The Limitations of Atheism.

tiassa,

"...a far cry from..."

I agree, but the point is that we can't rely on the origin of a word for its present meaning. Does the word "host" (Lat, "hostis") retain the same meaning that it once had? No. This agument regarding "Atheist" might be a sign of evolution, the meaning of the word is taking new dimensions, possibly. Maybe "Atheist" will die and be replace with two new words, or maybe it will remain the same with its current definition and a new word will arrise for those who are not Atheist in belief. Maybe it is time for the creation of new words which better define our beliefs.<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"I don't believe in a good number of things in the Universe, starting with American Republicans. That I disbelieve speaks nothing of whether they exist or not."

Well, you need a label then, so the Republican can identify what it is that you believe.

"...I still have yet to see "god" expressed as clearly as gravity. In that sense, I would charge that theists are simply disbelieving the idea that the Universe can exist without a god who holds humanity at the center of its regard."

Theism offers a multitude of subdivisions which better define the individual beliefs. If there is a belief in a God or Gods, then there is a label for that belief--to name a few: Judaism, Christianity, and Jainism. In contrast, atheist are trying to add modifiers to their belief: "strong." or "weak." That sounds rather lame to me. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

There is a difference between having no belief in god(s) and not believing in god(s). I think the difference is large enough that you can't lump the two together.

------------------
It's all very large.
 
Bowser--

This agument regarding "Atheist" might be a sign of evolution, the meaning of the word is taking new dimensions, possibly. Maybe "Atheist" will die and be replace with two new words, or maybe it will remain the same with its current definition and a new word will arrise for those who are not Atheist in belief.
Click to expand...

This is a fair argument, through and through. However, in relation to it, I submit to you the notion that in the American culture, marketing (lying for profit) is the fastest way to communicate an idea to the culture en masse.

In 1988, one televised debate made the word "Liberal" a cuss word.

I have not heard the word "collateral" used since the Gulf War, when the military used the term for civilian casualties. It used to have a banking purpose, as I recall.

According to the neighbors of early Christianity, the religion was not a religion at all, but atheism. It wasn't that the Christians were denying God, but that their god made no sense in relation to the natural world. Therefore, according to those early pagans, that god that made no sense was hardly a god at all. (A note on early uses of the word "atheism". It is fair to note, as well, that some cultures viewed Christianity as polytheistic; interestingly, along that note, nobody outside of the Abramic religions believes Christianity is monotheistic by definition. After all, Three Gods In One wasn't a hard thing for early pagans to grasp, but that those three unique essences were one singular essence was never properly demonstrated. But it seems in this case that words are only as fixed as a culture can make them by killing off their naysayers?)

But the word "belief" is as meaningless as "atheist" if we try to apply its original form from the etymological tree. How one perceives another is entirely subjective.

Maybe instead of trying to hold atheists to definitions, theists should try living up to their own. Seems like a fair idea. Why should an atheist accept what another assumes the atheist thinks? Especially if that theism comes in the form of a religion which obliges its adherents to a unique version of integrity that only works if you're of the faith? I mean, that's essentially equivalent to the liar telling the poet, "You're full of shite!"

Maybe the poet is, but no more than the rest of us.

Oh ...
Well, you need a label then, so the Republican can identify what it is that you believe.
Click to expand...

Normally, I'd say the Republican should simply ask me. But neat labels are the first prerequisite to judging people based solely upon them. Recent history shows, though, that conservatism--the prevailing Republican philosophy--only requires labels for the purpose of demonstrating the superlative nature of Republican conservatism.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
 
Originally posted by Bowser:
"One who has no god" or "the condition of having no god." I see no reference to "beliefs."

Are you an Atheist, Cris?
Click to expand...

I don’t really know what that definition would mean in practice. It implies that a god must exist, since it would not make sense otherwise. And it implies a ‘possessive’ action. So what does that mean? It does not describe the term of atheism that is accepted by practicing atheists. See this reference from the Atheist Alliance web site -
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

I guess many words adopt meanings by how they are used. I haven’t spent time researching the history and origin of the word atheism but I am quite happy to accept a label that describes my position that matches the definition of atheism defined by the atheist alliance.

So, yes, I am an atheist, where such label is defined by the link above. Although the term humanist is a more accurate description of my views.

I also recognize that this definition of atheism may not be fully appreciated or understood by others who are either not atheists, and have not considered the term carefully, or who are theists and believe the term might mean the opposite of their own belief system: An easy and understandable mistake. You make reference to the contemporary usage of the word atheism. It looks like there may be two versions of contemporary usage. But who has adopted the correct usage: Those that practice the ism, or those who have only limited understanding of the issues? I think you fall into the latter case, and I do not mean any disrespect by that, as I know the mistake is quite common, and dictionary definitions do not help very much.

I think I would like a term that is indisputable regarding its meaning and doesn’t imply the connotations born from centuries of misuse and superstition.

Cris


[This message has been edited by Cris (edited December 05, 2000).]
 
Cris--

It's childish, it's goofy, it's downright anemic, but still, it charms me goofy:

* This is your label: go to the mirror, look in it, point your finger at the image, and say, "Me."

That way, if anyone wants to tell you how you think, or what you are, they have to admit exactly that: That they have the right to tell you who you are.

Better be careful about taking that device away from them, though. You might be violating their constitutional rights in the US if you override their attempts to limit you with their labels. After all, you're not one of them, so you're violating their rights.

But make them admit they're full of shite before they label you. At least, then, there's less pretense.

But do declare yourself to be yourself, as it denies theists the right to snit about the definition, and can only necessarily be born when you are.

I'll hop back off my booster seat ... :D :p :D ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited December 05, 2000).]
 
Tiassa,

Yes nice, and I kinda agree and wish it were that easy.

Nearly a year ago I posted some message about atheists and agnostics etc. and I remember you replying something like ‘but isn’t the real objective to avoid labels’. So I see you are still consistent. But like then and now I disagree. Accepting a label has enormous power. It is a very effective method for instant communication. By a simple word ‘I am a ****’, where everyone or most understands ‘****’, conveys both meaning and philosophies etc. Those listening can then argue or support appropriately. Without adopting labels you run the risk of simply leaving people in confusion, or it could also mean that you are yourself so confused as to who or what you represent that you will have difficulty both communicating with others or socializing. Sorry, I don’t mean you personally.

I have made extensive use of personal labels over the years and have found it very compelling. It is like deciding ‘I’m going to be a *****’ and then go and wholeheartedly explore and research that whatever it is. With such an approach I have found that if the choice doesn’t really fit then I can truthfully say that that simply isn’t me, and then move on to something else. But with your approach of avoidance you will miss all the fun and knowledge that comes with experimentation.

The trick is to recognize when a label has worn out its usefulness and move on to something better, or there is close fit then the label could be refined if possible.

Does this make sense? It seems to be the opposite of your approach and I don’t think it has done me any harm, quite the reverse – it is perhaps my way of learning through experience, that I find both stimulating and enormously enjoyable.

Have fun
Cris
 
Cris--

You're making perfect sense. And you've stumbled toward an idea I've been unable to pin down, but it has something with transcending one behavioral pattern only to step into another. Every time I think I'm on top of things, I've merely stepped out of one ridiculous, cyclical farce into another. Often, the behavioral quirks I thought I'd shed merely reinvent themselves in new forms. Anyway ....

Actually I just saw an opening to get in my shot about labels. I well understand that people need labels to a certain sense, but much like economy, they've forgotten what the labels are for.

Myself, I've been a Christian, a Communist, a Socialist, a Democrat ... ad nauseam. I left them all behind because wherever I went, my fellow ____'s (whichever they may be: Satanist, Wiccan, horror fan ....) had no idea what it was they were involved in. Many of the "witches" I knew liked the Craft for its fashion sense; slightly better than the Lutherans, who figured that cowering submission was the only way to get to know God. Communists were like Republicans and Democrats ... market-share was more important than the fundamental center of the party. About the only labels I give myself that nobody wants to ruin this way are Mutt, Son of a Whore (both are true; this is unfortunate, if I employ the post-Victorian label-morality of my era), and Sisyphan Camusite, which nobody I know understands (myself included).

The only unfortunate thing about changing labels that I've found is that I go through them faster than women (that's hardly as fast as it's meant to sound ;) ).

In the end, I'm making an idealistic stand. I'm still a Hippie Liberal Bastard, among other things, and proud of it. :D

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
 
Tiassa,

Sisyphan Camusite! Suits you. :D I hope its something pleasant.

Considering all the experiences and facts to discover, we only ever encounter a miniscule amount in our short lifetimes. It is inevitable that most of the new experiences one attempts will begin in farce and embarrassment, simply because they will be new and it takes time to learn the ropes each time. This series of humiliations teaches just that – humility. The main caution that will stop one attempting the next challenge will be whether one is concerned about how one will appear to others; the fear of embarrassment. I treat such apparent disasters as opportunities to learn and find new courage to move on.

Put more simply it takes courage to be an individual and stand up for a particular viewpoint in a positive manner and hence adopt the label that that viewpoint implies.

You are right though that when the unattractive fringe element within a group starts to take on larger than fringe proportions then the time is ripe for moving on.

Recently I’ve moved significantly to the political left but 20 years ago I was described as being somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. I was once a royalist until in a college debate I had to argue the anti-royalist view. I’ve been anti-royalist ever since. I believe that it is not possible to fully understand the viewpoint of someone else until you actively attempt to experience his or her side. There are of course some limits to this, e.g. the unsavory elements of our society – I’m not sure I want to delve that low.

Oh well I could ramble on, but I won’t.

Take care.
Cris
 
"Actually I just saw an opening to get in my shot about labels. I well understand that people need labels to a certain sense, but much like economy, they've forgotten what the labels are for."

People so readily label themselves... The problem is that there is no mutual agreement regarding the meaning of the label. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">



------------------
It's all very large.
 
Bowser -

Would that be another 50 years in which the Christian majority can overwhelm and misrepresent the minority, or is it a return to what the term actually means?

FyreStar

What, haven't you ever seen a loaded question before?


[This message has been edited by FyreStar (edited December 06, 2000).]
 
Originally posted by Bowser:
People so readily label themselves... The problem is that there is no mutual agreement regarding the meaning of the label.
Click to expand...

And the hundreds of variations of Christian sects demonstrate this extremly well. From Catholicism to Protestantism, Mormons to Jehovahs Witnesses, etc. This makes it difficult to define the term Christian - what does that really mean?

But we all enjoy labels, these are the means we use to allow ourselves to be identified. But you are correct, if the meaning isn't clear to all then confusion can result. I'm all in favor of less confusion.

So just accept my definition of atheism and the problem is solved. :D

Have fun whatever.
Cris


[This message has been edited by Cris (edited December 06, 2000).]
 
"And the hundreds of variations of Christian sects demonstrate this extremly well. From Catholicism to Protestantism, Mormons to Jehovahs Witnesses, etc. This makes it difficult to define the term Christian - what does that really mean?"

Well, in common, a belief in Christ. Now, how does the beliefs of an Atheist compare with those of someone who simply has no beliefs? Can you call me a Christian because I agree with some of what I see in the Bibles?

"But we all enjoy labels, these are the means we use to allow ourselves to be identified. But you are correct, if the meaning isn't clear to all then confusion can result. I'm all in favor of less confusion."

I agree. Dictionaries for everyone! <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"So just accept my definition of atheism and the problem is solved."

Publish you own dictionary and I will consider your definition. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">



------------------
It's all very large.
 
I just love how people trust a dictionary more than another human being.

I think it's quite humorous, actually, the way people would rather write their own definitions of other people than simply ask.

Here's an idea: take a copy of the Grolier Encyclopedia to the Islamic world. Sit down with a "commoner", as such, and tell them all about Islam, based on the encyclopedia.

I threw a tantrum recently about Christians being murderous bigots. Either my point was missed, or there was no point to be had in being sarcastic when I wrote it.

Should I sit down in front of a group of Christians and tell them what they are? Does it make it true? What if my "official" definition of Judaism happens to be a German volume published under the Reich?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
 
"I just love how people trust a dictionary more than another human being."

Tiassa, I have a dark patch on my leg; therefor, I must be "black?"

------------------
It's all very large.
 
Aside from noting the difference between trusting another person and trusting yourself, I don't know what to say. It seems I've missed the reference. I'll read through things and try again. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
 
If I recall, antidisestablishmentarianism had the distinction, during my childhood, of being the longest word of "standard" use in the English language. I have no idea if it was true then, and I have no idea if it still holds true today. However, supercalifragilisticexpialadocious is disqualified on the grounds that it's allegedly a nonsense word. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
 
Originally posted by Bowser:
Tiassa, I have a dark patch on my leg; therefor, I must be "black?"
Click to expand...

There ya go with that Christian irrationality again.

From Logic: Quantities can be: All, Some, or None.

The presence of 'some' doesn't imply 'all'.
 
Maybe this will resolve the question:

"The suffix ISM means 'the belief system of' or 'the theory or system behind.'"
http://www.marlboro.edu/~jfarber/sta/ism.html


<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> But I know that this is not the end of it.


------------------
It's all very large.
 
Theism is the belief in a deity, atheism is the absence of such a belief.

a·the·ism (th-zm)
n. 1. a.Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

Note the distinction made between "disbelief" and "denial". Disbelief may mean simply a reluctance to believe in. Atheists are reluctant to believe in God in the absence of proof. There you have it. A dictionary definition. (although truth be told, dictionaries generally define atheism very poorly.)

Frankly, Bowser, to attack atheism on the basis of a dictionary's definition (as opposed to the definition that atheists themselves accept) isn't very productive. It's not much different from attacking christianity on the basis of mormon doctrine– Empty rhetoric
 
And even simpler - Atheism is the absence of theistic belief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top