| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Road Runner" |
| Date: |
24 Aug 2003 05:59:50 PM |
| Object: |
On atheism and it's definition (Was: [something else]) |
Igtheist wrote:
getteur@aol.com (Getteur) wrote in message news:<20030821021742.21190.00000480@mb-m10.aol.com>...
Yes, it's been dealt with, but you refuse to see it. There are none so blind
as will not see. YOU CANNOT TAKE A WORD WITH A LONG HISTORY AND WIDELY ACCPETD
MEANING, AND USE THE WORD TO MEAN SOMETHNG IT DOESN'T MEAN. If we all went
about doing that, words would become meaningless to the populace at large if
each individual gave words their own personal defintions.
It is not a personal definition. It's in the dictionary. I'll repeat myself.
In fact it is the atheists on this board that are
using the correct definition out of the dictionary. It corresponds
to what we have been saying. See:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism
According to the above dictionary the disbelief in the existence of
God or gods counts as atheism. That is from 1 a) in the first sense
of the "or" statement. That is easy to understand if you know how to
parse english grammar.
So get off this stupid arugument that we are somehow defining atheism
willy nilly.
I've explained to the arrogant ***** that there
are a number of dictionaries which define atheism
as a lack of, or no belief in god/s, so that even
though some definitions are "belief that no god/s
exist", it's not the only definition. I've posted
this previously, as well, but the wanker seems to
ignore the fact, having already made up his mind:
:atheism:
:n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God
: [syn: {godlessness}] [ant: {theism}]
: 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or
: gods
IOW, atheism can be defined as a belief that gods
do not exist, _or_ a lack of belief in gods. Both
definitions are acceptable, & even if our current
dictionaries didn't define this so, although they
do, it would be irrelevant, if common definitions
of those who call themselves atheists did so. The
final determinant of a name is by those so named.
.
|
|
| User: "Claytons Roasting On An Open Fire" |
|
| Title: Re: On atheism and it's definition (Was: [something else]) |
24 Aug 2003 08:19:59 PM |
|
|
"Road Runner" <Beep@zoom.com> wrote in message
news:3F495102.18A68797@zoom.com...
Igtheist wrote:
getteur@aol.com (Getteur) wrote in message
news:<20030821021742.21190.00000480@mb-m10.aol.com>...
Yes, it's been dealt with, but you refuse to see it. There are none
so blind
as will not see. YOU CANNOT TAKE A WORD WITH A LONG HISTORY AND WIDELY
ACCPETD
MEANING, AND USE THE WORD TO MEAN SOMETHNG IT DOESN'T MEAN. If we all
went
about doing that, words would become meaningless to the populace at
large if
each individual gave words their own personal defintions.
It is not a personal definition. It's in the dictionary. I'll repeat
myself.
In fact it is the atheists on this board that are
using the correct definition out of the dictionary. It corresponds
to what we have been saying. See:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism
According to the above dictionary the disbelief in the existence of
God or gods counts as atheism. That is from 1 a) in the first sense
of the "or" statement. That is easy to understand if you know how to
parse english grammar.
So get off this stupid arugument that we are somehow defining atheism
willy nilly.
I've explained to the arrogant ***** that there
are a number of dictionaries which define atheism
as a lack of, or no belief in god/s, so that even
though some definitions are "belief that no god/s
exist", it's not the only definition.
Not to mention the dictionary difinition that annoys me the most...that
atheists "DENY" the existence of the god thingies...and that atheism is the
"DENIAL" of God's existence.
I've posted
this previously, as well, but the wanker seems to
ignore the fact, having already made up his mind:
:atheism:
:n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God
: [syn: {godlessness}] [ant: {theism}]
: 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or
: gods
IOW, atheism can be defined as a belief that gods
do not exist, _or_ a lack of belief in gods. Both
definitions are acceptable, & even if our current
dictionaries didn't define this so, although they
do, it would be irrelevant, if common definitions
of those who call themselves atheists did so. The
final determinant of a name is by those so named.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Road Runner" |
|
| Title: Re: On atheism and it's definition (Was: [something else]) |
26 Aug 2003 02:57:16 AM |
|
|
Getteur wrote:
Igtheist wrote:
getteur@aol.com (Getteur) wrote in message
news:<20030821021742.21190.00000480@mb-m10.aol.com>...
Yes, it's been dealt with, but you refuse to see it. There are none so blind
as will not see. YOU CANNOT TAKE A WORD WITH A LONG HISTORY AND WIDELY ACCPETD
MEANING, AND USE THE WORD TO MEAN SOMETHNG IT DOESN'T MEAN. If we all went
about doing that, words would become meaningless to the populace at large if
each individual gave words their own personal defintions.
It is not a personal definition. It's in the dictionary. I'll repeat
myself.
In fact it is the atheists on this board that are
using the correct definition out of the dictionary. It corresponds
to what we have been saying. See:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism
According to the above dictionary the disbelief in the existence of
God or gods counts as atheism. That is from 1 a) in the first sense
of the "or" statement. That is easy to understand if you know how to
parse english grammar.
So get off this stupid arugument that we are somehow defining atheism
willy nilly.
I've explained to the arrogant ***** that there
are a number of dictionaries which define atheism
as a lack of, or no belief in god/s, so that even
though some definitions are "belief that no god/s
exist", it's not the only definition. I've posted
this previously, as well, but the wanker seems to
ignore the fact, having already made up his mind:
:atheism:
:n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God
: [syn: {godlessness}] [ant: {theism}]
: 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or
: gods
Well, you don't mention the dictionary for your source. I've gone through a
number of dictionaries and lexicons, and have not come across the secondary
defintion you describe here in any of them.
WorldNet, among others. Here's what an encylopedia
says, which is exactly what we've been saying:
:Atheism:
:The term atheism is formed of the Greek prefix a-
:(meaning "without" or "not") and the Greek-derived
:theism, meaning a belief in a god (or gods). The
:literal meaning of the term is therefore without a
:belief in a god or gods, making any person who does
:not believe in the existence of a god or gods an
:atheist -- including both those who believe that no
:god exists and those who do not take a position on
:the existence of god(s).
Here's another dictionary for you:
:The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language:
:Fourth Edition. 2000.
:atheist
:NOUN: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God
:or gods.
Now, try not to pop one of the few neurons you have
firing in that "brain" of yours. Here's what it
says about "disbelief":
:Overview of noun disbelief
:
:The noun disbelief has 2 senses
:
:1. (3) incredulity, disbelief, skepticism, mental rejection
: -- (doubt about the truth of something)
:2. unbelief, disbelief -- (a rejection of belief)
Are you getting it yet? Disbelief is either the
active belief that something is false, or it's
merely a lack of acceptance that it's true.
IOW, atheism can be defined as a belief that gods
do not exist, _or_ a lack of belief in gods. Both
definitions are acceptable, & even if our current
dictionaries didn't define this so, although they
do, it would be irrelevant, if common definitions
of those who call themselves atheists did so. The
final determinant of a name is by those so named.
You say so, but I have not found that definition anywhere. But I guess if one
looks hard enough, he can find some obscure verification of his assertion--no
many how many other more credible sources do not support him.
At any rate, I don't give a rats ***** what you, or anyone else believes.
And it's doubtful anyone gives a rat's ***** what you
believe, Mr. Fundamentalist Agnostic.
You
theists and atheists make your arguments, mostly stupid and inane ones, back
and forth ad infinitum, when neither of you can prove your position one way or
the other. What an utter waste.
LOL. Oh yeah, "Mr. I'm Above It All Because I'm An
Agnostic" thinks he's better than everyone else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rhabdophobid" |
|
| Title: Re: On atheism and it's definition (Was: [something else]) |
04 Sep 2003 02:22:27 PM |
|
|
your arguements aren't so bad in reading, though, if i may say so myself. :
P
"Road Runner" <Beep@zoom.com> wrote in message
news:3F4B2075.5446D60F@zoom.com...
Getteur wrote:
Igtheist wrote:
getteur@aol.com (Getteur) wrote in message
news:<20030821021742.21190.00000480@mb-m10.aol.com>...
Yes, it's been dealt with, but you refuse to see it. There are
none so blind
as will not see. YOU CANNOT TAKE A WORD WITH A LONG HISTORY AND
WIDELY ACCPETD
MEANING, AND USE THE WORD TO MEAN SOMETHNG IT DOESN'T MEAN. If we
all went
about doing that, words would become meaningless to the populace at
large if
each individual gave words their own personal defintions.
It is not a personal definition. It's in the dictionary. I'll
repeat
myself.
In fact it is the atheists on this board that are
using the correct definition out of the dictionary. It corresponds
to what we have been saying. See:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism
According to the above dictionary the disbelief in the existence of
God or gods counts as atheism. That is from 1 a) in the first sense
of the "or" statement. That is easy to understand if you know how to
parse english grammar.
So get off this stupid arugument that we are somehow defining atheism
willy nilly.
I've explained to the arrogant ***** that there
are a number of dictionaries which define atheism
as a lack of, or no belief in god/s, so that even
though some definitions are "belief that no god/s
exist", it's not the only definition. I've posted
this previously, as well, but the wanker seems to
ignore the fact, having already made up his mind:
:atheism:
:n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God
: [syn: {godlessness}] [ant: {theism}]
: 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or
: gods
Well, you don't mention the dictionary for your source. I've gone
through a
number of dictionaries and lexicons, and have not come across the
secondary
defintion you describe here in any of them.
WorldNet, among others. Here's what an encylopedia
says, which is exactly what we've been saying:
:Atheism:
:The term atheism is formed of the Greek prefix a-
:(meaning "without" or "not") and the Greek-derived
:theism, meaning a belief in a god (or gods). The
:literal meaning of the term is therefore without a
:belief in a god or gods, making any person who does
:not believe in the existence of a god or gods an
:atheist -- including both those who believe that no
:god exists and those who do not take a position on
:the existence of god(s).
Here's another dictionary for you:
:The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language:
:Fourth Edition. 2000.
:atheist
:NOUN: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God
:or gods.
Now, try not to pop one of the few neurons you have
firing in that "brain" of yours. Here's what it
says about "disbelief":
:Overview of noun disbelief
:
:The noun disbelief has 2 senses
:
:1. (3) incredulity, disbelief, skepticism, mental rejection
: -- (doubt about the truth of something)
:2. unbelief, disbelief -- (a rejection of belief)
Are you getting it yet? Disbelief is either the
active belief that something is false, or it's
merely a lack of acceptance that it's true.
IOW, atheism can be defined as a belief that gods
do not exist, _or_ a lack of belief in gods. Both
definitions are acceptable, & even if our current
dictionaries didn't define this so, although they
do, it would be irrelevant, if common definitions
of those who call themselves atheists did so. The
final determinant of a name is by those so named.
You say so, but I have not found that definition anywhere. But I guess
if one
looks hard enough, he can find some obscure verification of his
assertion--no
many how many other more credible sources do not support him.
At any rate, I don't give a rats ***** what you, or anyone else believes.
And it's doubtful anyone gives a rat's ***** what you
believe, Mr. Fundamentalist Agnostic.
You
theists and atheists make your arguments, mostly stupid and inane ones,
back
and forth ad infinitum, when neither of you can prove your position one
way or
the other. What an utter waste.
LOL. Oh yeah, "Mr. I'm Above It All Because I'm An
Agnostic" thinks he's better than everyone else.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: On atheism and it's definition (Was: [something else]) |
24 Aug 2003 10:22:17 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 22:59:50 GMT, Road Runner <Beep@zoom.com> posted
in alt.atheism:
:atheism:
:n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God
: [syn: {godlessness}] [ant: {theism}]
That would make asynchrony the belief that there's no synchronism,
which is sheer nonsense.
IOW, atheism can be defined as a belief that gods
do not exist
It can be defined as a red lollypop too, but that doesn't make the
definition correct. The "a" prefix means "without the following
characteristic", making "atheism" "lack of theism". (Theism being
belief in a god or gods.)
Both definitions are acceptable
Not to everyone.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Road Runner" |
|
| Title: Re: On atheism and it's definition (Was: [something else]) |
26 Aug 2003 02:56:57 PM |
|
|
jwk wrote:
getteur@aol.com (Getteur) wrote in message news:<20030825020800.08111.00001674@mb-m06.aol.com>...
[snip]
At any rate, I don't give a rats ***** what you, or anyone else believes. You
theists and atheists make your arguments, mostly stupid and inane ones, back
and forth ad infinitum, when neither of you can prove your position one way or
the other. What an utter waste.
Oh, I see. So we should just give up and say "I don't know fer sure"
like you have? Thanks for settling all that for us.
jwk
Geutter's been posting in alt.agnosticism for years. I
never thought an agnostic could be a fundamentalist,
but he's the poster child.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
