Former Atheists

[Aught3]

agnosticism: god cannot be known
amoralism: morality is not plausible
acosmism: disbelief in existence of eternal universe distinct from God
adevism: denial of gods of mythology and legend
anarchism: doctrine that all governments should be abolished
adiaphorism: the opinion that certain doctrines or practices in morals or religion are of no consequence

Agnosticism - the truth value of certain claims is unknown or unknowable.
Amoralism - the absence of moral beliefs (immoralism is the rejection of moral codes)
Acosmism - correct! remember that disbelief means not believing.
Adevism - also correct, in this case the a- prefix does mean an explicit rejection. That's one.
Anarchism - kind of. Anarchos means without rulers, so half a point for this one.
Adiaphorism - actions not specifically prohibited may be treated with indifference.

So you provided six examples and I score you 1.5/6 in demonstrating that the a- prefix is always an explicit denial of the position/belief. It seems to me that a- can mean either an implicit non-belief or an explicit denial. When we look at the usage of the word atheism we see an almost universal acceptance of the non-belief usage. The only people confused about this seem to be theists.

I see I was beaten to the punch by australopithecus, for his interest the word diaphoros means difference so adiaphorism would be without difference (or with indifference) by his scheme.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

The list of "a-ism" words I provided demonstrates that this assertion is false.

By that logic 'anachronous' means to oppose the accurate representation of history as a point of principal.
That I am 'apathetic' means that I hate emotion (that's a hell of a trick right there.)
'Anaerobes' could resperate if they wished to, but choose not to on the grounds that it is evil.
'Anesthesiologists' despise sensation.
'Amorphous' objects oppose distinction.
'Asymmetrical' objects believe there is no such thing as bilateral proportionality.

The a(n) prefix refers to a lacking quality only; it allows for further belief, but in no way enforces it as an obligate condition. An anorexic may object to appetite, but all that is required for the moniker is that (s)he does not partake of it.

 

[jericomovie]

The list of "a-ism" words I provided demonstrates that this assertion is false.

By that logic 'anachronous' means to oppose the accurate representation of history as a point of principal.
That I am 'apathetic' means that I hate emotion (that's a hell of a trick right there.)
'Anaerobes' could resperate if they wished to, but choose not to on the grounds that it is evil.
'Anesthesiologists' despise sensation.
'Amorphous' objects oppose distinction.
'Asymmetrical' objects believe there is no such thing as bilateral proportionality.

The a(n) prefix refers to a lacking quality only; it allows for further belief, but in no way enforces it as an obligate condition. An anorexic may object to appetite, but all that is required for the moniker is that (s)he does not partake of it.

None of those are isms. I am speaking to the "a-ism" pattern.

As for the two posts offering counter-definitions, I would suppose more is needed than to just pose a negation. Give me a grammatical, or etymological reason why "agnosticism," for example, is not the epistemological stance that God cannot be known.

And again, I am posing that "without," such as, "without god/belief in god" does not suffice the definition of an ism (the noun), and thus is not the proper definition of "atheism".

...Moreover, consider something that's happening here.

A moment ago, it was suggested that the conversation was descending "into an useless semantic argument ". Can we really say that semantics do not matter, having that I've caught three of your attention?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Give me a grammatical, or etymological reason why "agnosticism," for example, is not the epistemological stance that God cannot be known.

Because I took two sems of Classical Greek, roomed with a Classics Major, and that's not what it means.

 

[Aught3]

As for the two posts offering counter-definitions, I would suppose more is needed than to just pose a negation.

No it's not. All you posted was a definition, pointing out a correct counter-definition is all that is needed. If you wish to take your argument further you will have to do the extra work.

 

[jericomovie]

As for the two posts offering counter-definitions, I would suppose more is needed than to just pose a negation.

No it's not. All you posted was a definition, pointing out a correct counter-definition is all that is needed. If you wish to take your argument further you will have to do the extra work.

Are you asking me to agree with you on assertion alone?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Are you asking me to agree with you on assertion alone?

You're the one making the assertion.

 

[Aught3]

Are you asking me to agree with you on assertion alone?

No. I'm saying we shouldn't agree with your assertions.

 

[jericomovie]

Are you asking me to agree with you on assertion alone?

No. I'm saying we shouldn't agree with your assertions.

there are two parts to the argument. the definition of ism, and then evidence of the list of words following the "a-ism" pattern. One way to dissuade the argument is to offer an unmentioned word the follows the "a-ism" pattern that violates the rule I've proposed.

 

[jericomovie]

Give me a grammatical, or etymological reason why "agnosticism," for example, is not the epistemological stance that God cannot be known.

Because I took two sems of Classical Greek, roomed with a Classics Major, and that's not what it means.

That's an argument from authority. If the authority is warranted, there will be a demonstrative reason behind it.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Amoralism - the absence of moral beliefs (immoralism is the rejection of moral codes)

Already been done.

 

[Aught3]

there are two parts to the argument. the definition of ism, and then evidence of the list of words following the "a-ism" pattern. One way to dissuade the argument is to offer an unmentioned word the follows the "a-ism" pattern that violates the rule I've proposed.

All of the words you provided, apart from adevism, violate the so-called rule. Your evidence, or assertions, are faulty so this part of the argument can be rejected. If you wish to re-establish this part of the argument it will take some additional work on your part.

 

[Aught3]

Amoralism - the absence of moral beliefs (immoralism is the rejection of moral codes)

Already been done.

I don't understand.

 

[jericomovie]

there are two parts to the argument. the definition of ism, and then evidence of the list of words following the "a-ism" pattern. One way to dissuade the argument is to offer an unmentioned word the follows the "a-ism" pattern that violates the rule I've proposed.

All of the words you provided, apart from adevism, violate the so-called rule. Your evidence, or assertions, are faulty so this part of the argument can be rejected. If you wish to re-establish this part of the argument it will take some additional work on your part.

They are only faulty by your assertion at this point. Looking for dialectic, here. Even these kinds of claims need evidence.

 

[Aught3]

They are only faulty by your assertion at this point.

And they are only correct by your assertion. What reason do I have for accepting your definitions and thereby your argument?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Because I took two sems of Classical Greek, roomed with a Classics Major, and that's not what it means.

That's an argument from authority. If the authority is warranted, there will be a demonstrative reason behind it.

I encourage you to learn 5th Century Attic Greek so you can read the word used in context yourself.

 

[Andiferous]

Arguing about the use of the accuracy of the label seems a bit like arguing what someone else believes.

No one believes the same thing, anyway!

 

[RichardMNixon]

Already been done.

I don't understand.

Sorry, was responding to this:

One way to dissuade the argument is to offer an unmentioned word the follows the "a-ism" pattern that violates the rule I've proposed.

With the contradictory example you already gave for amoral.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Arguing about the use of the accuracy of the label seems a bit like arguing what someone else believes.

No one believes the same thing, anyway!

In-fricken'-deed.

I normally wouldn't even care - having grown accustomed to abandoning "atheism" when creatively redefined by another - but dammit I didn't spend all those weeks struggling over the dative and vocative just to have some clown tell me what the a(n) prefix means!

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Just so we're clear...

there are two parts to the argument. the definition of ism, and then evidence of the list of words following the "a-ism" pattern. One way to dissuade the argument is to offer an unmentioned word the follows the "a-ism" pattern that violates the rule I've proposed.

This has already been done:

agnosticism: god cannot be known
amoralism: morality is not plausible
acosmism: disbelief in existence of eternal universe distinct from God
adevism: denial of gods of mythology and legend
anarchism: doctrine that all governments should be abolished
adiaphorism: the opinion that certain doctrines or practices in morals or religion are of no consequence

Agnosticism - the truth value of certain claims is unknown or unknowable.
Amoralism - the absence of moral beliefs (immoralism is the rejection of moral codes)
Acosmism - correct! remember that disbelief means not believing.
Adevism - also correct, in this case the a- prefix does mean an explicit rejection. That's one.
Anarchism - kind of. Anarchos means without rulers, so half a point for this one.
Adiaphorism - actions not specifically prohibited may be treated with indifference.

So you provided six examples and I score you 1.5/6 in demonstrating that the a- prefix is always an explicit denial of the position/belief. It seems to me that a- can mean either an implicit non-belief or an explicit denial. When we look at the usage of the word atheism we see an almost universal acceptance of the non-belief usage. The only people confused about this seem to be theists.

I see I was beaten to the punch by australopithecus, for his interest the word diaphoros means difference so adiaphorism would be without difference (or with indifference) by his scheme.

Immoralism is the antithesis of moralism. Amoralism is something else...

This has become a semantic argument and is consequently very boring...