You've hit on a pet peeve of mine.

I think words derived from linguistic parts should be required to keep at least some connection to their etymology.  Otherwise, why use for example Latin, Greek or French at all?  A perfect example is the definition of atheism.  Clearly, this word can be divided 2 ways: a + theism or atheos + ism.  Anyone with a fundamental understanding of how words are put together will recognize this, will say which meaning they are referring to, and will  hopefully move on to discuss more interesting ideas.  

I believe that any dispute over a word should start with its appearance into English, its development into new meanings, and whether a meaning beyond its linguistic roots was ever justified.  Just because a dictionary has a meaning listed doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good one, or that any intelligent person should use it.

I'll tell you what else drives me crazy, since I'm now venting: Wikipedia.  People are constantly going to wikipedia for meanings of words, then crowing "See, I told you so."  Recently, in discussing free will, someone told me sentience was any physical system with an organized relationship between input data and and output behavior.  Ridiculous, says I.  Then comes the link: "See, I told you so, that is what it means in science" as if a few scientists' lab definition of a term for the purpose of experimentation has miraculously made it the new truth of our reality.  When I informed the person that "sent" means "feeling," and that it should be used for people and maybe animals, on the principle that since I feel, I might reasonably assume that other living things do too, I was faced with open mockery: "Words change.  Words evolve.  They mean whatever people want them to mean."  No.  They.  Don't.

This is NOT okay.  It's a product of a growing middle-class with a poor English education but with a vague sense that they are educated, extending the power of democracy into an area where the majority really should not rule.  There are patterns to things, like verbs, or like words derived from Greek and Latin, that some people can't see due to ignorance.  I don't mean that in a derogatory way-- I mean that they don't know what the patterns are.  I will NOT let these people rewrite the language just because they are the majority-- that would make it impossible for anyone with a brain to carry on a meaningful conversation.

And that, in my opinion, is doubleplusungood.

/rant

PS if this thread is a response to anything you've said in debate with me, please remember that words mean whatever people want them to, and I have a wiki link to prove that my meaning is the right one.

Now that is the type of language discussion we should be having.  It's so much more educational than:

-"Atheism" means only a lack of belief in God.

-Okay, my beagle is atheist.

-*headslap* no it only applies if you can comprehend the concept of God.

-Your momma's an atheist.

Made a video about this a while ago. Hope it helps. Long story short: Some words/concepts are more useful than others. Use the ones that are most useful, and if you want to avoid an argument over definitions, then build a 'bridge' between your language/word/concept to the other person's language/word/concept. Then you can both use the words as you mean them (like Humpty Dumpty ) and who cares what the 'right' definition is? Words are just tools for communication after all. The 'right' definition is the one you intend to convey. Dictionaries only list popular word usages, not 'official' definitions.

(Obviously, this requires that the other person is dialoguing in good faith and is intellectually honest. For example, if you're arguing with a thick-headed creationist or a pomotard, then they'll refuse to accept your bridge and attempting to communicate will be pretty much pointless. But them's the breaks if you're talking to such a person in the first place.)

Oops I'm not sure we're on the same page, after all.  "Theism" as I understand it is theos + ism, with the cut letters just being a product of the process of joining.  Atheism means:

1)  (a + theos) + ism = atheism = believe there's no God.

2)  a + (theos + ism) = atheism = lack of belief in God.

Although I have to concede that in English, we're probably more sensitive to prefixes than suffixes.  So most would probably take "atheism" to mean "not theism."

Has anyone here actually studied enough Latin to know how multi-part words are ordered and formed, and how Latin thinkers would deal with issues like this?  I'd be interested in knowing more-- just no wiki links please.

I agree with this sentiment completely.  It would be so much better if people tried to understand each others' ideas, and respond to them.

And yet, sometimes nitpicking seems unavoidable.  For example, when asked if I believe in God, and I say I'm agnostic, outrage inevitably follows, though I really just want to express the idea that I don't know whether God exists.  Would you accept my assertion that I'm not an atheist, because I don't know what I think about the question?

Experience tells me that I must now lubricate my posterior and hope the pain is minimal.

Let's look at this differently.  Do you believe in a god?  I used to consider myself agnostic also, but when you question the core of the meaning... well I now just say I'm atheist when asked.  What I actually believe is much more complicated than one word would describe, though 'atheist' fits me better than any other.  Or agnostic atheist, which I believe is what you may be.

Also, for my 2 cents in language, I was 15 when I was introduced to English, and most of my learning was contextual.  I didn't have the luxury of detailed study until later.  I tend to lean towards what Beyond has said regarding meaning simply because I'm biased towards it.  Since I'm also anal, I do tend to nitpick, however.  It is a delicate balance, and when I am in an immigrant community, which is often, I grow frustrated at way English is rapped and pissed on, but as long as I understand the person, communication has occurred.  Isn't that the point of language?

Thanks, your video was helpful.  

I imagine that as long as I call myself and agnostic atheist I'm going to have to talk about the meaning of these two words many more times.  Based on that assumption I don't really feel any pressing need to talk about it now.  

Theos is the Greek term for God."a" is the negation. It's usage was like our term "godless'...Those are a godless people....applied for example to a tribe who had many gods but not the right one like Zeus or later in Christianity... the Christian God.

What thread? post the link, I would be interested to read it.

Yeah, see, if you had watched the video, I covered all that, so ... what the heck is your point again?

You are reading/hearing things I did not say. Although the speaker has a definite responsibility for how effectively he conveys the message, the listener also has a responsibility to try to read/hear the speaker's intended message. Communication requires both parties to work. It would help if you quote (or point out the timestamp) what I said specifically that you're taking issue with. Honestly I don't know where your reaction is coming from.

Uhhhh.... Like I said in the video, you build a bridge so that the other person understands your meaning when you use the word. If they say, "You can't use the word like that!!!" you inform them that they are an idiotic language Nazi and find someone more reasonable to discuss things with. Or, you say, "If you don't want to hear what I mean, that's your problem, but I use the word my way because it works better for my needs. So, tough noogies."

It all comes down to this: Some words/concepts are more useful than others. Eventually, the more useful ones will win out, because they are more useful.

You are basically arguing that understanding etymology (a conceptual framework about the origins and relations between words and their parts) is useful and so we should prefer to use word roots (from your example) because they help in understanding and communicating ideas.

Gee. That's exactly what I said in the video: Some words/concepts are more useful than others, and we should use the most useful ones. You are in what is called 'violent agreement' with me.

The only issue is how to resolve the situation when one person's preferred word is confusingly different from another's. That's the whole point of the bridge metaphor.

I tend to use 'quotes' to indicate that a word or phrase I'm using should be understood in a particular context. I'll spell it out for you here: There is no 'right' definition in the sense of an official orthodox definition of a word which is 'right' by fiat or tradition. A definition is only right to the extent that it is useful. If old words (e.g. Greek, Latin) and their roots attain a status as having a de facto standard meaning, it is usually because that meaning has been useful in the past. So they will very likely remain useful in continued use. But when times change and their usefulness shifts around, it is not their de facto 'right' meaning which should be preserved, but their tried-and-true pragmatically useful meaning(s) which should be preserved (or adopted).

Just to really piss you off (JK ), here's a wiki link about the word 'Word', which is actually 'Logos' in Greek: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

To get Logos straight, it may be useful (see?) to see where it is used in modern English: Biology (the logos of life), psychology (logos of mind), sociology (logos of societies).

Also: Logic, logarithm.

It originally meant simply 'word', as in a literal or spoken word, but it started to gain connotations of 'reason', 'knowledge', 'order', 'structure', 'organization', and later 'the study of', so that people think of biology as the study of life. But it would just as well be considered the logic of life, or the structure and order of the knowledge of life. Today, we often combine all that into the science of life, and indeed Logos as the ancient Greeks used it was well-connected to the precursors of science.

In classical education, Logos (also called dialectic in this context) is one of the Trivium, the three major areas of study, the other two being grammar and rhetoric. Furthermore, in classical rhetoric, Logos (clear reasoning in this context) is one of the three main modes of persuasion, the other two being Pathos (emotional appeal) and Ethos (personal credibility or authority).

Logos (reason), IMO, is distinct from Sophia (wisdom), so that philosophy (philosophia) is more broad and humanistic than mere rhetorical ability (often more rationalization than rationality, in practice) or mere knowledge or study.

Note that in the Bible, God is Logos, and Sophia has no place in the religion (being of a more feminine connotation due to Greek grammar). God is Reason, not Wisdom.

Interestingly, there was/are myths about Sophia, Goddess of Wisdom personified, often referred to simply as Wisdom in English. Apparently (haven't read anything on this) there was even a myth of Sophia in Gnostic Christianity. But of course, the church could brook no goddesses in its patriarchy.

http://www.catherinecollegelibrary.net/classic/swidler3.asp

Probably from around this time onward a colony of Jews lived at Elephantine, Egypt. From their papyrus letters and documents of the late fifth century we know that not only did the Jewish women as well as the men contribute money to the Temple and that the women could divorce their spouses as well as the men could, but also that in the Temple along with Yahu (as Yahweh was addressed there) the Goddess Anathbethel was also worshiped.(18) In another Elephantine document the Goddess Anath is apparently referred to as the consort of Yahweh: “He swore to Meshullam b. Nathan by Yahu the God, by the Temple and by Anathyahu.”

After the return of the Jewish people to Jerusalem from the Babylonian exile the public worship of the Goddess seems to have been successfully suppressed, being relegated largely to feminine manifestations of God as in the post-exilic wisdom books’ praise of the feminine Hokmah or Sophia. Wisdom, and the growing reference to God’s feminine Presence, Shekinah an Aramaic term first found after the beginning of the Christian era in Rabbinic and Targumic writings. One of the high-cost ways this was accomplished was by the banning of intermarriage. By this time Jewish women in any case could not marry non-Jews; Jewish men also were not supposed to marry non-Jewish women, though in fact they did. The reason foreign wives were not to be taken is that they were seen as thc source of corrupting Goddess worship, e.g., Jezebel and her worship of Asherah. This enforcement of the Deuteronomic prohibition (Dt 7:1-4) took the drastic form of the divorce and driving out by the Jewish men of their non-Jewish wives and children!

The post-exilic Jewish literature, wisdom, apocalyptic and rabbinic, exhibits a growing restriction of women, a hostility toward them and a preoccupation with illegitimate sex as the source of all evil. E.g., the third century Ecclesiastes says “I find woman more bitter than death; she is a snare, her heart a net, her arms are chains” (Eccles 7:26). Second-century Ben Sira has much negative to say about women; thc following is a small sampling: “For a moth comes out of clothes, and woman’s spite out of woman” (Ecclus 25:26); “Any spite rather than the spite of a woman” (25:13); “A man’s spite is preferable to a woman’s kindness; women give rise to shame and reproach” (42:13f.); “No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman, may a sinner’s lot be hers” (25:19), “Sin began with a woman, and thanks to her we all must die” (25:24). Around the year 100 B.C. Jewish apocalyptic literature flourished; it was decidedly negative toward women and sex. The Book of Jubilees, for example, suggested that every woman is a nymphomaniac: “For all their deeds are fornication and lust, and there is no righteousness with them, for their deeds are evil” (25:1). The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs reflects the same attitude: “For women are evil, my children; and since they have no power or strength over man, they use wiles by outward attractions, that they may draw him to themselves. And whom they cannot bewitch by outward attractions, him they overcome by craft” (Testament of Reuben 5:1f.). The Essenes are said by Philo to refuse marriage “because a woman is a selfish creature, excessively jealous and an adept at beguiling the morals of her husband and seducing him by her continued impostures.”

Also:

http://astro.temple.edu/~swidler/swidlerbooks/biblical-affirmation.htm

§5. Hebrew Goddess at Elephantine

Probably from around this time onward a colony of Jews lived at Elephantine, Egypt, an island in the Nile river, opposite Aswan, about four hundred miles south of Cairo. From their papyrus letters and documents of the late fifth century B.C.E. we know not only that the Jewish women as well as men contributed money to the Temple, and that the women could divorce their spouses as well as the men could, but also that in the Temple along with Yahu (as Yahweh was addressed there) the goddess Anathbethel was also worshiped (Arthur E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., p. 72; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923).

The name Anath-Bethel literally means “Anath the House of El [the God of Heaven]”-cf. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, p. 72. Since in Hebraic culture a wife is referred to as the husband’s “house,” this name suggests that the goddess Anath was understood as the “God of Heaven’s” consort. This is further confirmed by the fact that Yahu (derived from a variant of an older spelling of Yahweh) is called the “God of Heaven” in the same Elephantine papyri (ibid., p. 114) and that Anath is often referred to as the “Lady of Heaven,” especially in Egyptian culture (see Patai, Hebrew Goddess, p. 55). Still further, the Jewish writings of Elephantine also include an oath to Yahu and to Anath, “consort of Yahu”: “He swore to Mesbullam b. Nathan by Yahu the God, by the temple and by Anathyahu” (Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, p. 148). (Alternatively, Kraeling suggests that Bethel in Anath-Bethel is simply an alternative name for Yahu, and offers reasons-Emil G. Kraeling, ed., The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri, pp. 88-90; Yale University Press, 1953.)

Moreover, it is likely that refugees from Bethel, some fourteen miles north of Jerusalem, played an important part in the development of this syncretistic worship in Elephantine Judaism, for Bethel was known not only as a place where Yahweh was early worshiped; Bethel was a place where later the Goddess was also worshiped, as indicated by the calf image there (cf. e.g., Hos 10:5-the cow, the calf, was a symbol of the Goddess, the source of life, fertility; see James, Cult of the Mother Goddess, p. 8 1). After describing temples of the Goddess and of Yahweh alongside each other at Tell-en-Nasbeb in Palestine, Edwin O. James goes on to state:

This equipment suggests that it was a centre of the Goddess cult where Astarte was worshipped, probably in later times alongside of Yahweh at the neighbouring shrine, possibly as his consort. If this were so, the goddesses under Canaanite names (e.g., Anath-Yahu comparable to Yo-Elat in Ugaritic texts) assigned to Yahweh in the Jewish community at Elephantine after the Exile can hardly have been an innovation. (James, Cult of the Mother Goddess, p. 80)

Hi OPY,

Yes, language does change. We went through an old, middle, and modern English. Greek went through 4 stages. This is all normal in the indo-Eupureon means of languages.

But we are not to pour in modern meanings with old definitions. For example, when John spoke of the term WORLD, we are not suppose to pour into what 21st century thinking is on world. We are to understand what world meant in 1st century Ad and specifically what John meant.

We are also not to use etymological definitions when we speak lest we comitt the etymological fallacy.

We are to use what the language means via context and modern usage. This is known as usus loquendi.

However, the term atheist etymologically could refer to "Instead of Theism" or the negation of theism as more correct of a notion. This is what was meant. Again, we must understand this term according to the Greeks via Greek Philosophy, and not TG Baker who was a stoner and hippie and smokes the cannabas with his chlldren. No offense TG Baker, I call them as they are. lol.

But what is comes down to is simple. It does not come down to syntax or grammar (PER SA) or even morphology. Though these are all needed. The correct understanding comes down to CONTEXT.

The term nice etymologically speaking meant that you're an idiot. So perhaps I ought to have made a thread that said God thinks you're Nice. (LOL).

But dictionaries deal with a TYPE of definition. Not the only type of definition. And if that, the definition is limited. For example, if we were discussing the definition of freeWill, the Webster's dictionary may be an okay place to start, but not to end.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

HEY MODERATOR WHEN IT COMES TO HIM SAYING THINGS ABOUT MY FAMILY I HOPE YOU PAY ATTENTION> HE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT MY WIFE ONCE. HE CAN GO OR I WILL. there is simply no excuse for such absurdities.

Thanks, TG,

glad to see every post of yours - apart from what they have to say, it means you are still around....

I would like to add a slight but important clarification to one of my paragraphs on 'words':

"We acquire our understanding of how and where to use all the words we come across from reading, listening, and communicating with others, where we both consciously and sub-consciously adjust our sense of each word and phrase as we encounter them, in each context, and attempt to use them to communicate with others."

Hehe

I was looking for a word that would be a case in point for the OP.  Guess I picked the right one with "atheist!"

I think it's very difficult to assume that people can infer each other's "intended meaning," since intentions can change throughout a debate.  How often do you see, after a 20-page thread, someone saying, "Oh, well sure if you use THAT meaning your position makes sense, but only a dummy would use THAT meaning.  Of course, I was talking about THIS meaning. . ."

It's probably best in a formal debate to force people to agree on all the terms before beginning.  The problem with an online forum is that usually nobody knows it's going to become a formal debate until you're 20 pages in.  In other words, it may be the nature of forums that every major thread has to end in semantics and name-calling.

@TG Baker

Thanks for the history lesson.  It's interesting to think that early Christians may have been the original "atheists."

@Jean Chauvin

Since I was asking about word roots, I've focused on the earlier history.  However, I'm interested in theology in general and I may ask about the reformation etc. later.  Also interesting.

Jean,

as I have said before, you inhabit a mental world of concepts which has little or no alignment with those which I and most others I engage with here more-or-less share, so I have long since decided it is futile to attempt to engage with you seriously.

Yes, you have refuted stuff, but only within your own peculiar and idiosyncratic personal context, which from my viewpoint has little contact with reality.

If it works for you, cool.

I have a fully developed, and very different (AFAICS) world-view, which works very well for me, and which I continue to refine, and which many people have assured me they find helpful and insightful when I express it regarding topics they are into.

I try to listen to people who have different points of view, as that can often expand my own understanding, but it really only works when there is at least some useful degree of common understanding between us. Otherwise we just talk past each other, or argue, or worse.

Unfortunately, I see little common ground between my PoV and yours, based on past and more recent exchanges. I have far more fruitful exchanges, even with Wowsers1, it seems to me. Even if it just to learn something of yet another variation on the God concept. I have learnt as much as seems worth knowing about yours.

So that is why I will probably continue to mostly ignore you, unless you seem to be making some genuinely new and interesting points.

Hi Bob,

Anyway, when I first came on this site, I assumed that most on here were trained in logic and had a basic understanding of things. I quickly learned that this was not true. So I had to dumb down the argument just so many (most) could simply keep up.

You admit that I have refuted things. WOW. Honest.

So you're taking the "To each their own" approach to life now? Wow. You weren't like that when I first met you. So you are now a relativist? Sapient calls himself an atheist agnostic (very funny).

I have a feeling that you are going to wander off into the New Age Movement or something in the near future. You may deny, but that seems to be the road you are going down.

So Mote It Be!

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Reminded me of this song.  I was in a university choir that performed this.  The entire piece is very difficult - and we had a Jewish choir director who insisted proper Hebrew pronunciation. The song is usually performed by a boy soprano, but this contratenor is outstanding.

For that matter, SQRT (1-1-1)=1i

hehe, it's all relative, and I like wiki damn it.

Context dictates relevance, in an ideal world you would define the key terms in the argument prior to.  But for the purpose of communication context would dictate which meaning of the word has more relevance, even if that meaning happened to be the popularly incorrect meaning.  

Okay, here's an example I'm curious what you guys think about.  I was involved in a long argument about sentience: what is it, is it material, etc.  I was arguing that sentience is experiential, and that the physical mechanism was irrelevant to the experience (exept for possibly causing it).  Some guy came along and "corrected" me.  He informed me that since there's no way to prove feeling in anyone, it's necessary to define it in terms of information processing.  "BS," quoth I, "Sentience comes from a root meaning 'feeling.'  No definition can work unless it involves someone/thing experiencing."  He got angry and came up with the: "While, meanings change and this is the only definition that makes sense according to science."

This offends me.  I know that science uses a material view.  I know that many people view consciousness as a purely material process.  But to take the feeling out of a word that means "feeling" seems a bit 1984 to me.  Better just to relegate the word to the trash heap and make a new word, I think.  Anyone else?