CreateDebate


Debate Info

14
19
I agree with Greek I do not agree with Greek
Debate Score:33
Arguments:27
Total Votes:34
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I agree with Greek (11)
 
 I do not agree with Greek (10)

Debate Creator

lolzors93(3225) pic



Alpha Privative in Greek..

I'm tired of people always claiming themselves to be atheists because they are "not theists," claiming that the alpha privative is simply a "not." This is not how the alpha privative is used. In Ancient Greek, there is a word called "tim-ey," which means "honor" (noun). The verb for this word is "to honor," while the negated, alpha privitave form, "a-tim-ao," (verb) means "to dishonor." It does not simply mean "not honor." Indeed, it is a strong negation. This is why the word "gnostic" with an alpha privative in front of it does not simply mean "not knowledge," as in "us not knowing what the truth is," but it is a stronger negation. This is how atheism and agnosticism have classically been seen to mean. Thus, atheism is not merely "not theism." Indubitably, it is "dis-theism."

Do you agree with Greek?

I agree with Greek

Side Score: 14
VS.

I do not agree with Greek

Side Score: 19
2 points

While translating Homer's Iliad, the word "honor" comes up a lot. I just had to ask about the alpha privative here, and my suspicions were confirmed. "Not theists" are misusing the term, "atheist."

Side: I agree with Greek
Cartman(18192) Disputed
3 points

Shouldn't you be explaining how distheism is correct instead of showing how Atheism is incorrect?

Side: I do not agree with Greek
3 points

It doesn't just mean in opposition. It is also used to mean without.

For instance: an asexual lifeform doesn't rally against sex, it just doesn't have it.

Atypical simply identifies that something is not typical for the category it inherits.

And so on. As a prefix, a- means, "not, without." It can be used oppositionally, but this is not universal.

People who do not believe in God AND people who believe there is no God are categorically congruent because they are both without God. And a- is a prefix that covers both of those.

Side: I do not agree with Greek
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

asexual

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowedinframe=0&search;=asexual&searchmode;=none

atypical

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed inframe=0&search;=atypical&searchmode;=none

amoral

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed inframe=0&search;=amoral&searchmode;=none

These are all from the 1800s. They were using the alpha privative incorrectly. So, in essence, they made up their own prefix. The prefix, thus, for the previous words was not a Greek, but an English prefix of "a". This is how modern language is confused.

Side: I agree with Greek
MuckaMcCaw(1969) Disputed
1 point

how about abyss? Although that version of the word is technically Middle-English, it derives from abyssos, or without bottom.

Every single dictionary and encyclopedia I've ever seen describes the preffix a- as being without, not. Anti, usually has stronger connotations.

Side: I do not agree with Greek
1 point

If you assume language is static then sure, however languages are not static. Common useage of the word in question today is FAR removed from its roots. To use the old definition in contemporary times would be an innacurate framing of how the word is used now. Would use of the word "gay" be incorrect in todays use due to the meaning of the words use in the 1800's? Or how about the use of the word "bad" and its root from old english? Of course not, to argue for the use of those words in contemporary times based on their ancient roots would be silly. Why choose one word to argue for this concept but not others?

To be clear I am not saying your take on the words use in the specific historical time is innacurate, just that using outdated definitions is innacurate. Language changes over time.

Furthermore do we ask Muslims to define Christianity or do we ask Christians to define Christianity? This depends on where you are and who holds power. As always the minority struggles to define itself rather than be defined by the majority. To try to impose a definition on a group is a power issue, perhaphs this is another example of the Christian normative trying to exert control over other groups.

Side: I do not agree with Greek
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
2 points

One cannot simply stipulate a definition. There has to be a reason behind the usage of a word or term, or phrase for that matter. I can't simply stipulate, "all colors that are not green are called 'feg' now." Simply because I am this arbitrary non-green thing, it does not mean that I have a right to say that I am feg. This idea is especially true when it comes to words that already exist. We don't say take a word that already exists, meaning X, and shift it to mean Y. Thats just dishonest, similar to how Lawrence Krauss said that quantum mechanics shows that something can come from nothing. Its just dishonest to say that it is "nothing," yet he did it. You can't honestly say that something is X, when "X" has meant Y for years. Non-theists have no right to say that they are atheists.

Side: I agree with Greek
J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

What of my points are you disputing? You failed to address any of the things I said.

Are you saying language is in fact static? I doubt that since my examples show otherwise.

I think you just disagree with the conclusion.

Side: I agree with Greek