Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,230 Year: 5,487/9,624 Month: 512/323 Week: 9/143 Day: 9/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheists can't hold office in the USA?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 777 (747965)
01-21-2015 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Tangle
01-21-2015 6:22 AM


Re: agnostic anyone?
Correct - the sports analogy is 'do you support the Jets?' The 'I couldn't care less' response is a defacto 'no'.
Maybe you can explain to me why the term "Atheism" is the word that you prefer to use?
What's wrong with the word "Agnosticism"?
And I'm sticking within belief systems and not talking about knowledge.
Atheism has been redefined over the years and people have been moving from calling themselves agnostics to calling themselves atheists.
I think its for shock and impact. People gasp. Why do you think it is?
People these days, like you, say that atheism is simply a lack of a positive belief in god and that it is not necessarily a positive claim of the non-existence of god. I agree that it can work for that usage, but I don't understand why it is preferable?
Atheism used to be a positive position that god does not exist. It was not simply a lack of belief in god, that was agnosticism.
So you had three camps:
Believes that there is a god = theism
Believes that there is no god = atheism
Doesn't believe either way = agnosticism
Now you're coming along and saying that theists believe in god and everyone else is an atheist. And there are no agnostics. Why? Is it just an effort to be more inclusive?
If you look up the definition in the dictionary, you find:
quote:
Atheism
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Further:
quote:
Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial.
On agnosticism:
quote:
Doctrine that one cannot know the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of experience. It is popularly equated with religious skepticism, and especially with the rejection of traditional Christian beliefs under the impact of modern scientific thought. T.H. Huxley popularized philosophical agnosticism after coining the term agnostic (as opposed to gnostic) in 1869, to designate one who repudiated traditional Judeo-Christian theism but was not a doctrinaire atheist (see atheism). Agnosticism may mean no more than the suspension of judgment on ultimate questions because of insufficient evidence, or it may constitute a rejection of traditional Christian tenets.
Doesn't that traditional term of agnosticism describe what you are calling atheists pretty exactly? "the suspension of judgment on ultimate questions because of insufficient evidence"? And the "rejection of traditional Christian tenets"?
Isn't that you? Or do you take the positive position that god does not exist?
Doesn't removing agnosticism from the spectrum and insisting on a theism/atheism dichotomy only add confusion to the issue?
What's the reason for changing the definitions of these words? Honestly, I don't get it.
I don't have a problem with it, word do change. And dictionaries are descriptive and not proscriptive.
But I don't understand the drive to change these words when they work so well in their traditional sense?
Well, expect for atheism being equated with immorality. That's not longer apt.
People typically go: Well, that's what the root means. theism = belief in god therefore a-theism is without a belief in god. But that M-W page shows that the greek word is atheos, which is godlessness. So that is a positive position and not just a lack of a positive position.
Regarding the topic, I think it is that equating atheism with immorality that lead people to want to deny office to atheists.
If someone was self-proclaimly immoral or wicked, I would have a problem having them in office as well. Turns out the term atheism isn't really the right word for that, but alas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Tangle, posted 01-21-2015 6:22 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2015 2:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 128 by Tangle, posted 01-21-2015 5:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 777 (747971)
01-21-2015 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Straggler
01-21-2015 2:10 PM


Re: agnostic anyone?
This seemed relevant....
Not to me. It didn't answer a single question I posited. And I know that's what atheists say, I said as much myself.
My question is why is that the preferred way of using these words? Further, isn't it realized that the older definitions fit better and today those definitions are being changed so that they can work?
quote:
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods."
Which is what the traditional definition of agnosticism is... so why not just use that word?
Atheism did used to mean the positive position that there is no god. So why change that word and use it instead of just using the word that already worked just fine?
And why can't today's atheists answer my question instead of just insisting that their definition of atheism is the correct one?
Is that really the only reason, that they think they're right? How can they face the facts that the words were used differently (with the understanding that words are defined by how they are used) and then just claim that everyone else was wrong?
This is the "'We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further" approach.......
Which is easily countered with the "Blind men and an elephant" concept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2015 2:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2015 6:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 777 (748015)
01-22-2015 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Tangle
01-21-2015 5:55 PM


Re: agnostic anyone?
Atheism, always was, and is, a lack of belief in god(s). No more, no less.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
You don't get to decide the meanings of the words that other people are using.
People have used that word to mean other things. And that's all it is to mean something and have a definition.
I have not changed any definitions. The words have been misapplied, misunderstood and misused.
Well hooty-fucking-hoo!
People get to misuse words. Fuck you, word-cop
But that can't change the meaning of words only their perception.
The perception IS the meaning. That's how words are used. That's what language is.
When people used the word atheism to mean 'immorality', you don't get to say that that's not what they really meant.
Heh, and you know, I sorta predicted this behavior in my previous post:
And why can't today's atheists answer my question instead of just insisting that their definition of atheism is the correct one?
Is that really the only reason, that they think they're right? How can they face the facts that the words were used differently (with the understanding that words are defined by how they are used) and then just claim that everyone else was wrong?
The definition was forced by the existence of believers.
Indeed and for sure.
When Huxley spoke about being agnostic, he was actually declaring his atheism in couched, intellectual terms.
Well, he was smarter than you. What he was doing was allowing his audience to understand what he meant.
Back in the day, before instant global communication, you may run into a person who didn't know just what the fuck you were talking about.
The believers, as you call them... well, let's just use Christians, they might be all:
"Do you believe in God, and have you accepted Jesus as your savior?"
And the others would go:
"What the fuck are you talking about?"
The believers response was not:
"OMG, an atheist!"
They would figure that the person was ignorant of God, and go on proselytizing.
The other might admit that they believed in a god, and that it just wasn't like the Christian God.
Or the other might go: "Fuck god, that's a bunch of stupid bullshit"
A person who said something like that, would probably also reject the supposed immorality of behaviors the Christians deemed so, say stuff that'd we'd both agree was harmless like 'impure thoughts' or 'touching yourself'.
So it isn't a stretch to see why those people would equate atheists with immorality.
They were wrong, but I understand.
Anyways, on to what I think is the answer to my question of why you prefer the term 'atheism':
It time we stood up and changed that ignorant viewpoint.
:-/ I'm surprised that you people actually care about the misuse of words. BFD.
But, honestly, I don't think what you're doing is helpful. (although perhaps you strive for divisiveness)
Doesn't removing agnosticism from the spectrum and insisting on a theism/atheism dichotomy only add confusion to the issue?
No, it simplifies things. Two positions instead of three.
Well no, its four now instead of three. There's the theism-atheism dichotomy perpendicular to the gnostic-agnostic one.
And you've agreed that everyone should be an agnostic, and insinuated, agreeably, that people who claim they know are crazy.
So its an unnecessary complication... what should I call that besides 'confusion'?
I use the word atheist because it's the only one we have to describe a lack of belief in god.
So that's not really true. The other may believe in a god, it just might not be what you refer to as God.
Huxley coined the term 'agnostic' specifically for that purpose:
quote:
T.H. Huxley popularized philosophical agnosticism after coining the term agnostic (as opposed to gnostic) in 1869, to designate one who repudiated traditional Judeo-Christian theism but was not a doctrinaire atheist (see atheism). Agnosticism may mean no more than the suspension of judgment on ultimate questions because of insufficient evidence, or it may constitute a rejection of traditional Christian tenets.
I think that's an excellent term for this situation. And I hope that you can agree that the believers who are going around calling people atheists are Christians.
Don't you reject traditional Christian tenets? Don't you avoid an outright denial of all gods (doctrinaire atheism) and stand by "the suspension of judgment on ultimate questions because of insufficient evidence"?
*Okay, so I just saw the below and realized that you do reject all gods. I don't have a problem with describing that as atheism. But you're still wrong that that's the only thing that atheism means.
As used, doesn't that term adequately describe your an appreciable position?
If your intention is to have your audience understand what you mean (and that's how you figured they used it), then wouldn't that be the more helpful term to use?1
I think you may have hit on why everyone here is struggling so hard with a very simple concept. There is absolutely no shock value of declaring yourself to be an atheist in the UK.
That's where I saw to move the discussion on beyond the trite.
I can appreciate cultural differences in the word usage. I wouldn't challenge your usage of a word.
I was questioning your motivation. And you've explained yourself, thanks.
I'll omit the hilarious one-line joke of a summary I just thought of.
It's not clear to me why an agnostic should be seen as any more moral though - an agnostic does not believe in god.
First off, they might believe in a god.
And any morality that should be seen should be judge on behavior rather than belief.
Atheism was equated with immorality because people who didn't fall for their god bullshit didn't fall for those harmless behaviors being immoral either.
So if you ran into an atheist you could figure that they had naughty thoughts and jacked off at times.
Big deal, right?
But I'd prefer it if there was no such word. You know, the idea that there is no word for a lack of belief in fairies and leprechauns. To me the idea of a god - at least the theistic kind - is simply bizarre
*Oh shit. As I said, that is atheism. No problem. But there's still that third spot that makes a better fit than your useless forth one.
So there's that.
To go further:
You know there's other atheists out there, yeah?
The more shock-artist type. The stuff you see on /r/atheism. Most likely 20-ish Americans.
How do you feel about bringing those folks into the fold? They're kinda dicks, dontcha think? Or at least, they're trying to be. I can expound on this.
Anyways, they don't seem much like you UK atheists other than the trite semantic arguments
So can you agree that the term "agnostic", as used and despite what it really means, does have a place in this discussion? Can't it be better than a term that describes everyone but the crazy?
.
1. So then, when people are arguing with you about how they define words, isn't is better to just admit that people use them differently rather than insist that your usage is the correct one? Isn't that what you're calling "trite"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Tangle, posted 01-21-2015 5:55 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Tangle, posted 01-22-2015 3:22 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 135 by Tangle, posted 01-22-2015 3:57 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 777 (748016)
01-22-2015 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Minnemooseus
01-21-2015 9:38 PM


Re: agnostic anyone?
That said, what I really was about to do was post something "children born atheist". I certainly think they are born agnostic, and are not born theist. My God!!! Not theist??? That makes them born atheist (not theist is the most fundamental definition of atheist).
I consider children to be null. How about "in a circle".
atheist -- one who denies the existence of God
agnostic -- of or relating to the belief that the existence of any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable.
Problems I find there include "what does denies mean"? Is that a gnostic or agnostic denial?
Also, concerning what does "know" (as part of "unknown") mean? Is that a gnostic or agnostic "know"? And there's that fuzzy term "God".
So me, you, and Straggler start off in a circle (drawn on the floor).
Then we're commanded: "Move to either the theist triangle or the atheist square (drawn on the floor outside of the circle).
I go to the theist triangle.
Straggler goes to the atheist square.
And you're left standing there wondering what the shapes mean.
I don't include you in either of our shapes.
Others insists that there's really only the triangle or not.
And of course, children are not-triangle.
But I see them as still being in the circle rather than in the square.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-21-2015 9:38 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Straggler, posted 01-22-2015 10:57 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 777 (748045)
01-22-2015 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Tangle
01-22-2015 3:57 AM


Re: agnostic anyone?
Cat Sci writes:
Tangle says: Atheism, always was, and is, a lack of belief in god(s). No more, no less.
Cat Sci: says I wholeheartedly disagree.
How many dictionary quotes do you need?
Excuse me? Did you not read what I wrote?
I'm the one saying that dictionaries are not prescriptive but rather merely descriptive. That is, a word doesn't mean what it means because that's what the dictionary says, but instead that words have their meaning because of the way that people use them and dictionaries simply report those usages.
Atheism can, in fact, be more than just "a lack of belief in god(s)".
So I don't need any dictionaries at all. But besides that, Merriam-Webster agrees with me and not you, as I quoted.
So how many dictionaries do you need?
Do you need a Gallop poll? What's you're problem? If we can't even agree that an atheist is someone that doesn't believe in god, the rest is hopeless.
I also agreed that your usage of the word is perfectly fine.
My question was why you preferred that term over another. And I think I have my answer:
You think that the definitions of words are static and unchanging, and that if a person deviates from the etymological basis for the word then they are wrong and need to be stood up to.
Now, I get that believing in god is a bit kooky, but the above is just insane.
There's no 'types' of atheists.
Sure there are. People even went so far as to create Atheism Plus.
You're of the type that is basically anti-woo. You reject fairies and leprechauns and spirits and all that crap.
An Animist, while technically an atheist, would certainly disagree with you about the spirits. There's no reason to not consider them a different type of atheist than you are.
There is no 'fold'.
There's always a fold, or camps. You're drawing the boarder on your camp to be more inclusive than I would think that you would want it to be.
Don't you think that you would consider an Animist to be more on my side than yours, despite them not believing in a god? I mean, they're full of woo.
Too, the hateful and misogynistic neo-atheists that you see online these days would be people that I would have wanted to distance myself from when I was still an atheist. Kinda like the Atheism+ camp has done.
Agnosticism is a 19th century invention which was designed to carve out an intellectual position about a lack of belief - a position that was very contentious at the time. It actually has no real meaning. It's used by those who find that they don't have an actual belief. If they did have a belief they would be, wait for it, believers.
Not entirely. Agnosticism can be used as a rejection of the god being offered, but not necessarily all gods.
If you think there might be a god, or even if you're not sure what to think about gods, and a Christian approaches you and asks you if you believe in GOD, then you may want to inform them that you don't believe in their GOD, but you don't reject gods outright. Telling them you are agnostic fits the bill. Telling them you are an atheist does not.
What he's saying is that he can not believe in God.
Nope. And he even said that he cannot call himself an atheist:
quote:
When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last.
He is explicitly saying that he is not an atheist and only considers himself a freethinker.
He is therefore an atheist who invented what he thinks is a clever way of not accepting it.
That is contradicted by what he actually said.
He's confusing knowledge about god - for which the only rational position is agnosticism - with belief, which is an emotional, not an intellectual, logical state.
Considering that he is smarter than you, I'll take him for his position as he describes it rather than the erroneous paraphrasing you've offered.
Do you love your wife? Do you support the Jets? Do you believe in God? If these questions can't be answered in the positive, then they are negative. There's no meally-mouthed middle way is there?
I'm not sure why you think you need to continue to tell me that the word atheism can be used in that way when I've already agreed with you.
My disagreement is with your claim that that is the only way that it can be used. 'Cause people do use it in other ways. And rightly so.
Too, the term Agnosticism, as coined, is a great word with many applicable uses that are being underutilized.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Tangle, posted 01-22-2015 3:57 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Tangle, posted 01-22-2015 11:27 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 777 (748058)
01-22-2015 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Tangle
01-22-2015 11:27 AM


Re: agnostic anyone?
We all know what he means - he can't find enough evidence to accept or reject belief in god, but by doing that he can't avoid not believing in god. There's probably a term for this kind of logic error, but obviously I'm not clever enough to know what it is.
Its Agnosticism.
Under the usage coined by Huxley.
Smart man. Good idea. Great word. And its not a logic error. Its an attempted simplification of an accepted complication.
Some people don't want to go into outright denial of all gods (that would be the logical error), so they needed a term to distinguish themselves from the group that was being described as atheists.
You, on the other hand, are "taking the word back" or whatever. Dumb idea in my opinion.
I didn't understand why you'd want to do that. But now I get it, you're a word-cop

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Tangle, posted 01-22-2015 11:27 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Tangle, posted 01-22-2015 11:41 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 309 of 777 (748937)
01-31-2015 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by dwise1
01-30-2015 9:22 PM


Re: Know Thyself
Hey Dave,
I agree with you that determining the exact correctness of the terminology is unimportant. And I see we have an agreement in the premise of you're question that goes along with a premise of some of mine. I'll answer your's first, and hope that you'll answer mine.
Yet again, what we would define an atheist to be is not relevant to this topic. Atheists normally cannot get elected to office because of what the voters think atheists are, not what we really are. What to they think, however mistaken they may be?
I think that they think that if you're going to go ahead and claim that your an atheist, then you're taking a positive position that God does not, in fact, exist. Further, that you also have something against believing in God and reducing it will be a part of your platform. So, therefore, they would immediately vote for an opponent of your's, because they wouldn't want that.
As Ringo said: Democracy in action.
A smart politician would never take that angle (which is part of why these laws linger), as it's just too much of an uphill battle and, honestly, it'd be pretty stupid to have a lack of believe be part of a platform. Are you gonna push for laws against fairy dust too?
You could think that religion is harmful and go that route, but then you'd be the anti-theist that I described above, and the voters would be right to vote against you if they didn't want that.
Now, onto my questions, and I realize arguing on the internet has a lot less ramifications that running for an office:
quote:
Maybe you can explain to me why the term "Atheism" is the word that you prefer to use?
What's wrong with the word "Agnosticism"?
And I'm sticking within belief systems and not talking about knowledge.
quote:
Doesn't removing agnosticism from the spectrum and insisting on a theism/atheism dichotomy only add confusion to the issue?
What's the reason for changing the definitions of these words? Honestly, I don't get it.
I don't have a problem with it, word do change. And dictionaries are descriptive and not proscriptive.
But I don't understand the drive to change these words when they work so well in their traditional sense?
Those are from Message 123.
quote:
My question is why is that the preferred way of using these words? Further, isn't it realized that the older definitions fit better and today those definitions are being changed so that they can work?
quote:
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods."
Which is what the traditional definition of agnosticism is... so why not just use that word?
Atheism did used to mean the positive position that there is no god. So why change that word and use it instead of just using the word that already worked just fine?
And why can't today's atheists answer my question instead of just insisting that their definition of atheism is the correct one?
Is that really the only reason, that they think they're right? How can they face the facts that the words were used differently (with the understanding that words are defined by how they are used) and then just claim that everyone else was wrong?
That's from Message 125
Many "voters", as you call them, do use the word 'atheist' differently than some of the people who call themselves as such do. I think a politician would have a lot better chance if they described themself as an agnostic rather than and atheist, as it would imply more so that they just don't believe in god rather than being anti-god being one of the interests.
So that drives why I don't understand why people would want to "change the word", or whatever it is their doing. If you just don't believe in god and don't care, then what's the big deal? Why care?
Unless you're just trying to cause a ruckus, or snub your nose at us... in which case, fuck 'em. En garde! They're agnostics and not atheists.
For one thing, many "true Christians" appear to believe that atheists actually do know that God -- ie, the "true Christian" God -- exists, but they are fighting against Him. Well, that just blows Tangle's extreme either-or definitions completely out of the Holy Water, now doesn't it?
Yup. Also, an evangelizing "true Christian" may come across someone who believes in a bunch of different gods, but has not yet heard the Good News about GOD. The "true Christian" may not want to call that person an atheist, but they don't believe in God, so they're not on the "Theist" team either. Using agnosticism in that case would be helpful.
One of Tangles arguments implied that that usage was impossible. And he was wrong about it there, too.
So far, the only counter that I've seen from him is that he is actually the one using the correct terminology, so he really is right.
That's not how this works at all.
ABE:
I though of another one that fits with the football team analogy: What if you were asking some if they believed in the Texans - and they were unaware that the team had been added to the NFL? They'd say no but they wouldn't count as being in the atheist camp.
That breaks the atheist-theist dichotomy as well.
Edited by Cat Sci, : see ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by dwise1, posted 01-30-2015 9:22 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by dwise1, posted 02-02-2015 5:17 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 321 of 777 (749038)
02-01-2015 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Tangle
02-01-2015 3:53 AM


Re: Know Thyself
I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I'm simply trying to discuss the meaning of two words, belief - which is a positive and binary position on something which can't be proven, and knowledge which is something we can have proof of.
I'm pointing out that *despite* what people say, if they do not know whether they believe in something or not - eg. the nggard which didn't exist at all until I made it up - then they do not believe and they are atheistic about it. You've proven this by saying that you don't even know what the word means and probably never will. You know nothing whatsoever about it so you can't possibly believe in it. If you don't actively believe something you are atheistic about it. Belief is an active, emotional state, like anger, hate, love, happiness - you either have these states or you do not.
You could, however, be agnostic about knowledge of the nggard - in which case you logically can't believe in it - but now that I've told you that it's a totally invented word you also have full knowledge of it's non-existence. But you still need the two part model - you still have to say that the nggard is a fantasy AND that You do not believe in it. Knowledge and belief - different words with different meanings.
All you are doing is insisting that people conform to your usage of the words.
How's that working out for you? After 90 posts in this thread, how many people have you convinced?
Obviously it doesn't work that way. People get to use words how they want to use them.
You don't get to make that decision for them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2015 3:53 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2015 12:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 323 of 777 (749042)
02-01-2015 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Tangle
02-01-2015 12:03 PM


Re: Know Thyself
Not my definitions - the ones in the dictionary.
I've quoted you dictionary definitions that contradict your position and agree with the contrary.
I'm simply pointing out the staggeringly simple point that if you don't believe in god you're an atheist, regardless of what people would like to call themselves.
Well, yeah, that's one usage of the word.
Other people use it differently. They're not wrong as you are insisting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2015 12:03 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2015 1:35 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 339 of 777 (749072)
02-01-2015 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by Tangle
02-01-2015 2:35 PM


Re: Know Thyself
If you don't believe god exists, you're an atheist. If you don't know if you believe there's a god, you don't believe in god. You are therefore an atheist.
Sure, that's one way to use the words. Another way is like this:
Theist = takes the positive position that god exists.
Atheist = takes the positive position that god does not exist.
Agnostic = Everyone else. People who don't take a position either way.
There's nothing wrong with using the words that way, and you're wrong to insist that people conform to the usage of the words that you prefer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Tangle, posted 02-01-2015 2:35 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Tangle, posted 02-02-2015 2:58 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 366 by Straggler, posted 02-02-2015 1:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 347 of 777 (749099)
02-02-2015 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by dwise1
02-02-2015 5:17 AM


Re: Know Thyself
Second, whatever I do believe or do not believe is not any part of my platform. My political platform is my political platform. What my own personal religious beliefs are has absolutely no bearing on my platform.
For sure, but if you're running for an office and you keep bringing up the fact that your an atheist, I don't think its wrong for the voters to think that it is an important influence on your politics.
And, as I have already pointed out, the ideal requires an informed electorate.
You should probably have an informed electee as well. And if your terminology grossly differs from your electorates, then you should probably inform yourself about how they talk. You shouldn't come to St. Louis asking us about our favorite pop to drink, and you shouldn't go up north and ask them what kind of soda they like.
While you may technically be correct that they are the same thing, its still not going to work out well for you.
When your electorate is a bunch of ignorant savages, then just how is that supposed to work?
I dunno, find an ignorant savage for them to vote for? I kid.
I mean, if you're so much smarter and better than your electorate, are you really representing them?
And why would an intelligent civilized person want to represent a bunch of ignorant savages?
What the fuck are you talking about? Why would any sane politician make a lack of belief a part of his platform?
That is what I was talking about. It was just side-point that having a soft-atheist make a big deal out of the terminology is kind of an oxymoron - it shouldn't be important at all.
So, just call yourself an agnostic to save the trouble of explaining what you mean by being an atheist.
And that is another problem I have with the terminology Tangle prefers... If you tell me that you are an atheist I am left wondering if you go so far as to believe that god does not exist, or are you just one of those people who has not seen enough evidence to go as far as saying that god does exist?
Now, did our atheist candidate ever even begin to make any kind of issue about being an atheist? No, he/she did not. Is it an issue? No, it is not. But then his/her opponent discovers that he/she is an atheist and publishes that fact. Is it an issue now? Yes, it is. Why? Why? Why? Why?
Because they're dicks. They were butt-hurt and they went for the only thing they could find. Totally reprehensible.
If that had been the campaign, then that politician would deserve to fail. But that is not the campaign. The campaign is completely normal. The candidate just happens to be an atheist. So why must that simple irrelevant fact make him/her unelectable?
Um, the guy in the OP won the election...
quote:
In 2008, Bothwell ran unsuccessfully for the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners, and ran for the Asheville, North Carolina city council in 2009, winning the most votes in the October 6 primary election.
I thought this was fairly interesting:
quote:
Bothwell was raised as a Presbyterian, became a non-theist by the age of 20, and is a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church.[8] He later stated that he believed the question of the existence of a deity was irrelevant to governance and that he believed in the Golden Rule.[11] He has also described himself as a "post theist."
quote:
Religion: A post-theist or agnostic member of the Unitarian Universalist Church
So this guy doesn't even call himself an atheist... and he belongs to a church.
Too, he uses the terminology that I prefer to use.
Yes, that is what I've been trying to say. So your and everybody else's attempts to define that term is meaningless.
I was agreeing with you
So then weasel-word your way according to what your constituency might possibly think?
Wait, isn't that exactly what politics is?
Seriously. A politician might have to weasel his way into getting votes? Gosh, the horror
If we just do not believe in god nor care, the what's the big deal? The big deal is that we won't get elected! That is what this entire topic is about! What part of that do you not understand?
Unfortunately, when it comes to politics, you're going to have to conform to what the voters want. If you consider yourself an atheist but want to get elected, you'd be better off describing yourself as an agnostic if you want to win.
And as you say, since its not a big deal what the terminology is, then why try to change the word?
You said my questions were irrelevant, but I think they get more to the heart of the problem. If the voters better understood why you people want to "change that word", or whatever, then maybe they're wouldn't be as much backlash.
If all you can do is complain that you really are right and everyone else is wrong, well then: You reap what you sow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by dwise1, posted 02-02-2015 5:17 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 348 of 777 (749100)
02-02-2015 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by Tangle
02-02-2015 2:58 AM


Re: Know Thyself
Obviously. I'm not arguing about how most people use the words. I'm saying that they're fooling themselves.
Well I think that you are the one who is fooling yourself.
So now what?
I'm now repeating myself too often....here's one I made earlier
Again, that is just you insisting that people conform to the usage of the words that you prefer.
It doesn't work like that, that's not going to convince anyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Tangle, posted 02-02-2015 2:58 AM Tangle has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 349 of 777 (749101)
02-02-2015 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by Tangle
02-02-2015 5:02 AM


Re: Know Thyself
Are those that call themselves agnostics electable?
The guy in the OP that you mentioned doesn't call himself an atheist, but rather calls himself an agnostic, and he got elected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Tangle, posted 02-02-2015 5:02 AM Tangle has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 350 of 777 (749102)
02-02-2015 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 342 by dwise1
02-02-2015 4:01 AM


Re: Know Thyself
Yes. And what is the other part of that equation? An informed electorate!
So why don't USA voters vote for atheists? Idiocy? Blind stupid bigotry?
Yes, all those things.
Whatever does any of that have to do with what the Founding Fathers had intended?
Yeah, maybe we should go back to just property owners having the right to vote... that should clear this mess up

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by dwise1, posted 02-02-2015 4:01 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 359 of 777 (749132)
02-02-2015 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by Tangle
02-02-2015 11:12 AM


Re: Know Thyself
Note that you can only believe or not believe. There's no other state for belief.
I believe in God. A dude walks up to me and goes: "Aye yo, do ya believe in gawd?"
Without knowing what kind of god he is referring to, nor whether or not my concept of god fits within what he is talking about, I can be in a state of not knowing whether or not I believe in the god he is talking about, despite the fact that I do believe in a god.
The fact that I do not know if I believe in the god he is talking about does not default me into a state of not believing in that god, for the god he is thinking of could fit with the god that I do believe in. I simply don't know that at the point of questioning - So I might go: "I dunno, whadaya mean?"
That would be me not knowing if I believe in what he is talking about or not. That is not necessarily me being in a state of not believing in what he is talking about - because once I learn what he is talking about, it might be something that I believed in all along.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Tangle, posted 02-02-2015 11:12 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024