What is the appropriate term?

Arminius · May 23, 2015, 11:25pm

James S Saint:

Arminius:

James S Saint:

So what are you saying that the ancient Greek word actually meant?

James, we already had this kind of conservation. Okay, like I said several times (also in this thread):

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186816&p=2496104#p2496104

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187999&start=50#p2540794

Yes we did. And in those conversations, I explained English to you;

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2496139#p2496139

James S Saint:

Arminius:

The Ancient Greek morpheme “a” means “not” / “non”, whereas the Ancient Greek morpheme “anti” means “against” / “contra”. So the atheist is someone who ignores theists, theism, and their god(s), whereas the antitheist is someone who opposes (fights against) theists, theism, and their god(s).

But how or with which weapons do antitheists oppose, fight against theists, theism, and their god(s)? They do it with their own theism, the antitheism, their owm god(s), the antigod(s).

The most atheists are merely antitheists because they can’t ignore theists, theism, and their god(s).

And if this were ancient Greece, I would agree with you.

flam·ma·ble (flm-bl)
adj.
Easily ignited and capable of burning rapidly

in·flam·ma·ble (n-flm-bl)
adj.

Easily ignited and capable of burning rapidly

Thousands of years later, in English, one cannot go strictly by an ancient construct of the word.

English Prefix a-
1.
a reduced form of the Old English preposition on, meaning “on,” “in,” “into,” “to,” “toward,” preserved before a noun in a prepositional phrase, forming a predicate adjective or an adverbial element (afoot; abed; ashore; aside; away), or before an adjective (afar; aloud; alow), as a moribund prefix with a verb (acknowledge), and in archaic and dialectal use before a present participle in -ing (set the bells aringing); and added to a verb stem with the force of a present participle (ablaze; agape; aglow; astride; and originally, awry).

So strictly by the construction of “a-theism” the word in English would be “toward-theism”, “into-theism”. English uses bits of many languages and often one ancient root is contrary to another.

Greek Prefix a-
prefix
1.
not; without; opposite to: atonal, asocial

Not only has the formal definition of “atheism” been established for more than a century, but the use of the word hasn’t changed a bit. Atheists believe that there is no God. The formal definition of Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Atheists proclaim there is no God and in arguments attempt to prove that there cannot be a God. They are God-haters. And for those who simply don’t know or care, English as a specific word that means that, “Agnostic” (which uses that Greek root for “a-”: “a-gnostic” = “void-of-knowing”, "without-knowing, and also “against-knowing”).

Greek Prefix an-
prefix
1.
not; without: anaphrodisiac

If they are so concerned, as they obviously are, why not just use the word, “Antheist”, “Antitheist”, or “Agnostic”. They don’t because it is intended as a semantic game of rhetoric and feigned innocence. They worship their savior-god “Plausible Deniability”, the god of serpents, cowards, liars, and thieves.

The Greek version for someone who had no affiliation would be an “Antheist”.

And this was my response:

Arminius:

James S Saint:

Thousands of years later, in English, one cannot go strictly by an ancient construct of the word.

Why not? I can! And I do it without changing any linguistic form, neither of the Ancient Greek nor of the English language. So it is correct to do that. One merely has to arrange with one or more of the others about the meanings of the language forms (i.e.: the Ancient Greek language has disappeared but not its meanings and forms). And if that is the case, then referring to another language, especially to a “dead” language like Ancient Greek, or Latin, or Sanskrit … and others, is no problem at all.

James S Saint:

English Prefix a-
1.
a reduced form of the Old English preposition on, meaning “on,” “in,” “into,” “to,” “toward,” preserved before a noun in a prepositional phrase, forming a predicate adjective or an adverbial element (afoot; abed; ashore; aside; away), or before an adjective (afar; aloud; alow), as a moribund prefix with a verb (acknowledge), and in archaic and dialectal use before a present participle in -ing (set the bells aringing); and added to a verb stem with the force of a present participle (ablaze; agape; aglow; astride; and originally, awry).

So strictly by the construction of “a-theism” the word in English would be “toward-theism”, “into-theism”. English uses bits of many languages and often one ancient root is contrary to another.

Greek Prefix a-
prefix
1.
not; without; opposite to: atonal, asocial

Not only has the formal definition of “atheism” been established for more than a century, but the use of the word hasn’t changed a bit. Atheists believe that there is no God. The formal definition of Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Atheists proclaim there is no God and in arguments attempt to prove that there cannot be a God. They are God-haters. And for those who simply don’t know or care, English as a specific word that means that, “Agnostic” (which uses that Greek root for “a-”: “a-gnostic” = “void-of-knowing”, "without-knowing, and also “against-knowing”).

Greek Prefix an-
prefix
1.
not; without: anaphrodisiac

If they are so concerned, as they obviously are, why not just use the word, “Antheist”, “Antitheist”, or “Agnostic”. They don’t because it is intended as a semantic game of rhetoric and feigned innocence. They worship their savior-god “Plausible Deniability”, the god of serpents, cowards, liars, and thieves.

I prefer the original meaning of both the prefix “a” and the prefix “anti”, so that I can correctly say: most modern atheists are antitheists. I know that the Western modernity changed the meaning of the Ancient Greek prefix “a” because of rhetorical reasons. But all this rhetorical reasons don’t matter for those who know what is meant by the original morphemes “a” and “anti” and what is meant by the rhetorical morphemes “a” and “anti”.

Another example:

Are antifeminists called “afeminists”? What do antifeminists do? They refer to the feminists and their ideology, the feminism, so they are just another feminists when they merely oppose the feminists. Demanding the same advantages for antifeminists (i.e. “masculinists”) that feminists demand for themselves is just another feminism with the same ways and means and the only distinction which we can call “opposition” or “fighting against”. Feminism, militarism, theism, … and so on (there is just no end …) - they are all part of Hegel’s Dialektik, so they develop according to Hegel’s dialectic process: thesis => antithesis => synthesis.

And one more example: Why are those many ILP members who call themselves “atheists” always posting in this subforum (Religion and Spirituality) and always negatively refering to theism and theists? They are antitheists!

James_S_Saint · May 24, 2015, 12:21am

English is no where close to a strictly codified language. Languages change quite often, including German. Is all of German wrong today merely because ancient Germania spoke it and spelled it differently? French is the same way. Their spelling indicates how they are “supposed” to be speaking it. But do they speak it the way they spell it? Not even close. So The French don’t know how to speak French and we must correct them?

When the dictionaries in a land by in large agree on the use of a word, that is the use of the word. It doesn’t matter if it is anatomically correctly codified. They aren’t machine languages. And what some word USED to mean might be relevant, but it is only what USED to be, not what IS.

gib · May 24, 2015, 12:28am

If I may say, all this appeal to the dictionary is amateurish at best. It is not how we learn the definitions of words. Children don’t learn to talk by their parents reading the dictionary to them before bed every night, and I don’t remember the dictionary being read to me in school as a means of educating me (in fact, I remember getting reprimanded one time for reading the dictionary as my choice book for reading time).

The fact of the matter is, the dictionary takes its instruction from us, we don’t take our instruction from the dictionary. Oh, sure, on the rare occasion, we may look up a word or two in the dictionary to get a precise understanding of its meaning, but this is the exception to the rule. The rule is this: when the authors of the dictionary sit down to write it, they don’t think “Now what crazy definitions are we going to whimsically come up with to define the words in the English language.” Rather, they think “Now how does my community define this word, that word, etc.?” The author takes his instruction from his community, and that’s what goes into the dictionary. Thus, it is we who are the ultimate source of the definition of words, we who are the final authority on their meaning. The dictionary is, at best, a mere reflection of how we, as a community, have decided to define our words.

Arminius · May 24, 2015, 12:45am

James, I am not grumbling about English or other languages. My intention is to show how we should philosophically use words, and “death” languages like Ancient Greek, or Latin, or Sanskrit do not change anymore, and because of that fact they are best placed to give us the definitions we need for science (for example: medicine, law, and all other science disciplines), thus also for philosophy.

For example: The meanings of the Ancient Greek “a” and “anti” are solid, fixed meanings. So we should use them when it comes to be precise. And all Western languages do use them when it comes to be precise (for example in science). Why should ILP members not be precise?

James_S_Saint · May 24, 2015, 12:53am

I agree with you in that such is what would be nice for philosophers to do. But the problem is that people at ILP are mostly political drones, not philosophers. And they use language for political affect and manipulation, not accuracy. When it comes to accuracy,
They
Could
NOT
Care
less.

Actual philosophers are smart enough to simply choose a less ambiguous word.

Arminius · May 24, 2015, 1:02am

If ILP members should not be precise, then I would stop posting on ILP. In that case all words, all posts, all threads of ILP would be OFF TOPIC, because they would have nothing at all to do with ILP, ILP would not be ILP but ILK (I LOVE Kaffeeklatsch), and that is not what I want ILP to be.

James_S_Saint · May 24, 2015, 1:05am

Well, if you want to get together and change it, let me know. Until then, to quote Moses, it is what it is.

Arminius · May 24, 2015, 1:07am

James S Saint:

Arminius:

James, I am not grumbling about English or other languages. My intention is to show how we should philosophically use words, and “death” languages like Ancient Greek, or Latin, or Sanskrit do not change anymore, and because of that fact they are best placed to give us the definitions we need for science (for example: medicine, law, and all other science disciplines), thus also for philosophy.

For example: The meanings of the Ancient Greek “a” and “anti” are solid, fixed meanings. So we should use them when it comes to be precise. And all Western languages do use them when it comes to be precise (for example in science). Why should ILP members not be precise?

I agree with you in that such is what would be nice for philosophers to do. But the problem is that people at ILP are mostly political drones, not philosophers. And they use language for political affect and manipulation, not accuracy. When it comes to accuracy,
They
Could
NOT
Care
less.

That is absolutely right, James.

Yes.

Being precise, we should call ILP “IL”, because the portion of philosophy is merely 1/8 (12,5%):

zinnat · May 24, 2015, 3:40am

That is true. I have been said the same before in the other thread too.

I do not know about other languages like French or German, but English is certainly a very unscientific or loose language. It relies on practice far more than rules, which is not a good sign, besides making it difficult for learning.

English is such a language which you cannot learn only by books, especially its speaking part. It is confusing in general, not to say about exceptions.

But, let me mention here that both of Hindi and Sanskrit are governed by strict rules, both in writing and speaking. Means, you have to write exactly how you speak and vice verse. No confusion. I do not know about other Asian languages but my guess is that they will follow the same practice too.

With love,
Sanjay

James_S_Saint · May 24, 2015, 4:07am

You left out Aristotle, Kant, and James S Saint.

Maybe;
“I Love 9% Philosophy”

Arminius · May 24, 2015, 12:53pm

They belong to the real ILP (compare: (7)), because they are real philosophers.

Yah.

If newborns could be classified as “atheists” (and newborns are NOT atheists), then the rulers would misuse this, because they want the children for themselves, for their system of rule, they want no godbelievers, no theists. What they want are antitheists who firstly call themselves “atheists” before they show their true face, that they are against theists, thus that they are antitheists. According to the rulers parents who are theists are enemies. Therefore the rulers use a linguistic trick in order to make out of all parents and especially out of all children (!) antitheists. We know that from history: the rulers of the systems of egalitarianism like communism and other socialisms wanted all people, especially all children (!), to be in conformity with the system. Currently the system is a globalistic system, and it is as antitheistic (rhetorically called: “atheistic”) as the systems of egalitarianism. The difference between the globalism and the egalitarianism is that the globalism conists of both the dictatorship of egalitarianism and the dictatorship of liberalism (a.k.a. capitalism), whereas the egalitarianism consists of the dictatorship of egalitarianism and nothing else, but both globalism and egalitarianism are antitheistic (rhetorically called: “atheistic”).

Rulers, especially the current rulers, want to be like gods; so they want no other gods besides them. If all gods of the past and of the present will be „dead“, thus out of the brains of their subjects, then the rulers will dictate a new theism (with themselves as gods - of course), and then atheism and antitheism will be forbidden. That’s history - its process is not “progressive”, not “linear”, but it is periodic, thus cyclic, exactly: spiral-cyclic.

This thread is interesting but also terrible, because behind all those euphemistic (rhetoric!) words like “atheists”, “atheism”, “atheistic” of those who are against theists, theism, theistic, thus who are antitheists, permanently works the nihilism (the rhetoric “atheism” is one of its euphemistic and dishonest forms, antitheism is its strongest and honest form against theism).

Arminius · May 24, 2015, 3:36pm

Very unscientific, yes. Since the 18th century English has been becoming a language of mongers, thus a trade language, commercial language.

James referred to my post, so let me quote myself:

This “dead” languages are really best placed to give us the definitions we need for science (for example: medicine, law, and all other science disciplines), thus also for philosophy. “Living” languages are not as best placed to do this as the “dead” languages, although German has been the science language of the world, incl. the philosophical language of the world, for about two centuries. German is also best placed, but it is a “living” language, thus the meanings of its words change, and that is not the case in “dead” languages, so they are best placed to give us “dead”, thus fixed definitions in order to be even more precise / accurate, especially in the long run.

More practise than rules - that is indeed the problem of the English language, yes. (Compare what I said above: language of mongers, thus a trade language, commercial language).

That’s right too. But for Germans (incl. Austrians and the Swiss), Dutchmen, Flemish Belgians, and Scandinavians English is not difficult to learn, because all their languages and the English language are very closed relatives. They all are Germanic languages. But the fact that English is the Germanic language which relies on practice far more than on rules is also the reason why the modern people (especially the modern young people) of the other Germanic languages like English. Most of the modern people (especially the modern young people) like nihilism, because it is easier and funnier to deconstruct than to construct.

Sanskrit and Hindi are Indogermanic languages. Did you know that, Zinnat? Compare that languages with other Indogermanic languages, for example with those in Europe. That is very interesting.

fuse · May 24, 2015, 6:33pm

Of course that is a controversial meaning of atheism. Definitions are always interpreted, and people have been plying the word atheism in particular pretty hard in recent years.

I would never use the label atheist for a baby since I think atheism entails having a position.

Only if you already think it applies to babies…

Mutcer · May 24, 2015, 8:15pm

Arminius:

Mutcer:

Arminius:

The problem is that it is not a fact. Fact is that a newborn ist not a theist, not an atheist, and not an antitheist. In the case of humans it is not correct to define what a human is, if this human is not able to decide whether that definition is correct or incorrect. A human has to be at least 14 years old in order to become an object of crazy scientists and philosophers who want to decide that this human is a theist, an antitheist, or an antitheist in order to do what their rulers as their moneygivers want.

Unless a newborn baby holds a belief that a god exists, then it is by definition an atheist.

A newborn does not believe in god, does not believe whether god exists or gods exist, does not claim to know that god does not exist or gods do not exist. So a newborn can never be a theist, an atheist, or even an antitheist.

It sounds like we are in agreement on whether or not a newborn holds the belief that a god exists. But for some reason, you’re not aware that the term for one who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists is ‘atheist’. Therefore, a newborn is an atheist.

That’s like saying the precondition of not believing dragons exist is the belief in dragons. Would you say newborns hold the belief that dragons exist?

What is the false precondition and how do you know it is false?

By that logic, a newborn isn’t a newborn, as a newborn doesn’t know what the word ‘newborn’ means. Otherwise you’re engaging in the fallacious argument of special pleading.

Do you agree with me that atheist means a person who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists?

I gather you don’t have a reputable dictionary definition which says the person must know what ‘atheist’ means to be an atheist.

And your point?

Agreed. As long as such a god isn’t posited to possess logically incompatible attributes.

If the god I’ve posited is ridiculous, then the Christian god is equally ridiculous. Neither can be verified to exist and unless either is posited to have logically incompatible attributes, then neither can be falsified.

If an atheist is not a gnostic atheist, then by definition, he/she is an agnostic atheist. For more on this, see wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? … ._agnostic

If all humans stopped believing in gods, a person who didn’t believe a god exists would still be an atheist.

No you didn’t. Again: What is the difference between a “non-godbeliever” and an atheist - when an atheist is one who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists?

Please explain how a person who is not a theist is not an atheist. How do you come to the conclusion that atheist = not a theist?

Mutcer · May 24, 2015, 8:25pm

With respect to believing a god exists, would you label a baby as believing a god exists?

What I think has absolutely no bearing on whether a certain correct usage of the word atheism sheds any light on what it means.

Arminius · May 24, 2015, 10:50pm

You did not read my posts.

You did not read my posts. Otherwise you would know the answer.

I have given the answer several times. I am not interested in a permanently repetition and quotation of my posts.

No. Your statement is nonsense. Are you sure that you know what logic is?

I have given the answer several times. I am not interested in a permanently repetition and quotation of my posts.

That is your answer to my question? Please read my question again.

I did not say that god but that your example is ridiculous. Please read my post again.

Or an antignostic atheists. Are you afraid of the morpheme “anti”?

Or an antitheists. Are you afraid of the morpheme “anti”?

The situation that humans stopped believing in god or gods will never be reached. When it comes to religious, metaphysical, philosophical, spriritual aspects humans are transcendence beings.

Precisely spoken an atheist is not “one who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists”. Again: I said this several times. Why do you not read my posts?

I have given the answer several times. I am not interested in a permanently repetition and quotation of my posts.

Mutcer · May 24, 2015, 10:56pm

Arminius:

Mutcer:

It sounds like we are in agreement on whether or not a newborn holds the belief that a god exists. But for some reason, you’re not aware that the term for one who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists is ‘atheist’. Therefore, a newborn is an atheist.

You did not read my posts.

Mutcer:

Would you say newborns hold the belief that dragons exist?

You did not read my posts. Otherwise you would know the answer.

Mutcer:

What is the false precondition and how do you know it is false?

I have given the answer several times. I am not interested in a permanently repetition and quotation of my posts.

Mutcer:

By that logic, a newborn isn’t a newborn, as a newborn doesn’t know what the word ‘newborn’ means. Otherwise you’re engaging in the fallacious argument of special pleading.

No. Your statement is nonsense. Are you sure that you know what logic is?

Mutcer:

Do you agree with me that atheist means a person who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists?

I have given the answer several times. I am not interested in a permanently repetition and quotation of my posts.

Mutcer:

I gather you don’t have a reputable dictionary definition which says the person must know what ‘atheist’ means to be an atheist.

That is your answer to my question? Please read my question again.

Mutcer:

If the god I’ve posited is ridiculous, then the Christian god is equally ridiculous.

I did not say that god but that your example is ridiculous. Please read my post again.

Mutcer:

If an atheist is not a gnostic atheist, then by definition, he/she is an agnostic atheist.

Or an antignostic atheists. Are you afraid of the morpheme “anti”?

Mutcer:

If all humans stopped believing in gods, a person who didn’t believe a god exists would still be an atheist.

Or an antitheists. Are you afraid of the morpheme “anti”?

The situation that humans stopped believing in god or gods will never be reached. When it comes to religious, metaphysical, philosophical, spriritual aspects humans are transcendence beings.

Mutcer:

Again: What is the difference between a “non-godbeliever” and an atheist - when an atheist is one who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists?

Precisely spoken an atheist is not “one who doesn’t hold the belief that a god exists”. Again: I said this several times. Why do you not read my posts?

Mutcer:

Please explain how a person who is not a theist is not an atheist. How do you come to the conclusion that atheist = not a theist?

I have given the answer several times. I am not interested in a permanently repetition and quotation of my posts.

It’s obvious I did a tremendous GOTCHA! on you.

Arminius · May 24, 2015, 11:04pm

What is a “gotcha”. An ad hominem?

Excuse me, English is not my first language.

You have asked the same questions again and again. So why should I answer again and again? It is not fair of you to demand that I repeat my answers again and again.

Mutcer · May 24, 2015, 11:16pm

It means you acknowledge that I have a good point. But for reasons that aren’t important, you don’t want to admit it.

Arminius · May 24, 2015, 11:21pm

Your statement is nonsense, because it has nothing at all to do with reality.