EdFred
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 31,402
- Location
- Michigan
- Display Name
- The Ed
- Home Airfield
- 9D9 / 6Y9 / 88TN
Quick search revealed:
"an-/a- meaning:not, without - examples: anemic, asymmetric"
It's a fine point but I usually see the "without" meaning as appropriate.
Amoral means without morals. Immoral would be to have bad morals.
Asexual means without sex.
Apolitical means without politics.
And so on.
So a-theist would mean "without God". I know many put forth that atheists should be able to make an affirmative case for "no God", but I kind of like the "without God" - it seems to fit most of the atheist positions I've seen articulated. It's hard to prove a negative as is an unwarranted shifting of burden.
Though I'm sure there are exceptions.
I live my life without God, so I think atheist is an appropriate label.
I always thought of that as a cop out. If one is to make an absolute declaration one way or the other, the burden is still on them to prove the case. As an agnostic, both the theists and atheists are in the same camp from my point of view.
If I say purple spotted imvisible unicorns don't exist, the burden is still on me to back up my statement. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Although you're off a bit on the definition since the -ist suffix is in that word.