"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:n3uh609n5pkvr5li6jvs1u0vhr9bar09r5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 01:27:06 GMT, " Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
The root of atheism is a - without theos - god - without a god.
Godless.
Actually, no, the root of "atheos" is not "without God."
<snip>
Interesting that you have a different view to my dictionary!
Your argument sounds reasonable and well thought out - take it up with
them - i'll take the word of whomever wins.
Try the OED and Websters/Random House unabridged dictionaries. Then look
up the terms in Liddell & Scott's 7th edition Greek-English Lexicon, and the
1983 New Edition of Goodwin's Greek Grammar and the Oxford Grammar of
Classical Greek. Specifically look up the formulation of the prepositions
that always take the genitive case indicating an absence of a thing and the
seperation from a thing and the lack of accompaniment of a thing, the
attributive genitive, the partitive genitive, and the other genitive
constructions in Greek. Many dictionaries do not bother with complete
etymologies because of the space and scholarship (which costs money)
involved. So the lesser dictionaries and lexicons often generalize and use
the preposition "without" to generalize all of the various Greek genitive
(ablative in Latin) constructions involving separation from, lack of, want
of, and absence of. This kind of detail is not absolutely necessary in
words that have evolved in to English from the Germanic and Latin languages.
However, atheism is a direct loan word from Greek. And the Greek
differentiates between various constructions involving the specific concepts
of separation, and that word atheism was subsumed directly into English.
Why do you believe it is reasonable to attribute a different meaning to the
word that is utterly clear and unquestionable in Greek? Why not select
another word or phrase from the extraordinarily large English vocabulary
that specifically incorporates the various notions of belief and unbelief
expressed hereabouts? Why are so many people here so emotionally attached
to the label "atheist"? Especially since the cultural and historic
associations with communism are so strong and negative?
If you don't believe in, worship or venerate a god - you are without a
god - godless - an atheist.
I still assert that if one does not believe in God, that is an assertion
that God does not exist.
I still say an assertion is an act separate from and independent of
belief.
Do you not see a problem with that when the same words used to define one
word are used to define the others?
If not, the utterance that one does not believe in
God is without sense. Or do you believe it makes sense to state that one
does not believe in something known to exist?
In some senses of believe - certainly.
I don't believe in monarchy for example - this doesn't mean that Queen
Elizabeth II doesn't exist - it means I do not honor or respect the
position/title/concept of Queen.
I find the idea of hereditary monarchy morally repugnant - the queen
is possibly a nice lady - but that's strictly irrelevant.
Similarly I don't believe in Hitler in the sense that I am not a Nazi
- not in the sense that I deny he existed.
I am not just being silly here - both senses of "believe in" are
absolutely central to religious belief.
All dogma, I submit, not just theism.
People who "believe in Christ" do more than assert his existence, they
believe in him in the sense of "have faith in".
There is a distinction between an historical man and a being with
supernatural attributes and powers. The difference between Jesus and "one
rubbed with oil."
It is possible to believe that Jesus existed and NOT be a christian.
Of course it is. It is indeed possible to believe that Jesus existed and
not be theist, much less Christian.
Likewise it is possible to believe in the existence of the Pharaoh and
to not believe in his divinity - to believe in him but to not believe
in him.
Yes, again the same distinction as between men known to history as Jesus,
Gaius Julius Caesar, Octavius Augustus, Achilles, Hercules, Nero (And a slew
of others) and the divinity and supernatural abilities imparted to them by
adherents to their dogmas.
I do not disbelieve in the existence of Pharaoh - AND I acknowledge he
was someone's god - but I have no personal belief in him - no faith in
him.
I have no faith in (belief in) God - whether it exists or not - so I
know for certain I don't believe - and I also believe (without
certainty) that it doesn't exist.
Quite possibly true. Nevertheless, someone had to formulate and define some
notion of God and then transmit that notion to you before you disbelieved
that notion. That is an absolute sine quo nihil.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
