Etymology is the development of words, and like other words, “god” evolved. Without Old English, the word god has no meaning. That’s because the idea of word “god” resides in the origin the word.
“God” started from the Sanskrit word “hub” or “emu”. Later this will become the root of the Gothic term “gheu”. So the word god came from India, then it traveled to the Eastern Germanic Europeans and then to England in about 450 to 1050 CE. At that time, Bede and Adlhelm were translating the Bible from Old Latin to Old English.
So “deus” was transformed to “god” not because that was the Supreme Being’s name but because that was the language of the Anglo Saxons. Most Latin words were of Greco-Roman origin. The Latin deus came from the Greek word theos. So where did the word theos (θεός) come from? It was derived from the Proto-Indo-European root dhēs- which means “to call” or “to invoke”.
It was also said that the word theos was derived from two Greek verbs theoro (I see) and theo (to run). All seeing and all moving huh? Well that’s according to John Scuttus Eruigena.
But the name Zeus (The top god of Olympus) was derived from the Proto-Indo-European root dyeu- which means “to shine”. The notion of a deity was therefore linked to the notion of the bright sky. Well may I add that for Indo-Europeans, the society of the gods was conceived in the image of their own society as patriarchal.
Even the Filipino word diyos or dios came from the Spanish deos which can again be traced back from the Greek word theos. Another Filipino word for god is Bathala, from Sanskrit bhattara which means something honorific, something venerable, and worshipful.
So the word god is actually nothing but a label which embodied a being that is supposed to be Almighty. Without human ideas, “god” is nothing but a meaningless, hollow word.
I think the best meaning of the word god is the personification of human ideas of human qualities expanded beyond human limits.
@IK
"I respect atheists like you (and Red, if he is), even when they criticize the concept of god. I hope I was respectful enough with my comment above." – IK
I don't believe this because if you really did then you would have been intellectually diligent and made constructive claims in your previous arguments instead of ones that are unverifiable and requires people to just take you word for it.
And when someone points out this pattern of reaction makes you not-fit to have a constructive discussion with you claim "ad hominems" and begin going round and round with non-constructive claims again.
Saying "nice" pleasant things or apparent "hostility" doesn't make a facts and observation less-true or fallacious. It just makes you sound like a ****
Not to forget your guerrilla attacks, inserting off-topic matters like atheist morality in a middle of non-related argument.
Why do you keep whining and whining and whining about respecting your thoughts; this and that person was so mean to you; this and that guy overreacted so he hates me; disrespects me; why are you guys attacking me i wanna be your friend. Always with your whining!
Actually come to think of it I don't remember GabbyD whining like that. Still he's at it. All smiles I am assuming since many in this group do not agree with him. But most importantly he does not whine like you.
“The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.” -Wikipedia
Though etymology is an aid in the historical method, historians normally look more into the ideas if they can be considered primary sources.
So whether or not God is just a big word, I think it is not a good argument for atheism. Current popular usage among English speakers use the word “god.” Other languages, of course, have their own words for it. Some philosophers call that identity as “maximally great being” (Alvin Plantinga). Anslem liked the term “greatest conceivable being.”
In other words, I think meaning/reference is more significant in historical method than etymology (though, again, etymology is important too).
First, the article is not an argument for atheism. (Gosh! Why do you say that @ Isang Kaibigan). It's not even an argument, it's just an article about the etymology of the word "god".
You don't have to be too paranoid when you see or read my articlea @ Isang Kaibigan. You see this is a freethinker's site, not an atheist site, so I don't need to talk about arguments here often.
Second, etymologicaslly speaking, we are not after here whether the said source is true or not existing. What we are after here are the human ideas that brought up the word.
Do the meaning of the word is more significant in historical method than etymology? I beg to disagree. Historical method examine how a word has changed its meaning over time, trying to reveal an original meaning while etymologies are concerned to show how a word is similar to other words, how it relates to other similar words. Therefore we can get a better insight on etymology than your historical methods and place it in its historical context.
Have a nice day.
Hi John!
<>
You are correct.
<>
If you think I overreacted, I apologize. I thought Red is an avowed atheist <a href="http://(http://ryantani.com/2009/01/24/atheists-creed/),” target=”_blank”>(http://ryantani.com/2009/01/24/atheists-creed/), not just a freethinker.
I respect atheists like you (and Red, if he is), even when they criticize the concept of god. I hope I was respectful enough with my comment above.
I also presumed that anyone can share his thoughts whenever an article is posted. Those were my thoughts. I hope people can also respect those thoughts.
I guess differ significantly about historical method. You place greater importance on etymology. I place greater importance on concepts, w/o undue disregard to etymology.
But pls take a look how he did his etymology. He simply compared words in different languages w/o explaining the concept on how those words for god were supposedly invented. And so, I think etymology was misused here.
Try also where his etymology led him or what conclusion he drew from his etymology (pls refer to Red’s last paragraph). Pls note that his conclusion is a non sequitur from his etymology. It was a speculation, not based on the history of either concepts of “god” or etymology of the term “god” from different cultures, geography, and time.
These are just my thoughts.
I still respect Red’s thoughts.
Oh! Quote quotes above are gone.
Sorry about that! I meant that my quotes of John's words are gone. The first quote was John's first paragraph. The second quote was his second.
Have a nice day to, John!
Sorry, these are not my thoughts. Red = Ryan Tani = redtani. Pinoyatheist = John the Atheist.
By the way, this is a site for freethinkers of all kinds, not just atheists.
Big big big apologies Red! So so sorry! How could I make that mistake? So sorry again!
Big big big apologies to pinoyatheist too! So so sorry for crediting your thoughts to Red!
Apologies accepted @ IK…Just a little advice: Think first before replying and try reading the article first.
Have a nice day.
John the Atheist ( John the Atheist is not Red, nor Ryan Tani. John the Atheist and Pinoy Atheist is the same person.)
Isang Kaibigan: But pls take a look how he did his etymology. He simply compared words in different languages w/o explaining the concept on how those words for god were supposedly invented. And so, I think etymology was misused here.
John the Atheist: Then you don't know what etymology is all about.
Etymology is about the origin of a certain word and if you only read my article (and not just giving us a big whining about it) you will notice that I have included simple explination when and why the word originate. (Come on…I don't think I need to point it to you one by one @ Isang Kaibigan)
My last paragraph is not a conclusion base on the article @ Isang Kaibigan. Notice the word "I think the best meaning of the word ". A conclusion is a position or opinion or judgment reached after consideration. Now notice I used the word "think"…I'm making an interference NOT a conclusion.