Argument for God's existence.

[ananda]

No, but there have been many things that have not been observed but we know exist. For example, only up until recently dark matter had never been observed but we knew it existed.

Have you either observed dark matter for yourself, or know that dark matter is uncaused?

 

[createdtoworship]

Follow the original dictionaries instead of the modern ones? What a strange idea.
Look up the history of the word itself, and you will find it has a considerably older and richer history than a dictionary entry in sixteenth-century France. As yu can see here, "atheos" - godless, or ungodly".

Also - are you not planning to reply to me about what word you would suggest for a person who lacks a belief in God or gods?

if you can provide a source earlier than the sixteenth century for the english word atheism, go ahead. I doubt you can. Atheos is greek.

you can use whatever word you wish, just follow the original definition.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

if you can provide a source earlier than the sixteenth century for the english word atheism, go ahead. I doubt you can. Atheos is greek.

you can use whatever word you wish, just follow the original definition.

Why?
If you weren't aware of this, English words change all the time.
See here for an interesting list of some.
20 words that once meant something very different
So, for you to say that I should use an archaic definition of a word, rather than that preferred by today's dictionaries, when today's dictionaries match the meaning of the word's prefix much better (a- means lacking in something, in today's modern English) is quite incorrect.

Definition of ATHEISM
atheism
noun
athe·ism | \ ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm

\
Definition of atheism
1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
2 archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness

The word "atheos" may be Greek, but the modern word "atheism" is based on it; and, as I've explained already - more than once - the prefix "a-" means "lack" and is applied to "theism", belief in gods.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why?
If you weren't aware of this, English words change all the time.
See here for an interesting list of some.
20 words that once meant something very different
So, for you to say that I should use an archaic definition of a word, rather than that preferred by today's dictionaries, when today's dictionaries match the meaning of the word's prefix much better (a- means lacking in something, in today's modern English) is quite incorrect.

Definition of ATHEISM
atheism
noun
athe·ism | \ ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm

\
Definition of atheism
1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
2 archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness

I know words change all the time, so if you have an objective method for who is qualified and how the process is done, changing a definition, then we can compare that method to all the changes. You don't have that. so we go with the original.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I know words change all the time, so if you have an objective method for who is qualified and how the process is done, changing a definition, then we can compare that method to all the changes. You don't have that. so we go with the original.

What a strange thing to say. Are you asking me to show you the reasons and the workings of how and why the dictionaries of today came to define the word "atheism" as they do?

The word "atheism" - as I have now pointed out several times - means a-theism, or lacking theism. "a-" as a prefix is a part of modern English. It's found in a number of other words, such as apolitical, amoral, or asexual. Therefore, the correct meaning of "atheism" - based on the way the word is constructed - is "one who lacks theism". Presumably, this is why today's dictionaries say what they do.

Basically, at this point, you're arguing that you should use a seventeenth-century dictionary definition over today's, ignoring the etymology of the word. And that is an untenable position for you to take.

 

[Moral Orel]

I know words change all the time, so if you have an objective method for who is qualified and how the process is done, changing a definition, then we can compare that method to all the changes. You don't have that. so we go with the original.

pfft! Dictionaries don't define words, people do. They don't tell people how to use words, they tell us how people use words. How people use words changes over time in an entirely arbitrary way. You don't like that? Tough luck. Learn how to use a dictionary.

It isn't shifting the goalposts to use a word differently because word definitions aren't arguments, so logical fallacies don't apply. What is a logical fallacy is this whole conversation. It's a red herring and an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I have not lied on this thread that I know of in years. I have been wrong, yes. I have been mistaken on someone's viewpoint, I agree. But so too many people put words in my mouth, and I am fine with it. I just correct the error. I don't get bitter and mad and point fingers. I think it makes you feel better about your own inequalities to call someone a liar. If I was to call you a liar, it just feels good inside, it justifies all of my ideologies as true in my mind, all because.....well you are the liar and not me. But I know you are not lying. At least I think you are not. I simply believe you don't know the truth and you are mistaken. See the difference in debate tactics of someone who believes in God and someone who doesn't? It should shame you. But it won't. And that is okay. I knew from day one what it entailed talking with you guys. I forgive you. But in all honesty I am humored that you feel I am the dishonest one and not yourselves.

Please show where I've put words in your mouth, and if I have I'll apologize.

Will you apologize for the many times you've put words in people's mouths?

 

[bhsmte]

Please show where I've put words in your mouth, and if I have I'll apologize.

Will you apologize for the many times you've put words in people's mouths?

Good luck!

 

[createdtoworship]

What a strange thing to say. Are you asking me to show you the reasons and the workings of how and why the dictionaries of today came to define the word "atheism" as they do?

The word "atheism" - as I have now pointed out several times - means a-theism, or lacking theism. "a-" as a prefix is a part of modern English. It's found in a number of other words, such as apolitical, amoral, or asexual. Therefore, the correct meaning of "atheism" - based on the way the word is constructed - is "one who lacks theism". Presumably, this is why today's dictionaries say what they do.

Basically, at this point, you're arguing that you should use a seventeenth-century dictionary definition over today's, ignoring the etymology of the word. And that is an untenable position for you to take.

Dictionaries have created word definitions.

dictionaries change, yes.

but who says they need to change, and who actually monitors that only people who are authorized to change a definition, do so?

it's not strange at all.

we can't change all our definitions because of politics.

 

[createdtoworship]

Please show where I've put words in your mouth, and if I have I'll apologize.

Will you apologize for the many times you've put words in people's mouths?

sir, I don't care if people put words in my mouth.

I really don't.

but if it makes you feel better, I am sorry I misunderstood.

 

[Ed1wolf]

None of this gets you to God. It gets you to questions which you conveniently answer with God because you already believe in him.

Please explain specifically how it does not get you to God.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Dictionaries have created word definitions.

dictionaries change, yes.

but who says they need to change, and who actually monitors that only people who are authorized to change a definition, do so?

it's not strange at all.

we can't change all our definitions because of politics.

What word would you suggest instead of "atheist"?

 

[createdtoworship]

What word would you suggest instead of "atheist"?

you can use agnostic if you want, or another word that you suggested earlier that was from greek.

I don't think it's moral to change the definitions of words. I think is someone wants to change a definition they should not be lazy and should coin a completely new word.

What if I went to all the words and redefined them according to my world view. Marriage is only between a man and woman and atheism is a belief in no God, which is indefensible.

What if I did that, after the definitions were changed to what they are currently?

would that be moral?

no, because I am changing a word to fit my worldview, not on what the word actually means. Now granted in the case of marriage, the original definition is between a man and a woman. But you see what I mean, any one can arbitrarily change a word definition simply because of worldview or political pressure. And that is not how a language should work.

Imagine coining a word, and becoming famous for it. Then two weeks later someone feels that that word is not accurate enough. So instead of coining a separate word, to reflect their opinion, they force their opinion on you and your word, and change it. Now that is not a good thing or moral thing to do. It makes language to fluid. No rules, no system.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think is someone wants to change a definition they should not be lazy and should coin a completely new word.

I think it's lazy and immoral the way you used the word "coin" there. The word "coin" means "any type of stamped money" and it cannot be used in any other way ever. I used your dictionary:

Dictionarium Anglo-Britannicum

 

[gaara4158]

Please explain specifically how it does not get you to God.

It gets you to questions. Where did the universe come from? That’s a question. You want to answer it with God, but there’s no reason to make that leap except personal preference.
Why do some things have functions? There are perfectly good evolutionary answers for that, but you’ll likely reject them in favor of saying it’s God. But there’s no reason to do that except personal preference.
The universe as many things united isn’t even a mystery, it’s a matter of definition. Obviously there’s no need to leap to God.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

you can use agnostic if you want, or another word that you suggested earlier that was from greek.

I didn't want to dive too deep into this, but I'm an agnostic atheist, as are many - perhaps most - atheists.
If you look up "agnostic" in dictionaries today, you will find that the definitions do not exactly support my arguments. There, agnosticism is presented as a sort of defiant "we can't know, and may never know". Many people think that agnostics are a different thing from atheists. But many atheists today disagree. You can find this explained here:
Main Differences Between Atheists and Agnostics
"Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe. Agnosticism is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know.
An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not. These can be the exact same person, but need not be."
The way it works is this:
a-theism means lacking theism; a person who does not believe in God. a-gnostic means lacking knowledge. Todd has a good graphic as his signature which explains it well:
An agnostic atheist lacks knowledge of God's existence and, therefore, lacks belief.
A gnostic theist is what you would call an atheist: someone who claims to believe that God does not - cannot - exist. No need to search every corner of the universe; gnostic atheists, as I understand, claim that God is a self-contradictory concept. Their arguments are pretty convincing, but we shall leave them for now.
An agnostic atheist is probably most Christians. They claim belief in God, but lack knowledge that He certainly exists; and they say that they would change their views if they were proven to be wrong.
A gnostic theist is one who claims to know, beyond any doubt, that God exists.

I don't think it's moral to change the definitions of words. I think is someone wants to change a definition they should not be lazy and should coin a completely new word. What if I went to all the words and redefined them according to my world view. Marriage is only between a man and woman and atheism is a belief in no God, which is indefensible.
What if I did that, after the definitions were changed to what they are currently?
Would that be moral? no, because I am changing a word to fit my worldview, not on what the word actually means.

I can see you're taking this very personally, gradyll, and that you have a thing or two to learn about how languages evolve over time. Not that I'm a linguistics expert myself, by any means, but you seem to have the idea that changing a language is something that individuals do, on purpose. That's not how it works.

Now granted in the case of marriage, the original definition is between a man and a woman. But you see what I mean, any one can arbitrarily change a word definition simply because of worldview or political pressure. And that is not how a language should work.

Now you're showing your true colours, with right-wing talking points. Words change all the time, and they change quite simply because people start using them in a different way.

Imagine coining a word, and becoming famous for it. Then two weeks later someone feels that that word is not accurate enough. So instead of coining a separate word, to reflect their opinion, they force their opinion on you and your word, and change it. Now that is not a good thing or moral thing to do. It makes language to fluid. No rules, no system.

But that's how language always works. Language is a fluid thing. And yes, it is morally a wrong thing if someone thinks, "Aha, gradyll has invented a new word - I'll sneak in and change it!" But that's not how it works at all in real life.

Like I said, you're taking this personally. Language and reality don't care what you think; and the word "atheist" means what it means today because the meaning more accurately reflects what people think about belief.

In a nutshell: why are you arguing with a dictionary? You don't get to decide what words mean.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

you can use agnostic if you want, or another word that you suggested earlier that was from greek.

The thing is, if I were to to use "agnostic" I would run into a number of problems. The dictionary definition does not match what I believe ; and many atheists, myself included, think of agnosticism as a matter of knowledge, as opposed to atheism as a matter of belief.

And then again, if I were to try to think of a word that means "someone who lacks a belief in God" - well, how to do it? Well, "a belief in God or gods" is referred to as "theism". and as I've pointed out before, the prefix a- meaning "lacking in". So the word "atheism" is perfectly logically constructed to mean what the dictionaries say it means today.

In short, you are arguing against today's language to serve your own political and theological ends, and trying to impose seventeenth century English upon the English-speaking world. I don't have to argue with you or prove you wrong; all I have to do is point out that the world disagrees with you.

 

[createdtoworship]

I didn't want to dive too deep into this, but I'm an agnostic atheist, as are many - perhaps most - atheists.
If you look up "agnostic" in dictionaries today, you will find that the definitions do not exactly support my arguments. There, agnosticism is presented as a sort of defiant "we can't know, and may never know". Many people think that agnostics are a different thing from atheists. But many atheists today disagree. You can find this explained here:
Main Differences Between Atheists and Agnostics
"Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe. Agnosticism is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know.
An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not. These can be the exact same person, but need not be."
The way it works is this:
a-theism means lacking theism; a person who does not believe in God. a-gnostic means lacking knowledge. Todd has a good graphic as his signature which explains it well:
An agnostic atheist lacks knowledge of God's existence and, therefore, lacks belief.
A gnostic theist is what you would call an atheist: someone who claims to believe that God does not - cannot - exist. No need to search every corner of the universe; gnostic atheists, as I understand, claim that God is a self-contradictory concept. Their arguments are pretty convincing, but we shall leave them for now.
An agnostic atheist is probably most Christians. They claim belief in God, but lack knowledge that He certainly exists; and they say that they would change their views if they were proven to be wrong.
A gnostic theist is one who claims to know, beyond any doubt, that God exists.


I can see you're taking this very personally, gradyll, and that you have a thing or two to learn about how languages evolve over time. Not that I'm a linguistics expert myself, by any means, but you seem to have the idea that changing a language is something that individuals do, on purpose. That's not how it works.


Now you're showing your true colours, with right-wing talking points. Words change all the time, and they change quite simply because people start using them in a different way.


But that's how language always works. Language is a fluid thing. And yes, it is morally a wrong thing if someone thinks, "Aha, gradyll has invented a new word - I'll sneak in and change it!" But that's not how it works at all in real life.

Like I said, you're taking this personally. Language and reality don't care what you think; and the word "atheist" means what it means today because the meaning more accurately reflects what people think about belief.

In a nutshell: why are you arguing with a dictionary? You don't get to decide what words mean.

so an athiest that is agnostic, does not believe in God but can't prove it (because he doesnt' know, hence the agnostic part?)

And as far as definitions are concerned, I typically don't use newer words, because I don't agree with how the world is right now, so I use traditional words. New words are typically politically motivated and from a particular worldview, usually humanism. Because that is what is running the country right now. So I am very offended at things that are new, but political, or slanted toward humanism. Is that wrong? I am not a humanist so why should I honor a humanistic word? Evolutionists coined a term just for them to use in debates with creationists. Only wiki related dictionaries even use it. But to them it's real, it's called "the quote mine." But we already had words for that, it was called quoting out of context, and miss quoting. But those were not mean enough towards creationists, so lets make a sassy sounding word just to nail them on. "oh you quote mined that." But at worse I quoted out of context, but that is nearly impossible to prove. So it's easier just to say it's quote mined and not deal with it. So I don't honor words that are new (if they are politically biased or biased in a humanistic way). So I use the original definitions. If you have a problem with how I define things, you can blame the fact that language is fluid. And that languages change all the time. But I know, you can change it but I can't. I get it.

 

[RichardY]

@InterestedAtheist
@gradyll

Atheist: Do you belief in the existence of God? No. Do you believe in the nonexistence of God? Yes.
Agnostic: Do you belief in the existence of God? No. Do you believe in the nonexistence of God? No.

Agnostic Atheist is an Oxymoron. It's one or the other.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

@InterestedAtheist
@gradyll

Atheist: Do you belief in the existence of God? No. Do you believe in the nonexistence of God. Yes
Agnostic: Do you belief in the existence of God? No. Do you believe in the nonexistence of God? No.

Agnostic Atheist is an Oxymoron. It's one or the other.

RichardY: Do you believe in the existence of God?
Agnostic Atheist: no, I lack a belief in the existence of God.
RichardY: Do you believe in the nonexistence of God?
Agnostic Atheist: That's right. I just told you so.
RichardY: So are you an atheist, or an agnostic?
Agnostic Atheist: Because I lack knowledge of God (gnosis, which is to say I have no evidence that He exists) I am an a-theist, lacking belief in Him.

If you realise what theism, gnosis and the prefix a- mean, then it's all very simple.
"I do not know if God exists or not; I am agnostic on the situation, having no evidence that He does. Therefore, I cannot say that I believe God exists; I am an atheist, lacking any belief in God."

I am quite happy to admit that God might exist, in the same way I am happy to admit that...well, I wouldn't want to be censured under the forum rules, so I'll just say "in the same way that other things which we all consider to be mythical might exist". But if you say to me, "Do you believe that God exists?" I have to answer, no. Therefore, I am an a-theist. See?