Is there a God? What do YOU think???

[Freethinker]

I also checked a reputable sociological source, which made the same point, that in common use, atheism denies the existence of a "higher power",

Yes words are dynamic. In it's LITERAL sense, *A*theism merely means NOT a Theist. Look at what "Gay" means now compared to the "Gay '90's" (1890's).

 

But to allow the incorrectly attributed baggage to "Atheism" leaves us without a word to describe someone that jusat does not ahve a god belief. Or we can apply the word correctly and let the books catch up.

[Aquagem]

Yes words are dynamic. In it's LITERAL sense, *A*theism merely means NOT a Theist. Look at what "Gay" means now compared to the "Gay '90's" (1890's).

 

Your "gay" example is exactly why I object. The "gay romancer" of the 18th century will draw titters, instead of tits. I will check with my OED tonight at home, but consulting two very good dictionaries here trace the meaning of "atheism" as a definite denial of the metaphysical and any purported forces to about 1565. Just like changing the definition of "gay" to mean "homosexual", changing "atheism" to mean exactly what "agnostic" has meant for centuries LOSES meaning, and introduces misunderstanding into our reading of, say, 17th century texts. Logically, rather than co-opting the meaning of agnostic, I'd think, in the name of historical continuity, you'd come up with new word, just like they did about 1565.

 

I'll look further to see if I can locate when this got redefined, but don't see why us agnostics should give up just cuz somebody stole our definition.:hyper:

 

To me, it looks like non-lethal, but deleterious mutation.

[RiverRat]

Bumab .... don't get discouraged. It is futile to engage in debates of this nature. These debates have raged for centuries.

 

You must understand that you have confronted well oiled atheist machines on this site.

 

I'm a 'believer' and recognize that... unless one can reach through the 12th dimension and grab God by the ears and set him/her on the front steps of 'Scientific America' magazine... both sides (athesism/theism) will just be pissin' in the wind.

 

(see atheism/theism post I started)

 

I'm more apt to spend constructive time teaching and interacting with my young daughter. Although ... I think I start a post tomorrow about the potential of B.O.I.N.C.

[bumab]

Oh don't worry... I completely understand the incredible emotion that this subject brings up. While some may be a little more abusive then others, it's just excessive passion. I find it interesting how similar the emotions expressed by incredibly passionate atheists (as we are now using the term :D) are to the emotions expressed by incredibly passionate relgious folk. Must be the same part of the brain. :hyper:

 

As for some being well oiled atheitic machines- that's alright. Most thoughts are well oiled if you think about them long enough, although that doesn't make them correct. The problem comes from being so impressed with your well-running engine that you are blinded to other things which may be possible. From my impression though, most people are really thoughtful. That's why I like this place- people have thought a lot about the posts and subjects related to the posts.

[Freethinker]

I'm a 'believer' and recognize that... unless one can reach through the 12th dimension and grab God by the ears and set him/her on the front steps of 'Scientific America' magazine... both sides (athesism/theism) will just be pissin' in the wind.

I love to see how believers squirm trying to defend the undefensible. Such as this attempt to pretend that no matter how much evidence they DO supply. more is demanded. That enough is never enough.

 

When in REALITY, NO PROOF IS EVER OFFERED.

 

Attempts at what they THINK is proof have been mindlessly parrotted for millenia. When as we become better educated on REALITY, these "proofs" each get exposed for the fallacies they are. Thus as none of any substance remain, rather than even attempt to provide proof, we get these excuses.

 

Now we are up to the "12th dimension". Lots of squirm to get that far out!

[Tormod]

You must understand that you have confronted well oiled atheist machines on this site.

 

Oh no! The secret is out! :hyper:

[alxfamlaw]

Oh no! The secret is out! :hyper:

 

 

No.

[lindagarrette]

Yes words are dynamic. In it's LITERAL sense, *A*theism merely means NOT a Theist. Look at what "Gay" means now compared to the "Gay '90's" (1890's).

 

But to allow the incorrectly attributed baggage to "Atheism" leaves us without a word to describe someone that jusat does not ahve a god belief. Or we can apply the word correctly and let the books catch up.

You are correct, FT. I am almost ready to post a hypography on historical linguistics that should help people understand how and why word meanings change over time. One should not go back to a previously accepted usage if the current one is accepted by most speakers. Language is a democracy.

[Fishteacher73]

Language is a democracy.

Then shouldn't it be:

 

Language be a democracy?? :hyper:

[RiverRat]

Now we are up to the "12th dimension". Lots of squirm to get that far out!

 

If superstring and M-theories turn out to involve 10 or 11 dimensions.... may not 'the invisible plaid unicorn' occupy the '12th' dimension ?? ;)

[Freethinker]

If superstring and M-theories turn out to involve 10 or 11 dimensions.... may not 'the invisible plaid unicorn' occupy the '12th' dimension ?? ;)

It's PINK! PINK DAMN IT!

 

May her majestic horn end your earthly travails you infidel!

[Aquagem]

You are correct, FT....One should not go back to a previously accepted usage if the current one is accepted by most speakers.

 

These two sentences are in conflict in this case. I have now checked with about ten sources, and only one of them defines "atheist" the way FT does. And that one is FT himself. I would like to track the etymology back further to see if there EVER was a time when most speakers used atheism in the sense FT proposes, which is very close to the definition given for "agnosticism" in those same sources (as I understand his use of the word). And, while I think quibbling over words is generally pusillanimous and unproductive, meaning is important to communication. Like DNA, language needs a significant base of slowly-changing elements and others that are free to roam. We still love Shakespearean English, in part for its wonderful similarity and for its splendiferous differences from English today.

 

How about, "nontheistic" as way of describing those people who do not wish for, or depend on the idea of, a supernatural order and being to live their lives or to give their lives meaning? Just a thought. It isn't a word in use today (in the OED, anyway), and lacks the sense of a decisive declaration concerning the existence or nonexistence of any particular god in any particular cultural setting. It isn't likely to obfuscate prior writings by modifying a longstanding definition. And, like "atheism" in its time, it (or another newly-coined term of your choice) serves a necessary linguistic purpose, that of expressing a new idea.

 

And with that, I'd prefer to get back to the discussion of this thread, recognizing the difference in definitions we have over a couple of very key concepts in the interchange.

 

;)

[TINNY]

Just want to ask about the credibilty of this:

universe come out of nothingness and emerged through light at a singularity. That all matter is light slowed down. And that the characteristics of light is showing us that the non-material existence beyond the physical world consists only of absolutes, and some of those absolutes are remarkably similar to what everyone’s religion has considered to be among the primary attributes of God.

[Noodle]

"How about, "nontheistic" as way of describing those people who do not wish for, or depend on the idea of, a supernatural order and being to live their lives or to give their lives meaning? Just a thought. It isn't a word in use today (in the OED, anyway), and lacks the sense of a decisive declaration concerning the existence or nonexistence of any particular god in any particular cultural setting. It isn't likely to obfuscate prior writings by modifying a longstanding definition. And, like "atheism" in its time, it (or another newly-coined term of your choice) serves a necessary linguistic purpose, that of expressing a new idea."

 

I think Aquagem's argument for using specific language has merit: a scientific application to linguistics. Actually, that's redundant. The problem with this thread, from its inception, has been definitions. I would ascribe to being a nontheist. This option needs no augmentation. I was moving in this direction with my earlier post when I stated that I didn't play in the believer/non-believer game. The word god has yet to be defined by anyone participating in this topic, but living in a fundamentaly Christian society, I know what to expect. The proselytizers have marked my door. I have never encountered a wandering band of nontheists going door to door to spread the Nothing. I have never been accosted at an airport by nontheists banging tambourines for Nothing. Some things may be worth dying for, but Nothing has never had much appeal. No one knows, or can possibly comprehend, what happened at the beginning of time. Probably Nothing. To be drawn into an emotional maelstrom on an undefined topic is foolish. Bumab cannot be refuted. It would take a miracle, which is not part of my arsenal. I leave such things to my wife who is a every-word-in-the-bible-is-true Christian. We have quite a good relationship because there is Nothing to argue about.

[Tormod]

Very interesting post, Noodle. Thanks.

[RiverRat]

May her majestic horn end your earthly travails you infidel!

 

Niiiiiice … I’ll assume your statement noted above does not really infer you wish death upon me.

 

in•fi•del (ĭn'fĭ-dəl, -dĕl')

n.

1. An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.

2. One who has no religious beliefs.

3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.

 

 

We are all infidels.

[bumab]

Bumab cannot be refuted. It would take a miracle, which is not part of my arsenal.

 

What did I say? I wasn't looking to be refuted, or to demonstrate anything, or even start an argument. Sorry! Religion can't "prove" God anymore then science can "prove" not-God. Apples and oranges.