I don't want this to be a chance for you to tell me what is wrong with the theocratic abscess burrowed; the thorn in your side or the vacant imperfection imposed upon the resident scapegoat. I care not to afford you the opportunity to lick your wounds in my sight or to appease the cultural norms subscribed.
Without the fear on the other side of the fence nor the ruckus in the alley way I want you to tell me what the benefit of an atheist lifestyle is had the social and political majority not absolved you and the necessary protestation of that artificial insemination had manifested itself in hindsight.
In other words, had there been no myth where would you see yourself rather than where would you see yourself in light of it.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Jared, I agree; I need to stop using such general terms.
Let's exit the commercial scene before the clerk calls her/his manager, or the police, and says "I have a weirdo here and he's shouting at me."
Let's enter a moral scene. Let's also skip the shalting (it dates from ancient times) and choose from many things a Catholic nun might tell a schoolkid: "You must go to Mass every Sunday!" Or let's choose from many things a priest might tell teenagers: "Married Catholics cannot use birth control!"
I heard twelve years of that kind of language, and when I got out into the world I had to learn less authoritarian ways to influence others to do what I wanted them to do.
I tried idealism and said stuff like "People should..." and "People should not...."
That too failed and I tried assertiveness: "I want you to...." or "I don't want you to...."
It worked more often, but not as often as I wanted. Little was left but democracy: "If I do X, will you do Y?"
Quitting Catholicism required me to do more than stay away; I had to change the way I spoke.
Damnit! Every time I read your name I read it Tom Selleck.
RE: "Isn't it a belief in something, hence a form, though inverted, of the original form of this belief?"
Only if bald is an inverted form of hair color.
Patrick, in your words (It's true that for atheists the belief in the divinity is non existent, as you put it. However, what can we say about this particular kind of belief in something that does not exist? Isn't it a belief in something, hence a form, though inverted, of the original form of this belief?), I'm seeing traces of Plato's idea that to say X is proof of X.
The Catholic Church picked up that idea and used it to burn witches (saying "she's a witch" was evidence that that she is a witch, hence she is guilty and should burn.
If god/religion had never been invented I wouldn't have to think about it at all. Also there would be no need to identify myself as Atheist. I would be a pedestrian. ;P
Remember the god "magolotonicatronicon" from my former post? The one that I made up on the spot and that you never had to consider pryer? But since I did bring this god up to you did it create a new belief for you?
Sure you can say "I do no believe that "magolotonicatronicon" exists" but this implies possibility. Now to say that it's possible you have to consider a few things first. Aside from the authority on the matter you have to take into consideration that somewhere out there there is an english speaking god that has identified himself to me via revelation as "magolotonicatronicon" and that he wants SteveinCo to sacrifice ground squirrels in his almighty, holy, squirrely-ass, name.
Do you think it's possible? If you answer "Yes. It is possible." then you are just being difficult. I'll also say that it depends on ones interpretation of "god" in order to establish possibility. Is it the seeping of "something from nothing" that Lawrence Krauss talks about? If so It still doesn't do us any good to call it "god".
I might add that due to whats possible your argument is valid however there is a huge difference between "Valid" and "Sound". First we must establish that there is a god to not believe in.
I have been a confirmed Amagolotonicatroniconist for some minutes now. :)
Does anyone want to join my new group:
We are going to put those Magolonicatroniconists in their place.
If I were to say "I believe that this deal is a rip off." I'm stating myself as an authority based on my belief. The word "believe" can serve in a couple of different ways here. It can weaken the argument that the deal is a rip off or it can serve as a guarded term. Usually in a context like this it's guarded. Similar to "I feel" because you can't argue with ones feelings.
Now it's been established that there is a "deal". It's not been established that there is a god therefore I do not have to use guarded terms like "believe" or "feel".
"With atheism, (1) it is very clear to me, (2) we are moving in (3) circles."
"And (4) I'm already working on it."
(1)You are stating yourself as the authority ("it is very clear to me") implying that you see something the rest of us do not and we should take your word for it.
(2) You are asserting that the rest of us along with you, the authority
(3) are getting nowhere by covering the same grounds over and over again. (circles)
(4) implying that you, the authority has set in motion a process that will provide a solution to #3.
This coming from a guy that referred to Atheists as "Sick" and "incomplete" people:
"An "atheist," therefore, is inevitably an incomplete person; which means that atheism, thus understood, becomes some sort of un-bodily dis-ability (sic!), which turns the atheist into a sick person; into an amputee whose missing part remains forever obscured and / or misunderstood."
Yet excludes himself (himself, the authority) from that definition simply because he doesn't "feel" (guarded term) "sick".
"That is the more important reason why I don't like to be called "atheist". It is precisely because I don't feel "sick"."
...and you say "we" (2)?
Oh, great Sheppard! What would we do with out your guidance and virtue? A lost flock we would be!
Also, you referred to us along with you as "we" when you have already seperated yourself from atheists.
Once you find a cure for this I imagine that all we sick atheists can be a collective "we" along with you, the authority in whatever alternative you have provided us with.
I too Patrick have a bit of disdain for the word Atheist myself and choose not to wear that label myself.
For me a Theist (all the different forms that they come in) is just a Fool and I can see no value in adding an "A" as a prefix and go around proclaiming myself to be "Afool".
However I am fine with this site being labeled "Think Atheist", it's better then "Think I'm Not One of Them".
Sorry to be rational here, but afool is not a word.
You're right, my bad, I forgot the silent "e"...afoole...there ya go all fixed. :)
This is better. Much better.
The Irony -provided we're talking about the same irony -was intentional.
Someone told me once "Point taken, but lost in the way that you expressed it."
This is what I was pointing out.
Yeah for the reasons the Atheist (Atheos) came about it may have been a bit derogatory. Words have ways of growing out of their limitations though. That is to say the connotation gains an extra definition. example: Warm use to be just a temperature now it can describe a personality as well. I don't mind being the under dog though. If someone wants to make more out of a word than than what literal meaning conveys then there is nothing stopping them. There is nothing saying that "Secular Humanist" won't be looked upon as negatively as some do the word "Atheist".
What I did with your statements is just a tool. As I said before any tool can be a weapon. When I used that tool one of the key uses is to make the other persons argument sound as good as possible. Well, Thats about as good as I could make it sound. So, I appreciate the change in rhetoric and hope that you continue because my translation -as you can see -of what you are saying sounded a bit harsh. Between that and the flowery vocab the point was lost as far as I was concerned.
Not all atheists are rationalists, would be nice if they were, but I've seen some that can be just as dogmatic as priests, they make atheism seem like another religion.