Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-05-2014, 03:50 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(02-05-2014 03:04 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(02-05-2014 01:27 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  So define the terms for us. I can't get there yet, but if you have some definitions and you demonstrate them to be better, I can start to come to be persuaded to your line of reasoning.
http://secularlibrary.freeforums.net/

http://www.secularlibrary.info/

Perhaps I missed your point with those references, but at first glance it appears that what people are actually doing is a combination of your arguments and ours. They are doing what you propose should be done and calling it something other than atheism to avoid getting bogged down in confusion with the existing meaning of the term.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 04:20 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(02-05-2014 03:50 PM)djhall Wrote:  Perhaps I missed your point with those references, but at first glance it appears that what people are actually doing is a combination of your arguments and ours. They are doing what you propose should be done and calling it something other than atheism to avoid getting bogged down in confusion with the existing meaning of the term.

You're silly - there is nothing going on except my building of the review system - there are no other members.

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, 04:26 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(02-05-2014 04:20 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(02-05-2014 03:50 PM)djhall Wrote:  Perhaps I missed your point with those references, but at first glance it appears that what people are actually doing is a combination of your arguments and ours. They are doing what you propose should be done and calling it something other than atheism to avoid getting bogged down in confusion with the existing meaning of the term.

You're silly - there is nothing going on except my building of the review system - there are no other members.
Ah, well, in that case you have taken on an interesting but ambitious project!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 05:11 PM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2014 05:16 PM by joben1.)
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(01-05-2014 01:14 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Atheism is the political doctrine determined to eliminate the legislation of law based on theist doctrines.

Did you get a massive knock on the bonce as that train turned into a wreck? It's the only thing I can think of that explains your moronity (definition - idiot).

And this is all that's needed as a response to every one of your posts as more than this is just wasting time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 05:19 PM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2014 05:24 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
I cannot believe that you would continue this in the other thread about "belief." You should be aware that you seem to be rather peculiar. My definition for atheism is pretty direct - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine.

(02-05-2014 04:49 PM)djhall Wrote:  
(02-05-2014 04:31 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I do not know how they determine the correct definitions of words - there seems to be different approaches by different editors of dictionaries.

A "scientific" classification system to organize the concepts, and then a "scientific" sentence structure is what I am proposing. And what this will do is align concepts and be easier to comprehend the array of knowledge.
Then would it be too much to say that your definition of the word atheism is more accurately proposed as "better" or "less likely to get bogged down in theological objections" or "more useful in the context of a secular movement that has evolved into being pro-science and humanism rather than simply anti-religious" or "more useful in focusing the atheist community toward a unified purpose" instead of simply "correct"?
I do not worry about theological objections. And after that I would say that it should be, as you put it, "more useful in the context of a secular movement that has evolved into being pro-science and humanism rather than simply anti-religious," and that is going to lead to, "more useful in the context of a secular movement that has evolved into being pro-science and humanism rather than simply anti-religious."

You're really seem to be trying to tear this apart more than what is necessary. Atheist organizations are already dedicated to political motivations.

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, 06:05 PM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2014 06:13 PM by djhall.)
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(02-05-2014 05:19 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You're really seem to be trying to tear this apart more than what is necessary. Atheist organizations are already dedicated to political motivations.
I don't mean to tear it apart more than necessary. I'm just trying to not get bogged down in arguing or get myself hopelessly tangled up in big fancy philosophy terms, so that just maybe I can understand in unsophisticated and simple terms what it is you are trying to say, how you came to develop your ideas, why they are meaningfully important to you, why you think they should be meaningfully important to us, and why my simple reactions like "well, wouldn't it just be easier to use a different term to describe your idea" or "as long as your ideas succeed, why do we care if the term atheist succeeds or dies as well" are dumb and unworkable.

I see the word atheist like I see the word marriage. I don't care if everyone gets marriages or everyone gets civil unions or everyone gets domestic partnerships from the state. I'm not committed to the word marriage. If religious people want the word so bad, they can have it. I'm committed to the principle that the authorities don't differentiate between different partnerships, even if only symbolically in the name they give it. As long as that idea wins, I don't care what you call it.

Similarly, I think the existence of a creator is insufficiently proven. I very strongly think the existence a creator is vastly insufficiently proven to justify the use of force, governmental or otherwise, to make people who disagree with those belief comply with their dictates, morals, or standards of behavior. However, as long as those ideas are clear and the terms used allow for meaningful discussion, debate, and propagation of those concepts, I don't care if they are called atheism or secularism or humanism or non-theism or whatever.

However, you do seem to believe the word itself is somehow important, and you seem to have put a fair amount of thought into reaching that conclusion. I'm trying to understand the how and why of that, though I sometimes get the impression you enjoy the arguing and demonstrating your mastery of terminology enough that it would spoil your fun to dumb it down to that level.

As for atheist organizations, I suppose that is probably a fairly accurate generalization. The only reasons I can think of for atheists to organize would be to oppose the imposition of theist beliefs on non-believers and for mutual moral support. As a whole, I think we tend to see ourselves more in terms of what we don't want imposed on us instead of what we want to impose on others. Since atheism is fairly common now, I suspect most serious organizing would tend to gravitate toward that realm. However, the activist and organized community is a very small minority of the overall non-theist population. I'm not sure that small group has any special claim to the word.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 06:25 PM
Big Grin RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(02-05-2014 05:19 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You should be aware that you seem to be rather peculiar.
Rolleyes Its a beautiful Friday afternoon and I'm actually discussing your definition of atheism and whether your claim that it is the "correct" one is a case of overselling a proposal or if there is something about your argument that I'm not following enough to understand yet. I'd say that is prima facie evidence that I'm peculiar. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 06:26 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(02-05-2014 05:19 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I cannot believe that you would continue this in the other thread about "belief." You should be aware that you seem to be rather peculiar. My definition for atheism is pretty direct - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine.

You keep saying that, but have expressed no interest in changing the definition of "Theist" to include "political doctrine." Why is that?

β€œIt 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
02-05-2014, 06:54 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(02-05-2014 05:19 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I do not worry about theological objections. And after that I would say that it should be, as you put it, "more useful in the context of a secular movement that has evolved into being pro-science and humanism rather than simply anti-religious," and that is going to lead to, "more useful in the context of a secular movement that has evolved into being pro-science and humanism rather than simply anti-religious."

Hmm... are you essentially arguing that atheism, as currently defined in terms of being not-theist, is too limited a vision to be effectively and actively promoted to a larger audience as a viable alternative to theism, as it contributes no positive vision or replacement for the theist based views, morals, ethics, and political movements that would need to be replaced if atheism were to win the battle of ideas over theism? Instead we should view atheism as merely the political opposition to theist doctrine in law, and promote identification with humanism instead in order to build a positive alternative vision for morals, ethics, justification of social laws, etc. that can be promoted as a positive alternative to theism and which would not be archaically tied to "not-theism" logic if it won the war of ideas and theism died out as a widespread belief?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 07:09 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(02-05-2014 06:26 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(02-05-2014 05:19 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I cannot believe that you would continue this in the other thread about "belief." You should be aware that you seem to be rather peculiar. My definition for atheism is pretty direct - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine.

You keep saying that, but have expressed no interest in changing the definition of "Theist" to include "political doctrine." Why is that?
It has to do with ontology - humanism is the proper ontological antithesis to theism, because it does not make sense to order an ontology based on opposition to another ontology; which is what happens when you understand atheism as the opposite of theism.

Theism is a doctrine that suggest that god defines reality, but we know it is merely policy, but theists believe it is the work of god that causes people to believe in god. And so when we protest the demand to believe in god we are protesting what is essentially public policy for theists.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: