I'm just a lurker
Achilles achillesz@usa.net
Tue, 2 Feb 1999 00:21:03 -0500 (00917954463, 05185989614618@unifour.com)
On 1 Feb 99, at 22:02, Farrell Till wrote:
> At 03:08 PM 2/1/99 -0500, Achilles wrote:
>
> >If Till wants to use "atheist" with the non-standard meaning he ascribes to
> it,
> >that's his choice to make. I am no English-snob that will argue the "correct"
> >meaning of a term - in fact I find those who do to be quite annoying. I would
> >only suggest that if he, or you, or anyone else, insists on using a word in a
> >sense which is not consistent with common usage you should keep in mind the
> >fact that most people will not understand it the way that you mean it, and you
> >should not be surprised or offended by their misunderstanding.
> >
>
> TILL
> I was going to drop this matter, Achilles, but enough is enough. The
Achilles
I had dropped the matter, till what's his name chose to bring it back up. Your
phrasing ("enough is enough") leads me to believe you found my post to be
insulting or provoking in some way? I assure you it was not so intended, and I
am at a loss to understand why you would read it that way.
Till
> "nonstandard meaning" that you say I am ascribing to the word is the sense
> that most atheists ascribe to the word. This word has probably been
> vilified about as much as any word in the English language, and there are
> even some atheists who are reluctant to use it because of the negative
> connotations that have been given to it by lexicographers who have been
> essentially theistic in their views. Hence, they saw atheists as "bad"
> people. Some dictionaries even equate atheism with immorality.
>
> Now as for your insistence that I don't know what I am talking about and am
Achilles
When did I insist that you don't know what you are talking about? Such a
statement is not one I remember making, or would suspect myself of making, I
think I have made it clear that I have deep respect for you.
Till
> therefore trying to apply a "nonstandard" meaning to the word, I have before
> me Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. That's one of those big
> suckers that you usually find it libraries. It gives the etymology of
> atheism as "from Gr. atheos, without a god." That's why I asked you to
> study the etymology of the word. If a person is "without a god," does that
> necessary mean that he believes that gods don't exist? Are you aware that
> there is a word "atheous," which means "not taking god into account"? Would
> someone who is "atheous" necessarily be someone who declares that gods don't
> exist?
Achilles
I think if you will read the post you replied to more carefully you will find a
tacit, possibly even an explicit, understanding that your use of the word is
defensible. That was never the issue. I have no doubt that the larger
unabridged dictionaries will recognize your usage as one of several. But it is
clearly not the most common one, it is not the one that a typical (abridged)
dictionary will give.
So while your usage of the term is defensible, by using it you render your
meaning less obvious than it might otherwise be, and invite the sort of
confusion Jason exhibited. If you have some overriding reason to use the term
to carry the less common meaning, then by all means do so. All I ask is that
you recognize that this can cause confusion, and be prepared to explain your
usage so that the readers can understand you. Is not the purpose of language to
communicate?
Till
> An interesting study for you would be to take an unabridged dictionary and
> run through the words that are derived from adding the Greek prefix "a" to
> root words. You would find "amoral" for example. An amoral person is one
> who is "not concerned with moral standards" or "not to be judged by criteria
> of morality," but such a person would have to be rather stupid to argue that
> morals simply do not exist, because obviously they do. You would find also
> the word "atechnic," which means "not having technical knowledge," but would
> the fact that I may be atechnic mean that technics don't exist? I could
> continue this, but I have said enough to make my point. I'll end with this
> note: Webster's also gives "godlessness in belief or as a guide in conduct"
> as a definition of theism. I am godless in my belief because I have no
> belief in gods, but that is not the same as if I should adamantly assert
> that gods do not exist.
>
> You need to upgrade your understanding of this word, Achilles. On this
> point, I'm afraid you have carried over from Christianity what you were
> indoctrinated to think.
Achilles
I think I understand the word full well, and I think my previous post made it
clear that I understand that the sense you use it in is defensible and not
without precedent.
My point was and remains only that it is not the sense that the word carries in
common usage, and thus you should not be offended or surprised if some
misunderstand your meaning.
Somehow I find it difficult to believe that we really disagree on this. You
seem to be hearing a bunch of things I am not saying.
/Achilles achillesz@usa.net
All rights reserved.
Random thought for the moment:
Morality is your agreement with yourself to abide by your own
rules.
-- Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land