Mick wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Mick wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Ah an appeal to popularity fallacy.


Do we need to explain to you, again, why that particular definition is both illogical and patently wrong?


It commits them to nothing, but what they've said. W.L. Craig arguments like these are just silly.


Translation: They won't kowtow to my cherished beliefs.

I'm curious: why is that definition illogical?

Because a- theism. simply means without theism, without a belief in gods.
Not the believe in the non-existence of gods.
Again this has been pointed out to you several times in the past.

Actually, if you're fixated on the etymological meaning,

I'm not.
It's not the etymological meaning, it's the dictionary definition and the definition used by many atheists. It's also the way English grammar with regards to the prefix a- works.

Mick wrote:it is simply a-theos;

That's the etymological origin of the word atheism. Not the definition of the word atheism itself.

Mick wrote:and that is, as you first said, without god. However, nothing about that speaks about a belief state. That aside, you're in danger of committing the etymological fallacy--you should look it up.

Except that I'm not since I never made an argument from etymology, I made an argument, rightfully so, from definition and basic grammar.
But nice try to twist things around again.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Mick wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Mick wrote:

I'm curious: why is that definition illogical?

Because a- theism. simply means without theism, without a belief in gods.
Not the believe in the non-existence of gods.
Again this has been pointed out to you several times in the past.

Actually, if you're fixated on the etymological meaning,

I'm not.
It's not the etymological meaning, it's the dictionary definition and the definition used by many atheists. It's also the way English grammar with regards to the prefix a- works.

Mick wrote:it is simply a-theos;

That's the etymological origin of the word atheism. Not the definition of the word atheism itself.

Mick wrote:and that is, as you first said, without god. However, nothing about that speaks about a belief state. That aside, you're in danger of committing the etymological fallacy--you should look it up.

Except that I'm not since I never made an argument from etymology, I made an argument, rightfully so, from definition and basic grammar.
But nice try to twist things around again.

derivational prefixes often change word meaning, I don't doubt that. Yet, they do not dictate word semantics. That's where another fallacy rests. Word meaning is determined by the relevant community's use. And for what it is worth, the a- prefix is a Greek privative alpha-it retains its meaning from Ancient Greek grammar. In a sense, then, though unknowingly I am sure, you were appealing to its historical use.

Mick wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Mick wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Because a- theism. simply means without theism, without a belief in gods.
Not the believe in the non-existence of gods.
Again this has been pointed out to you several times in the past.

Actually, if you're fixated on the etymological meaning,

I'm not.
It's not the etymological meaning, it's the dictionary definition and the definition used by many atheists. It's also the way English grammar with regards to the prefix a- works.

Mick wrote:it is simply a-theos;

That's the etymological origin of the word atheism. Not the definition of the word atheism itself.

Mick wrote:and that is, as you first said, without god. However, nothing about that speaks about a belief state. That aside, you're in danger of committing the etymological fallacy--you should look it up.

Except that I'm not since I never made an argument from etymology, I made an argument, rightfully so, from definition and basic grammar.
But nice try to twist things around again.

derivational prefixes often change word meaning, I don't doubt that. Yet, they do not dictate word semantics. That's where another fallacy rests. Word meaning is determined by the relevant community's use. And for what it is worth, the a- prefix is a Greek privative alpha-it retains its meaning from Ancient Greek grammar. In a sense, then, though unknowingly I am sure, you were appealing to its historical use.

Who cares?

Yours of god's?

I can obviously only speak for myself but among my generation that seems to be the majority. Every "friend" wedding I've been to (with people my age) was a humanist wedding. Whereas every "family" one (with people 10+ years older than me) was a Christian/Church wedding.

Do you mean humanist or civil?, never really understood why the BHA wants humanist weddings when by law civil weddings can't even mention religion including religious music

Mick wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Mick wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Because a- theism. simply means without theism, without a belief in gods.
Not the believe in the non-existence of gods.
Again this has been pointed out to you several times in the past.

Actually, if you're fixated on the etymological meaning,

I'm not.
It's not the etymological meaning, it's the dictionary definition and the definition used by many atheists. It's also the way English grammar with regards to the prefix a- works.

Mick wrote:it is simply a-theos;

That's the etymological origin of the word atheism. Not the definition of the word atheism itself.

Mick wrote:and that is, as you first said, without god. However, nothing about that speaks about a belief state. That aside, you're in danger of committing the etymological fallacy--you should look it up.

Except that I'm not since I never made an argument from etymology, I made an argument, rightfully so, from definition and basic grammar.
But nice try to twist things around again.

derivational prefixes often change word meaning, I don't doubt that. Yet, they do not dictate word semantics.

In this case and most cases, they do.

Mick wrote:That's where another fallacy rests. Word meaning is determined by the relevant community's use.

And it's grammatical construction.
And it's already been pointed out to you that very few if any atheists define atheism as the belief in the non-existence of gods or somesuch.

Mick wrote:And for what it is worth, the a- prefix is a Greek privative alpha-it retains its meaning from Ancient Greek grammar. In a sense, then, though unknowingly I am sure, you were appealing to its historical use.

You just keep on constructing straw-man don't you? I did nothing of the sort.
I was referring to the current, modern use of the prefix a-.
I don't give a fuck where it derives from.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Mick wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Mick wrote:

Actually, if you're fixated on the etymological meaning,

I'm not.
It's not the etymological meaning, it's the dictionary definition and the definition used by many atheists. It's also the way English grammar with regards to the prefix a- works.

Mick wrote:it is simply a-theos;

That's the etymological origin of the word atheism. Not the definition of the word atheism itself.

Mick wrote:and that is, as you first said, without god. However, nothing about that speaks about a belief state. That aside, you're in danger of committing the etymological fallacy--you should look it up.

Except that I'm not since I never made an argument from etymology, I made an argument, rightfully so, from definition and basic grammar.
But nice try to twist things around again.

derivational prefixes often change word meaning, I don't doubt that. Yet, they do not dictate word semantics.

In this case and most cases, they do.

Mick wrote:That's where another fallacy rests. Word meaning is determined by the relevant community's use.

And it's grammatical construction.
And it's already been pointed out to you that very few if any atheists define atheism as the belief in the non-existence of gods or somesuch.

Mick wrote:And for what it is worth, the a- prefix is a Greek privative alpha-it retains its meaning from Ancient Greek grammar. In a sense, then, though unknowingly I am sure, you were appealing to its historical use.

You just keep on constructing straw-man don't you? I did nothing of the sort.
I was referring to the current, modern use of the prefix a-.
I don't give a fuck where it derives from.

Even if you could show that only few atheists do not view atheism in such and such way, though you certainly have not shown that, you just said it, it would show nothing more than how atheists use the word. It would not show how the greater majority understands the word.

Mick wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Mick wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I'm not.
It's not the etymological meaning, it's the dictionary definition and the definition used by many atheists. It's also the way English grammar with regards to the prefix a- works.


That's the etymological origin of the word atheism. Not the definition of the word atheism itself.


Except that I'm not since I never made an argument from etymology, I made an argument, rightfully so, from definition and basic grammar.
But nice try to twist things around again.

derivational prefixes often change word meaning, I don't doubt that. Yet, they do not dictate word semantics.

In this case and most cases, they do.

Mick wrote:That's where another fallacy rests. Word meaning is determined by the relevant community's use.

And it's grammatical construction.
And it's already been pointed out to you that very few if any atheists define atheism as the belief in the non-existence of gods or somesuch.

Mick wrote:And for what it is worth, the a- prefix is a Greek privative alpha-it retains its meaning from Ancient Greek grammar. In a sense, then, though unknowingly I am sure, you were appealing to its historical use.

You just keep on constructing straw-man don't you? I did nothing of the sort.
I was referring to the current, modern use of the prefix a-.
I don't give a fuck where it derives from.

Even if you could show that only few atheists do not view atheism in such and such way, though you certainly have not shown that, you just said it, it would show nothing more than how atheists use the word.

You were the one blabbering about community use. And you're hardly in a position to criticise the validity of someone else's claims.

Mick wrote:It would not show how the greater majority understands the word.

Appeal to popularity fallacy. If the majority of people understand Chrisitanity to be the believe in whale zombies, that would not make it so. Just like the desperate attempts of you and your ilk to redefine atheism into such a nonsensical definition.

What makes for a better definition of "atheist"? One that covers all atheists? Or one that suits people who wish to oppose atheists and their arguments? What do you think Mick?
Also, if we accept the definitions that others make for us, what should we call ourselves as "atheist" would be off the table for many. What would be your suggestion for someone that holds no belief in gods?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Mick wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Mick wrote:

derivational prefixes often change word meaning, I don't doubt that. Yet, they do not dictate word semantics.

In this case and most cases, they do.

Mick wrote:That's where another fallacy rests. Word meaning is determined by the relevant community's use.

And it's grammatical construction.
And it's already been pointed out to you that very few if any atheists define atheism as the belief in the non-existence of gods or somesuch.

Mick wrote:And for what it is worth, the a- prefix is a Greek privative alpha-it retains its meaning from Ancient Greek grammar. In a sense, then, though unknowingly I am sure, you were appealing to its historical use.

You just keep on constructing straw-man don't you? I did nothing of the sort.
I was referring to the current, modern use of the prefix a-.
I don't give a fuck where it derives from.

Even if you could show that only few atheists do not view atheism in such and such way, though you certainly have not shown that, you just said it, it would show nothing more than how atheists use the word.

You were the one blabbering about community use. And you're hardly in a position to criticise the validity of someone else's claims.

Mick wrote:It would not show how the greater majority understands the word.

Appeal to popularity fallacy. If the majority of people understand Chrisitanity to be the believe in whale zombies, that would not make it so. Just like the desperate attempts of you and your ilk to redefine atheism into such a nonsensical definition.

The fallacy of popularity is an informal fallacy-it is not a formal fallacy. This means that there could be non-fallacious appeals to popularity. Word meaning is just one of them, since word semantics is nothing more than the linguistic conventions of the language speakers. Thus, it is entirely possible that the word 'triangularity' could later refer to objects that are 360 degrees despite the fact that triangles (notice I'm not mentioning the word) are not.

Your point about Christianity confuses word meaning with the objects themselves. English could change in such a way that the word 'Christianity' refers to some star or planet while the things for which we now refer to as Christianity is not. Words are just scribbles on a page or utterances-they have no fixed meaning intrinsic to their being. Communities give them meaning.

Mick wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Mick wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
In this case and most cases, they do.


And it's grammatical construction.
And it's already been pointed out to you that very few if any atheists define atheism as the belief in the non-existence of gods or somesuch.



You just keep on constructing straw-man don't you? I did nothing of the sort.
I was referring to the current, modern use of the prefix a-.
I don't give a fuck where it derives from.

Even if you could show that only few atheists do not view atheism in such and such way, though you certainly have not shown that, you just said it, it would show nothing more than how atheists use the word.

You were the one blabbering about community use. And you're hardly in a position to criticise the validity of someone else's claims.

Mick wrote:It would not show how the greater majority understands the word.

Appeal to popularity fallacy. If the majority of people understand Chrisitanity to be the believe in whale zombies, that would not make it so. Just like the desperate attempts of you and your ilk to redefine atheism into such a nonsensical definition.

The fallacy of popularity is an informal fallacy-it is not a formal fallacy.

And dolphins are mammals not fish.
I fail to see how either point is relevant.

Mick wrote:This means that there could be non-fallacious appeals to popularity.

Again, what's that got to do with the price of fish?
In this case you are making a fallacious appeal.

Mick wrote:Word meaning is just one of them,

It really isn't. Especially not when it concerns words use to describe specific phenomena or people's views.

Mick wrote:Your point about Christianity confuses word meaning with the objects themselves. English could change in such a way that the word 'Christianity' refers to some star or planet while the things for which we now refer to as Christianity is not. Words are just scribbles on a page or utterances-they have no fixed meaning intrinsic to their being. Communities give them meaning.

More pathetic wibbling and completely missing the point of my analogy. You still haven't presented a single rational argument as to why your straw-man definition of atheism is more accurate than the inclusive definition I've argued for. Nor have you managed to refute the point that a-theism is exactly that, not-theism, not having the belief that (a) god(s) exist.

If meanings are given by communities, why is Mick unwilling to let the atheist community define atheism?

trubble76 wrote:If meanings are given by communities, why is Mick unwilling to let the atheist community define atheism?

Apparently because the majority of the entire human race decides what a word means.
That's why evolution means apes evolving into humans and America means Christian nation.

trubble76 wrote:If meanings are given by communities, why is Mick unwilling to let the atheist community define atheism?

The relevant communities wouldn't define atheism. We are talking about words, remember. We cannot use them-we need to mention them (google the mention/use distinction). Thus, I say that the relevant communities can define 'atheism'. Now, if atheists formed the bulk of English speakers, and if they wanted to use the word in that fashion, then sure, that word would carry that meaning. But that is not the case. Heck, it is not even clear that most atheists adhere to that definition.

Mick wrote:

trubble76 wrote:If meanings are given by communities, why is Mick unwilling to let the atheist community define atheism?

The relevant communities wouldn't define atheism. We are talking about words, remember. We cannot use them-we need to mention them (google the mention/use distinction). Thus, I say that the relevant communities can define 'atheism'. Now, if atheists formed the bulk of English speakers, and if they wanted to use the word in that fashion, then sure, that word would carry that meaning. But that is not the case. Heck, it is not even clear that most atheists adhere to that definition.

So if the bulk of English speakers wanted to use the N word to describe black people, would that be cool with you?

"Heck", Mick?

You think you tricked your god, there?

NineOneFour wrote:

Mick wrote:

trubble76 wrote:If meanings are given by communities, why is Mick unwilling to let the atheist community define atheism?

The relevant communities wouldn't define atheism. We are talking about words, remember. We cannot use them-we need to mention them (google the mention/use distinction). Thus, I say that the relevant communities can define 'atheism'. Now, if atheists formed the bulk of English speakers, and if they wanted to use the word in that fashion, then sure, that word would carry that meaning. But that is not the case. Heck, it is not even clear that most atheists adhere to that definition.

So if the bulk of English speakers wanted to use the N word to describe black people, would that be cool with you?

So long as it is not pejorative, sure. It'd just be a historical footnote that the word used to convey racist perceptions. You guys seem to think there is something special about word meaning, something mystical or transcendent?

Mick wrote:

trubble76 wrote:If meanings are given by communities, why is Mick unwilling to let the atheist community define atheism?

The relevant communities wouldn't define atheism. We are talking about words, remember. We cannot use them-we need to mention them (google the mention/use distinction). Thus, I say that the relevant communities can define 'atheism'. Now, if atheists formed the bulk of English speakers, and if they wanted to use the word in that fashion, then sure, that word would carry that meaning. But that is not the case. Heck, it is not even clear that most atheists adhere to that definition.

Still an appeal to popularity fallacy Mick.
No ammount of rephrasing and wibbling is going to change that.

Mick wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Mick wrote:

trubble76 wrote:If meanings are given by communities, why is Mick unwilling to let the atheist community define atheism?

The relevant communities wouldn't define atheism. We are talking about words, remember. We cannot use them-we need to mention them (google the mention/use distinction). Thus, I say that the relevant communities can define 'atheism'. Now, if atheists formed the bulk of English speakers, and if they wanted to use the word in that fashion, then sure, that word would carry that meaning. But that is not the case. Heck, it is not even clear that most atheists adhere to that definition.

So if the bulk of English speakers wanted to use the N word to describe black people, would that be cool with you?

So long as it is not pejorative, sure. It'd just be a historical footnote that the word used to convey racist perceptions. You guys seem to think there is something special about word meaning, something mystical or transcendent?

Nope that's all up in your alley.
We're just trying to disabuse you of the notion that other people can define what a specific group and hence their name is about.
That and educating you on basic grammar.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Mick wrote:

trubble76 wrote:If meanings are given by communities, why is Mick unwilling to let the atheist community define atheism?

The relevant communities wouldn't define atheism. We are talking about words, remember. We cannot use them-we need to mention them (google the mention/use distinction). Thus, I say that the relevant communities can define 'atheism'. Now, if atheists formed the bulk of English speakers, and if they wanted to use the word in that fashion, then sure, that word would carry that meaning. But that is not the case. Heck, it is not even clear that most atheists adhere to that definition.

Still an appeal to popularity fallacy Mick.
No ammount of rephrasing and wibbling is going to change that.

Tell me, where does word meaning come from? The sky?