(June 13, 2013 at 7:00 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Then make a new thread. I want to see you put your money where your mouth is.
Or you could always just PM me; I am always willing to discuss such matters.
Quote:I asked you to demonstrate the truth of your initial assertion, not fortify it with another assertion you can't demonstrate.
Which assertion?
Quote:Language evolves. The definition of 'atheist' has evolved.
No it hasn’t, philosophical references still use the traditional definition.
Quote: You have no standing upon which to discredit the definition I favor, especially since your chosen definition has fallen into common disuse (and that's all that counts).
It’s fallen into disuse only amongst laymen; but that doesn’t prove anything. Philosophers still only use the definition I adhere to and that’s what matters since it’s a philosophical term.
Quote:[quote]Prove your assertion.
Prefixes modify the element, not the suffix (Grammar . an affix placed before a word, base, or another prefix to modify a term's meaning, as by making the term negative, as un- in unkind, by signaling repetition, as re- in reinvent, or by indicating support, as pro- in proabolition. Compatible prefixes can work together, as un- and re- in unrefundable- Webster’s); prefixes are never used to modify the suffix of a word.
Quote:I'm an atheist. You can ask me.How do I know you’re an atheist if I do not know what the definition of “atheist” is until I ask an atheist?
