| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
22 Mar 2006 02:13:29 PM |
| Object: |
The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
The Historic Usage of Atheism
by Donn Day
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, system of thought developed around the denial of God's
existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the
Enlightenment, the age of reason
Random House Encyclopedia-1977.
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.
Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support
this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed
against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to
other possible gods
Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995.
Atheism is disbelief in God
Introduction to Philosophy, Perry and Bratman, Oxford University
Press-1986.
Atheism from the Greek a (not) plus theos (god). The doctrine of
disbelief in a supreme being
Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, William Reese, Humanities
Press-1996.
Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that
there is no divine being, no God
Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996.
Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist
The World Book Encyclopedia-1991.
Atheism, Greek atheos-Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of God
Oxford English Dictionary-1989
Atheism, commonly speaking, is the denial of God. Theism (from the
Greek theos, God) is belief in or conceptualization of God, atheism is
the rejection of such belief or conceptualization.In the ancient world
atheism was rarely a clearly formulated position
Encyclopedia Americana-1990.
Atheism, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or
spiritual beings. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism,
which leaves open whether there is a god or not, professing to find the
question unanswerable, for the atheist, the non-existence of god is a
certainty
The New Encyclopedia Britannia-1993.
According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who
maintains that there is no god...(rejects eccentric definitions of the
word)
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967.
Atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the
existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a
divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being
superlatively powerful, wise and good
Encyclopedia of Religion-1987.
Atheism (Greek and Roman): Atheism is a dogmatic creed, consisting in
the denial of every kind of supernatural power. Atheism has not often
been seriously maintained at any period of civilized though
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II.
Atheism denies the existence of deity
Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia-Vol I.
Atheist philosopher Michael Martin disagrees with the definitions used
above:
If you look up 'atheism' in a dictionary, you will probably find it
defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people
understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is
not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of
its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos'
means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone
without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God
does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a
negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God .
Mr. Martin has taken the Greek word and tried to make it say something
it does not, as all the sources above clearly show. Before looking at
this new definition of atheism, let's see how atheists have generally
defined the word.
Here's an example of traditional atheist comments from the book
Critiques of God concerning the meaning of the word "atheism". First, a
short review of the book from the Secular Web:
"Critiques of God" is a hard-hitting, comprehensive anthology of essays
by leading atheist philosophers. My only complaint is that Prometheus
Books should have updated this book to reflect recent developments in
the philosophy of religion since the book's original publication in
1976 (e.g.,the Kalam cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument,
the evidential argument from evil, etc.).
Jeffery Jay Lowder
In the chapter Philosophical Concepts of Atheism, atheist philosopher
Ernest Nagel had this to say about the meaning of the word "atheism":
Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief, or with disbelief
in some particular creed of a religious group. Thus, a child who has
received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not
an atheist-for he his not denying any theistic claims.
As I see it, atheistic philosophers fall into two major groups;
(1) Those which hold that theistic doctrine is meaningful, but reject
it either on the grounds that (a) the positive evidence for it is
insufficient, or (b) the negative evidence is quite overwhelming;
and (2) those that hold that the theistic thesis is not even
meaningful, and reject it (a) as just nonsense, or (b) as literally
meaningless , but interpreting it as a symbolic rendering of human
ideals.
It will not be possible in the limited space at my disposal to discuss
the second category of atheist critiques; and in any event, most of the
traditional atheistic critiques of theism belong to the first group.
As the above quote points out, the historic use of the word "atheism"
has meant the use of evaluation and reason in the rejection of theism.
So we see that even atheists traditionally followed the literal meaning
of the word "atheism".
http://tertius.blogspot.com/2004/10/historic-usage-of-atheism.html
The Modern Usage Of Atheism
by Donn Day
The earliest source that I have been able to find that slightly
resembles modern usage, is by Charles Bradlaugh, an agnostic:
The atheist does not say, 'There is no God,' but he says, 'I know not
what you mean by God; the word God is to me a sound conveying no clear
or distinct affirmation.'
A Plea for Atheism-1864.
It should be noted that this was the definition that Kai Nielsen used
when debating J.P. Moreland in the book, Does God Exist?. The Secular
Web has this to say regarding that book:
This book is divided into three sections: (i) the transcript of the
oral debate on the existence of God between Christian philosopher J.P.
Moreland and atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen; (ii) commentaries on the
debate by two Christian philosophers (William Lane Craig and Dallas
Willard) and two atheist philosophers (Antony Flew and Keith Parsons);
and (iii) concluding thoughts by Moreland and Nielsen. I agree
completely with the conclusion of Craig's flow of the debate, that
Moreland won the debate. In fact, Moreland's victory in the debate was
so decisive I am left wishing that Keith Parsons had been Moreland's
opponent; I wonder if Nielsen even took the debate seriously. In light
of this, I am baffled why a secular humanist publisher like Prometheus
Books would choose to pubish this particular debate, given how pathetic
Nielsen's performance truly was.
Jeffery Jay Lowder
As far as I have been able to determine, the modern usage of the word
"atheism" has been around, only, since 1979. The first usage of this
definition seems to have appeared in, Atheism: The Case Against God, by
George H. Smith, one of the Secular Web's top ten atheist books. Here's
how Mr. Smith defined the word "atheism":
Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief...in its main
form, it is not belief; it is the absence of belief.
A year later Prometheus Books released, An Anthology of Atheism and
Rationalism, edited by Gordon Stein. This book had the following
definition:
....an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is
small but important...To be without a belief in God merely means that
the term 'God' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief
in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different
from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It
is a lack of belief.
Antony Flew in The Presumption of Atheism (1984) concurs with the
above, although acknowledging this as a "new" definition:
....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.
In the last twenty years or so atheists and theists have taken to
debating on college campuses, and in town halls, all across this
country. By using the above definition, atheists have attempted to
shift the burden of proof. In the article, Is Atheism Presumptuous?,
atheist Jeffery Jay Lowder admits that
"I agree [with Copan] that anyone who claims, "God does not exist,"
must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God
exists." ...
Again, George Smith:
If one presents a positive belief (i.e. an assertion which one claims
to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor.
The burden of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a
proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not
sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be
believed.
Also from An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism:
If the atheist is simply without God, then he is not asserting
anything. On the other hand, the theist is asserting the existence of
something (God), so the burden of proof is on him...Atheism is without
God. It does not assert no God. The atheist does not say that there is
no God.
If I asked you to state your beliefs about "blictopre" you would
understand what it really means to have "an absence of belief" (AOB).
What AOB means to an atheist is, not only is the burden of proof
squarely placed on the theists shoulders, but the type of evidence that
constitutes "proof", is also defined by the atheist. Most atheists
claim that they need some type of "empirical" proof of God's existence,
but one popular atheist web page comments;
"Let's suppose that God exists and wants to prove to you that he
exists. What can he do to prove it? Suppose he suddenly reveals himself
to you and says, "Behold! I am God!" Would this prove that God exists?
No, it would not."
The Bible makes the same point in that even though the fleeing Hebrews
witnessed the "actual" presence of God in there midst, many still
doubted.
Atheists have rigged the outcome in support of their own unbelief, all
the time giving the impression of being open to the evidence. In
addition, the AOB claim has negated the meaning of the word "atheist"
because their "lack of belief" means that they cannot even state
whether or not God exists, making them, in reality agnostics, a term
most atheists despise.
In the popular sense an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves that
God exists, while the atheist disbelieves that God exists. However, the
common contrast of agnosticism with atheism will hold only if we assume
that atheism means positive atheism. In the popular sense, agnosticism
is compatible with negative (weak) atheism. Since negative atheism by
definition simply means not holding any concept of God, it is
compatible with neither believing nor disbelieving in God (Michael
Martin in Atheism-A Philosophical Justification).
One of my main points of contention with the AOB position is that one
would have had to have no contact with any theist to truly not have any
beliefs about God. After just one such interaction, the atheist would
have started to form beliefs in relation to the existence/ nonexistence
of God, and once the atheist begins to examine the evidence, beliefs
would exist.
Atheists also state that the AOB claim means that atheism is the
"default" position. If a person "has no beliefs," or if the theist
doesn't present convincing evidence, then atheism wins by default. When
Antony Flew used the term "negative atheist" in a debate with
theologian Terry Miethe, this was Mr. Meithe's response:
....the "negative atheist" ends up denying God's existence just as much
as the "positive atheist." For the believer (and in reality) to deny
the idea of God is to deny the actual existence of God no matter what
language game you want to play. Remember, Hans Kung is quite correct in
pointing out that there is also an "atheistic language game" that is
not self-justified...We must not---cannot---arbitrarily "define" out of
existence vast ranges of reality simply because they do not meet our
predetermined definition. It is not good enough to say that I have no
idea of God therefore I am denying nothing about "his" actual
existence. You must examine all of reality and answer or explain why
millions have had what they thought was an adequate idea or concept of
God, from great philosophers to the "common folk."
Another problem with AOB theories is that this is not they way atheists
(or anyone else) decides issues. For example, in a debate I had with an
atheist, in response to something I had said about evidence, he made
the comment, "Yea, I had a vague sense that there were monsters under
my bed at night --- I looked and didn't see any." So my response was
that if he had indeed looked under his bed and found no evidence of
monsters, would the natural response be to (1) Have an "absence of
belief" about the monsters, or (2) Actively deny the existence of the
monsters?
Finally, atheists use the AOB claim to state that atheism has no
worldview, or has no bearing on any other perspectives that an atheist
might hold. This, too, is just another attempt to keep from having
their own beliefs critically evaluated. Everyone has a worldview (way
of looking at the world), no matter what they might claim.
http://tertius.blogspot.com/2004/10/modern-usage-of-atheism.html
.
|
|
| User: "Sasha" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
22 Mar 2006 02:50:50 PM |
|
|
This, too, is just another attempt to keep from having
their own beliefs critically evaluated.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a God - any God. Evaluate that until
you're blue in the face...until God Himself is down here giving me a
handjob while I watch Family Guy and eat a burger, I'll remain
completely devoid of any belief in a God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
22 Mar 2006 04:07:31 PM |
|
|
"Sasha" <scironi@gmail.com> wrote
This, too, is just another attempt to keep from having
their own beliefs critically evaluated.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a God - any God. Evaluate that until
you're blue in the face...until God Himself is down here giving me a
handjob while I watch Family Guy and eat a burger, I'll remain
completely devoid of any belief in a God.
If you stop the man in the street and say "what is atheist?" he will
probably reply "Someone who doesn't believe in God".
Now atheists are trying to redifne the word. It is strangely reminiscent of
the "pro-choice" nonsense.
The philosophy doesn't make any sense outside of a Judaeo-Christian context.
The Thai equivalent of an atheist is not someone who holds no belief in God
or gods, but someone who thinks that Budda's philosophy was nonsense and is
holding Thailand back.
Atheists have started refusing to admit this, becuase it damages their Wicca
argument. Chrisitinaity is not just one creed amongst many.
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www.lulu.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "J notanymore" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
22 Mar 2006 04:25:22 PM |
|
|
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www.lulu.com
A missionary was walking through the woods and fell into a savage's pit.
The chief said "outsider, you have a choice, death or lulu." The missionary
said lulu. So the chief sodomized him and let him go. The missionary fell
into a second pit, and when given the same choice, he chose death. Quoth
the chief, "Death by lulu."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
22 Mar 2006 09:27:17 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Sasha" <scironi@gmail.com> wrote
This, too, is just another attempt to keep from having
their own beliefs critically evaluated.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a God - any God. Evaluate that until
you're blue in the face...until God Himself is down here giving me a
handjob while I watch Family Guy and eat a burger, I'll remain
completely devoid of any belief in a God.
If you stop the man in the street and say "what is atheist?" he will
probably reply "Someone who doesn't believe in God".
Now atheists are trying to redifne the word. It is strangely reminiscent of
the "pro-choice" nonsense.
Atheism is a lack of belief in God.
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God.
You do know that one is a doctrine and the other is a person, right?
Hence the different wording amounting to the same thing.
Tell me, what is the difference between "Christianity" and "Christian"?
The philosophy doesn't make any sense outside of a Judaeo-Christian context.
The Thai equivalent of an atheist is not someone who holds no belief in God
or gods, but someone who thinks that Budda's philosophy was nonsense and is
holding Thailand back.
Because Buddhists do not believe Buddha to be a god.
Atheists have started refusing to admit this, becuase it damages their Wicca
argument. Chrisitinaity is not just one creed amongst many.
Atheists are not Wiccan. Wiccans have two deities called the "Goddess"
and the "Horned God."
Atheists do not believe in gods, including the Wiccan ones.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "Torture has never been a reliable means of *
* extracting information.... One wonders why it *
* is still practiced." --Jean-Luc Picard *
****************************************************
--
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
22 Mar 2006 04:18:04 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
"Sasha" <scironi@gmail.com> wrote
This, too, is just another attempt to keep from having
their own beliefs critically evaluated.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a God - any God. Evaluate that until
you're blue in the face...until God Himself is down here giving me a
handjob while I watch Family Guy and eat a burger, I'll remain
completely devoid of any belief in a God.
If you stop the man in the street and say "what is atheist?" he will
probably reply "Someone who doesn't believe in God".
And that would be right, if somewhat limited in scope. We also don't
believe in any of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities
Now atheists are trying to redifne the word. It is strangely reminiscent of
the "pro-choice" nonsense.
The philosophy doesn't make any sense outside of a Judaeo-Christian context.
What philosophy?
The Thai equivalent of an atheist is not someone who holds no belief in God
or gods, but someone who thinks that Budda's philosophy was nonsense and is
holding Thailand back.
While I suspect many atheists think that Christianity was a bad move
all around, that is not what makes them atheists.
Atheists have started refusing to admit this, becuase it damages their Wicca
argument.
Wicca argument? Could you elucidate, please?
Chrisitinaity is not just one creed amongst many.
You're right. It's quite a few amongst many:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www.lulu.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
22 Mar 2006 06:56:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:07:31 -0000, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <d4CdnZ7Nm788V7zZnZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d@bt.com>
"Sasha" <scironi@gmail.com> wrote
This, too, is just another attempt to keep from having
their own beliefs critically evaluated.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a God - any God. Evaluate that until
you're blue in the face...until God Himself is down here giving me a
handjob while I watch Family Guy and eat a burger, I'll remain
completely devoid of any belief in a God.
If you stop the man in the street and say "what is atheist?" he will
probably reply "Someone who doesn't believe in God".
Now atheists are trying to redifne the word. It is strangely reminiscent of
the "pro-choice" nonsense.
The philosophy doesn't make any sense outside of a Judaeo-Christian context.
The Thai equivalent of an atheist is not someone who holds no belief in God
or gods, but someone who thinks that Budda's philosophy was nonsense and is
holding Thailand back.
Atheists have started refusing to admit this, becuase it damages their Wicca
argument. Chrisitinaity is not just one creed amongst many.
What drugs have you been taking?
Are you able to speak coherently?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
22 Mar 2006 10:19:02 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:26:44 +1030, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:07:31 -0000, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <d4CdnZ7Nm788V7zZnZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d@bt.com>
"Sasha" <scironi@gmail.com> wrote
This, too, is just another attempt to keep from having
their own beliefs critically evaluated.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a God - any God. Evaluate that until
you're blue in the face...until God Himself is down here giving me a
handjob while I watch Family Guy and eat a burger, I'll remain
completely devoid of any belief in a God.
If you stop the man in the street and say "what is atheist?" he will
probably reply "Someone who doesn't believe in God".
Now atheists are trying to redifne the word. It is strangely reminiscent of
the "pro-choice" nonsense.
The philosophy doesn't make any sense outside of a Judaeo-Christian context.
The Thai equivalent of an atheist is not someone who holds no belief in God
or gods, but someone who thinks that Budda's philosophy was nonsense and is
holding Thailand back.
Atheists have started refusing to admit this, becuase it damages their Wicca
argument. Chrisitinaity is not just one creed amongst many.
What drugs have you been taking?
The Jesus acid.
Are you able to speak coherently?
Since he's apparently unable to *think* coherently, I wouldn't hold
much hope for that....
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
22 Mar 2006 10:17:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:07:31 -0000, "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Sasha" <scironi@gmail.com> wrote
This, too, is just another attempt to keep from having
their own beliefs critically evaluated.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a God - any God. Evaluate that until
you're blue in the face...until God Himself is down here giving me a
handjob while I watch Family Guy and eat a burger, I'll remain
completely devoid of any belief in a God.
If you stop the man in the street and say "what is atheist?" he will
probably reply "Someone who doesn't believe in God".
And that would be correct as far as it goes.
Now atheists are trying to redifne the word. It is strangely reminiscent of
the "pro-choice" nonsense.
If you wanted to know what a plumber is, would you ask a mechanic? I'm
sorry if it rubs Christians the wrong way, but atheists reserve the
right to define the term that describes them.
The philosophy doesn't make any sense outside of a Judaeo-Christian context.
The Thai equivalent of an atheist is not someone who holds no belief in God
or gods, but someone who thinks that Budda's philosophy was nonsense and is
holding Thailand back.
Strawman.
Atheists have started refusing to admit this, becuase it damages their Wicca
argument.
"Wicca argument?" What kind of drugs are you on?
Chrisitinaity is not just one creed amongst many.
It is to anyone who's not a Christian.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sound of Tenor Saxophone" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
22 Mar 2006 04:01:56 PM |
|
|
On 22 Mar 2006 12:13:29 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
22 Mar 2006 03:31:44 PM |
|
|
On 22 Mar 2006 12:13:29 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
The Historic Usage of Atheism
How about letting actual atheists tell you what the word means?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
22 Mar 2006 09:18:13 PM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On 22 Mar 2006 12:13:29 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
The Historic Usage of Atheism
How about letting actual atheists tell you what the word means?
No! Something like that is devestating to Trumpet's "argument." ;-)
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "Torture has never been a reliable means of *
* extracting information.... One wonders why it *
* is still practiced." --Jean-Luc Picard *
****************************************************
--
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
22 Mar 2006 03:55:17 PM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On 22 Mar 2006 12:13:29 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
The Historic Usage of Atheism
How about letting actual atheists tell you what the word means?
God forbid! ;)
The way they harp on about it, they seem to think it's important to
establish that we're actively against their god. Or that we're not
atheists. Eh. However they get their jollies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
22 Mar 2006 06:58:53 PM |
|
|
On 22 Mar 2006 13:55:17 -0800, "Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1143064517.048112.40240@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
raven1 wrote:
On 22 Mar 2006 12:13:29 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
The Historic Usage of Atheism
How about letting actual atheists tell you what the word means?
God forbid! ;)
The way they harp on about it, they seem to think it's important to
establish that we're actively against their god. Or that we're not
atheists. Eh. However they get their jollies.
They get their jollies by supporting the slaughter of hundreds of
thousands of innocent Iraqis.
I suggest that this is behaviour which ought NOT to be tolerated.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
22 Mar 2006 08:01:27 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 22 Mar 2006 13:55:17 -0800, "Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1143064517.048112.40240@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
raven1 wrote:
On 22 Mar 2006 12:13:29 -0800, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@mail2world.com> wrote:
The Historic Usage of Atheism
How about letting actual atheists tell you what the word means?
God forbid! ;)
The way they harp on about it, they seem to think it's important to
establish that we're actively against their god. Or that we're not
atheists. Eh. However they get their jollies.
They get their jollies by supporting the slaughter of hundreds of
thousands of innocent Iraqis.
I suggest that this is behaviour which ought NOT to be tolerated.
Very good point. The "however" was a bit overly general.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cloim" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
22 Mar 2006 08:13:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:13:29 -0800, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
disbelieve
verb 1 be unable to believe. 2 have no religious faith.
deny
verb (denies, denied) 1 refuse to admit the truth or existence of.
Now read the definitions again.
The vast majority are consistent with "lack of belief".
The definition in the 1860's was consistent with "lack of belief".
I have seen much older references that were likewise consistent.
The premise that atheism is the the view that "god does not exist" is
relatively new. It appears to be based on an inadequate understanding of
several English words that are used in the definitions.
"disbelief or denial" is used in the 1828 Websters definition of atheist
as well as in several modern dictionaries. Thereby demonstrating that
atheism cannot be limited to "there is no god".
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys Little Helper" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
22 Mar 2006 05:08:26 PM |
|
|
Sound of Fuckwit quote:
The Historic Usage of Atheism
Fuckwit, why do you bother?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
22 Mar 2006 10:02:22 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:08:26 +0000, Sanity's Little Helper
<elvish@noshpam.net> wrote:
- Refer: <UOCdndik9dNqRbzZnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d@brightview.com>
Sound of Fuckwit quote:
The Historic Usage of Atheism
Fuckwit, why do you bother?
This total loser has nothing better to do.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Historic And Modern Usage Of Atheism |
23 Mar 2006 07:25:28 AM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Sanity's Little Helper in episode
<UOCdndik9dNqRbzZnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d@brightview.com>...
Sound of Fuckwit quote:
The Historic Usage of Atheism
Fuckwit, why do you bother?
Well, it's not like he has a life...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
I just love this one...
"For those of us who grew up in Louisiana,
'The Wizard of Oz' was like a documentary.
Dorothy left Kansas and simply went to Mardi Gras."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W2EA439BC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
