ddunbar,
Reading with interest your comments through these last pages. I think it estimable the way you have succinctly established that imperative for clear distinction between what constitutes religious belief and what constitutes science . It is notable that neither Teleologist nor ZZzz are able to do the same and would readily choose to muddle and confuse children in education by trying to commingle two distinct categories into one incongruous hotchpotch.
I must admit therefore in still finding it at least a little bit funny (name that tune), the way you appear to me to be selecting areas, seemingly unwittingly , where you will not maintain that same integrity.
In similar vein to Teleologist, or Zzz although certainly not so inconsiderately ,, you don't drop the
-'science'-, of a word, so that your beliefs may then try to make reasonable representation for your preferred position and understanding of it. But rather you will intermingle, alter or deny any certain knowledge and meaning of the word including its original , only in order apparently, to not allow that original and still valid comprehension stand against your own predilection.
But that is what you took Teleologist and ZZzz troll to task for isn't it, and quite commendably in my view, setting out the main reason why their insistence to bugger up science only for the misguided opinion that belief must rate along side it, is wrong because, those are two quite different and separately definable subjects.
Quote from ddunbar:
I have no real agenda other than seeing words and terms be respected and for the display of intellectual honesty. If common terms cannot be accepted, nor their rightful etymolgies, then no common ground can be achieved.
Oh the irony.
You know,,.. I am sure.., you will know,... the "rightful etymolgies " for theist is "with (a) God" Rightful etymology for a-theist is "without (a) God". . Everything after that including whether a person is or was cognizant , questions of ability, practice, learning, or an adoption of the
ism or athe
ism, is open for discussion and all falls into common or less common terms. Like for instance the distinctions between how a baby is atheist but would have to adopt a practice of atheism.
None of which invalidates the rightful etymology.
But Teleologist would invalidate the science, which you will argue against. And although you would invalidate the etymology, you would not argue against that,..And so I do instead.
Put simplistically, I would bring to you on that etymology what you would bring to Teleologist and the ZZzz troll on science. Don't you really see ? Don't their religious beliefs disable them from separating science and belief and make them think both mix into one. Don't they want to misuse science just to seem like assertion can be validated by it at whatever cost, including the will to mis-educate children ?
Not so importantly, but nevertheless similarly, don't you realize the same outcome by dismissing the
'science'which goes on behind and is applied in the study of the sources , of that one word atheist? Within the microcosm of a single word, aren't you displaying the same misguided approach as Tele by mixing a predetermination from belief .
Their position I would venture is by downright mal-intention. Yours I would like to guess is by mistake. Something common to everyone. Can you explain ( as eloquently as you have to Tele ) how I am mistaken?
