Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-01-2014, 12:54 PM (This post was last modified: 17-01-2014 01:01 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
A thought experiment Makle:

You feel the swollen glands on your neck. Other people feel your forehead, and the glands, and check your heart rate, etc., and conclude you have cancer.

You go through life, believing you have cancer. Now, one day, you decide to get a full body CT scan. And you discover that, viola, you have no detectable cancer. As you look back at your previous diagnosis of cancer, you come to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to ever conclude you had cancer to begin with.

Is it fair to say that your cancer is in remission (aka rejection)? Or is it more correct to say that you never had cancer to begin with?

Atheism is not the remission of cancer. It is the examination of the evidence, and the conclusion that one has no reason to believe they have cancer, although, there is a small possibility (but not plausibility) that cancer hasn't been detected yet. But as of right now, with the evidence currently available, we have no reason to believe we have cancer.

Thats atheism, dude. Keep it simple, stupid.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cathym112's post
17-01-2014, 01:06 PM
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
(17-01-2014 12:25 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Interesting. You seem to think we come here just to argue about not believing?

There's also a lot of back slapping and pointing and ridiculing that doesn't involve arguing, but yes, for the most part the vast majority of the discussions in this section of this website are antagonistic arguments against religious belief.

(17-01-2014 12:25 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Where would you get that idea, and not necessarily that its for community and camaraderie of surrounding yourself with like minded individuals?

From the threads and the posts.

(17-01-2014 12:25 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I guess you haven't been to any other section in this forum except for this one, eh?

I'm referring to this section.

(17-01-2014 12:25 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Yes, we talk about religion, but we do not speak of religion in terms of the rejection of Islamic god or christian god, but more for our rejection that there is sufficient evidence for these religions to be true.

Oh, there's more than enough direct criticisms of religious beliefs and practices. It doesn't necessarily have to do with the existence of god alone.

(17-01-2014 12:25 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Christ almighty. This concept is not a Schrodinger's cat scenario. We don't both reject god and not believe in god.

You absolutely can and do. There is plenty of semantic overlap between the two concepts.

(17-01-2014 12:25 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Please tell me one Atheist sermon...and not the satirical FSM prayer. Tell me one Atheist Hymn, or one instance of an Atheist temple, church, or official Atheist building for which only atheists may enter, be welcomed, and for which achieves Atheist Salvation.

I've linked to them multiple times already today, but see here, here, and here, for a few examples of organized and serious atheist churches.

(17-01-2014 11:40 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  We don't reject the existence of god.

Most atheists absolutely do. The vast majority of the people who say they don't reject the existence of god self-identify as agnostic, although people like Dawkins claim it's just highly unlikely a deity exists, for all intents and purposes (and particularly in light of his anti-religious rhetoric), he obviously rejects the existence of god.

(17-01-2014 12:25 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  So in order to reject something...you have to acknowledge its existence, no?

Not at all. There's an enormous difference between rejecting in the sense of combating an entity's influence and rejecting in the sense of denying an entity's reality. You're prancing around in semantic corners again, refusing to acknowledge the huge swaths of semantic senses that are commonly elicited in discourse.

(17-01-2014 12:25 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  We do not refuse birthday presents we have not yet received....thats stupid. No

And "refuse" and "reject" are two different concepts with different and somewhat overlapping semantic fields. It's clear you haven't thought much about semantics, and are just presupposing certain limited senses for these words. I suggest you expand your horizons a lot.

(17-01-2014 12:25 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  A lack of evidence for belief means i insist on belief? Huh

If you accept something as true, you have a belief. I've already addressed how atheism most commonly makes assertions, and is only defined as the generic absence of belief in deity for rhetorical purposes.

(17-01-2014 12:25 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Telling someone that the evidence they provide is insufficient to warrant belief is not telling them that they are wrong.

Yes it is. You're telling them they're wrong to believe. If you just insist it's not sufficient for you to believe, that's one thing, but if you assert there is anything problematic about them believing, you're absolutely telling them they're wrong.

(17-01-2014 12:25 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Wow. Is English not your first language?

C'mon, even you know you're being silly with that little jab.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2014, 01:06 PM
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
(17-01-2014 12:54 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  A thought experiment Makle:

You feel the swollen glands on your neck. Other people feel your forehead, and the glands, and check your heart rate, etc., and conclude you have cancer.

You go through life, believing you have cancer. Now, one day, you decide to get a full body CT scan. And you discover that, viola, you have no detectable cancer. As you look back at your previous diagnosis of cancer, you come to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to ever conclude you had cancer to begin with.

Is it fair to say that your cancer is in remission (aka rejection)? Or is it more correct to say that you never had cancer to begin with?

Atheism is not the remission of cancer. It is the examination of the evidence, and the conclusion that one has no reason to believe they have cancer, although, there is a small possibility (but not plausibility) that cancer hasn't been detected yet. But as of right now, with the evidence currently available, we have no reason to believe we have cancer.

Thats atheism, dude. Keep it simple, stupid.

IDK, Cathym. Some people enjoy being sick despite the complete absence of evidence for illness. Some even inflict illness on themselves (Munchausen syndrome). Could we be seeing some of that in this thread? Nice analogy, BTW.
Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2014, 01:08 PM (This post was last modified: 17-01-2014 01:20 PM by maklelan.)
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
(17-01-2014 12:54 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  A thought experiment Makle:

You feel the swollen glands on your neck. Other people feel your forehead, and the glands, and check your heart rate, etc., and conclude you have cancer.

You go through life, believing you have cancer. Now, one day, you decide to get a full body CT scan. And you discover that, viola, you have no detectable cancer. As you look back at your previous diagnosis of cancer, you come to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to ever conclude you had cancer to begin with.

Is it fair to say that your cancer is in remission (aka rejection)? Or is it more correct to say that you never had cancer to begin with?

Atheism is not the remission of cancer. It is the examination of the evidence, and the conclusion that one has no reason to believe they have cancer, although, there is a small possibility (but not plausibility) that cancer hasn't been detected yet. But as of right now, with the evidence currently available, we have no reason to believe we have cancer.

Thats atheism, dude. Keep it simple, stupid.

That's a rather silly false analogy, as proposing atheism was the remission of cancer presupposes the actual existence of the cancer. In other words, your analogy pretends I'm insisting atheism is what's left over when true religion suddenly stops existing. Religion was true, and now it's not: atheism. That's not at all what I'm saying atheism is, though. A more accurate recapitulation of your analogy would be to say that atheism is indeed the insistence that there was never cancer there to begin with, and the sustained opposition to people who suggest otherwise. It's still a belief that is reified in opposition to the antithetical belief.

You're just going in rhetorical circles, and you've still not engaged the fact that your little semantic games are excluding the vast, vast majority of self-identified atheists out there. Here's an example of who you're ignoring: atheists.org is the website of the American Atheists, a group started in 1963 that represents thousands and thousands of American atheists. Here is their definition of atheism:

Quote:Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

So in that brief definition alone (and a few weeks ago I went over the inferiority of dictionary lexicography to encyclopedic lexicography, but that's a different story) insists on a shared belief, a shared programmatic goal, and a shared rejection of religious dogma. Perhaps you're the one who actually speaks on behalf of all atheism, though.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2014, 01:16 PM
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
sorry no. Those links you provided do not support the conclusion that they are Atheist churches.

A gathering or congregation of anyone with similar interests would be considered a church by your definition.

In order to be a church, one must share a common belief, worship a common entity, and have exempt tax status from the government. Those links you provided do not, in any way, support that definition. Try again.

Otherwsie, you could have the church of soccer, the church of chess, the church of gardening, the list goes on. Any club for which there are paying members does not mean a church.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cathym112's post
17-01-2014, 01:20 PM
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
(17-01-2014 01:08 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(17-01-2014 12:54 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  A thought experiment Makle:

You feel the swollen glands on your neck. Other people feel your forehead, and the glands, and check your heart rate, etc., and conclude you have cancer.

You go through life, believing you have cancer. Now, one day, you decide to get a full body CT scan. And you discover that, viola, you have no detectable cancer. As you look back at your previous diagnosis of cancer, you come to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to ever conclude you had cancer to begin with.

Is it fair to say that your cancer is in remission (aka rejection)? Or is it more correct to say that you never had cancer to begin with?

Atheism is not the remission of cancer. It is the examination of the evidence, and the conclusion that one has no reason to believe they have cancer, although, there is a small possibility (but not plausibility) that cancer hasn't been detected yet. But as of right now, with the evidence currently available, we have no reason to believe we have cancer.

Thats atheism, dude. Keep it simple, stupid.

That's a rather silly false analogy. You're just going in rhetorical circles, and you've still not engaged the fact that your little semantic games are excluding the vast, vast majority of self-identified atheists out there. Here's an example of who you're ignoring: atheists.org is the website of the American Atheists, a group started in 1963 that represents thousands and thousands of American atheists. Here is their definition of atheism:

Quote:Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

So in that brief definition alone (and a few weeks ago I went over the inferiority of dictionary lexicography to encyclopedic lexicography, but that's a different story) insists on a shared belief, a shared programmatic goal, and a shared rejection of religious dogma. Perhaps you're the one who actually speaks on behalf of all atheism, though.

Where on earth are you getting these definitions from?

Lets look at the definition of religion and work backwards according the dictionary.

re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

Now before you go and consider the less godly definitions with any credence:
realize that Atheism is the ANTONYM (that means opposite for those with literary challenges)
of religion:

Antonyms
atheism, godlessness

But hey, maybe you are right. Maybe I'm excluding all other atheists who disagree. Lets ask them: Anyone who has a lack of belief say "aye"

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cathym112's post
17-01-2014, 01:31 PM
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
(17-01-2014 01:16 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  sorry no. Those links you provided do not support the conclusion that they are Atheist churches.

They don't? So when the founder of Community Mission Chapel says the following, he's just got his fingers crossed?

Quote:Community Mission Chapel will be a full-fledged church where those who consider themselves to be non-religious will find a community of like minded people.

(17-01-2014 01:16 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  A gathering or congregation of anyone with similar interests would be considered a church by your definition.

No, not necessarily. There has to be a broadly shared worldview and truth framework. Many of the prototypical church activities, like singing and sermons and donations, also contribute to the undeniable fact that those congregations are atheist churches, even if you do insist on telling the founder of Community Mission Chapel that his congregation is not what he designed it to be.

(17-01-2014 01:16 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  In order to be a church, one must share a common belief, worship a common entity, and have exempt tax status from the government.

Laughably ignorant, Cathy. Belief in deity is not a necessary and sufficient feature of religion or a church, and you can go read here or here (both written by atheists) for more information about how both are delineated by scholars. Next, all a church has to do to lose tax exempt status is engage in politicking, and there are plenty of churches that do that. The IRS doesn't establish what are and are not churches, and by your definition churches that operate in countries that do not have tax exemptions like that would not be churches. What an ignorant and ethnocentric assumption. How dare you talk down to me and my intellect and then insult my intelligence with this rhetorical defecate.

(17-01-2014 01:16 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Those links you provided do not, in any way, support that definition. Try again.

Yeah, "Nu-uh!" doesn't really cut it where I come from.

(17-01-2014 01:16 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Otherwsie, you could have the church of soccer, the church of chess, the church of gardening, the list goes on. Any club for which there are paying members does not mean a church.

You missed the mark by a mile there, Cathy, and I'm beginning to think you're too far out of your league to make any real contribution to this discussion.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2014, 01:43 PM (This post was last modified: 17-01-2014 02:52 PM by Chas.)
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
(17-01-2014 01:08 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(17-01-2014 12:54 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  A thought experiment Makle:

You feel the swollen glands on your neck. Other people feel your forehead, and the glands, and check your heart rate, etc., and conclude you have cancer.

You go through life, believing you have cancer. Now, one day, you decide to get a full body CT scan. And you discover that, viola, you have no detectable cancer. As you look back at your previous diagnosis of cancer, you come to the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to ever conclude you had cancer to begin with.

Is it fair to say that your cancer is in remission (aka rejection)? Or is it more correct to say that you never had cancer to begin with?

Atheism is not the remission of cancer. It is the examination of the evidence, and the conclusion that one has no reason to believe they have cancer, although, there is a small possibility (but not plausibility) that cancer hasn't been detected yet. But as of right now, with the evidence currently available, we have no reason to believe we have cancer.

Thats atheism, dude. Keep it simple, stupid.

That's a rather silly false analogy, as proposing atheism was the remission of cancer presupposes the actual existence of the cancer. In other words, your analogy pretends I'm insisting atheism is what's left over when true religion suddenly stops existing. Religion was true, and now it's not: atheism. That's not at all what I'm saying atheism is, though. A more accurate recapitulation of your analogy would be to say that atheism is indeed the insistence that there was never cancer there to begin with, and the sustained opposition to people who suggest otherwise. It's still a belief that is reified in opposition to the antithetical belief.

You're just going in rhetorical circles, and you've still not engaged the fact that your little semantic games are excluding the vast, vast majority of self-identified atheists out there. Here's an example of who you're ignoring: atheists.org is the website of the American Atheists, a group started in 1963 that represents thousands and thousands of American atheists. Here is their definition of atheism:

Quote:Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

So in that brief definition alone (and a few weeks ago I went over the inferiority of dictionary lexicography to encyclopedic lexicography, but that's a different story) insists on a shared belief, a shared programmatic goal, and a shared rejection of religious dogma. Perhaps you're the one who actually speaks on behalf of all atheism, though.

You really missed the point.

Atheism is the recognition that there was and is no evidence of cancer.

And you are seriously trying to convince us of what and how we define atheism and that it defines our "lifestyle"? You are a colossally arrogant man.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
17-01-2014, 01:46 PM
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
You are not only delusional in your own beliefs, you are delusional about ours. Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-01-2014, 01:46 PM
RE: Mormonism: A White Supremacy Cult? (answer: yes)
(17-01-2014 01:20 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Where on earth are you getting these definitions from?

From the vast, vast fields of the sociology and psychology of religion and atheism, as well as semantics, linguistics, and cognitive theory. Where are you getting your definitions from, the dictionary? You really want me to give you a crash course in how useless dictionaries are for establishing the meaning of words? Fine. First, go read Charles Fillmore, "Frame Semantics," Linguistics in the Morning Calm (1982): 111–37, and you'll find out how words are really used to transmit meaning, and how dictionaries over overprecise, often ignoring the nuances of words because they're founded on binary Aristotelian notions of categories that hold to necessary and sufficient features. In other words, the impose an artificial and inaccurate underlying conceptual framework that allows words to be distilled down to single sentences. Then go read Charles Ruhl, On Monosemy (Google Books preview) for many more examples of just how much dictionaries miss the mark. From there, check out Eleanor Rosch, Principles of Categorization Now we're into cognitive semantics and prototype theory, so check out John Taylor, Linguistic Categorization, and you'll find out all about profiles, domains, and matrices that help us contextualize and understand words, phrases, colloquialisms, etc. If you're still want to learn more, Langacker, Rosch, Geeraerts, and Croft and Cruse all have excellent discussions of cognitive linguistics, grammar, and semantics. After that, you come back and we'll have a discussion about how you do and do not define concepts like "religion" and "atheism."

(17-01-2014 01:20 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Lets look at the definition of religion and work backwards according the dictionary.

No, let's not. You really are a naive hobbyist when it comes to your own worldview. You haven't taken the time to study all that much at all.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: