not (Academic American Encyclopedia).
Atheism (from the Greek a-, not, and theos, god) is the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God, the use has become the standard one (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy-1995)."
The above is taken from:
In Nathaniel Scarlett's translation notes on aidios he states:
Nathaniel Scarlett on Jude 1:6 "unseen chains" . . .
"Most Lexicon writers derive the word aidios from aei, ever or always: but
it may have the same etemology as hades, which they derive from a
negative, and idein, to see; and therefore it signifies invisible, unseen, or
unknown. In Romans 1:20 where it is applied to the power of the Deity, it
means unknown; because we see or know only a very small part of God's
power. The word is used in a limited sense by the Greeks: thus
Thucydides has this phrase--othen aidion (imperceptible)
misthophoran uparchein, "from whence he expected a
perpetual salary." But this could only be a salary during his life: therefore
the word here in Thucydides means a period unknown; though it will
certainly end."
So the negative "A" when joined with "idein" would be "not-seen" or as the Concordant Literal New Testament translates it: "unseen."
So the negative "A" when joined with "theos" could be translated "no-God." Therefore "Atheism" is "no-GODism"
If one wants to go against the etymology and say the negative "A" means "without," that too is okay but it seems to cloud the issue as one being *without-GODism*.
It would not make sense to render [H]ades (from which we get "Hades" (where the word is vacant of the "H" but the "a" has a rough breathing) for translators to translated the word as "without-seen." It would be better to render it "no-seen" or "un-seen" since when one is put in a tomb (unseen) they are not seen anymore.
As other's have pointed out and you eagerly ignore, besides that greek roots do not determine the exact meaning of a word, what matters is that probably the greater majority of atheists on this forum and the ones you've been talking to here do NOT believe this strawman you're putting forward. Repeatedly lying isn't going to change that. In fact, I can't imagine anyone looking at you acting in such a dishonest way and saying "Wow, I want some of what he's having."
As other's have pointed out and you eagerly ignore, besides that greek roots do not determine the exact meaning of a word, what matters is that probably the greater majority of atheists on this forum and the ones you've been talking to here do NOT believe this strawman you're putting forward. Repeatedly lying isn't going to change that. In fact, I can't imagine anyone looking at you acting in such a dishonest way and saying "Wow, I want some of what he's having."
Hmm, let's see, I just posted what I found from an etymological site concerning the root meaning of "atheist" and you say I "eagerly ignore" what others pointed out.
Please prove when a modern word with a negative "a" in front of it means the opposite of what I say.
And don't accuse me of being dishonest. I just report the facts as I find them. If you want to trash talk, go to the teenybopper board wherever one may be. It makes me think most on this board are just filled with bitterness. Oh, and Happy New Year.
Antony Flew stated concerning the word "atheist":
"…we need to give a new and much more comprehensive meaning to the term "atheist." Whereas it is
currently construed as referring to a person who positively disbelieves that there is an object
corresponding to what is thus tacitly taken to be a or the legitimate concept of God, I would now urge that
the word be hereafter understood not positively but negatively. Let the originally Greek prefix "a" be read
in the same way in "atheist" as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as "amoral,"
atypical," and "asymmetrical." In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively
asserts the nonexistence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. "
Something that is "a-typical" is something which is "not typical." Something which is "a-symmetrical" is something which is not symmetrical or has "no symmetry." It is lacking symmetry. Someone who is "a-moral" is someone who has "no morals." A-theist is someone who is "no-theist."
is simply not a theist.
That's a nice post. And it sorta explains why toiu refer to it. I my case i refer to Peanuts, LOR or Star -trek for a lot of my analogies. Since they all deal wiyh human condition and problem and none are beyond question, they are just as valid as the bible.
I'm not quite sure where you stand on the existence of 'God' though. I can sympathize with First cause Sortagod -belief, Deism ,pantheism and even a kind of theistic evolution. I just stand up and argue when someone comes and tells us that science hasn't got all the answers, appeals to unknowns and slam us for disregarding all sorts of Mystical possibles. It is not an advantage to believe all sorts of claims without evidence. Indeed it is a bad thing because it does what we see again and again - closes the mind when alternative explanations come to light. That is why faith -based reasoning is closed -minded and rational reasoning is open to answers when the come to light - and rethink them where necessary.
We just go with what can be validated and leave the unknowns to later validation. Bottom line, there is really no good reason to believe in any gods. If you do - ok, but you should respect and even envy our ability to do without.
You have a sort of relation with the Bible. Ok, but you respect and even admire our ability to look at all books, evidence and arguments on an equally uncommitted basis.
There is really no quarrel between us, if only you could not look for things toi quarrel about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Who says?
The bible was written as an attempt to understand questions of good and evil, what is after death. I've never heard it cited as the answer to everything. The science in there was the science of the time. Which in most cases sucked. Which is why we look at medical journals not the bible for information on cancer.
They weren't trying to convince anyone they had the answers in this regard. Anymore that the passage on marriage is supposed to be law to only include men and women.
No, it's about putting the spouse first ahead of your family. People at the time didn't consider lesbian marriages. That doesn't mean they considered it wrong, just they were part of their culture.
Let me make it crystal clear. Maybe it doesn't have a place in your life. But maybe it does have a place in the life of someone struggling to figure out how to have a decent life.
There is a place for everything, and everything in its place. Your science doesn't have all the answers, even though it claims to even more.
Okay, I know about nerve endings and pain receptors. But why do we feel pain, as in why were we given pain as part of the condition of life? That's not a science question is it? But it is, at least, a philosophy question.
You see God as an angry father. And maybe Jesus as the Jesus of revelation. Okay, shoot, let's ask you something. Suppose you formed out of primordial sludge and had superpowers. You could do anything. Pushing the sludge around is boring, and you have a blank canvas outside of you. Let's paint something you say, since there is nothing else to do. Otherwise, nothing better than to go back to sleep. So you paint using cosmic energy as the medium. Suddenly all this stuff is here, and you need to establish rules like gravity. Out comes the pen and you write notes.
Hold up here, do you see what I'm doing? I'm mythmaking. There is not a literal painting here, but it is a useful analogy to understand the basic idea.
So anyway, now the earth is made. Only it's lonely. Let's plop a couple clay sculptures and breathe life into them. That how it happened? Nah probably started with bacteria, but again, it makes a better story.
So you're God and you've created people. Are you likely to understand how to deal with them? Not really. You're less like a father and more like a Kylo Ren teen making stuff, and smashing it because you can't cope properly.
After a few years of this you're like "I should get help" but realize that there aren't any shrinks, and any of them would be made by you and just agree with you. Then another idea pops into your head. Maybe if I lived with people I could understand what they go through and relate to them better. That's why we have Jesus. Not to change a law he made himself, or sacrifice. That's stupid.
I am LGBT. The bible is a story of a tribe of people, but it is also a story of how their God learned and grew from past mistakes, and how society grew with him. I see the Bible from a panentheist perspective, meaning I see God as a mirror of his followers. Why could moses part the red sea, because god could. Why did judgement rain down on Sodom? Because they had basically become so unwelcoming of strangers they could no longer treat others properly. They were at odds with themselves.
Antony Flew stated concerning the word "atheist":
"…we need to give a new and much more comprehensive meaning to the term "atheist." Whereas it is
currently construed as referring to a person who positively disbelieves that there is an object
corresponding to what is thus tacitly taken to be a or the legitimate concept of God, I would now urge that
the word be hereafter understood not positively but negatively. Let the originally Greek prefix "a" be read
in the same way in "atheist" as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as "amoral,"
atypical," and "asymmetrical." In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively
asserts the nonexistence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. "
Something that is "a-typical" is something which is "not typical." Something which is "a-symmetrical" is something which is not symmetrical or has "no symmetry." It is lacking symmetry. Someone who is "a-moral" is someone who has "no morals." A-theist is someone who is "no-theist."
is simply not a theist.
I agree. We are not god -believers - no theism. What is the problem? You seem to be Interpreting a No -theism meaning into a 'No possible God could ever exist' meaning which isn't what atheism claims. Thus we are not making a claim we have to prove (apart from valid reasons not to accept the evidence put forward by the believers). It is those who claim the existence of a god who have the burden of proof.
Sky3lar's list of def. should make the point clear. Merriam gives two definitions
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
the first is one that atheists (including Flew) would agree with. The second in more the traditional theist definition of atheism, which we would not accept and - as I said - even if we had, logically we would have had to change it to the meaning it actually has, out of logical necessity.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-31-2015 at 09:11 AM..
Antony Flew stated concerning the word "atheist":
"…we need to give a new and much more comprehensive meaning to the term "atheist." Whereas it is
currently construed as referring to a person who positively disbelieves that there is an object
corresponding to what is thus tacitly taken to be a or the legitimate concept of God, I would now urge that
the word be hereafter understood not positively but negatively. Let the originally Greek prefix "a" be read
in the same way in "atheist" as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as "amoral,"
atypical," and "asymmetrical." In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively
asserts the nonexistence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. "
Something that is "a-typical" is something which is "not typical." Something which is "a-symmetrical" is something which is not symmetrical or has "no symmetry." It is lacking symmetry. Someone who is "a-moral" is someone who has "no morals." A-theist is someone who is "no-theist."
is simply not a theist.
Yes, that would be correct. Not a theist. That does not imply that they claim there is no God, which is the conclusion you keep trying to arrive at.
Yes, that would be correct. Not a theist. That does not imply that they claim there is no God, which is the conclusion you keep trying to arrive at.
Then please tell the Atheists who have told me "There is no God." They all need to get on board with the current definition.
And it would be interesting for you, (I have already done it) to do a search on all the boards here at city-data for the phrase "There is no God". You'd be surprised how often it is used and that, by atheists.
I agree. We are not god -believers - no theism. What is the problem? You seem to be Interpreting a No -theism meaning into a 'No possible God could ever exist' meaning which isn't what atheism claims. Thus we are not making a claim we have to prove (apart from valid reasons not to accept the evidence put forward by the believers). It is those who claim the existence of a god who have the burden of proof.
Sky3lar's list of def. should make the point clear. Merriam gives two definitions
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
the first is one that atheists (including Flew) would agree with. The second in more the traditional theist definition of atheism, which we would not accept and - as I said - even if we had, logically we would have had to change it to the meaning it actually has, out of logical necessity.
Have you ever said to anyone here or in real life: "God does not exist"? or "There is no God"?
TPAM, it's not from chanting. It's called common sense.
I have a chair. Wood was grown from a seed. Ground was soft because dirt because worms. Tree grew because of rain, sun, etc. Chair is a chair because I or someone else carved it, or it would still be a tree. Given all these causes, we have to look at the universe and say "well if I made this chair, something made the universe." Maybe the big bang was the first cause, maybe a God. Maybe God created the Big Bang. Hell maybe the universe is a creation of my mind, and this is all a dream. The point is, I created X and so Y likewise seems to need to have been created. No chanting necessary.
Common sense is, as Theists often point out - not reliable. Heck, they dismiss validated science as mere fallible human suppositions What do you suppose they woudl say about the near -guesswork of common sense?
You can skip the analogy of making the chair. Because there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that anybody made life, the earth and the universe, even other than unplanning and unthinking natural forces.
We have really flogged this one to death, but ascribing the origins of everything to a god on the basis of common -sense, science has no better explanation or there must be an uncaused cause is all ok so far as it goes, but ignores the equally valid arguments that nobody really knows, why can't something that is nothing pretending to be something come from nothing and the idea of a fully formed intelligent being that itself didn't need to come from anywhere is not very credible.
You argument is not about how everything came to be as it is, but about what started it all off in the first place. And no 'God' has been proved by you despite your thread in which you claim you had.
And even this god -claim we can't actually disprove is no real relevance to the Bible, OT or New, so relating the two is merely your preference.
Yes, that would be correct. Not a theist. That does not imply that they claim there is no God, which is the conclusion you keep trying to arrive at.
But etymologically, the term "a-theist" does not work with the phrase "not a theist" since such a phrase is not inherring within the word "atheist." It would have to be something like "not-GODist." This is so due to the negative "a" joined to "the" as in "Theos" so one has "no" or "not" joined to "God." Of course, I could be right about that. :-) It could be "no-GODist."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
