But I submit that the reason no one seems to be taking your distinction all that seriously is that it rests upon the same category error that (at least the standard reading of) Descartes’ ontological argument makes: namely, you’re trying to make existence into a property.

Properly speaking, though, I don’t have beliefs about existence or nonexistence. My beliefs are about whether anything in the world counts as an instantiation of a particular set of properties. So the theist’s claim about God would look something like:

∃x(Ax & Bx & Cx & … Zx)

where A, B, C, etc. are the various properties that God is purported to possess (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, etc.).

To say that that proposition is true is not to say that you believe God has the property of existing. And to claim that it is false is similarly not to say that you believe God has the property of non-existence. Because, of course, existence is a quantifier and not a property at all. So I don’t really have any sorts of beliefs about existence and/or non-existence. I only have beliefs about whether or not there is a particular thing that instantiates a particular set of properties.

As it happens, I think that the proposition listed above is in fact false. And I think that on the grounds that (a) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, (b) existential arguments for God’s existence are mostly hand-waving at things like Prime Movers or anthropic principles that, even if they actually worked, wouldn’t actually show that Prime Mover or the Designer or what have you is the thing that possesses the properties of God, and (c) the various versions of the ontological argument didn’t work for St. Anselm in the 13th C and haven’t gotten any better since.

But that doesn’t entail that I have some active belief in the non-existence of God. Non-existence isn’t a property about which I can have beliefs. And anyone who has such a belief is making the same category mistake that people who accept (most versions of) the ontological argument make.

Of course, I suppose that you could instead opt for just rejecting 20th C analytic philosophy, dropping predicate calculus and hold on to Meinongian notion of existence. But it hardly seems fair to define “atheism” in such a way as to require all its adherents to adopt what many (most?) philosophers would consider a category error.

I don’t believe he exists D I can’t reject what I don’t believe exists.

If you have no belief about the non-existence of God but only a non-belief towards God then you are an atheist is the negative/weak/soft sense.

For all practical purposes, I do not believe in god.

I would clarify my reasons for this distinction but it hasn’t stuck with most of the audience yet, and I don’t expect another attempt to help. There is a principled and important difference. I’m just tired of trying to explain it.

If “most of the audience” doesn’t even see a distinction (i.e. they have a set understanding and definition of the terms), then there’s really no point in correcting them. It’s not like the word has some completely different meaning from what people understand it to mean; it’s just technicality, splitting hairs, due to the fact that the word has taken on some subcultural significance. I still find it hard to believe that anyone is considering this a real “issue.”

I mean, you even acknowledge that there are different degrees to atheism (”soft/weak,” etc.). It’s really not practical to expect someone to explain the full scope of their views with just one label or word; as I believe it’s been said recently, nobody expects a Christian (or anyone else, for that matter) to be able to concisely pinpoint their views with just one word. And nobody’s arguing that we should start labeling Christians with all sorts of subtitles and subcultural categories….that would make discussions much more time-consuming and hassling. Besides, details like that are easily cleared up through a few moments of intelligent conversation — if you don’t have the time to question someone on what they think for just a few minutes, then why bother with them at all?

The only people I can really see having a genuine problem with this are people who do those “drive-by conversions” on the internet; if the word used to describe a person’s belief doesn’t give them enough information, then they can’t pretend to know in advance what the other person believes, and so they can’t preach to them effectively without a proper dialogue (which drive-bys are weak against).

I would clarify my reasons for this distinction but it hasn’t stuck with most of the audience yet, and I don’t expect another attempt to help. There is a principled and important difference. I’m just tired of trying to explain it.

But more to the point, I’m not so much faulting atheists for “not playing fair” as I am for being ignorant of the predominant and standard meaning of their self-proclaimed titles. I’m aware of the different kinds of definitions (precising, stipulative, theoretical, etc.). I employ etymology because etymology matters when people wrongly use it. For example, Atheism=a-theism, a lack of ‘theism.’ I have heard debaters use this would-be etymology in defining their position on atheism ignorant that that that’s not how the term has developed. It is instead a-theos=atheos, “godless” which is translated from Greek into atheist. In turn, if I’m going to call myself “Christian” I should not say “Christian” first arose as a term of veneration for early followers of Christ, since it was first a term of derision. I’m being dishonest to present its history wrongly.

Etymology does affect subsequent definitions, but not in a controlling or overriding way. As for taking the term from a merely “philosophical” or “etymological” definition I quote an authoritative source for the English language:

Oxford English Dictionary
“atheism: (from Greek atheos, ‘without God, denying God’) Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).”

Neither “disbelief” nor “denial” are the kind of “non-belief” that you seem to be implying as a/the going definition for atheism today. So in this case, contrary to your implication, the etymology does not differ widely from the “philosophical” definition or the standard definitions.

I readily admit that there are different brands of atheism extant today, but the going “default” definition, and the presumed standard definition that needs no adjectives has itself shifted from the standard dictionary definitions, unbeknownest to many atheists. This makes communication difficult, and for atheists themselves it makes atheism a safer category than it actually is. One can carry the prestige and apparent conviction of “atheist” when holding merely to agnosticism (or soft atheism). One position requires defense and conviction, the can rest in neutrality. One sounds bold and impressive, the other sounds soft and evasive. No disrespect to agnostics, I would be one myself if theism proved false. But it is an intellectually safer ground than atheism.

In short, it’s a good principle to live by that: people should know what position they hold and why, and be able to communicate it clearly. I expect the same ready apologetic for my students, as I would ask for any would-be intellectual, interlocutor, or debate opponent. Using a standarized term in a non-standard way demands some qualification to avoid miscommunication.

Of course, it would be rather silly of me to argue in that way. Words shift their meanings.

More to the point, though, you appear to be conflating a bunch of very distinct sorts of things. Of course a philosophical definition is likely to differ from a word’s etymology. Philosophers (particularly the analytic philosophers you cite here) engage in precising stipulative definitions. Etymology tells us about historical definitions. I fail to see why the fact that the former doesn’t neatly track the latter should be at all relevant.

If, OTOH, your main point here is just that there are lots of different varieties of atheism, then that certainly seems true, if a bit obvious. It’s not exactly news that there are lots of different types of theist. Why should it come as any shock that there are lots of varieties of atheists, too?

Any good points worth noting in it? Does she take a particular track in the course of her presentation? I imagine its popular level, but does it have any good arguments or new thoughts to share on the subject?

I think I know that guy

Also, I would add that some ex-christians are not even that kind about God to say that he is a “mirage.” some ex-christians suggest that God is a malevolent notion deliberately invented to deceive and control the masses.

To Lizeth: How do you know that people who don’t believe in God are “truly running on empty?” Ex-Christians say that God is a mirage and believers are running on empty.

This must be one of those times where my “internal moral compass” tells me that you are dead wrong…..:D

That’s a good site, very helpful stuff. But it does not really address my argument. However I may use some of the terms where I find equivocation occuring. It is generally helpful to have 2 or 3 synonyms on call for for each of the most pregnant terms.

First, I readily admit that for clarity’s sake we often have to add qualifiers and define and redefine our terms so that we don’t equivocate and talk past each other. Alternative terms then are needed. For this reason I’m open to the alternative terms: “strong/positive atheism” “weak/negative atheism” “antitheism/contratheism” “strong agnosticism” “weak agnosticism.” I admit as much in my article. But these are for clearing up confusion, or for “stop-gap” measures to advance to other more interesting subjects despite an opponent’s refusal to grant the standard definition.

Second, the chart Zak Ford proposes, though really helpful in clarifying certain subtleties commits the typical mischaracterization of agnosticism as being fundamentally a “belief” category rather than a “knowledge” category. The term agnosticism is etymologically based since its originator deliberately intended it as such, and clarified his intention as such, and specified its original application as such–it means “without knowledge” and regards God’s nature or existence specifically, and so it is to be understood in the strong sense of “no knowledge of God is possible.” Sure belief may be entailed therein, but God-knowledge is the point at issue in agnosticism. The chart Zack gives is a spectrum of belief, whereas Agnosticism would be a knowledge category.

Third, several of the alternative terms would not be necessary if people had stayed informed about the historic meaning of the terms they use. “Theist,” “Atheist,” “Agnostic,” ang “Skeptic” can cover the entire semantic domain of those categories.

I found this blog today (courtesy of yet another blog) that describes some of the points you bring up here, Mr. Ferrer. Even if you don’t agree, I think it’s worth a read; it establishes many of the points I and others have tried to make here.

http://zackfordblogs.com/2009/.....tratheism/

I think what is confusing you, Mr. Ferrer, is the statement of what that person would accept as “evidence” to the contrary? Am I correct? If so, I’d like to point out really quick that what it would take to change an atheist’s mind has little bearing on the definition of “atheist.” A person can firmly believe that GOD DOES NOT EXIST and believe that he/she can prove it, and not be open to debate at all, and he/she can be just as much of an “atheist” as a person like me who begrudgingly entertains the opposing arguments even though I don’t feel likely to be converted (mostly because of the “can’t prove a negative” thing).

If that’s not what you’re saying, well, then feel free to just disregard this post. But keep in mind what I said for future reference if you will, because it will make future discussions of this subject MUCH easier to navigate from the get-go~

Nowadays, if someone calls themselves an atheist, likely as not they just mean they don’t think there’s a God. They tell you they’re an atheist, you pretty much know where they’re coming from. If you want to clarify, just ask them: ‘tell me what you believe in and why’.

In debate and logical argumentation it is strategically wise to pick winnable battles, narrow your focus, and guard against unjustified or hard-to-defend claims. So I have no problem when an atheist dons an agnostic position so they can entertain different possibilities academically or just to avoid having to defend a position they are not yet prepared to defend. There is nothing wrong with that. And practically speaking, we can’t all be expected to always have a ready defense for every philosophical or theological commitment we have. What I do have a problem with is when a theist or atheist presents themselves as “theist” and “atheist” but means something new, strange or different by those terms. If a person is going to use a term differently from its conventional definition, then he/she needs to specify what alternative definition they are using. And if they are simply unaware of the definition of that term, then they need to learn the term befor they call themselves by it. Using a term equivocally like that is either misguided or deceptive.

The debate that they present is what is relevant, the case they are trying to make - not what you believe they may really believe, or even the particular label you or they use to sum up their belief. The word describes the belief - it doesn’t change it and it doesn’t change their argument.

I get what you’re saying. It’s kind of like saying a court is trying to get you on manslaughter because it’s easier than proving murder, right? But if someone is deliberately adopting this strategy then they’re settling for a smaller prize. They’re shooting for a smaller target. They’re winning less in such a debate than if they argued for the ‘hard atheist’ position. People are welcome to argue for any position they want, and you’re welcome to reject the debate if you wish. It’s perhaps similar to Christians arguing for Intelligent Design rather than full-blown creationism, because

I appreciate it.

Fallacies you committed in your last entry: ad hominem (attacking the person), red herring (distraction), non-sequitur (does not follow), misuse of authority (you question my authority, when I was not speaking on the basis of my authority, but on the basis of evidence and argument), straw man (you still seem to think that I’m argument for or against God belief in this article when I’m really just arguing over definitions), hasty generalization (you jump to your conclusions without offering an argument leading up to them), need I go on?

Andrew, Luke, Tim, did I miss any?

Boris, take a logic course, with a Christian teacher if you have to, then see if you can salvage your claims. I don’t have time to debate philosophically intermediate material with people do not even accidentally employ remedial familiarity with logical argumentation.

At this point I’m not even really objecting to you claims, I don’t really need to. You are handling them so recklessly you are destroying your own case. You might have a case in your favor, but you have not yet used any substantive evidence to show that you do. I’M NOT EVEN ADDRESSING THE QUALITY OF YOUR ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCES, I’M JUST ASKING FOR YOU TO PRESENT AN ARGUMENT AND SOME EVIDENCE. I’m not dismissing anything here, I’m really quite open, pleading even that you bring some kind of an argument to the table.

This conversation with you Boris is just getting boring now. I’m tired of pointing out the logical fallacies and repeatedly asking for you to make a case rather than assert your opinion. By all means, use your Greek skills, use your theological training, use your apologetics or debating experience and formulate an argument. I really wish you would, so I’d have something interesting to interact over. You’ve made your opinion clear, but you have not shown any real effort to demonstrate that its more than just an opinion. In my article, I’m not simply asserting my opinion, I’m offering sources, giving an argument, addressing rebuttals, clarifying my position with the different bloggers.

The meaning of “atheist,” tracing back to the Greek “atheos” originally meant “godless, without God, rejection of God” and has come to mean “rejection of God/disbelief in God/belief in no God” (ie: positive atheism), and up until recently it has remained unchallenged in its historic definition. However, of late, many self-proclaimed atheists, agnostics, non-theists, and anti-theists are largely unaware of the historic and contemporary formal definition of the term “atheist,” as such, they often misuse the term to refer to “soft atheism” which is roughly generalized form of agnosticism, ie: “no belief in God.” I do not think this slip is entirely accidental since there are strategic advantages to taking a “soft atheist” position (namely, it does not make a claim and therefore does not carry a burden of proof).

If you had to provide a 1 or 2 sentence summary of your article, what would this look like?

Thanks,

Luke

However in recent times the definition has come under question by atheist themselves. Three motivating factors can be identified.

Atheists aren’t trying to redefine atheism for the purposes of defending it in arguments with people who believe in supernatural claptrap and nonsense like you do. Atheism doesn’t need to be defended. It is the theists like you who are attempting to claim atheism takes a positive position so you can then muster some lame arguments against it. You have no arguments against a lack of belief in God so you simply claim that isn’t what atheism is. But it is. Now I claimed to be an anti-theist thereby taking the position you want all atheists to take and you still haven’t come up with one argument against that even. You’re the one who can’t make any good arguments John and everyone can see that here. Especially the other atheists who have already soundly refuted all the points in your goofy article.

John, I don’t believe you have ever studied ancient Greek or ever set foot on a college campus. I think you’re just another Christian Internet fraud. In fact I’m sure of it now.

Your first paragraph demonstrates why I should have never dignified your non sequitur. You have not yet shown how my knowledge of the neuter plural noun is relevant to the masc. sing. adjective “atheos.”

I grant that nouns are declined–still irrelevant to the argument at hand.
I grant that ancient Greek had a dual grammatical number at some time in the past–still irrelevant to the argument.
I grant that that neuter plural nouns take a singular verb–still irrelevant to the argument.

I need only employ sources and argument effective to justify the conclusion of my argument. And while you disagree with my argument, you have not addressed the substance of my argument. As such, you have done nothing to even weaker my conclusion. At this point you are just trying to goad me into a “I know more Greek than you do” argument, which is ridiculous and unrelated.

Boris, you say that you have “already corrected my mistakes.” Then you proceed to give assertions on how “atheist” “agnostic” and “anti-theist” should be defined. Lacking any argument (which I described in the last post) I still see no substantive rebuttal to my argument, nor any evidence in favor of your alternative definitions. As such, these assertions remain unsupported (except perhaps on the merit of your own authority). So you have not even started to “argue.” I’m not sure then what to make of your conclusion that “there is nothing to argue about further.” If the argument is done, yet you have not argued your point, then that means you defense rests after hearing only my case. I’m not playing word games here, I’m just trying to get you to do your homework, show your work, and then come to the table with some reason, and evidence, and justification to back up your assertions. This is how debate works. This is how argumentation works.

Again, I am not on trial since I am not BASING my definition of atheos my own authority/expertise (I claim only 4 semesters of experience, and personal study, mostly in Matthew, subsequent to it). If I said, “I’ve studied Greek for five years, and know the language inside and out, and I can speak authoritatively that atheos means X.” –If I said that, then I would be employing my experience as a basis of argument, a kind of evidence to support my conclusion. Since we are engaged in formal argument here, you can crossexamine any evidence presented. But since I do not offer my experience in Greek as an evidence for my argument, then attacking it amounts to a logical fallacy. Consequently, YOU ARE COMMITTING A NON-SEQUITUR. Furthermore, since you show intent to discredit my conclusion by discrediting my knowledge of Greek YOU ARE COMMITTING A GENETIC FALLACY. I have given you the argument behind these conclusions, I present them as arguments against your position. And Now I await your argued rebuttal. Note that asserting things without evidence behind them does not amount to an argument. Show how the neuter plural noun applies to the argument and you will not be guilty of a Non-sequitur, or show how I have based the central argument in the article on my own authority as a Greek scholar (a status I do not claim for myself) and you will not be guilty of the genetic fallacy.

YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT MY UNDERSTANDING OF ATHEOS IS HISTORICALLY, OR CURRENTLY INACCURATE. You don’t even have to “prove” your case, just argue it. Yet you make only assertion upon assertion.

Also, are you now questioning my ethics? That is both a non-sequitur and a genetic fallacy. It is a genetic fallacy because you are trying to attack (what you interpret to be) my motives, yet are not addressing the substance of my argument.

Boris, honestly, if you “don’t know what it is [I] want [you] to make an argument for” then you just aren’t listening. I have stated over and over and over again that I await your argument to show how my article is wrong and your assertions are right. I hear you make assertions, then reassert them, then reassert them again. But never in there is there an argument. Instead, you proceed to attack my character (ad hominem fallacy), and make bold claims about how all theists are somehow dishonest or deluded since they are really atheists at heart (another ad hominem, and fallacy of poisoning the well), you attack my credentials (genetic fallacy, ad hominem, non-sequitur). I can’t help but think that you are trying to divert attention from the fact that you have yet to present any evidence that my article is wrong, or that your alternative definitions are right.

Your last comment does not help you at all. When you say, “BTW a Christian Bible believer teaching a class in logic is hard to imagine.” Since I am teaching logic this Fall, then apparently, REALITY IS HARD FOR YOU IMAGINE.

Boris your estimation of Christians is obviously low, but that does not say so much about Christians as it does yourself. There are some pretty smart Christians out there, some intellectually astute ones, and some of them are really great people. They really do exist. And there are more of them then you might realize. You might not see this, but nor can I make you open your eyes. I can do nothing to solve voluntary blindness.

As for your original article I’ve already corrected your mistakes. A person who has a lack of knowledge of God is called an agnostic, one with a lack of belief in God an atheist. A person like me who claims there is no God is an anti-theist. There’s nothing to argue about further. You stand corrected.

First your article was on trial, but then you made some spurious claims about yourself, couldn’t back them up and look very foolish now having even tried so now you are on trial buddy. Your integrity and honesty must be seriously questioned now. Not to mention your knowledge of Greek and your ethics for even having written this article.

Now I don’t know what it is exactly you want me to make an argument for. Why don’t you tell me? BTW a Christian Bible believer teaching a class in logic is hard to imagine.

I just found it odd, because I noticed other people were posting links and it got through almost immediately. What triggers this, I wonder? It would save me a lot of time in the future….

Tim D. Says: [Your comment is awaiting moderation.]
July 10th, 2009 at 5:12 am

[link]

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

I’ve noticed though, that posting certain words, simply prevents posts from showing up (not even with the “awaiting moderation” comment”).

Not “curse” words (which I’ve actually never attempted to post), but words describing things some might consider immoral — things taken directly from the Bible.

I think a lot of this is done not to stifle our free speech (not that a private site necessarily owes anyone free speech rights), but to keep out spammers. I think “curse” words actually show up fine, as spammers are not as likely to use them, words describing “less-than-moral” services can get filtered out automatically.

I once tried to post a Bible passage as part of a long post, and nothing happened. I read through it looking for something which may seem offensive, removed it, and my post went through fine.

If anyone’s curious, it was on youtube under the search tags “Lucky star” and “curse of the web.” Given all these computer shortcomings recently, I think just about everyone could relate~

Then again, maybe it’s just because I use a Mac…

Boris,
I had a rather long entry prepared when my computer froze and deleted my response. Once it was deleted, I could not muster the energy to retype it since my efforts to speak respectfully and intelligently with you have resulted in you personally attacking me, ignoring the substance of my arguments, and venting venomous attacks against all Christendom with little regard for specifics, details, or accuracy of your accusations, nor any concerned for who you hurt. You show no significant familiarity with the applicable philosophy, formal logic, informal logic or formal argumentation. In my previous efforts with you, you show little responsiveness to my ACTUAL arguments, failing to critique particular points with substantive (ie: evidence-supported) objections, retaliating merely with assertion upon assertion without causal relations between them, hence no significant argument in your favor. Am I going to have to spell out even more clearly for you what I mean when I’m asking for arguments instead of assertions? Please, be aware that what you say can and will be used against you, as I am teaching a college logic class this fall and you have demonstrated numerous logical fallacies as well as any textbook I’ve read. I already have in mind several of your statements that I plan to use to illustrate “ad hominem,” “non-sequitur,” “scarecrow,” and “hasty generalization.” Please look these terms up, then look over your own blog entries here. For your own sake, if you want to sound like more than a sophist or spiteful propagandist then it would be in your best interest to learn how these fallacies work in contrast to good arguments so you can strengthen your case and perhaps even persuade a person or two intellectually. As it stands now, you are emoting, asserting, and accusing, not debating.

Since you do not seem to know what a non-sequitur is, and probably would call me liar if I quoted some standard source definition of it, I’ll just humor your request, even though you have not shown how the neuter plural pronoun relates significantly to the argument at hand. [If you change your mind and decide to check the definition, you can see a definition of “non-sequitur” in this article article from infidels.com http://www.infidels.org/librar.....ogic.html]

Neuter–the third gender, besides masculine and feminine. Used largely to conceptually tie modifying words to their modifier. this is especially helpful since Greek word order is more fluid than in English, and often a modifer can be either before or after, and near or far from its modificand. Generally, grammatical gender has no relation to literal gender (male or female).

Plural–one of two grammatical number types (in distinction from singular). Greek lacks a “dual” category as Hebrew has. Plural nouns indicate two or more of something, whether concrete or abstract. Grammatical number also serves in connecting modifers to their modificand.

Nouns–nominal category for substantive words (whether conceptual or abstract). Generally, these serve as modificands being modified by adjectives, prepositions, etc. Should not be mistaken for nominative case, though there is a conceptual relation there. Nouns do indeed come in the nominative, but also in the dative, the genitive, accusative. Plus, adjectives and participials (usually in the nominative case) can function like nouns.

Neuter plural nouns can fit a collection of objects (concrete or abstract), or a plurality of times, events, etc. Generally, they would not suit a collection of persons since groups of persons are referred to (if all female) in the feminine, or as male (if even one male is among them, or the gender is unknown, unstated, or irrelevant). Neuter plural nouns, have no direct relation however to “atheos” since atheos is a masculine, singular, adjective.

There I’ve humoured your irrelevant request. Can we get on with the discussion at hand without your distractions and personal attacks now?

I have several objections.

First, this article I have written is neither a defense for God-belief nor an argument against God-belief. You consistent attack on God-belief, and consistent advocacy of your own atheism is not particularly relevant to the article. So, you are committing a straw man fallacy by portraying this article as if it is some kind of “weak argument for theism.” Its not an argument for theism at all! It was never meant to be. You are also blatantly misrepresenting my argument, or misreading it. I’m not sure which. Either way, you are not addressing the substance of my argument and thus suggest to your readers that you don’t understand it.

Second, I have to clarify some basic logic since you do not seem to realize how I already rebutted your claim by pointing out it is a non-sequitur. You commit the non-sequitur (lit. “does not follow”) fallacy by requesting I prove my (unrelated) Greek skills to you in regards to a general question about the neuter plural noun. If you could show that that is how “atheos” parses out, AND that this parsing affects how the alpha privative applies to the meaning of “atheos” then you might have a relevant argument. But as it stand now, atheos is a singular masculine adjective and not a plural neuter noun, so I see no pertinent relation between your question and the subject at hand. Likewise, you would rightly object against me if I demanded you comprehensively define “poetry,” or parse out “before I grant that you have any legitimate knowledge of English. The pertinence is not apparent, therefore this reeks of a “non-sequitor” fallacy aka: a “red herring.” It just is not related to the topic at hand and so serves to distract rather than contribute to the argument. You might as well dismiss theism because of a spelling error in my article. The two are just not significantly related.

Third, If you retain your position that I am “on trial” instead of my argument, then you are committing a genetic fallacy (ie: faulting a message because of its messenger) and perhaps an ad hominem (ie: attacking the messenger). I repeat, I am not on trial since I show you the sourcing and evidential argument to support my central thesis. If I spoke entirely from my own authority, “I declare [without argument] that atheism is defined as X” then it would be fair to question my authority in making that claim. But since I showed pertinent sourcing and evidence of adequate familiarity with the greek term atheos, then the burden is on you to address my argument. Attacking me does not help your case.

Fourth, for the Nth time, please give an argument to support any of your major claims. You have now added to your unsupported assertions your “personal” view that I am a “liar and a religious fanatic.” You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but fortunately for me, your opinion has little bearing on reality. Lacking any argument or evidence to support your claims, I measure that personal opinion as a practical equivalent to someone’s “personal opinion” that yogurt is yucky, faeries exist, blue is the best color, or that alien abductions are a regular occurrence. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but those have no bearing on objective reality unless you can appeal to objective reality (ie: facts, evidence, etc.) in a way that causally connects your view to what is ACTUALLY REAL. How do we make such a connection? By argument and debate.

Boris,
I had a rather long entry prepared when my computer froze and deleted my response. Once it was deleted, I could not muster the energy to retype it since my efforts to speak respectfully and intelligently with you have resulted in you personally attacking me, ignoring the substance of my arguments, and venting venomous attacks against all Christendom with little regard for specifics, accuracy, nor any concern for the emotional and psychological consequences of your words. You show no significant familiarity with the applicable philosophy, formal logic, informal logic or formal argumentation. In my previous efforts with you, you show little responsiveness to my ACTUAL arguments, failing to critique particular points with substantive (ie: evidence-supported) objections, retaliating merely with assertion upon assertion without causal relations between them, hence no significant argument in your favor. Am I going to have to spell out even more clearly for you what I mean when I’m asking for arguments instead of assertions? Please, be aware that what you say can and will be used against you, as I am teaching a college logic class this fall and you have demonstrated numerous logical fallacies as well as any textbook I’ve read. I already have in mind several of your statements that I plan to use to illustrate “ad hominem,” “non-sequitur,” “scarecrow,” and “hasty generalization.” Please look these terms up, then look over your own blog entries here. For your own sake, if you want to sound like more than a sophist or spiteful propagandist then it would be in your best interest to learn how these fallacies work in contrast to good arguments so you can strengthen your case and perhaps even persuade a person or two intellectually. As it stands now, you are emoting, asserting, and accusing, not debating.

Since you do not seem to know what a non-sequitur is, and probably would call me liar if I quoted some standard source definition of it, I’ll just humor your request, even though you have not shown how the neuter plural pronoun relates significantly to the argument at hand. [If you change your mind and decide to check the definition, you can see a definition of “non-sequitur” in this article article from infidels.com http://www.infidels.org/librar.....ogic.html]

Neuter–the third gender, besides masculine and feminine. Used largely to conceptually tie modifying words to their modifier. this is especially helpful since Greek word order is more fluid than in English, and often a modifer can be either before or after, and near or far from its modificand. Generally, grammatical gender has no relation to literal gender (male or female).

Plural–one of two grammatical number types (in distinction from singular). Greek lacks a “dual” category as Hebrew has. Plural nouns indicate two or more of something, whether concrete or abstract. Grammatical number also serves in connecting modifers to their modificand.

Nouns–nominal category for substantive words (whether conceptual or abstract). Generally, these serve as modificands being modified by adjectives, prepositions, etc. Should not be mistaken for nominative case, though there is a conceptual relation there. Nouns do indeed come in the nominative, but also in the dative, the genitive, accusative. Plus, adjectives and participials (usually in the nominative case) can function like nouns.

Neuter plural nouns can fit a collection of objects (concrete or abstract), or a plurality of times, events, etc. Generally, they would not suit a collection of persons since groups of persons are referred to (if all female) in the feminine, or as male (if even one male is among them, or the gender is unknown, unstated, or irrelevant). Neuter plural nouns, have no direct relation however to “atheos” since atheos is a masculine, singular, adjective.

I never claimed to be a “Greek language expert.” But I do claim to know what I am talking about in regards to atheos. So you are deceitful in saying that I am a self-proclaimed expert. Since you overgeneralized there, and thus show yourself a liar, please clarify how it is that you are justified in calling me a liar? I have transcripts to prove my study in Greek, so I am not totally ignorant (which you have also claimed about me). But nor do I claim t be an expert (which you also claim about me). You are therefore lying on two counts, and I have the records to prove it. Care to disagree with me on this? Do you really think you right?

Now that I’ve humoured your irrelevant request. Can we get on with the discussion at hand without your distractions and personal attacks now? I would like to be more civil, but that does not work well with you.

I have several objections.

First, this article I have written is neither a defense for God-belief nor an argument against God-belief. You consistent attack on God-belief, and consistent advocacy of your own definition of atheism is not particularly relevant to the article. So, you are committing a straw man fallacy by portraying this article as if it is some kind of “weak argument for theism.” Its not an argument for theism at all. It was never meant to be. You are also blatantly misrepresenting my argument, or misreading it. I’m not sure which. Either way, you are not addressing the substance of my argument and thus suggest to your readers that you don’t understand it.

Second, I have to clarify some basic logic since you do not seem to realize how I already rebutted your claim by pointing out it is a non-sequitur. You commit the non-sequitur (lit. “does not follow”) fallacy by requesting I prove my (unrelated) Greek skills to you in regards to a general question about the neuter plural noun. If you could show that that is how “atheos” parses out, AND that this parsing affects how the alpha privative applies to the meaning of “atheos” then you might have a relevant argument. But as it stand now, atheos is a singular masculine adjective and not a plural neuter noun, so I see no pertinent relation between your question and the subject at hand. Likewise, you would rightly object against me if I demanded you comprehensively define “poetry,” or parse out “octopi” before I grant that you have any legitimate knowledge of English. The pertinence is not apparent, therefore this reeks of a “non-sequitor” fallacy aka: a “red herring.” It just is not related to the topic at hand and so serves to distract rather than contribute to the argument. You might as well dismiss theism because of a spelling error in my article. The two are just not significantly related.

Third, for the Nth time, please give an argument to support any of your major claims. You have now added to your unsupported assertions your “personal” view that I am a “liar and a religious fanatic.” You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but fortunately for me, your opinion has little to no bearing on reality. Lacking any argument or evidence to support your claims, I measure that personal opinion as a practical equivalent to someone’s “personal opinion” that faeries exist, or that alien abductions are a regular occurrence. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but those have no bearing on objective reality unless they can appeal to objective reality (ie: facts, evidence, etc.) in a way that causally connects their view to what is ACTUALLY REAL. How do we make such a connection? By argument and debate.

If you care to join our debate, you are welcome to enter. But shouting from the balcony makes you look bad, derails the intelligent conversations going on here, and wastes my time. If you want to emote and attack, go to some other blog. If you want to debate, then step up and join us. But do step up. I have no personal problem with you, since I do not know you personally. But honestly, you haven’t given me much intellectual contribution here to respect. I’ve seen on other blogs where you had some insightful contributions, but I haven’t seen anything near that here. I hope you can offer a good argument, but so far I’ve been losing hope each time you respond.

Isn’t it, “When first we practice to deceive? 0.0