God & Science Proved!
- Thread starter RadoX
- Start date
Lol, what a load of pure hogwash yet again from the philosophy of science
Philosophers simply lack the intellect required to actually pass a real science degree, so they simply sit in a room erming and ahing about 'what is science? What is the scientific method?'.
Pure BS is all that philosophy is.
Did you drop out of grade school or something?
So you present two definitions that, by majority, agree with my stance rather than yours (and even then, without god is open to interpretation without further context, so could agree with both of us), and a final version showing that atheos and atheist are related, which we already know, because the debate isn't about that at all.
And you think this proves your point why?
The offer of a lesson in critical thinking is still available if you want it, just ask.
My stance was that without god, and godless both mean the same thing and are definitions of atheos, your stance is that atheos doesnt mean 'without god', even when every source on the subject of atheism says it does.
I cant believe why you still think you are right. My stance on the issue here is evidently far more correct than yours.
I cant believe why you still think you are right. My stance on the issue here is evidently far more correct than yours.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Did you drop out of grade school or something?
Did you go to America or smethohwait
my stance is that your context is wrong, you are just looking at the words without understanding the context, namely that atheos and atheism both refer to an explicit, rather than implicit position. without god in that context refers to the conscious rejection or denial of god, not simply a lack of explicit belief.
your evidence does precisely nothing to refute this position.
When people try to apply it to everyone who hasn't explicitly taken a theist position, mainly.
That and the frequent lack of tolerance for people who hold different beliefs from theirs while failing to understand the evidential limits of their own position.
They do not mean the same thing...although they are ultimately derived from the same source.
"atheos" in hellenic Greek means simply 'impious' the implicit acceptance of the word is that God exists, yet the individual to which the pejorative is aimed denies or rejects those 'existant' Gods.....
"atheist" derives from the French 'athee' which means an individual that denies or doesn't believe the existence of God(s)....
Do you see the difference.....one denies a God known (or accepted) to exist, the other denies the very existence of God in the first place.
Which I think is what Dolph is trying to say. The modern common usage of atheist has little in common other than lingustic derivation to the Greek word transliterated as Atheos.
Last edited:
Add existence in and yes, otherwise not necessarily, because belief has a dual meaning in the context of religion and philosophy.
For example, I am not a Christian, I do not believe in the abrahamic god in a religious sense, but I also take no stance on the existence of the abrahamic god because, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the existence or non-existence of the abrahamic god is irrelevant to me (eg I'm agnostic with regards to the abrahamic god, not atheistic towards it).
The defnitions I took were from greek dictionaries with no religious bias, why do those define atheos as meaning all of 'without God, godless, and atheist' then?
Theos translates as God, and according to every single source I can find, adding the 'a' to the start means without.
Impious is just another synonym for 'without god', as is godless, all can be defined as the same, or similar meaning. Using a synonym instead of 'without god' doesnt prove your position that atheos does not mean without god, which is currently backed by so many reputable sources including Cambridge and Oxford uni research.
I simply dont believe how anyone can carry on believing that 'atheos' doesnt mean 'without god' even with all the evidence proving that this position is wrong, for any reason other than simply wanting to be argumentative.
Last edited:
Because you are ignoring or unaware of the historical-critical lingustic context of the word and only accepting the etymological derivation. The issue is not with whether the word means without God, unGodly or Godless, but the context in which those words are used...as I explained with 'atheos' it is denying or 'being without' if you prefer, a God or Gods that are accepted or known to exist.....'atheist' (derived from the French) is contextually different insofar as it mean denying or 'disbelieving' if you prefer, that God or Gods exist in the first place...
They are only derived from one another, they are not a direct translation......
Impious doesn't mean 'without God' it means disrespect of God, irreverent or unGodly, again with the implicit acceptance that God exists....
So in the case of atheos....without god would imply only the individual is without god or godless, not that god doesn't exist.....in the case of atheist....without god would imply that the individual simply doesn't believe in the existence of god....
Your links assume that the reader is aware of this distinction.
Last edited:
All the links I provided state that 'Atheism - from the Greek a - without, theos - God'.
I dont see any difference between 'denying God' and believing that 'God doesnt exist'.
If you deny the reality of something, then you are denying its existence as well.
According to your definitions, and the one I just provided, both atheos and athee mean the same thing.
I dont see any difference between 'denying God' and believing that 'God doesnt exist'.
If you deny the reality of something, then you are denying its existence as well.
According to your definitions, and the one I just provided, both atheos and athee mean the same thing.
Last edited:
One last shot at this:
Atheos assumes the existence of Gods, Atheist does not. That is the difference.
This is why we have an etymology of the word, one derives from the other and as the derivation evolves so does the context in which it is used....
For example the English 'Atheist' is not a direct translation of the Hellenic or Classical Greek 'Atheos' (note, I use the transliterated Latin) but is derived from the French 'athéiste' which in turn came from the Latin 'Atheos' and it's Greek equivalent. The modern usage is an evolution (you understand that I know) of the original word...so atheos is more like a common ancestor rather that a direct and exact clone......
Today the English word implies that the subject doesn't believe or accept the existence of God(s), however in the 16th Century it would have been a perjorative statement with the implication being that God did exist yet the subject was impious or godless....and so as we go back toward the origin of the word the context alters again, whereby the perjorative disappears and it simply becomes a statement that the subject denies the God(s), again with the acceptance that they actually exist.....
None of the links or sources you gave counter the Historical-Critical etymolgy, they simply assume that the reader would know the historical context in which they choose to use the word and/or it's derivations.
Now you can accept this explanation or not, as you have knowedge of Genetics or Biology, I have significant working knowedge of Hellenic Greek......I hope you can see that the context of the use of the words is as important as the definition of the words when attributing the meaning. There are plenty of other examples within Greek and Hebrew especially where the context in which the word is used changes the definition and/or meaning of the word......
Last edited:
I do believe in God for the following reasons (From Muslims point of view; what Qur'an has stated):
1) There are 7 Universes out there. 5 of them can contain life and 2 are dead.
2) There are 7 Earths exist in those 5 universes.
3) The universe is infinite in size
4) God created the universes from nothing "NOTHING".
5) God created everything in 6 days (now the term day used in the Bible, Torah and Qur'an, it is in God's time) we are not sure the exact number of years, days does a God's day represent
6) There are 8th versions of ADAM and Eve. We are the 8th and final version. But we didn't come from the Monkeys. We existed immediately as the 8th version.
7) The universes are expanding, then when God decides this is the end of everything (its time for the day of Judgment) God will shrink it back to the first original point of the universe.
but the real question is, how the **** did a cave man 1400 yrs ago know all those facts and I am just pointing out the subject of space and universe, there are medical and biological, geographical, chemical...etc facts that is written in the book which has been discovered by Top scientists in the last 70 years; they are all accurate without any single faults in them. Its either this cave man is one smart dude with magical tools, or he is a true prophet and God does exist.
Thanks for reading.
1) There are 7 Universes out there. 5 of them can contain life and 2 are dead.
2) There are 7 Earths exist in those 5 universes.
3) The universe is infinite in size
4) God created the universes from nothing "NOTHING".
5) God created everything in 6 days (now the term day used in the Bible, Torah and Qur'an, it is in God's time) we are not sure the exact number of years, days does a God's day represent
6) There are 8th versions of ADAM and Eve. We are the 8th and final version. But we didn't come from the Monkeys. We existed immediately as the 8th version.
7) The universes are expanding, then when God decides this is the end of everything (its time for the day of Judgment) God will shrink it back to the first original point of the universe.
but the real question is, how the **** did a cave man 1400 yrs ago know all those facts and I am just pointing out the subject of space and universe, there are medical and biological, geographical, chemical...etc facts that is written in the book which has been discovered by Top scientists in the last 70 years; they are all accurate without any single faults in them. Its either this cave man is one smart dude with magical tools, or he is a true prophet and God does exist.
Thanks for reading.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Last edited:
- Humans came out of nothing (therefore no evolution).
- Everything came from nothing and was invented instantly in 6 'god days', (again no evolution)
- There are more universes than we could ever see or discover
- We know exactly how many are alive and how many are dead
- Something which is scientifically proven to be continually expanding is already infinite
- There are 7 different infinite objects.
And I'm the one always called out for posting false information, even when providing numerous sources which back up my statements
The 'we didnt come from monkeys' part is just extra cherry on top of the failcake.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK