Welcome.

When it comes to God, I don't know enough to be agnostic.

(November 8, 2016 at 3:21 am)Jesster Wrote: Fine, fine. I will break the words down for you. We'll go legitimately original here.


a- is a prefix that means "not" or "without"

theism derives from Greek "theos", which means god. It's used now to denote a belief in a god or gods.

gnostic, in ancient Greek, means "having knowledge"

So "atheist" means "without belief in a god or gods" and "agnostic" means "without knowledge"


Huxley is not the originator of any of that. He just used some of that in his own way in a time when other people did not. But sure, go ahead and use that if you want. 

Rofl. That's not how the word "atheist" was put together. 

16th century: "Atheos", in full, was taken from the ancient Greek, and an "ist" (someone who believes) suffix was added. 
17th century: "Theos" was taken from ancient Greek, and an "ist" (someone who believes) suffix was added. There was no freaking word "theist" to attach an "a" prefix to, for almost 100 years. 

The ancient Greeks didn't have the word "agnostic", either. You're rewriting history. 

19th century: Huxley puts together "agnostic" and "agnosticism", and defines his terms. 

20th century: The likes of George H Smith (implicit, explicit, weak, strong, a-theism) and Antony Flew (negative and positive a-theism), acknowledge the common usage, acknowledge that they're presenting new, or uncommon, definitions, and acknowledge they're hijacking the agnostic position, as they push their a-theist definitions. 

21st century: A-theists pretend their definition is the original, and rewrite history.

Here's a Sesame Street game...

Which one of these things, is not like the others, which one of these things just doesn't belong?

Polytheist = someone who believes in many gods
Polytheist =/= many theists

Pantheist = someone who believes everything is god
Pantheist =/= everything is a theist

Monotheist = someone who believes in a single god
Monotheist =/= a single theist

Zootheist = someone who believes an animal is godlike
Zootheist =/= an animal theist

Amoralist = someone who adheres to the doctrine that there are no morals
Amoralist =/= not a moralist

Abiogenist = someone who believes in abiogenesis
Abiogenist =/= not a biogenist

Atonalist = someone who creates atonal music
Atonalist =/= not a tonalist

Athe-ist = someone who believes no gods exist
Athe-ist =/= not a theist

A-theist =/= someone who believes no gods exist
A-theist = not a theist

(November 8, 2016 at 3:34 am)TheHuxleyAgnostic Wrote:

(November 8, 2016 at 3:21 am)Jesster Wrote: Fine, fine. I will break the words down for you. We'll go legitimately original here.


a- is a prefix that means "not" or "without"

theism derives from Greek "theos", which means god. It's used now to denote a belief in a god or gods.

gnostic, in ancient Greek, means "having knowledge"

So "atheist" means "without belief in a god or gods" and "agnostic" means "without knowledge"


Huxley is not the originator of any of that. He just used some of that in his own way in a time when other people did not. But sure, go ahead and use that if you want. 

Rofl. That's not how the word "atheist" was put together. 

16th century: "Atheos", in full, was taken from the ancient Greek, and an "ist" (someone who believes) suffix was added. 
17th century: "Theos" was taken from ancient Greek, and an "ist" (someone who believes) suffix was added. There was no freaking word "theist" to attach an "a" prefix to, for almost 100 years. 

The ancient Greeks didn't have the word "agnostic", either. You're rewriting history. 

19th century: Huxley puts together "agnostic" and "agnosticism", and defines his terms. 

20th century: The likes of George H Smith (implicit, explicit, weak, strong, a-theism) and Antony Flew (negative and positive a-theism), acknowledge the common usage, acknowledge that they're presenting new, or uncommon, definitions, and acknowledge they're hijacking the agnostic position, as they push their a-theist definitions. 

21st century: A-theists pretend their definition is the original, and rewrite history.

Rofl, that's exactly how the word is formed. It has nothing to do with what existed in ancient Greek times or when exactly the word was fully formed. It was formed out of Greek word parts that we have strict definitions for.

"Atheos" before the "ist" was added is not just one word part. It is "A-" and "theos". Like that, it just means "without god". "A-" "The" and "-Ist" all together means "without belief in god". Do you understand how Greek word parts work?

It doesn't matter what Huxley said the full word "agnostic" meant, either, because that just means he misused the Greek word origins. It doesn't matter how certain strong atheists defined atheism, either, because that just means they were also misusing Greek word origins.

But please continue quoting Huxley, Smith, and Flew. I care so much.

You'll be fun here

For any claim: X, you can believe X is true, believe X is false, or have no belief either way. 

Person A: belief X is true, no belief X is false
Person B: no belief X is true, no belief X is false
Person C: no belief X is true, belief X is false

You can do it, if you want, but I think it's nonsensical to pretend B and C are the same, just because they share "no belief X is true", when B also shares "no belief X is false" with A. B is neither, but shares a commonality with both.

---

(November 8, 2016 at 3:45 am)Jesster Wrote:

(November 8, 2016 at 3:34 am)TheHuxleyAgnostic Wrote: Rofl. That's not how the word "atheist" was put together. 

16th century: "Atheos", in full, was taken from the ancient Greek, and an "ist" (someone who believes) suffix was added. 
17th century: "Theos" was taken from ancient Greek, and an "ist" (someone who believes) suffix was added. There was no freaking word "theist" to attach an "a" prefix to, for almost 100 years. 

The ancient Greeks didn't have the word "agnostic", either. You're rewriting history. 

19th century: Huxley puts together "agnostic" and "agnosticism", and defines his terms. 

20th century: The likes of George H Smith (implicit, explicit, weak, strong, a-theism) and Antony Flew (negative and positive a-theism), acknowledge the common usage, acknowledge that they're presenting new, or uncommon, definitions, and acknowledge they're hijacking the agnostic position, as they push their a-theist definitions. 

21st century: A-theists pretend their definition is the original, and rewrite history.

Rofl, that's exactly how the word is formed. It has nothing to do with what existed in ancient Greek times or when exactly the word was fully formed. It was formed out of Greek word parts that we have strict definitions for.

"Atheos" before the "ist" was added is not just one word part. It is "A-" and "theos". Like that, it just means "without god". "A-" "The" and "-Ist" all together means "without belief in god". Do you understand how Greek word parts work?

It doesn't matter what Huxley said the full word "agnostic" meant, either, because that just means he misused the Greek word origins. It doesn't matter how certain strong atheists defined atheism, either, because that just means they were also misusing Greek word origins.

But please continue quoting Huxley, Smith, and Flew. I care so much.

You'll be fun here

Yeah, you're the one that doesn't seem to understand how suffixes work. And, no matter how many times you assert it, you can't attach a prefix to a non-existent word. 

John Florio, A World of Words (1598)
Atèo, Atheo, Atheista, an atheist, a miscreant, godles, one that thinkes there is no god.

Randle Cotgrave, A Dictionary of the French and English Tongues (1611)
Athée: m. An Atheist; one that beleeues there is no God.

John Bullokar, An English Expositor (1616)
Atheist. He that wickedly beleeueth there is no God, or no rule of Religion.

Henry Cockeram, English Dictionary (1623)
Atheist. That thinks there is no God, or rule of religion.

Thomas Blount, Glossographia or a Dictionary (1656)
Atheist ( from the Gr ἄδεος. id est Sine Deo, godless) he that beleeves there is no God or rule of Religion, and that the soul dies with the body.

You seem to care. You're using the a-theism terms they promoted.

(November 8, 2016 at 3:46 am)TheHuxleyAgnostic Wrote: For any claim: X, you can believe X is true, believe X is false, or have no belief either way. 

Person A: belief X is true, no belief X is false
Person B: no belief X is true, no belief X is false
Person C: no belief X is true, belief X is false

I'm missing the context here, but if one believes X to be true, then by extension, they must believe X is not false.

(November 8, 2016 at 3:46 am)TheHuxleyAgnostic Wrote: For any claim: X, you can believe X is true, believe X is false, or have no belief either way. 

Person A: belief X is true, no belief X is false
Person B: no belief X is true, no belief X is false
Person C: no belief X is true, belief X is false

You can do it, if you want, but I think it's nonsensical to pretend B and C are the same, just because they share "no belief X is true", when B also shares "no belief X is false" with A. B is neither, but shares a commonality with both.

Nope. You either believe something or you do not. There are two separate claims that you are confusing and you've created a false dichotomy out of them. There is a claim that there is a god. There is another claim that there is not a god.

A theist will believe that there is a god.

An atheist will not accept that belief.

You can also accept or not accept the belief that there is no god. Either one can be an atheist.

I neither accept the belief that there is a god or the claim that there is not a god.

(November 8, 2016 at 3:46 am)TheHuxleyAgnostic Wrote: Yeah, you're the one that doesn't seem to understand how suffixes work. And, no matter how many times you assert it, you can't attach a prefix to a non-existent word. 

Yes you can. You do so by piecing together the word parts. Please learn how to Greek.

Oxford Handbook of Atheism, acknowledging the narrow definition of "atheist" is the more common, even though they use the broader definition. They also acknowledge agnosticism is not compatible with beliefs, and call it a form of negative a-theism, nothing more. 

Before I read through those massive walls of text, why should I accept any of those as authorities? I can throw walls of text at you that support what I'm saying as well. I prefer to explain my side instead.

(November 8, 2016 at 4:00 am)Jesster Wrote:

(November 8, 2016 at 3:46 am)TheHuxleyAgnostic Wrote: Yeah, you're the one that doesn't seem to understand how suffixes work. And, no matter how many times you assert it, you can't attach a prefix to a non-existent word. 

Yes you can. You do so by piecing together the word parts. Please learn how to Greek.

Rofl. "Atheos" is the root word of both "atheist" and "atheism", with suffix swaps. "Theist" isn't the root for "atheist" and "theism" the root for "atheism". 

John Kersey the younger, A New English Dictionary (1702)
Atheism, the Opinion of
An Atheist, who denies the Being of a God.

An Universal Etymological English Dictionary, Nathan Bailey, R. Ware, 1756
ATHEIST (from Gr. without God) one that denies the exiftence of God.

A dictionary of the English language., Samuel Johnson, 1768
A’the-ist, f. One that denies the existence of a God.

“ATHEISM and atheist are words formed from Greek roots and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek ; their formation is not consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said atheos and atheotes ; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, atheos was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation ; this use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed ; we even meet with philosophers bearing atheos as a regular surname. We know very little of the men in question ; but it can hardly be doubted that atheos, as applied to them, implied not only a denial of the gods of popular belief, but a denial of gods in the widest sense of the word, or Atheism as it is nowadays understood.”, Atheism in pagan antiquity by Drachmann, A. B.

---

(November 8, 2016 at 4:06 am)Jesster Wrote: Before I read through those massive walls of text, why should I accept any of those as authorities? I can throw walls of text at you that support what I'm saying as well. I prefer to explain my side instead.

You don't have to accept anything you don't want. You can deny common usage all you want. You can deny you represent a minority of non-theists, all you want. 



Class of 2019 By the Numbers