Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2014, 09:45 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(28-04-2014 11:02 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I'm right, and you are wrong. I participate at the PoliticalForums, my ID is CyberCynic. I am years ahead of all of you,

Yes dear. If you say so. Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-05-2014, 09:51 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
[Image: nothing-to-do-here_o_186886.gif]

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logisch's post
01-05-2014, 10:27 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(01-05-2014 09:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-04-2014 11:02 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I'm right, and you are wrong. I participate at the PoliticalForums, my ID is CyberCynic. I am years ahead of all of you,

Yes dear. If you say so. Facepalm

Actually, this makes a ton of sense.

There are some serious nutterbutters on Political Forums.

They're heavily Neo Con biased as well, and there's a lot of cross-pollination (pollution?) from Stormfront.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 10:35 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2014 10:38 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(01-05-2014 10:27 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 09:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yes dear. If you say so. Facepalm

Actually, this makes a ton of sense.

There are some serious nutterbutters on Political Forums.

They're heavily Neo Con biased as well, and there's a lot of cross-pollination (pollution?) from Stormfront.

Ooooh, thanks for reminding me. Speaking of Neo Cons ... there's a new book out. I can't find it, about the complete failure of the Neo Con bullshit in Iraq.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/...t=1&f=1001
How many people dead ? And absolutely nothing accomplished.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/...ns-lament/

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
02-05-2014, 04:52 AM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(01-05-2014 06:44 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 06:39 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Look, fucktard, you don't get to make up your own definitions of words and foist them on the rest of the world.
Don't tell me what I can and cannot do.

Says the moron who is trying to force his own unique and fallacious definitions of words on the entire fucking planet.


Quote:Every fucking book at the entrance of the fucking bookstore in your sorry-ass town, is dedicated to changing peoples minds about what they believe; otherwise they wouldn't fucking bother to write them, because why the fuck would anybody read them???


I don't think a fucking cookbook is going to change anyone's worldview.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
02-05-2014, 06:23 AM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
[Image: afim-413chan-net_fim_src_134424136054_do...-jpg.24325]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes wazzel's post
02-05-2014, 06:38 AM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2014 08:58 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
I have enjoyed this thread.

I particularly liked the comedy of errors at the beginning. The style settled down during the second act and the ending was in turns kinda surreal and anti-climactic.

TW,
Yup, I get what you're saying and I agree with some points.

Stealing the definitional high-ground might indeed be a good idea...

The 'movement' defines god and not god and then shoots down all assailants.

Strawman accusations are hurled at our ramparts in a reversal of the current set up and we swat them aside with jeers of "you are defining your gods incorrectly" and "you're mother was an hamster... etc."

And I guess, your main point is that there is no 'movement' therefore no victory on the political battlefields.

Yes, words evolve (at least, their meanings do) so sure, why not lead instead of follow.
Consider
You mention the word 'atheism' in context of the 15th century. My memory could be failing me but I recall reading that the term was originally coined by the Greeks to refer to those loony Jews with their strange monotheistic claims. Given the etymology of the word, this makes sense to me.

So atheism was akin to non-polytheism. IIRC, the Romans also used the word to describe christians for the same reason.

The term in an anti-deistic sense probably got a boost from d'Holbach et al and later while I was still young enough to be sucking nipples (well, without having to pay for the pleasure Big Grin ) the term started to become movement-ish.

But...
The current popular definition i.e. the one with the most traction is, if I may Wiki:
"... in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."
'Tis popular here on TTA, popular with Dillahunty et al on the Atheist Experience and ... well ... a little Hitch moment:




Why is it popular?
Because it is easy to defend in the god / no god debacle.

As to the point about why bother with that debate if there are a priori no gods... indeed, good question.

Except... in this highly consumerised and information-rich period of our evolution, the "no belief" approach does seem to be working. This site is testimony to the de-convert rate. Growing numbers = growing market. Growing market = growing influence.

You seem to be advocating an old-fashioned, butting-heads revolution by your choice of confrontational definitions.

The non-belief option is the passive, evolution approach of "Nah, not listening".
No wonder the yoof are joining in apathetic droves.

In summary, you seem to be saying:
Theism is the antithesis of Humanism
which I hear as:
gods are the antithesis of mankind

I get what your selling but I'm not buying.

Again, I'm enjoying the ideas so gimme another pitch.

Cheers.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
02-05-2014, 07:08 AM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(01-05-2014 09:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  Nope, you're still wrong. Your mistake is making a leap from not believing in gods to opposing doctrines. Non sequitur.
The mistake you are making is allowing for the generation of "theism" term to precede the generation of the term "atheism." That is an ontological problem that is solved by recognizing that humanism is the correction.

Science is not a subject and it is more than a method; it is the organized industry of organizing and distributing information about the nature of phenomenon. Technology is the subject, and observation is where the methods are generated with respect to the adherence to the mission of the science industry.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 07:35 AM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(02-05-2014 06:38 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Stealing the definitional high-ground might indeed be a good idea...
It is what ontology is - the defining of reality. Atheists are stupidly focused on opposing the claims of the existence of god instead of focusing on sorting out the semantics and description of reality.

(02-05-2014 06:38 AM)DLJ Wrote:  And I guess, your main point is that there is no 'movement' therefore no victory on the political battlefields.
No my main point is that atheists are stupidly focused on opposing the claims of the existence of god instead of focusing on sorting out the semantics and description of reality. Atheist organizations are focused on the political battlefields they are correctly not focused on arguing about the existence of god - the billboard campaigns are political they are trying to make the point that atheists exist and should not be discriminated against.

(02-05-2014 06:38 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Yes, words evolve (at least, their meanings do) so sure, why not lead instead of follow.
That is a good way to understand the situation that atheists are in - they're constant focus on debating god is not getting them anywhere except finding some individual relief of anxiety on atheist forums.

(02-05-2014 06:38 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Why is it popular?
Because it is easy to defend in the god / no god debacle.
It has an anti-establishment context to it.

(02-05-2014 06:38 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Except... in this highly consumerised and information-rich period of our evolution, the "no belief" approach does seem to be working. This site is testimony to the de-convert rate. Growing number = growing market. Growing market = influence.
My monitoring of atheist websites since 2002 seems to indicate a wane in the discussion participation, and nothing but the generation of the billboard campaign in the activity area; and the popular atheist books have not generated any solutions to world problems - perhaps they have "de-converted" some, but how has that benefited Mankind - what difference does it make?

(02-05-2014 06:38 AM)DLJ Wrote:  You seem to be advocating an old-fashioned, butting-heads revolution by your choice of confrontational definitions.
The definitions are not confrontational - it appears that atheists are insecure and like the theist they like to hold on to flawed concepts - misnomers.

(02-05-2014 06:38 AM)DLJ Wrote:  In summary, you seem to be saying:
Theism is the antithesis of Humanism
which I hear as:
gods are the antithesis of mankind
No. What I am saying is that the definitions are as I have them in my signature now.

(02-05-2014 06:38 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I get what your selling but I'm not buying. Again, I'm enjoying the ideas so gimme another pitch. Cheers.
Smarten-up.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 07:47 AM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(02-05-2014 07:35 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to civil law based on theist doctrine
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality

Great. Now what?

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: