stu continues his running arguments... <img src=http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/images/2006/09/29/man_hamster_wheel_lg_nwm.gif> "But all are to defend a particular personal belief above all else." Sort of like the the doggedly defending of the personal belief that babies are atheists, simply because some atheist think that way... You are as fundamentalist in your views as they come, and just as dogmatic...
Since this thread gets sidetracked a lot, rather than let it get sidetracked by a piqued interest in discussion of the definition atheism, or a continued debate with Stu, as a final statement, I'll submit this excerpt on the matter from infidels.org who may be happy to address a dissenting view via email or on thier forum. (Or someone could start a new thread on it if they like.) It's an essay by T. Drange. Url: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html BTW: if this is considered an appeal to authority in the "logical fallacy sense," one needs to brush up on what an appeal to authority is and when it's actually proper to use. Here's a wiki on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority See: Conditions for a legitimate argument from authority Then look up Theodore Drange's bio. See ya.
I suppose it is time for my annual reply to his thread, which continues to furnish such gems of wisdom such as in DDUNBAR'S quote of T Drange (whoever that is?) to Wit: _________________ ...From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, [sic] 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.[4]..... __________________ Ergo, an atheist can apparently believe that God exists, but not believe in God!! After that "brilliant" display of "logic" i can only observe that this thread has 1800 posts and "God" only knows how many thousands of views! If we have nothing better to do, and i include myself here, then occupy ourselves with this prattle, then "God" help us, whoever he/she/it may or maynot be.
Sort of like making up things which aren't true because you are a chronic troll who has no real arguments of your own which are not either absurd or doggedly defending an extremist personal belief.
My theist remark came toward the end of the exchange and I stand by it. It appears to me the only reason why your responses changed from measured and reasonable to childish and belligerent. You find it "freaky, man." that atheists don't agree with me. Do you find it "freaky, man." that people don't generally agree? You see red on this, so accuse me of seeing red. That is the jem/ZZzz method of argument, not usually yours. A one line reference or a link would be example, not the largest paragraph in your post subjectively revisiting the points. It doesn't appear you are over it. It appears that you are very angry about it, for some reason. You proved you appealed to authority, nothing more. The argument can stand whilst citing other facts and opinion, not from just relying on other questionable opinion as "proof". I repeateadly gave the root meaning and repeatedly showed, where the commonly accepted use of the term atheism to represent one particular worldview, excludes and denies another one which is actually attached directly to the root meaning. You can't get your head around that, fine. That you then start to act like jem or zzzz, well there could be a reason for that and I gave one. w/o God. The root definition of atheist. So what the hell is your problem. Why do you want to go on and on in differnt threads to argue as if they are not? No we don't do we. But in fact they are, aren't they. Now you are going over stuff again, trying to remake a point which has already been covered in a previous thread. It is you who brought the matter up in this unrelated thread. You didn't have to. I thought you said you got over this. Rather than build on areas where there might be some agreement to possibly make some new ground, you seem to only want to pick at this particular one where we don't. Joyfully turning to a form of disdain and general abuse albeit mild, is reason you admonished jem. My suggestion is because it pushes hard againt a point in your theism where you cannot/will not pass. Fair enough. Why not leave it at that. "agree to disagree" as you suggest. But no, you don't do that, you bring in double standards - Do what you say, not what you do. Were my suggestion to be correct, it simply stands. You may have a problem with it, but that gives no justifiable cause for you to get all pisssy with me about it.
I would say this is a more approriate description in relation to its Greek root.... ... an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does or does not exist. According to its Greek roots, atheism is also a neutral view, characterized by an absence for, against or of a belief, or having no realizations in , of , or about God...... Off topic diversions abound since the argument for teleology ID /creationism became lost.
Stu, stu, stu. How can I possibly see red over you're disagreement when in fact I actually am agreeing with a bunch or erudite atheists who detailed why they hold the precise position I do on the word's use? Do you see my friend? You keep thinking it has something to do with theism rather than conservative word usage like the atheists I agree with. That's bizarre posturing on your part. I'm simply stuck on proper and commonly accepted word usage. And when I find that I don't have the proper word for something, using conservative word usage principles, I'll add a qualifying adjective or adverb in front or behind a word to expand on meaning. But I won't redefine a word to suit my agenda or worldview. At least not on purpose. And guess what? Most people take this route. Whether they are atheist, theist, short, fat, hetero, homo, Republican, democratic, stoic, or emotional. Well now Stu, you know that most people won't click on links and read through an entire essay. And so if interest was piqued, at least they would have a proper line of reason instead of a mere sound bite. Notice how one poster just took a small blurb from the post and gathered an incorrect understanding of the context? Just proof that people generally do not wish to read through long essays. Anger? Jeez Stu. Why would I be angry? Think about it. I embrace a majority view of the word's use. I don't have to struggle. You do. The thing is, I know you would like to make the case that it's because I'm a theist that I don't accept the way you'd and a minority of atheists would like the word to be used. So I simply want to make certain that that silly notion is put to rest by showing just another example of an Atheist who disagrees with you. You see Stu, I know your method of argumentation. It's all about bashing the theists. So you can say that I'm pre-emptively defending myself against your oft mode of attack. See above. Oh and see the wiki link for proper appeals to authority. Oh but Stu, would not the Atheists who can't get their head around it be acting like ZZZ & Jem? What about them STU? How do you account for them? Are they theists in disguise? At this point, it's like, whatever man. Oh cry me a river old son. I told you why I brought is up. It was for Jem's sake. Not yours, not mine. Jem showed in a few posts that he understands the kind of poster you are. So I figured, "hey if Jem knows that someone was able to let it go with stu, then letting it go with a gentleman like KJkent is a walk in the park." And I did agree to disagree and if you read correctly you'd know that. But I know your style old son. I know your mode of argumentation. You can't be a theist and not expect Stu to look upon you with even the slightest respect, ultimately. Come on Stu, I read your replies to theists. The only thing that bothered me during that entire debate was that when I was rebutting your argument, you swore it was because I was a theist. Then I retorted with showing examples of atheists who disagree with your position. Yet you still maintained it was because I was a theist. I knew at some point you'd pull that, but I didn't expect you to maintain it after being shown that it isn't a solely theist position. That just told me you have a hard on for theists. So hard in fact, it's "freaky." Have the last word and a nice year old son.
Thank you for that part which comes across at least to me as one of your more reasoned and measured responses. You detailed why you hold the meaning you do. I detailed on many occasions, why I put forward a differing one. Do you see? The erudite atheists you quote have many and differing views. You chose the view that fits with yours. Nothing wrong in that. I see it and I understand why you choose what has become the 'conservative' face value usage. Nothing wrong in that. I pointed out another one which fits with the root meaning in the word and suggest that the root produces a more precise definition again, which fits with a different understanding of atheist. One which I say you are overlooking in your deterimination to "follow the crowd" There should be nothing wrong with that. But there is it seems, as far as you are concerned. Most people take this route!! ddunbar please!! If most people do a silly thing, it does not mean the thing is not silly. The rest of your post well, is just sounding like a tit for tat childish tantrum.
Proper and conservative word usage is not silly. In fact it is essential for proper communication. For instance, let's take a trip to Sounth Central LA or the South Bronx and try to converse in proper and commonly accepted English with those who choose to speak in a dialect that has come to be called Ebonics. "My shit is tight, yo." If I didn't know any better, I'd think this chap needs a laxative or stool softner. LOL. I know you are but what am I? Hasta La vista, amigo.
So your argument essentially boils down to... a word can only mean what the common face value at the time has it to mean (even when there are many) - offer no other significance in context even to its etymological root - and it must agree with one common usage you choose it to have Whilst you agree atheist means "without God" , a baby cannot be atheist even though you agree it is "without God" and atheist means "without God". and you can't see why I would query that with you, and why I would explain many people carry that same understanding through to adulthood and why that is an understanding or meaning denied by generalizing the word to a more colored definition which becomes attached in "common usage"...at the same time trying to label me a freakazoid or something. The rest of your position now appears to be relying upon cheap shots and flippant remark.