(November 25, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I once held the same position, but had to reconsider. 'Atheist' is derived from 'athe-ist', not 'a-theist'.It depends on the definition. Some root from 'theos'/'a-theist' (e.g. 'absence of theism'), others root from 'atheos'/'athe-ist' (e.g. denier of theism'). I use the former definition to describe my atheism and I'm a supporter of that use as it's the strictest and most etymologically accurate.
Quote:The suffix '-ist' denotes a person who performs an action or adheres to a propostion. A theist is a person who adheres to the proposition that at least one god exists. An atheist (athe+ist) is a person who does not adhere to that proposition (when it's a noun).Indeed. But here's where the power of the 'theos' root comes in. Because it holds no additional baggage to its definition (unlike 'atheos'-rooted definitions) we can use it as a comparative descriptor of logical attributes by asking the question 'does the subject have any theism in its attributes?'. If the answer is 'no', we can say that there is 'an absence of theism' or 'a-theism'. It's this use of 'a' which supported our position in our discussions with Miriam Webster.
Quote:Arguably, 'nontheist', which is constructed as 'non-theist' would be suitable for a claim like 'a bicycle is a nontheist'.True also 'irreligious' would work. It all depends on the definitions you find most appropriate.
Quote:I hope I didn't get too pedantic there, although my hope is probably misplaced.Not at all
Sum ergo sum
