Do 'atheist' and 'not a theist' mean the same thing?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
41

Still no thoughts?

Strictly speaking the prefix “a-” means without.
ἄθεος = atheos (Greek) - without God

Originally, there was no such a word for a theist; meaning the default position was that a person was with God.

42

“‘Skate-board’ in Greek means … therefore …”

The Greeks and the Latins didn’t have words for all things. Words get usurped, realigned, and adopted from language to language. What a word used to mean to them long ago can only give hint as to what it might mean today.

TODAY in ENGLISH “Atheist” means:

The indented quotes give allowance for merely a lack of belief, a distinction not found in ancient Greek or Latin.

So about a ratio of 21 : 3 in favor of “Atheism” meaning “a belief in the lack of any fundamental theory” (aka “God”).

43

My point exactly on language… But Ancient Greek was not simply about a lack of belief. It was about being abandoned. Hence, a newborn is only an Atheos if it were abandoned by gods (nothing to do with belief or non belief).

The point being that words change and the meaning of atheist today is as per your quotes. It is a positive position on the non existence of God.

44

Good point.

45

Again, like Mucter, you are making an illogical argument to support your bias, even knowing that.

Lev, any absurd claim cannot be rectified by another but opposite absurd claim, which you are trying to do. If you want to defeat an absurd claim, you have to expose its absurdity. That is enough.

If one extreme is wrong, going for opposite extreme is also wrong. You need to strike the right balance.

If any Muslim or Christian claims that their newborns are theists just because they are born in any theist family, they are as wrong about that as Mucter is here. Merely being born in a religious family is not enough to become a theist, unless one becomes mature enough to understand all this and start believing in theism.

Even being a theist, I have honesty to say that, but people like Mucter and you lack that completely.

With love,
Sanjay

46

Sanjay, any method is justifiable in a war as war is not an expression of logic.

47

Only if one considers philosophy as a war to be won at any cost, instead of learning something from it.

Though, that is true that some people try to use philosophy exactly as you said.

With love,
Sanjay

48

Each person uses ILP for a different agenda; socialization, knowledge, self reflection, politics, war, financial gain, a cure for loneliness, an expression of power. Each person will use ILP to forward their own agenda (whatever that is) and will use the first weapon that is within arms reach.

Philosophy is a war of ideas and their will always be victory (within ones own mind).

49

Love is Black
“If love isn’t white, it must be black!!” :astonished:

50

Love isn’t white; naturally… but this means love is dark-chocolate.

51

That’s racist! =;

52

It is chocolatist.

53

Here are two categories:

  1. All humans who hold the belief that a god exists
  2. All humans who don’t fall into category #1

Which of those two categories do newborn babies fall into?

That’s a false dichotomy fallacy.

54

from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dilemma

So, Arminus’ example is a false trichotomy whereas yours is a false dichotomy.

55

Please explain what about my dichotomy is false.

  1. All humans who hold the belief that a god exists
  2. All humans who don’t fall into category #1
56

I already have:

  1. All humans that hold a belief that God exists.
  2. All humans that hold a belief God does not exist.
  3. All humans who do not hold a belief about the existence or non-existence of God.

Your argument is a logical fallacy by definition of a false dichotomy above.

57

No, That is no “false dichotomy fallacy”. That is no conclusion, so a fallacy is not possible. In order to be a fallacy there must be a conclusion. And there is no one at all - I merely asked you a question, a question containing a conditional. Why did you not notice that? And I did not ask you this question without any intention: the question refers to your own categories which are based on false definitions and false premises (preconditions). Why did you not notice that? With the three categories and the question in which category you fall into I tried to show that your definitions, your premises (preconditions) and - therefore (!) - all your conclusions are false. Why did you not notice that?

So when you said that my question was “a false dichotomy fallacy”, then you admitted that it is your false dichotomy fallacy. Why did you not notice that? :slight_smile:

Is there anything in logic that you do not ignore?

58

My example was merely a reflection of his own example.

59

But unfortunately he will ignore it - again and again.

Mutcer’s definitions and premises (preconditions are false, and therefore Mutcer’s conclusions are also false.

I have been saying it to him for so long - over and over again. The following example is merely one of many examples:

=>#

60

=>#