six45ive Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) That's kind of the point I was making- many people do not need to know the etymology of a word to use it. I'm aware of that but it only serves to reinforce the idea that some words get misused because of this lack of understanding the original meaning. The current meaning of a word is not determined by it's etymology- it can be one factor, but it's rarely the sole factor. The original and current meaning/s of a word is determined by it's correct etymology. If you don't have that then the word becomes meaningless which is what separates proper words from slang. A words meaning is as much to do with it's usage, as its' etymology. No, because if the meaning is incorrect then that usage of the word, by default, becomes meaningless. , are you even sure that, when it comes to 'atheist', it's etymology is as neatly defined and definite as you seem to think it is? Yes. Ultimately if a group of people wish to use an already clearly understood word and change its meaning then logic states there must be some reason for this. Is it just purely ignorance or is there an intention to deceive because of a perceived threat from the group that the word describes. Imagine if I took the 'N' word and somehow turned its meaning to become 'wonderfully spiffing black person', the meme took off and a lot of white people started using it resulting in black people then saying; "that's not what it means", but then I respond by saying; "sorry mate but so many people have adopted this meaning that you just have to live with it but hey.....stop being so militant and a word nazi about it." Calling a vacuum cleaner a hoover doesn't come with any (political) baggage (just one for the dust:hihi:) so the vernacular doesn't matter. When a word does carry political baggage then people who try to redefine it need to be educated about its proper meaning for, however much it's misused, it doesn't matter if it's one person committing a fallacy or millions, the redefined word becomes meaningless because it's not addressing the reality of why the word came about in the first place and an accurate portrayal of what it points to. That's why the etymology is the most critical part of a word and language in general. Edited October 1, 2012 by six45ive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 It would have more likely have been a Theist recording the meaning of atheism as a lack of belief but anyhow the word is meaningless to an atheist, it's just a word for theists to describe non believers and the word atheism originates from the Greek word atheos which means without god(s) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I've been following this with interest and have not yet commented simply because I agree in part with both sides. This however prompted me to post, I totally agree with you on the point of there being many atheists who identify with the more active meaning of not believing in God(s). In fact I find it nigh on impossible to think that the other posters have not encountered atheists who do have this view. Likewise the term 'militant atheist', it's not a term I would use personally, but I'm quite happy with its use in debate because I do understand what is meant by it, I don't think it's 'correct' to call someone a militant atheist but that doesn't mean I don't get the gist. Despite my own understanding of the word atheist being the same as roots/quisquose/six etc I think to simply pretend that this is the only meaning of the word is a bit silly (I'm not suggesting all of them do pretend this, merely pointing out my understanding of it meaning simply 'lack of' belief is identical to theirs), as we have said many times between us on this forum, as long as the meaning is agreed upon before (or at least during) a particular debate then the exact meaning of the word can be somewhat 'overlooked'. That's it, end of my contribution A useful contribution- I think it's always good when people not invloved in the sceptical movement give some 'outside' perspective: I feel that if the sceptical movement encouraged, or listened to, such input, it could become a lot more effective in communicating with people and getting it's message out. (I put in bold the parts I particulalrly agree with). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 That goes for rootsbooster too, and I didn't destroy the atheism thread, because the poll didn't fit your opinion, it felt like I destroyed it.. Yes you did. It had nothing to do with the poll, it was you dragging it wildly off topic into your own delusional rants which kept swinging opinion in every other post that there was no point continuing with it. Have you decided between if you definately believe in God or that he definiatly doesn't exist yet, as you somehow tried to hold both views simultaneously in that thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I'm aware of that but it only serves to reinforce the idea that some words get misused because of this lack of understanding the original meaning. I don't agree that it's a misuse: but you know that already. The original andcurrent meaning/s of a word is determined by it's correct etymology. If you don't have that then the word becomes meaningless which is what separates proper words from slang. Again, I disagree, for reasons previously posted. Where slang is concerned, once it's fully entered common usage and worked it's way into a variety of respected dictionaries, it becomes a 'proper' word, innit? Also, many of our current words were once themselves slang. No, because if the meaning is incorrect then that usage of the word, by default, becomes meaningless. But neither of the meanings of 'atheist' are incorrect, IMO (they are in your opinion) Yes. Ultimately if a group of people wish to use an already clearly understood word and change its meaning then logic states there must be some reason for this. Is it just purely ignorance or is there an intention to deceive because of a perceived threat from the group that the word describes. Imagine if I took the 'N' word and somehow turned its meaning to become 'wonderfully spiffing black person', the meme took off and a lot of white people started using it resulting in black people then saying; "that's not what it means", but then I respond by saying; "sorry mate but so many people have adopted this meaning that you just have to live with it but hey.....stop being so militant and a word nazi about it." It's happened already, with some sub-groups of the black community happily using the word, some promoting as being a positve word etc. Other people (black and white) have objected strenuously to it- it still continues to be used and clearly, has more than one meaning now. Calling a vacuum cleaner a hoover doesn't come with any (political) baggage (just one for the dust:hihi:) so the vernacular doesn't matter. When a word does carry political baggage then people who try to redefine it need to be educated about its proper meaning for, however much it's misused, it doesn't matter if it's one person committing a fallacy or millions, the redefined word becomes meaningless because it's not addressing the reality of why the word came about in the first place and an accurate portrayal of what it points to. That's why the etymology is the most critical part of a word and language in general. No-ones trying to re-define 'atheist'- it's got 2 meanings, neither of which is correct', other than in some people's opinion. As for the sceptical movement 'educating' anyone, it's got a really bad track record fro that. Partly because, though people generally want to 'learn', in doing so they like to be respected as human beings, not 'educated' by a self appointed elite band of rather arrogant seeming individuals who, when confronted by someone with a differing opinion, automatically seem to dismiss them as wrong, deluded, or even stupid. If the sceptical movement wants to move forward and acheive it's considerable potential to genuinely 'educate' people about scepticism and rationality, it needs to drag it's head out of the sand, realise that education is a 2 way process where the 'teacher' can learn as much as the 'learner', and, start listening to people who are not themselves part of the club. The reason I'm not involved currently in the sceptical movement, is cos I get the impression, that its meets consist of a group of people who already think in pretty much the same way, getting together for a ego-massaging session. That, to me, is a tragic waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Yes you did. It had nothing to do with the poll, it was you dragging it wildly off topic into your own delusional rants which kept swinging opinion in every other post that there was no point continuing with it. Have you decided between if you definately believe in God or that he definiatly doesn't exist yet, as you somehow tried to hold both views simultaneously in that thread. I believe in god but not how people describe him as human looking with a beard And I never said god doesnt exist either..i see god as what is made and seen, it's as simple as that for me and I didn't not ruin that thread, the thread was called what is atheism so I debated on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 It would have more likely have been a Theist recording the meaning of atheism as a lack of belief but anyhow the word is meaningless to an atheist, it's just a word for theists to describe non believers and the word atheism originates from the Greek word atheos which means without god(s) Yes, from what little looking I've done into the etymologyof 'atheist', it does look like it evolved, not from 'without belief, but, 'without god'. Yes you did. It had nothing to do with the poll, it was you dragging it wildly off topic into your own delusional rants which kept swinging opinion in every other post that there was no point continuing with it. Have you decided between if you definately believe in God or that he definiatly doesn't exist yet, as you somehow tried to hold both views simultaneously in that thread. Has it reached 'thread locking' time again We all know that if a moderator gets pulled into this, it's just a matter of time. Could you 2 just put your differences aside, so we can avoid that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 They is no arguing on my side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted October 1, 2012 Author Share Posted October 1, 2012 I'm hoping you've all "let the dust settle" now:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I'm hoping you've all "let the dust settle" now:) Does dust settle with atheists though, they always seem to be running around in circles to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts