Modal Argument: The Mind is Not the Brain

[bennyboy]

How do you figure? atheos + ism = atheism, a + theism = atheism

I don't see how anything but context and a declaration of usage makes the two forms anything but perfectly ambiguous.

Because 'a-theism' is closer to the root than 'athe-ism': 'theos' gives rise to both 'atheos' and 'a-theism', subsequently 'atheos' gives rise to 'athe-ism'. But that's only a view for people who are interested in strict etymology. For most people, because both forms are in use, you're right about context & declaration.

Either way, the root is "theos." It's just the way words get crunched. To go back to the true ternary:
a + theos + ism
1. (a + theos) + ism = atheos + ism = atheism (the belief or doctrine of no-God)
2. a + (theos + ism) = a + theism = atheism (the state of not being theistic)
This is a perfect ambiguity as far as I can tell, unless someone here really knows Greek conjugation rules deeply and can correct me.


Anyway, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the weak form is the most pragmatic, at least in the States: it separates religious people from non-religious people (Stop ringing my fucking doorbell on Sunday morning, and go sell crazy somewhere else!), rather than engaging in a philosophical debate (I think there's no God. Why? Prove it. What's your reason? etc.)

But I'd argue that weak atheism is more a political or social position, rather than a philosophical one. In a philosophical thread, I think people have to accept and accommodate an expectation for a hard atheist position. Responding to a modal argument with "Show me the proof, asshole," isn't a very good philosophical argument.