Quote from stu:
What constitutes valid definition?
The answer to that it appears as far as you are concerned , is only a dictionary's , which is being simply too narrow minded in my view.
As dictionaries do not predict change of use and contain incomplete definitions, dictionaries are prone to vary and alter over time.
Can you not accept valid definitions are continuously made on logical grounds outside of dictionary listings alone? The dictionary then catches up....eventually.
The definitions for both contain concepts of⦠a doctrine or philosophyâ¦. ORâ¦. a normal state or condition. The âism definition allows for both. You want to argue it does not and break your own rule for definition?
There is, it appears, no problem is confirming babies are in a normal state of being without God. I argue there is a word which defines that state. You argue there is no such word.
Theist, with God. Atheist, without God.. Correct. You have provided no definitive reason why that is not so
Dictionaries, accredited or not as I have said above, can vary, even between themselves. That is on its own hardly the basis for an unswerving adherence in treating their content as inerrant proclamations.
I disagree and in addition say you are wrong. The original use of the word does nothing else logically or etymologically but allow for the conceptualization I put to you. In this mannerâ¦..
root form:
"theo" (Greek: God, god, deity)
prefix "a-" (Greek : "without" , "not" )
a-theo, "without God."
You would argue with that conceptualization!? An accredited etymologist would argue with that as fact or as concept!? Really?
I remain surprised the way in which you express such little regard for babies, that any state they may or may not possess, you consider does not say much.
Please do me the courtesy of trying to read what I actually said in my previous posts.
It is about a logical understanding to do with a conceptualization of atheism. I am arguing that you are overlooking and denying it .
The babies question is illustration only of how I suggest your refusal interferes with being able to accept the actual point being made. I too am little concerned if babies are labeled atheist or not. You would have realized that were you to have bothered to take more careful notice earlier of what it is I am actually putting to you, and not so keen to make ungrounded accusation as a part of your argument
It may or may not be the case people define words in different ways. That you cannot accept definition because you do not see it as "official" although the definition is from the root and a logical conceptualization thereby is made from it, is somewhat astonishing given the clarity with which you otherwise articulate your thoughts.
Yes agreed. There has to be official definitions, There must be that standard to work from, but not as ultimate reference or ultimate received understanding. Otherwise words would obviously never have anything else but one meaning or understanding dictated by officials.
Is that what you would want? Do you expect language would have evolved to become adequate or fit for purpose under those conditions? .
Were that the case however , you might still be speaking Greek and the one definition for atheist could only be the original one, "without God". .
Of course people will define any word in anyway they like. Whether a definition can be reasoned and supported logically is the issue.
To argue atheism is a religion, first requires logical confirmation to explain how "non belief" is "beliefâ. It seems to me the argument that non belief is belief is something contrary to the proper usage of words which you (discriminatingly!) insist upon.
On the other hand to define the word "theo-" as "God" from its etymology is logical and reasonable.
To define theist as " of God " or " with God" seems logically valid , as does defining theist also as " believing there is God "'.amongst other definitions
Likewise then to define prefix "a-" as "without" , or " not " from its etymology is logical and reasonable.
To define atheist as "not of God" or "without God" seems logically valid, as does defining atheist also as "not believing there is God "', amongst other definitions.
For you to ignore or deny one in particular of those definitions, and the reason why you would do that, is what I questioned.
