The Upper Room

12:04 AM

@Anonymous You start mixing terms because the human psyche and what someone believes deserves more than a single word, in almost every case.

> Trying to place what you believe into a single word is difficult at best and laying down the three terms, theism, atheism, and agnosticism, and demanding that all persons fit neatly into only one of them is not fair to them and does a great disservice to the greatest of all human quests: finding meaning in our lives.

6

A: Which definition of "atheism" is the proper usage?

Re-appropriating the term atheism is what is causing the issue. If we break the word down it is clear that the first definition is what should be intended when using the word atheism. The prefix a has long been used as a reversal, or negation, for the term that follows it. The suffix ism has long...

Anonymous

12:57 AM

@fredsbend You quoted yourself.

@fredsbend Although the explanation is plausible, it does not give any evidence or sources, which justifies the six votes.

fredsbend

@Anonymous That's because the definition of the prefix a, the suffix ism and the root theo are pretty much common knowledge. Any downs on it are people who just don't like it.

Anonymous

@fredsbend It's possible, but comparing your answer to the highest-rated answer, the highest-rated answer at least cites sources and provides links. Your answer is a set of claims. You need evidence to support your claims. :P

fredsbend

The highest voted answer, which I upvoted because it is good, deserves to be in that position because it spends a good deal of effort discussing the hows and whys for the competing definitions. The question simply asked for the "proper" definition, which is always the oldest and most used. Today, the traditional definition still fits that bill.

The problem is that it is a touchy subject and people are just going to vote with what they agree with on that.

Now I would not equate my answer to the highest upvoted one, but I think we are kind of answering different questions anyway.

His quote of the OED in point four would be a good addition to my answer, however.

In general agreement though, yes, sources are always a good thing.

For that site, I actually only ever visit and post on the hot questions. You know, the ones that are on the sidebar on every SE page.

@Anonymous There's actually 9 upvotes and three downvotes, btw.

Anonymous

1:29 AM

@fredsbend I don't think you answered mine. But then, there were already a lot of answers on my extremely popular question. :P

@fredsbend ...which sums up to +6. ;)

@Daи How do you know that David Bentley Hart is an Orthodox Christian? His wikipedia page only says that he is an Orthodox Christian theologian, not necessarily an adherent of the Orthodox Christian faith. The wikipedia page also mentions his academic accomplishments.

El'endia Starman

@Anonymous I'd think it'd be rather rare to find an Orthodox Christian theologian that isn't also an Orthodox Christian.

Anonymous

@El'endiaStarman Still, it is possible that Hart studies Orthodox Christianity, because he is fascinated by it at an intellectual level. :P

@El'endiaStarman Professors of religion, I think, do that all the time. Their own religious beliefs do not matter, and do not play a role at all in their research. They may choose to not affiliate themselves with a religious group or even a religious school. They may work in a public school/university and write about religion from primarily a sociological, psychological, historical, or literary perspective.

Unless there is proof that David Bentley Hart actually participates in corporate worship in an Orthodox Church or that he has an Orthodox Christian family, I am not convinced that he is Orthodox Christian.

On the other hand, it is understandable why an adherent of a religion would be more passionate about studying religion than a non-adherent. :P

Of course, there are always exceptions. ;)

Daи

1:57 AM

@Anonymous Because an Orthodox theologian is not the same as a Western theologian

in Orthodoxy, a theologian is one who prays

there is no studying it in the abstract, you must experience it and practice it

Anonymous

3:20 AM

@Daи So, you are implying that the Western theologian is one who does not pray or one who does not need to pray? Hmmm... okay. That sounds good to me. :D

Anonymous

3:32 AM

@Daи He is not just a theologian. He is also a patristics scholar, one who studies the early church fathers. He has a PhD, not a ThD, which tells me that he has earned his scholarly degree in whatever. Wikipedia is not being precise, so I assume that he's a scholar in patristics, which may be a branch of theology or history.

@Daи What does a theologian mean in Lutheranism?

Anonymous

4:28 AM

I think Dan thinks I'm ignorant, because he is not accustomed to my writing style. Dan has a tendency to confirm before he speaks, whereas I would just spill out my thoughts without self-censorship. I also like kidding around, but I think my kidding around is not being well-received by him. Apparently, he does take everything seriously.

Anonymous

4:38 AM

When I suggested Dan about no church following Christ with a question mark, he said that was highly subjective. Later, I restated the same thing with a period, and he answered in the affirmative. I conclude that Dan likes to take a non-contentious approach in responding.

I could become a Second Dan.

Cool.

Sort of like Jesus, who is interpreted by some people as the "Second Adam".

Or Mary, mother of Jesus, who is interpreted by some people as the "Second Eve".

The first Adam and Eve sinned, but the second Adam and Eve made right.

The first Dan falls away from Lutheranism. The second Dan defends Lutheranism.

TRiG

8:06 AM

@Anonymous I suspect the difference is that praying is not part of the Western definition of theologians, though no doubt most of them do pray.

Transcript for