You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Manfred comments on Unintentional bayesian - Less Wrong Discussion

4 [deleted] 15 February 2013 10:46AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (13)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Manfred 15 February 2013 09:00:11PM *  3 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?

Comment author: handoflixue 19 February 2013 08:24:10PM 0 points [-]

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 ^_^

Comment author: pedanterrific 19 February 2013 08:49:33PM 1 point [-]

I can't tell if you're aware that that was Manfred's point.

Comment author: handoflixue 19 February 2013 10:11:06PM 1 point [-]

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".

Comment author: shminux 15 February 2013 09:51:19PM 0 points [-]

"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.