Atheism=Theism?

Hammie said:
Reference, of course.
Click to expand...
You will have to go through the entire process every time you want to know what kind of atheists someone is. So compartmentalizing atheists doesn't make it easier to refer to the particular kinds.
I wonder how and why, and if indeed it is possible without arbitrarily drawn lines.
It certainly seems to defeat purpose..

Hammie said:
Lack of a decision is the decision made.
Click to expand...
Uh.. no.
 
As a fundamentalist chessplayer, I am strongly opposed to nonchessplayers having clubs & meetings.

“ Originally Posted by one_raven
It would simply be prestilinguidation, or, in the brilliant words of Winston Churchill, "to varnish nonsense with the charms of sound." ”

Ophiolite said:
Until you said this I was opposed to Ham's views and in support of yours. However, anyone who uses really long words and quotes Churchill, in the same sentence, deserves to be deified. I bow in obesiance oh great one.;)
Click to expand...

one_raven said:
Does it help or hurt that I made the word up?
Click to expand...

If the word makes sense, it should help.
1111
 
Last edited by a moderator:
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
If the word makes sense, it should help.
As a fundamentalist chessplayer, I am strongly opposed to nonchessplayers having clubs & meetings.
1111
Click to expand...

And why would theists want to compartmentalize atheists in the first place ?
Is it the "Know thy enemy" thing ?
 
More like it's the jump to conclusions about people we've made into enemies thing. They don't know. They seem unwilling to even try to know.
1111
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Theist & atheist are simply words with simple meanings.
So should be the word worship but people misuse words. People often say they worship something when what they do does not equate to worship. They do it enough tho that dictionaries stupidly list that as another definition of the word.
Too many don't know what words mean but want to pretend they do. People even argue that a pickup truck is not a car & a thumb is not a finger & humans are not animals.
1111
 
Last edited by a moderator:
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
People often say they worship something when what they do does not equate to worship. They do it enough tho that dictionaries, stupidly list that as another definition of the word.
Click to expand...
Since the function of a dictionary is to address the use of language then this is hardly stupid. Almost every word we use has changed its meaning over time. Languages evolve. Accept it.
 
The function of dictionaries should be to give the correct definitions. Definitions should not change due the the careless whims of the masses.
Sometimes language evolves. Sometimes language devolves.
It is absurd & stupid.
1111
 
You clearly have no idea of the vitality of language. The French tried with their central institute to fix their language in place. That is doubtless on of the reasons English became the primary international language. (Ironic we call it a lingua franca.) Definitions change because usage of the language changes. You may not like the change. Tough.
 
Stranger-You and I agree on this.

I find atheist a word lacking, due to it's generality. It has been suggested that evangelism is something not found in atheism, and I suppose then, that zealot is not to be used in describing an atheist either. The fact remains, however, that different atheists portray their atheism differently.

As I pointed out in the OP, the differences in the atheist involved suggest that there are more specific forms of atheism. Some are zealous(excuse the word) atheists, some are simple atheists. Lack of belief in a deity comes in many forms. Some atheists like the idea of ghosts and supernatural occurences. Some atheists do not. These appear, to the external observer, to be classifiable differences. It would seem that one atheist might consider another atheist less of an atheist due to their different hold on atheism.
 
one_raven said:
For example, swarm considers himself an atheist.
Click to expand...

To be honest I've never really seen the point. Its like being an a-unicornist.

And I thought you fell out on the theist side of things?

I guess its important for some to have the right foes to smite.
 
swarm said:
And I thought you fell out on the theist side of things?
Click to expand...

I really don't consider myself either.
I DO have something I consider divine - I deify, worship and have deep reverence for it.
IT, however, is naturalistic.

I don't feel the need to label that - I leave the labelling up to Hamtastic.
 
I've always said something similar: there are two categories of people 1) people who categorize other people 2) people who do not.

I'm a member of the latter category, of course.

Someone will undoubtedly take me seriously here.
 
While we are on the subject of categorisation, many of you will recall that there are actually 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
 
one_raven said:
I really don't consider myself either.
I DO have something I consider divine - I deify, worship and have deep reverence for it.
IT, however, is naturalistic.

I don't feel the need to label that - I leave the labelling up to Hamtastic.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Sounds sort of Spinozan.

We seem to have similar views here. I just can't bring myself to inflict deification on some unsuspecting IT.

In fact come to think of it, probably a good test for such things is anything wanting to be deified is undoubtedly unworthy of it.
 
Just to gain some clarity, then, those of you who have posted in this thread would prefer to be judged as individuals, and not as a bunch of atheists?
 
All humans are atheists. Its just that some refuse to accept that they are almost certainly without god(s) and delude themselves to believe that a personal deity watches over them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top