|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: An Atheist By Any Other Name . . . | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
So we should exchange one word with negative connotations with another word with negative connotations.
In the words of Billy Connolly"Brilliant, just f'ing brilliant" Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1604 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
Look, It's pretty clear from the article in question what the intent was.
read it again. I'm getting tired of re-explaining it. You seem to have assumed that this is all somehow my idea or that I am an apologist for it. This is not the case. I am not the author of the article. Like I said, I posted it as a discussion point, not to be held to task for its contents. Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined:
|
You seem to have assumed that this is all somehow my idea or that I am an apologist for it. You seem to have taken my criticisms personally. That is your issue not mine. I have pointed out issues I have had with the concepts presented by the author and yourself. If you do not support the authors ideas quit defending them.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1604 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
Do you understand the intent of the author when he talks about finding an alternative title?
Do you understand what he means when he talks about "Reclaiming" a word in the same way the originally derogatory words 'Gay' or 'Methodist' or 'Quaker' were reclaimed by the people they describe? Do you understand that the meanings of words can and do change over time depending on their use? eg "Gay"
I have pointed out issues I have had with the concepts presented by the author and yourself
The only issue you seem to have is the use of the word heathen, this is a minor part of the article as presented, yet you seem hung up on it. anyway, this is the wrong thread to discuss the Original article.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
The only issue you seem to have is the use of the word heathen, this is a minor part of the article as presented, yet you seem hung up on it.
As the topic of this thread is about names for Atheists , why would I be discussing anything about the article but the use of Heathen for Atheist.Other issues about the article were discussed on the other thread as is right. I think others did a very good job tearing it down in that thread. I am not sure I know what you expect people to do when they disagree with you and the arguments you bring to the forum. Do you want me to agree with you? Probably ain't going to happen on this issue. I agree the following should be for the other thread but as you posted it here I will answer here.
Do you understand the intent of the author when he talks about finding an alternative title? Yes, but I think it is unnecessary and ultimate stupid and harmful.
Do you understand what he means when he talks about "Reclaiming" a word in the same way the originally derogatory words 'Gay' or 'Methodist' or 'Quaker' were reclaimed by the people they describe?
Yes, but I think he is doing a little revisionism and presenting a skewed reality of these terms. I find huge issues with his idea that these people "reclaimed" these terms. Sounds like some new age scholarship woo.
Do you understand that the meanings of words can and do change over time depending on their use? eg "Gay" Quit being insulting. It demeans any semblance of an argument you have. You can answer in the other thread, but I doubt you will have anything new to support the article which you misrepresented from the start.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1604 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
which you misrepresented from the start
I didn't misrepresent anything. I provided a summary in bullet points, (so as not to post a bare link as per forum guidelines), including what I thought was the main thrust of the article,(the "re-naming" as someone mentioned above (Rahvin maybe?) being a semantic triviality.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Scientists believe in what they have come to the conclusion has been proven to a certain degree. This really comes down to semantics. This is where we separate evidenced beliefs from faith based beliefs. Religious belief is based on faith where there is no evidence. Scientists use evidence to arrive at conclusions which is the opposite of how religion works.
To not belive is a copout, in my opinion. Using a definition of belief that covers both religion and science is a copout as well.
Yes, it is I the theist, who after study, mediation, introspection and life experiences does come to a belief. Is that something the atheist cannot accept? Like many of us have said, you are free to hold whatever belief you want. If someone arrives at the belief that the Hindu pantheon really does exist after a lifetime of study, mediation, introspection, and life experiences would you feel compelled to believe in the Hindu pantheon as well? If not, then why should atheists feel compelled to believe in your deity for the same reason?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
I didn't say there was anything wrong with hedging, I was just suprised that an atheist would hedge on his or her beliefs. I would think that very few people who refer to themselves as atheists are going to confessional and taking communion "just in case". If a 1,000 foot Zeus came down out of the sky and threw lightning at your feet would you believe in the existence of Zeus? I would think that you would, as would I. Does this mean that you are hedging your bet? No. It is just a very simple admission that if strong evidence is presented for a claim that you will accept the claim as true. That is not hedging your bet. That is being reasonable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
I guess I am reacting to the activist atheist who ridicule belief in a supernatural being with vitriol and personal attacts who in the end result take the postion, ok, maybe your are correct, there may be a supernatual, we don't know. It's not that they are saying 'there is no supernatural; there maybe a supernatural' which would be odd. What they are saying is 'There is probably not a supernatural. It can't be absolutely ruled out. However, there is no reason why we should believe there is.'. They may criticize you for making certain errors in reasoning that is used to justify those beliefs, but that doesn't come into tension with their underlying belief that 'the unfalsifiable cannot be falsified (ie., we cannot rule out the supernatural)'
If so lighten up a little bit in your provacations is what I say to the activist atheists. When the majority of people are making the kinds of reasoning mistakes that can lead to disastrous or immoral policy decisions...I think it's perfectly fair for the atheists to be provocative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 3255 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Taq writes:
If not, then why should atheists feel compelled to believe in your deity for the same reason? I never suggested atheists shoud believe in a deity. I said I was suprised that, according to the info supplied byCatholic Scientis, that some atheists admit that there may be a diety. I would think one would be an atheist or an agnostic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I never suggested atheists shoud believe in a deity. I said I was suprised that, according to the info supplied by Catholic Scientis, that some atheists admit that there may be a diety. I would think one would be an atheist or an agnostic. Only if you assume they're mutually exclusive. That is, that "atheism" is a gnostic position. But that's the point that the soft atheists are making, that their's is not a gnostic position, they don't know that god doesn't exist, but they also lack any belief that he does. They're both agnostic and atheistic. Its only when atheism is taken as a positive position that god does not exist, that it it moves out of agnosticism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18053 Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Surely you've been around here long enough to know that there are atheists who aren't close-minded dogmatists. So what's the surprise ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 359 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined:
|
I said I was suprised that, according to the info supplied by Catholic Scientis, that some atheists admit that there may be a diety. Yes, but as I mentioned before, I admit that there may be a God only in the same sense that I admit that there may be an invisible dragon in my garage;
quote: I am an a-dragon-ist in the same sense that I am an atheist.
I would think one would be an atheist or an agnostic. I think that characterising atheists into a position where we have no shred of tentativity regarding the existence of gods is an attempt to shoehorn us into an unreasonable position that very few of us hold. I have a tiny scintilla of doubt over whether gods exist. To have any less doubt would be arrogant. If this makes me an agnostic, then I would suggest that any theist who does not possess 100% certainty of God's existence must be an agnostic too. To my mind, the term "agnostic" implies considerably more doubt than this, otherwise what's the value in these terms? All but the most deluded zealots would be agnostic, leaving us with no useful terminology to describe more reasonable positions. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 1122 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
I would think one would be an atheist or an agnostic. As the others have said, agnosticism and atheism dela with two different ideas. Atheism and theism deal with what one believes (or doesn't believe), while agnosticism and gnosticism deal with knowledge. This gives us 4 possibilities:
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
I never suggested atheists shoud believe in a deity. I said I was suprised that, according to the info supplied by Catholic Scientis, that some atheists admit that there may be a diety. In the same way that we admit that there may be leprechauns. Surely you are not so dogmatic that you would claim, with absolute knowledge, that there are no leprechauns. However, I doubt you also spend time worrying that there are leprechauns. The same for atheists and your deity. It is not hedging. It is merely an admission that our knowledge will always be imperfect.
I would think one would be an atheist or an agnostic. Agnostics are atheists. Agnostics do not have a positive belief in any deity. They claim that one can not attain knowledge of the supernatural (a--without, gnost--knowledge). Many of us have argued that agnosticism is the halfway house for those who have just become atheists. Due to a lifetime of fearing atheism the word "atheism" it is much more palatable to be an agnostic. For all intents and purposes, they are the same thing. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025