Manfred comments on Unintentional bayesian

Manfred 15 Feb 2013 21:00 UTC
5 points

Dawkins-style militant atheism, a belief in zero gods

Weird choice of label. Wouldn’t you just call that something like “no-god-ism?” Perhaps with a latin translation?
- handoflixue 19 Feb 2013 20:24 UTC
  0 points
  Parent
  
  Wouldn’t you just call that something like “no-god-ism?” Perhaps with a latin translation?
  
  Well, “no” would be “a-”
  
  “-theism- actually contains two roots: -the-, meaning “god, divinity”, and “-ism”, which is a suffix used to create abstract nouns denoting a actions, conditions, or beliefs.”—http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_root_theism_mean
  
  So “athe” would mean “no gods”, and “atheism” would be that belief.
  
  Which is a long-winded way of saying that, um, atheism already is the correct term.
  
  I also learned that “athe” is a fun word to say ^_^
  - pedanterrific 19 Feb 2013 20:49 UTC
    1 point
    Parent
    I can’t tell if you’re aware that that was Manfred’s point.
    - handoflixue 19 Feb 2013 22:11 UTC
      1 point
      Parent
      That “woosh” you heard was Manfred’s point going over my head. shminux distinction seems entirely warranted in-context, since he’s differentiating between “I believe there are no gods” and “I don’t believe in gods”, both of which are, technically, “atheism”.
- shminux 15 Feb 2013 21:51 UTC
  0 points
  Parent
  
  “no-god-ism?” Perhaps with a latin translation?
  
  Funny. My point is the opposite, the term needs to be translated to English in order to avoid confusion.