boringnigerian:


@ bolded, if we go by this premise, then almost all of us are atheists on some level because we believe that the gods other people worship are either false or don't exist.

vaxx:
every word as is own root.... The foundation of the word atheism is what I made mention....if you have a doubt of the existence of God then the foundation of the word doesn't apply to you ........the word pagan was used to discribe villager during roman empire.. Christian adopt it to also call whoever do not belive in abrahimic faith a pagan.... Which i reject to be labelled becyse it does not describe my faith. so for the word to be correct we should look at the very foundation.... In Yoruba language we do not call the European white...we call them oyinbo meaning a skin that has been peel..likewise the word negro refers to people with burn face....


For you to agree on the labelling...check out the root word...

JackBizzle:
We should compile the most stupid threads on the relifion section and vote for the worst in december for the end of the year party.

Cc hahn, hopefullandlord, johnydon22......

vaxx:
every word as is own root.... The foundation of the word atheism is what I made mention....if you have a doubt of the existence of God then the foundation of the word doesn't apply to you ........the word pagan was used to discribe villager during roman empire.. Christian adopt it to also call whoever do not belive in abrahimic faith a pagan.... Which i reject to be labelled becyse it does not describe my faith. so for the word to be correct we should look at the very foundation.... In Yoruba language we do not call the European white...we call them oyinbo meaning a skin that has been peel..likewise the word negro refers to people with burn face....


For you to agree on the labelling...check out the root word...

hopefulLandlord:


You're committing a fallacy called Etymological Fallacy The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning

but there are various examples of words today that meant something slightly different originally and some that actually contradicts its original meaning

The word hound originally simply meant "dog" in general. This usage is now archaic or poetic only, and hound now almost exclusively refers to dogs bred for hunting in particular.

The meaning of a word may change to connote higher status, as when knight , originally "servant" like German Knecht , came to mean "military knight" and subsequently "someone of high rank".

Conversely, the word knave originally meant "boy" (as the equivalent German Knabe ) and only gradually acquired its meaning of "person of low, despicable character".

The word "Awful" originally meant "Awe-inspring" and "Full of awe" but now means something bad

The word "Moody" originally meant "Courageous" but now means something totally different

The word lady derives from Old English hlæf-dige ("loaf-digger; kneader of bread" ), and lord from hlafweard ("loaf-ward; ensurer, provider of bread" ). No connection with bread is retained in the current meaning of either word.

hopefulLandlord:


You're committing a fallacy called Etymological Fallacy The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning

but there are various examples of words today that meant something slightly different originally and some that actually contradicts its original meaning

The word hound originally simply meant "dog" in general. This usage is now archaic or poetic only, and hound now almost exclusively refers to dogs bred for hunting in particular.

The meaning of a word may change to connote higher status, as when knight , originally "servant" like German Knecht , came to mean "military knight" and subsequently "someone of high rank".

Conversely, the word knave originally meant "boy" (as the equivalent German Knabe ) and only gradually acquired its meaning of "person of low, despicable character".

The word lady derives from Old English hlæf-dige ("loaf-digger; kneader of bread" ), and lord from hlafweard ("loaf-ward; ensurer, provider of bread" ). No connection with bread is retained in the current meaning of either word.

AgentOfAllah:


Vaxx, very carefully, read this entry again.

johnydon22:


I think the new trend here is, open any silly thread based on false premises and inaccurate assumptions about subjects you know nothing of, then base your arguments on the premise of this false assumption plus a personally conceived silly definition.

then base your question on these false premise, assumption and definition.

And expect people to answer your idiocy, expect people to answer your own misconceptions, lack of proper information, jumper assumptions and personal false premises taken as truth.

It can only frustrate the shit out of you if you try to indulge especially for someone like the OP who seem to have some form of cognitive impairment, Just read the conversation with AgentOfAllah on this thread, my patience doesn't run that deep.

So what i do most of the time is just ignore silly threads.

The very OP doesn't even make any sense, he curls out two types of atheism straight out of his ass then expect you to come answer his own silly misconceptions and false premises.

damn!!! i cannot come and kill myself.

vaxx:
you are repeating the same statement with angentof Allah...what you are saying is evolution of words..... which I subscribed to.....


This is my understanding.... Every word has foundation...am only pointing out to the root word of atheism ....which was borrowed from the greek word atheus....so whatever grammer that must be use in replacement of this said word must honor the original statement .. It must not deflect from the meaning....the phonology may change but the grammatical meaning should be the same...

vaxx:
I just reply it

vaxx:
I love philosophy.... Philo Sophia love of wisdom...........I will be glad to have a toast of it......so tell me how you conclude a religion dogma isn't accurate

hopefulLandlord:


@ bolded

Kindly read my post again and see some words that now mean opposite of what it originally meant

vaxx:
I read it...but it still does not disagree with the current meaning... And this is my stand... What happens there is evolution of words..honds is still recognized as a domestic dog and may also be used to describe a hunting dog..today ...the only difference is application of grammar...



When you check a meaning of a word in dictionary.... The first meaning of such a word is the must correct....though it may have more than one meaning...


Formerly... The word beautiful is for both female and male and now it is restricted to female only.....in drama and poetry.... Some authors still prefer using the word beautiful for male...it does not change the original meaning



Get my point...

Every word has a foundation

Every current word that took its root from the original must honour it...

Word don't change...phonetics and application may change...as we see from the example you gave...

Atheism is a borrow grammar from the Greek word and therefore it is not excempted... ...

AgentOfAllah:


If that's your reply, you apparently don't understand it. Read it again!

hopefulLandlord:



Aarrrggghh!!!!!!!! okay

AgentOfAllah:

Vaxx, as I've demonstrated above, you can pick issues with many a standard word in the English language. Many linguists do, in fact, but such debates are conceptually pedantic, because changing the word doesn't change what it describes. I may decide to start calling you a brown man, which would be technically more accurate, but it won't help anybody understand what I mean. In fact, people may believe I'm referring to an Indian subcontinental, so I would have succeeded in confusing people even though I was technically correct. So, to convey the meaning I want, I choose the words I feel most suitably describe it. This is why I've rejected your attempt to redefine what I am. I know you don't like being called pagan, so I call you a traditional diviner.
I prefer to be seen as the thing the word atheist presently describes, so let it be so, thank you!

AgentOfAllah:

Vaxx, as I've demonstrated above, you can pick issues with many a standard word in the English language. Many linguists do, in fact, but such debates are conceptually pedantic, because changing the word doesn't change what it describes. I may decide to start calling you a brown man, which would be technically more accurate, but it won't help anybody understand what I mean. In fact, people may believe I'm referring to an Indian subcontinental, so I would have succeeded in confusing people even though I was technically correct. So, to convey the meaning I want, I choose the words I feel most suitably describe it. This is why I've rejected your attempt to redefine what I am. I know you don't like being called pagan, so I call you a traditional diviner.
I prefer to be seen as the thing the word atheist presently describes, so let it be so, thank you!

ScepticalPyrrho:
Philosophical engagement marked the beginning of learning, and reasoning without bias, prejudice or dogmas. Before the advent of philosophy, religious claims and answers were considered conclusive and best explanation. But the quest to know more about our cosmos without relying on religious beliefs marked the beginning of philosophy and science consequently emerged being the most reliable aspects of reality we can claim to know...

Nevertheless, reasoning (logical reasoning) was employed in presenting speculations and hypothesis which became an acceptable method for knowing more about the universe... However, speculative answers as to the origin of the universe was the major engagement of early philosophers like Aristotle, Plato, etc. Scientific studies, which is an observable and verifiable aspect of our reality was developed into what we have it today - a product of phillosiphy... not religion; as religious claims are considered conclusive and "divine."

People who aren't properly educated about the origin of learning as we have it today, fall victim of holding unto dogmatic(illogical claims) posits which were first neglected for the philosophical enterprice that has yielded more understanding of this universe.

Learning and studying different disciplines was a necessity for us to grasp, to the best of our knowledge, what this existence is about.

But somehow people still manage to fixate religious beliefs into gaps in our knowledge so far - forgetting where we were and how far we've come so far since the first philosophers of our employed sound reasoning, not dogmas, in the quest to understanding the universe. Also, we forget to rely on our best and universally accepted truths... The scientific truths... For unraveling what it is we are yet to know.

I still don't get how a religious person would claim to know anything about logic in a public forum like this... Religion never allowed independent thinking... Religious doctrines and cultural wisdom are not the same. Rather, it only contains fallacies and dogmas.

Thanks to philosophy, men now know the world is spherical and not flat.. We know the sun isn't Ra or Vishnu... We know the earth is older than what a Jewish book written by illiterates says it is... We know that the earth or man isn't the centre of creation... We know that a woman cannot conceive without male sperms introduced to her womb somehow... We know that thunder strike isn't from the hammer of Thor or mouth of Sango... We know that the rains are not tears of the gods...

But my friend... here we are arguing about something we wish for and not something we know.

ScepticalPyrrho:
Vaxx
Please get books on philosophy, read them with the intent to learn about the history of learning or knowledge.

The argument for the existence of God is supposed to be a philosophical engagement, and not a contest between atheists and theists...

This is something you and felixomor need to understand.

boringnigerian:


@ bolded, if we go by this premise, then almost all of us are atheists on some level because we believe that the gods other people worship are either false or don't exist.

ScepticalPyrrho:
If I can see this God or gods, we wouldn't be talking about believe, would we?

vaxx:
I am not debating on the existence of God here...the op says atheism as a definition is problematic....you do not see the reason why this thread is open....I am challenging the meaning of atheism not existence of God

ScepticalPyrrho:
There is no problem with the definition of atheism, there are only reasons for lack of belief in God(s), in other words, being an atheist.

vaxx:
and the questions goes.... Why do you lack the believe ...you gave a philosophical veiw which I liken to science and therefore you are a scientists atheist... And that contradict moral atheist

johnydon22:


I think the new trend here is, open any silly thread based on false premises and inaccurate assumptions about subjects you know nothing of, then base your arguments on the premise of this false assumption plus a personally conceived silly definition.

then base your question on these false premise, assumption and definition.

And expect people to answer your idiocy, expect people to answer your own misconceptions, lack of proper information, jumper assumptions and personal false premises taken as truth.

It can only frustrate the shit out of you if you try to indulge especially for someone like the OP who seem to have some form of cognitive impairment, Just read the conversation with AgentOfAllah on this thread, my patience doesn't run that deep.

So what i do most of the time is just ignore silly threads.

The very OP doesn't even make any sense, he curls out two types of atheism straight out of his ass then expect you to come answer his own silly misconceptions and false premises.

damn!!! i cannot come and kill myself.

ScepticalPyrrho:
Its because I lack reasons to believe. Atheism doesn't contradict itself... Like I said before... I do not subscribe to religious claims because of the lack of proofs...

I can only argue to refute a theistic argument formed on the basis of moralist or teleological arguments

I fall under both categories you're trying very hard to distinguish. However, it doesn't change the meaning of atheism.

vaxx:
Purem...I saw it in non Christian chartbox....you are asking people to teach you how to defend yourself ,how to become an atheist? This is very strange....you can't defend your believe.... But the little time I have stay on nairaland made me know if you need mentor....meet agentofallah or hopefullland.....it is not for the purpose of bashing.... I also learn from them too

hopefulLandlord:



Aarrrggghh!!!!!!!! okay