Support NeoGAF

Air · Apr 30, 2012

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed".

Here is the Sagan quote from his wiki article.

Also thanks gerg, will check that out.

Ghost_Protocol · Apr 30, 2012

MattKeil said:
Someone who is as prominent and who moves in the political circles he does doesn't really have a choice, of course. Also it is a lot easier for the average American to stomach scientific insight from someone who doesn't claim to be an atheist, which is a very loaded term in this country.

Basically it's the safe answer, and is disappointing from Tyson. Then again, if I had my own version of Cosmos coming out next year, I would probably be laying the groundwork like this, too. One thing Sagan didn't have to overcome at the time he made Cosmos was an America that was actively hostile toward science and empirical knowledge.

Why is it disappointing, and what is it about Neil Degrasse Tyson that makes you believe he would identify himself as something he isn't out of fear of being criticized? He said repeatedly that he does not give a fuck and doesn't have the time to give a fuck even if he wanted to.

He clearly said that he dislikes labels because they create a barrier to conversation, he did not say he dislikes labels because people might not like him if he says he says he's an athiest.

Kinitari · Apr 30, 2012

ascii42 said:
Well, Santa's a bit different. For starters, there was an actual Saint Nicholas. There's no real debate there. The general Santa Claus belief involves him delivering toys to children around the world. It is provably false that he does not do this, since you could show that parents/friends/other family were responsible for buying the gifts. If the belief were more along the lines of the spirt of Saint Nicholas filling people with the "Christmas spirit" and made them want to buy other people gifts, then we'd having something unprovable either way.

That I agree with.

Mario · Apr 30, 2012

ascii42 said:
Well, Santa's a bit different. For starters, there was an actual Saint Nicholas. There's no real debate there. The general Santa Claus belief involves him delivering toys to children around the world. It is provably false that he does not do this, since you could show that parents/friends/other family were responsible for buying the gifts. If the belief were more along the lines of the spirt of Saint Nicholas filling people with the "Christmas spirit" and made them want to buy other people gifts, then we'd having something unprovable either way.

So pretty much the same as those who follow Christianity but don't believe in a completely literal account of the Bible?

Seraphinianus · Apr 30, 2012

sounds good. any honest person would admit they don't really know, then forget about it and just live their lives. fuck hardcore "my way or the highway" atheists.

Kinitari · Apr 30, 2012

Seraphinianus said:
sounds good. any honest person would admit they don't really know, then forget about it and live their lives. fuck hardcore "my way or the highway" atheists.

Can you think of any? Or are you talking about anecdotal Atheists? I want to know what prominent atheist is getting everyone so worked up, so if anyone is talking about some famous atheist - please tell me so I can better understand where this vitriol is coming from!

Edit:... After my bar night, ciao people!

GrizzNKev · Apr 30, 2012

Air said:
"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed".

Here is the Sagan quote from his wiki article.

Also thanks gerg, will check that out.

I would say his definition isn't really right, and the reason he stated it that way is very similar to why Tyson did.

I'm an atheist, but I'm also agnostic. I'm exactly what Tyson said he was. I don't believe in a god or gods, so I'm not a theist. What is not a theist? Atheist. I also don't see any evidence for a god, nor evidence against a god, so I'm agnostic on the topic of whether the existence of a god can be proven or disproven. You'll find that an overwhelming number of atheists would agree with this.

It's disappointing to see celebrities not sticking to it for their image, but it's completely understandable why they don't.

Fusebox · Apr 30, 2012

For the sake of consistency I can only hope he is also fairy, unicorn, and teapot-revolving-around-the-Sun agnostic.

PS I still <3 you NDGT.

msv · Apr 30, 2012

Ghost_Protocol said:
He clearly said that he dislikes labels because they create a barrier to conversation, he did not say he dislikes labels because people might not like him if he says he says he's an athiest.

He's asserting other attributes to the label of 'atheist' that are just not there on a proper level of discourse. Labels aren't the issue, assuming other attributes from a label is. Instead of denying the label, the label, and the fact that only the label is attributable should be confirmed. He's contributing to the improper discourse by validating the adding of attributes to that label.

GrizzNKev · Apr 30, 2012

msv said:
He's asserting other attributes to the label of 'atheist' that are just not there on a proper level of discourse. Labels aren't the issue, assuming other attributes from a label is. Instead of denying the label, the label, and the fact that only the label is attributable should be confirmed. He's contributing to the improper discourse by validating the adding of attributes to that label.

Yup. His and Sagan's approach contribute directly to the misconception. Prominent figures such as themselves should be focused on fixing that, not making it worse. Generally, the assertion that "agnostic" is a group/label rather than a descriptor for labels is what fucks the whole thing up.

Raistlin · Apr 30, 2012

Kinitari said:
Can you think of any? Or are you talking about anecdotal Atheists? I want to know what prominent atheist is getting everyone so worked up, so if anyone is talking about some famous atheist - please tell me so I can better understand where this vitriol is coming from!

Edit:... After my bar night, ciao people!

Why would it have to be a 'prominent' atheist?

I suspect most people are referring to when the topic or religion is brought up (either directly or indirectly), and the resident gnostic atheist aggressively goes into some sort of diatribe. It's no less annoying than when a gnostic theist does the same.

GrizzNKev said:
Yup. His and Sagan's approach contribute directly to the misconception. Prominent figures such as themselves should be focused on fixing that, not making it worse. Generally, the assertion that "agnostic" is a group/label rather than a descriptor for labels is what fucks the whole thing up.

The problem though is they are scientists, not philosophers.

cutmeamango · Apr 30, 2012

Kinitari said:
Come back at me when you have a rebuttal! Or you want to concede that Atheism is not defined strictly as a rejection of belief in god, or what I would label as "Gnostic Atheism".

My rebuttal is simple:

This is the greek construction for theist and theism:

Theos + ist
Theos + ism

Theos = God
-ist = that who believes in; that who practices
-ism = belief in, practice of, condition of

So...

Theism = Belief in god ( a denomination to the process of thought )
Theist = That who believes in god ( denominative that indicates a person that processes the thought of )

This YOUR construction of atheism and atheist utilizing the greek construction:

A- = without, absence of, no
Theism
Theist

Atheism: Without [belief in god]
Atheist: Without [that who believes in god]

But the whole point of the suffixes are to form nouns that can demonstrate the action, and the action perfomed by a specific subject/person.

That's why from the etymology dictionary you quote it says it came from the word "Atheos" which was a derrogatory term that has that exact meaning "Without god" "Godless".

So the proper greek constructions are:

A theos ism
A theos ist

The belief in the "absence of" god.
That who believes in the "absence of" god.

---

That's it.
And as I said, I believe this new morphological reading, even if incorrect considering the actual construction, is valid linguistically, and you are free to use it, but to claim it is the correct use morphologically or the others are wrong, please don't. (For you BocoDragon

)

As presented by you, wikitionary even deems that new definition as a 'loosely' interpretation of the word!

Kurdel · Apr 30, 2012

Fusebox said:
For the sake of consistency I can only hope he is also fairy, unicorn, and teapot-revolving-around-the-Sun agnostic.

PS I still <3 you NDGT.

He is definately an atheist of the Judeo Christian personal God and intelligent designer, based on prior quotes.

Kinitari · Apr 30, 2012

Raistlin said:
Why would it have to be a 'prominent' atheist?

I suspect most people are referring to when the topic or religion is brought up (either directly or indirectly), and the resident gnostic atheist aggressively goes into some sort of diatribe. It's no less annoying than when a gnostic theist does the same.

Prominent just so we have some common grounds of discussion, it's hard to discuss someone's personal anecdote.

Air · Apr 30, 2012

GrizzNKev said:
I would say his definition isn't really right, and the reason he stated it that way is very similar to why Tyson did.

I'm an atheist, but I'm also agnostic. I'm exactly what Tyson said he was. I don't believe in a god or gods, so I'm not a theist. What is not a theist? Atheist. I also don't see any evidence for a god, nor evidence against a god, so I'm agnostic on the topic of whether the existence of a god can be proven or disproven. You'll find that an overwhelming number of atheists would agree with this.

It's disappointing to see celebrities not sticking to it for their image, but it's completely understandable why they don't.

I know the current argument for the agnostic atheist/ theist thing. It's not something I agree with completely, but the point of my post is that its not about fear of being rejected from the public or whatever. It seems like an honest position after much thought. This current argument is a little silly though. What good are you going to do by claiming he's an implicit atheist or not? It's not like he's going to change his position because a couple of members on neogaf think he's identifying himself incorrectly.

Seraphinianus · Apr 30, 2012

Kinitari said:
Can you think of any? Or are you talking about anecdotal Atheists? I want to know what prominent atheist is getting everyone so worked up, so if anyone is talking about some famous atheist - please tell me so I can better understand where this vitriol is coming from!

Edit:... After my bar night, ciao people!

reddit.com/r/atheism for the real bottom of the shit barrel

and

individuals you don't know because you probably didn't grow up with me or have been anywhere I've been. you want me to name random names that mean nothing to you?

GrizzNKev · Apr 30, 2012

cutmeamango said:
My rebuttal is simple:

This is the greek construction for theist and theism:

Theos + ist
Theos + ism

Theos = God
-ist = that who believes in; that who practices
-ism = belief in, practice of, condition of

So...

Theism = Belief in god ( a denomination to the process of thought )
Theist = That who believes in god ( denominative that indicates a person that processes the thought of )

This YOUR construction of atheism and atheist utilizing the greek construction:

A- = without, absence of, no
Theism
Theist

Atheism: Without [belief in god]
Atheist: Without [that who believes in god]

But the whole point of the suffixes are to form nouns that can demonstrate the action, and the action perfomed by a specific subject/person.

That's why from the etymology dictionary you quote it says it came from the word "Atheos" which was a derrogatory term that has that exact meaning "Without god" "Godless".

So the proper greek constructions are:

A theos ism
A theos ist

The belief in the "absence of" god.
That who believes in the "absence of" god.

---

That's it.
And as I said, I believe this new morphological reading, even if incorrect considering the actual construction, is valid linguistically, and you are free to use it, but to claim it is the correct use morphologically or the others are wrong, please don't. (For you BocoDragon )

I think we would be better off restricting ourselves to the common and established English meaning rather than entirely reconstructing the case from its Greek base. You have a point, but you'd also have to go out and re-educate the world population for your point to work.

Seraphinianus said:
reddit.com/r/atheism

and

individuals you don't know because you probably didn't grow up with me or have been anywhere I've been. you want me to name random names that mean nothing to you?

Yes. Reddit ruins everything. Reddit also happens to be obsessed with Tyson. This is likely the biggest reason why he said what he said.

Air said:
I know the current argument for the agnostic atheist/ theist thing. It's not something I agree with completely, but the point of my post is that its not about fear of being rejected from the public or whatever. It seems like an honest position after much thought. This current argument is a little silly though. What good are you going to do by claiming he's an implicit atheist or not? It's not like he's going to change his position because a couple of members on neogaf think he's identifying himself incorrectly.

Because this:

His and Sagan's approach contribute directly to the misconception. Prominent figures such as themselves should be focused on fixing that, not making it worse. Generally, the assertion that "agnostic" is a group/label rather than a descriptor for labels is what fucks the whole thing up.

Kinitari · Apr 30, 2012

cutmeamango said:
My rebuttal is simple:

This is the greek construction for theist and theism:

Theos + ist
Theos + ism

Theos = God
-ist = that who believes in; that who practices
-ism = belief in, practice of, condition of

So...

Theism = Belief in god ( a denomination to the process of thought )
Theist = That who believes in god ( denominative that indicates a person that processes the thought of )

This YOUR construction of atheism and atheist utilizing the greek construction:

A- = without, absence of, no
Theism
Theist

Atheism: Without [belief in god]
Atheist: Without [that who believes in god]

But the whole point of the suffixes are to form nouns that can demonstrate the action, and the action perfomed by a specific subject/person.

That's why from the etymology dictionary you quote it says it came from the word "Atheos" which was a derrogatory term that has that exact meaning "Without god" "Godless".

So the proper greek constructions are:

A theos ism
A theos ist

The belief in the "absence of" god.
That who believes in the "absence of" god.

---

That's it.
And as I said, I believe this new morphological reading, even if incorrect considering the actual construction, is valid linguistically, and you are free to use it, but to claim it is the correct use morphologically or the others are wrong, please don't. (For you BocoDragon )

As presented by you, wikitionary even deems that new definition as a 'loosely' interpretation of the word!

Fuck, I hate to admit that you might have a point - but I can't even fully admit it because my knowledge of etymology is extremely simple. I'll think on it when I get drunk and get back to you.

VillageNinja · Apr 30, 2012

The best thing about these threads is exposing just how dickish athiests are. Congratulations you reached the same conclusion of most 13 year olds. No one gives a shit.

BocoDragon · Apr 30, 2012

cutmeamango said:
And as I said, I believe this new morphological reading, even if incorrect considering the actual construction, is valid linguistically, and you are free to use it, but to claim it is the correct use morphologically or the others are wrong, please don't. (For you BocoDragon )

Getting bold text chills here!

VillageNinja said:
The best thing about these threads is exposing just how dickish athiests are. Congratulations you reached the same conclusion of most 13 year olds. No one gives a shit.

^ And from from one of the dickiest posts in the entire thread, no less. You gotta love it!

Raistlin · Apr 30, 2012

Kinitari said:
Prominent just so we have some common grounds of discussion, it's hard to discuss someone's personal anecdote.

Understood. But are you arguing that because a 'prominent' atheist hasn't stood on a soap boxed and preached ... that no atheists do?

People find that kind of atheist annoying from actually having had discussions with them ... not because someone said something dumb on TV.

Seraphinianus said:
jesus christ kinitari, this isn't a hypothetical Nintendo/Sony/Xbox fan that people argue against on the gaming side. Anyone who has spent a day on a college campus has come across "outspoken atheist dude"

lol yeah

Femmeworth · Apr 30, 2012

VillageNinja said:
The best thing about these threads is exposing just how dickish athiests are. Congratulations you reached the same conclusion of most 13 year olds. No one gives a shit.

... what?

Air · Apr 30, 2012

GrizzNKev said:
Because this:

The problem is that they really don't care about the fight that atheists are starting. So this seems really unnecessary.

genjiZERO · Apr 30, 2012

I think that's the right attitude to be had. Like many, I find many atheists to be a bit too obnoxious.

Imm0rt4l · Apr 30, 2012

My sentiments exactly, although I don't care if my beliefs are going to be labeled as atheist, I can't say I'd care for the baggage that comes with being labeled as such. I don't want my stance to be seen as condescending before getting into an argument as I am pretty much a skeptical who doesn't know the answer one way or the other. I'm indifferent and have considered myself agnostic for some time.

Count Dookkake · Apr 30, 2012

cutmeamango said:
My rebuttal is simple:

Hemophiliacs love bleeding, amirite?

Seraphinianus · Apr 30, 2012

jesus christ kinitari, this isn't a hypothetical Nintendo/Sony/Xbox fan that people argue against on the gaming side. Anyone who has spent a day on a college campus has come across "outspoken atheist dude"

Ghost_Protocol · Apr 30, 2012

VillageNinja said:
The best thing about these threads is exposing just how dickish athiests are. Congratulations you reached the same conclusion of most 13 year olds. No one gives a shit.

Nope. The best thing about this thread is it's exactly what NDT said he likes to avoid.

GrizzNKev · Apr 30, 2012

Air said:
The problem is that they really don't care about the fight that atheists are starting. So this seems really unnecessary.

If I may:

VillageNinja said:
The best thing about these threads is exposing just how dickish athiests are. Congratulations you reached the same conclusion of most 13 year olds. No one gives a shit.

genjiZERO said:
I think that's the right attitude to be had. Like many, I find many atheists to be a bit too obnoxious.

Imm0rt4l said:
My sentiments exactly, although I don't care if my beliefs are going to be labeled as atheist, I don't care for the baggage as I'm really indifferent. I don't want my stance to be seen as condescending before getting into an argument as I am pretty much a skeptical who doesn't know the answer one way or the other.

I think you get the point.

I am an atheist. I accept that the definition applies to me. I also accept that I am not an obnoxious dickhead. Am I expected to shy away from referring to myself as what accurately describes me because celebrities contribute to the thought that being an atheist also means being annoying and outspoken?

BocoDragon · Apr 30, 2012

Seraphinianus said:
jesus christ kinitari, this isn't a hypothetical Nintendo/Sony/Xbox fan that people argue against on the gaming side. Anyone who has spent a day on a college campus has come across "outspoken atheist dude"

It reminds me of the sentiment "all potheads are annoying", "all feminists are annoying" etc. I can't blame people for only remembering the sharpest sting, but these people are the tip of much larger "iceburgs" of societal groups. The public perception of "invisible" beliefs is shaped by the rare iconoclasts who start screaming about it

impirius · Apr 30, 2012

Salvor.Hardin said:
Aren't his views on atheists exactly the same type of demagoguery he claims people are prone to use when confronted by a label? You'd think, since he acknowledges it to be a wrong thing to do, he himself would not do it.

This was disappointing. I completely understand Tyson's wish to avoid the negative stigma associated with "atheist" so that he can continue to advocate science to the public at large, but I very much wish he hadn't done more to perpetuate it.

There was a minor kerfuffle over this, to which Tyson responded here.

Kurdel said:
This needs to be on the front page of every single one of these threads.

Yes. Please yes.

VillageNinja · Apr 30, 2012

GrizzNKev said:
If I may:

I think you get the point.

I am an atheist. I accept that the definition applies to me. I also accept that I am not an obnoxious dickhead. Am I expected to shy away from referring to myself as what accurately describes me because celebrities contribute to the thought that being an atheist also means being annoying and outspoken?

Stop self identifying as things. It would be a start.

Raistlin · Apr 30, 2012

VillageNinja said:
The best thing about these threads is exposing just how dickish athiests are. Congratulations you reached the same conclusion of most 13 year olds. No one gives a shit.

Kinitari · Apr 30, 2012

Raistlin said:
Understood. But are you arguing that because a 'prominent' atheist hasn't stood on a soap boxed and preached ... that no atheists do?

People find that kind of atheist annoying from actually having had discussions with them ... not because someone said something dumb on TV.

lol yeah

I Honestly don't know any, really and truly - so when someone says "those atheists" I think of Dawkins, and I would argue that Dawkins isn't preachy at all, or some sort of shove down your throat atheist - but I realize it is unfair for me too assume that, so I ask for clarification.

Seraphinianus · Apr 30, 2012

VillageNinja said:
Stop self identifying as things. It would be a start.

and a ninja gaiden related avatar. marry me!

KHarvey16 · Apr 30, 2012

cutmeamango said:
So the proper greek constructions are:

A theos ism
A theos ist

The belief in the "absence of" god.
That who believes in the "absence of" god.

This conclusion does not follow at all. Frankly I have no idea why you think it does.

Raistlin · Apr 30, 2012

Kinitari said:
I Honestly don't know any, really and truly - so when someone says "those atheists" I think of Dawkins, and I would argue that Dawkins isn't preachy at all, or some sort of shove down your throat atheist - but I realize it is unfair for me too assume that, so I ask for clarification.

I'm confused why you are using personal anecdotes to claim they don't exist, while telling others that anecdotes are not enough?

LogicStep · Apr 30, 2012

Man I love this guy. He is so well spoken and so fucking intelligent.

/boner

I also like Michio Kaku

Rich Uncle Skeleton · Apr 30, 2012

The first minute was painful. "Pssh, labels, man!" Humans categorize things, we attach labels to them. Good luck functioning in a world without labels. If all he means is, "don't stereotype members of a particular group," or "don't think you know everything about someone because they are X," well, yeah, none of us will argue.

Anyway, about this whole semantics debate: The thing is, if you want to define atheist as being someone who is 100% sure that there is no god, great, you've got a definition that applies to approximately zero people. There is a divide worth labeling here: Some people genuinely don't lean one way or the other, and others (like me) think that the existence of god is an extraordinary claim which is unsupported and therefore unlikely to be correct. If I had my way, we'd call the former agnostics and the latter atheists, and the imaginary people who are 100% certain there is no god can go without a label. But as it stands the words are inconsistently used and so no matter which one you say some people will get the wrong impression. I guess I could say agnostic atheist, but I'd feel a little pompous.

genjiZERO · Apr 30, 2012

GrizzNKev said:
If I may:

I think you get the point.

I am an atheist. I accept that the definition applies to me. I also accept that I am not an obnoxious dickhead. Am I expected to shy away from referring to myself as what accurately describes me because celebrities contribute to the thought that being an atheist also means being annoying and outspoken?

I prefer to think of myself as a "non-theist". I simply do not care if "God" exists or not. I find no meaning in either question. In some ways this doesn't make me an Agnostic either, because I don't say "I don't know either way". I say "I don't care either way". But I don't normally go around talking about it - which is why a lot of people are annoyed with atheists. I think it's OK to be an "atheist" and to refer to oneself that way, but unless personally asked, or in an academic pursuit, I don't think it's really appropriate to go around telling the world (I'm not saying you are that way though).

Jenov · Apr 30, 2012

Good video. I don't know if there is a god or not, but I like to hope that there is one because that'd be pretty awesome. And it would just be sad to think that there's nothing at all after death. So I hope that there is something. I guess that makes me Agnostic Theist from that table? But I don't really agree with either of the bottom definitions, sooo I'll just say general Agnostic to cover both.

KarmaCow · Apr 30, 2012

VillageNinja said:
Stop self identifying as things. It would be a start.

...why exactly? We don't need to be slaves to the labels, but the world would be utter chaos without labels.

Kinitari · Apr 30, 2012

Raistlin said:
I'm confused why you are using personal anecdotes to claim they don't exist, while telling others that anecdotes are not enough?

I Never claimed they didn't exist? Just that I don't know any, so to better understand this vitriol, I wanted to know if there were any examples? I didn't even know what particular traits were being derided! I just want to know who or what these atheists are, and I want to see if the hate of these atheists is reasonable.

GrizzNKev · Apr 30, 2012

VillageNinja said:
Stop self identifying as things. It would be a start.

Let's see if we can work this out. "Are you an atheist?" No... "Well do you believe in god?" No... "Then by definition, you're an atheist." BUT I DON'T LIKE LABELS!!!!

See, the thing with this is that it's not some clique whose clothes you have to wear and initiation you have to pass to be a part of the club. It's a definition of a single, binary trait. I don't have to self-identify to be an atheist.

You know who else self-identifies? Neil deGrasse Tyson. People who call themselves "agnostic."

genjiZERO said:
I prefer to think of myself as a "non-theist".

That's exactly the same as saying you're an atheist. That's the issue with this whole labels/groups argument. They don't exist. You're either theist or atheist. They're not devious organizations or joinable factions that compete for first place. The rest of this issue comes from generalizations based on anecdotal cases, and it's the whole reason why people started thinking "agnostic" was some kind of perfect third faction. It's a made up thing for people who believe taking sides hurts feelings, and is purely a twist of language rather than an actual association.

Noirulus · Apr 30, 2012

Rich Uncle Skeleton said:
The first minute was painful. "Pssh, labels, man!" Humans categorize things, we attach labels to them. Good luck functioning in a world without labels. If all he means is, "don't stereotype members of a particular group," or "don't think you know everything about someone because they are X," well, yeah, none of us will argue.

Anyway, about this whole semantics debate: The thing is, if you want to define atheist as being someone who is 100% sure that there is no god, great, you've got a definition that applies to approximately zero people. There is a divide worth labeling here: Some people genuinely don't lean one way or the other, and others (like me) think that the existence of god is an extraordinary claim which is unsupported and therefore unlikely to be correct. If I had my way, we'd call the former agnostics and the latter atheists, and the imaginary people who are 100% certain there is no god can go without a label. But as it stands the words are inconsistently used and so no matter which one you say some people will get the wrong impression. I guess I could say agnostic atheist, but I'd feel a little pompous.

This is how I feel. Very little people who label themselves as Atheists would say with 100% certainty that god does not exist.

I'm very much an Agnostic Atheist, as far as the true definitions go, but in public i'm not sure I want to say that.

cutmeamango · Apr 30, 2012

GrizzNKev said:
I think we would be better off restricting ourselves to the common and established English meaning rather than entirely reconstructing the case from its Greek base. You have a point, but you'd also have to go out and re-educate the world population for your point to work.

But the words and meaning do not stem from English nor is the English language a monolith of correct meanings to all words.

Kinitari said:
Fuck, I hate to admit that you might have a point - but I can't even fully admit it because my knowledge of etymology is extremely simple. I'll think on it when I get drunk and get back to you.

Don't get too drunk or my bolds will get in the way of your reading.

BocoDragon said:
Getting bold text chills here!

Aiming for the thrills!

Count Dookkake said:
Hemophiliacs love bleeding, amirite?

I don't know if this is supposed to be a supportive (humorous) or contrarian (sarcastic) remark.
But a quick search demonstrates that yes, the condition of hemophilia was given that name as 'love to blood/bleed' as in 'a tendency to bleed'. ('Damn, his body must love to bleed since it doesn't coagulate!')
And -ac is a suffix that formed adjectives with the meaning "refers to; pertains to"

So an hemophiliac would be he who 'pertains to' the condition of 'tendency to bleed'.

KHarvey16 said:
This conclusion does not follow at all. Frankly I have no idea why you think it does.

It does man, the suffixes (-ist and -ism) are ignored in your reconstruction of the words, just to be used to point what they do again.

Like this, You:
[Theos][ist] = God + he who believes in
[A][Theist] = No + "He who believes in God" =? One that does not believe in god but not necessarily rejects it.

Correct:
[Theos][ist] = God + he who believes in
[(A)(Theos)][ist] = No god + he who believes in

And you can see in a past Kinitari post, the word stems from a previous word "Atheos" which as used as a derrogatory name for those "without god" or "godless".

VillageNinja · Apr 30, 2012

GrizzNKev said:
Let's see if we can work this out. "Are you an atheist?" No... "Well do you believe in god?" No... "Then by definition, you're an atheist." BUT I DON'T LIKE LABELS!!!!

See, the thing with this is that it's not some clique whose clothes you have to wear and initiation you have to pass to be a part of the club. It's a definition of a single, binary trait. I don't have to self-identify to be an atheist.

You know who else self-identifies? Neil deGrasse Tyson. People who call themselves "agnostic."

I think the point of his statement was that he basically doesn't give a shit, doesn't spend time thinking about something he'll never fully understand in his life time and thus doesn't identify as anything. But since he HAS to give an answer, he chose a term that best describes his ambivalence on the matter. It's really that simple.

Otherwise I don't know wtf you're talking about honestly.

Raistlin · Apr 30, 2012

Kinitari said:
I Never claimed they didn't exist? Just that I don't know any, so to better understand this vitriol, I wanted to know if there were any examples? I didn't even know what particular traits were being derided! I just want to know who or what these atheists are, and I want to see if the hate of these atheists is reasonable.

Have you ever run into someone who tries to convert you to see the light? Basically doing the opposite.

Another type ... have you ever been in a discussion and religion gets brought in ... and even if they aren't directly trying to convert you, they can't shut up in explaining how obviously god exists, blah blah blah? Again, basically does the opposite.

They're as preachy, annoying, and off-putting as someone going on and on about theism.

Count Dookkake · Apr 30, 2012

cutmeamango said:
I don't know if this is supposed to be a supportive (humorous) or contrarian (sarcastic) remark.
But a quick search demonstrates that yes, the condition of hemophilia was given that name as 'love to blood/bleed' as in 'a tendency to bleed'. ('Damn, his body must love to bleed since it doesn't coagulate!')
And -ac is a suffix that formed adjectives with the meaning "refers to; pertains to"

So an hemophiliac would be he who 'pertains to' the condition of 'tendency to bleed'.

Nope. You don't get to interpret the usage of the root words.

They obviously love bleeding, because that's what the root words say.

Valnen · Apr 30, 2012

ElectricBlue187 said:
he's absolutely right

Yup. He explained exactly why I think atheism is stupid and close minded.

Support NeoGAF

Neil DeGrasse Tyson: "Agnostic"

Banned

Member

Black Canada Mafia

Sidhe / PikPok

Banned

Black Canada Mafia

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Post Count: 9999

Banned

Banned

Black Canada Mafia

Banned

Banned

Banned

Black Canada Mafia

Banned

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious

Post Count: 9999

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious

Member

Banned

Post Count: 9999

Black Canada Mafia

Banned

Member

Post Count: 9999

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Black Canada Mafia

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Post Count: 9999

Member

Member

Similar threads