Athe-ism.

1. Not theistic can pretty much be said to be the same as without theism. However, there are non-atheists that are not theistic or 'without theism'.

3. Those 3 'a' words have no use outside of hood-slang. They're only an abomination when it comes to proper grammar. And even if those were legit, what relevance do they have to 'atheism'? Let's say those 3 words were normal everyday words, what then? Putting an 'a' in front of the type of 'ism' in the context of an ideology negates it? Where exactly in language does an 'a' ever imply a 'lack of belief' in an 'ism' in which 'ism' is used in the sense of an ideology?

Such as the 'isms' here: http://phrontistery.info/isms.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So in other words atheism can mean without theism.

Already shown to be legit, once more you bring up something that has been shown to be wrong.

And once more you claim that there are certain categories of word that don't follow the rules the rest do: and they turn out to be the words YOU want. Fraggle has given a word - agnosticism.

Edited by Moderator to damp down flame war. BTW: "Hood" is AAVE (African-American Vernacular English) slang for "neighborhood" and is shorthand for the inner city, or for the turf of a specific gang of juvenile delinquents..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As for agnosticism. Agnosticism is not a lack of belief either. It's the the refutation of gnosis. Furthermore 'a' in front of 'ism' words in which 'ism' is not used in the same context don't apply to an 'ism' word such as theism. They have no relevance. You can collect all the 'isms' with 'a' in front of them that you want. They are not examples of an 'a' negating an 'ism' that is being used in the context of this discussion. They only apply to 'isms' which have completely different meanings. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Edited by Moderator to damp down flame war.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Frag,

You might want to read through the whole thread before posting like this.
Take a look at my first post in this thread (#6), and following.....

 

I made my point in the OP to which you made up 3 words to refute the point. But let's assume 2 things.
1. The words you posted are legitimate and real.
2. The words you posted us 'a' to negate the 'ism' in front of it.

Regardless, the 'ism' in those words is not the same as the 'ism' being discussed. They are 2 completely different suffixes. Just like block (cube) and block (street block) are 2 completely different words that sound the same, the "ism' in those words is a completely different suffix than the "ism" being discussed. You might as well be talking about the "ing" suffix. The "ism" in those words is no more the same suffix as the "ism" being discussed as "ing" suffix is.

 

Terminology?

Dagobert D. Runes, Dictionary of Philosophy, 1942.

Post edited by Moderator to damp down flame war

 

Actually, 90% of talking to my friends is anything but standard definitions. We don't even call anything by their proper names. Hell even reviewing Avatar rarely called anything in the movie what they were meant to be called. If I see Ripley in a movie, I'm going to call her Ripley in my review no matter who she's playing. But as long as the message gets accross effectively, word usage and terminology are irrelevant.

What I am saying regarding 'kindergarten' and 'preschool' refers to the lot who use 'atheism' under the infidel format (strong-atheism, weak-atheism, agnostic-atheism, or whatever), and are actually serious about it. So should I be politically correct, and let them be? So they can continue running around 'correcting' others who actually use the terminology according to normal standards?

I'll admit that everybody does have their beliefs. And I've always made it a point that it is illogical to tell somebody not to proselytize. Or to tell him not to 'correct' others whose religion or beliefs he considers to be incorrect. (With the exception of assholes who proselytize the belief that people shouldn't proselytize their beliefs). I think it's a good thing that a person believes X, and will go around correcting others according to what they consider true. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any discussions and nobody would learn anything.

There is no doubt that I have continued to make it clear how absurd I consider the infidel terminology to be. Over the course of years, I've seen alot of abuse and bullying by those proselytizing it. Are people still going to continue to use infidel terminology? Sure. Should I not be so derogatory towards those people who do? Perhaps sometimes. But perhaps sometimes not. Either way, I have found no reason to take people who use that type of terminology seriously. Should there really be any other way to see somebody who bursts out with something like "strong-atheism" as anything but a total clown?

 

Thus, you do recognize alternative usage of terms.

So, you mean, alternative usages.

It has nothing to do with being politically correct.
You either understand their usage, or you do not.
If not, then it falls to you to attempt to understand them. If you choose not to do this [as you have done, with respect to your friends..], then misunderstanding will obviously arise. Assuming it is not your goal to misunderstand, then it's clear that you must engage with these 'alternative users' in a less confrontational manner than you're making use of in this thread.

'luke,

you know as well as I that I am often quite particular about the proper usage of terms.
Despite this, I am significantly less dogmatic about it that you have been here. The reasons for this I've made mention of above. You cannot 'enforce' meaning. Meaning is fluid and contingent; while every term does have its ancestral meaning, there is nothing that necessitates that this is fixed. Usage is always the final arbiter of meaning.

 

A "mangling of the language" that was accepted usage before you were born...

And as stated, it also dates back to at least 1956 and includes British usage.

Footnote:

Yet you assumed a different pronunciation previously, and were given the the correct one. Nichevo.

 

In print that year. Presumably it must have been in use for a while before that to be accepted.

Of course we did/ still do.
It's YOU doing it and not us.
NIH works for everyone.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!