AND THE QUIBBLING CONTINUES…

As always, people are getting mired in the miasma of semantic sophistry.

Witness this egregious nonsense:

“In this case another "bait and switch" method is being employed but in a more obvious contradictory setting. On the one hand we are to concur that "'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.'" On the other hand we are supposed to conclude from this that "without a belief in God" is what the term means. This is perhaps to the hope that the reader will not see the imported word "believe" from one sentence to the next. I do agree with Martin that the term is certainly a negative view in that it negates something. But, as Martin unwittingly admits or intentionally distorts, it is the negation of God himself not a negation of a belief in God given Martin's comment that "'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.'" Wouldn't this suggest that atheism is to be etymologically understood as without/no - god?”

I ‘believe’ the whole discussion is ludicrous to begin with. Either prove there’s some sort of deity, piss or get off the pot (pardon my crudity).

Belief, from the Encyclopedia:” Belief, in philosophy, commitment to something, involving intellectual assent. Philosophers have disagreed as to whether belief is active or passive; René Descartes held that it is a matter of will, while David Hume thought that it was an emotional commitment, and C. S. Peirce considered it a habit of action. Compared to faith and probability, the concept of belief has received little attention from philosophers.”

This is just a moronic effort to again dictate the terms of the debate, and score a cheap point (‘See, we got some of ‘em to admit/change their designated label! Victory!’).

These skirmishes are best ignored. It’s a clever effort for about five whole minutes, and after that, blehhh.

Let’s put paid to this pusillanimous pedantry once and for all: Dictionary, from the Encyclopedia:

“Dictionary, published list, in alphabetical order, of the words of a language. In monolingual dictionaries the words are explained and defined in the same language; in bilingual dictionaries they are translated into another language. Modern dictionaries usually also provide phonetic transcriptions, hyphenation, synonyms, derived forms, and etymology. However, a dictionary of a living language can never be complete; old words fall into disuse, new words are constantly created, and those surviving frequently change their meanings. The modern dictionary is often prescriptive rather than descriptive, for it attempts to establish certain forms as preferable. The most remarkable case of this sort is the dictionary of the French Academy, which is both widely admired and ignored. The popular American attitude of the 19th century toward dictionaries gave them a nearly sacred authority, but in the 20th centtury the dictionary makers themselves began to replace notions of purity (especially based on etymology) by criteria of use, somewhat ahead of analogous developments in grammar. Because of the unprecedented scientific advances of the 20th cent., many scientific terms have come into popular use and consequently have increased the size of general dictionaries.”

Or, as Ambrose Bierce said, in his Devil’s Dictionary:
“A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic. This dictionary, however, is a most useful work.”

And here is a powerful reminder, to those of you who may fall for this ‘bait and switch’ theist tactic:

“The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words. Philip K. Dick”

So, the short version – don’t fall for this. I’m an atheist. I deny the existence of all gods great and small (demons, angels, etc). Whether you chalk this up to ‘belief’, or the distinct lack of evidence, that’s your problem. Not mine. Either put up or shut up, as the saying goes. Just don’t dictate to me what I am, using an argument from popularity.

It is of no use to describe the color blue to someone who is color blind.

Till the next post, then.