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.
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.
Patrick, for you the word "atheism" will be what you make it.
The words that often accompany it -- "must"; "cannot", "should" and "should not" concern me more.
The first pair often accompany authoritarianism; the second pair often accompany idealism. In history, both have led to the slaughter of millions.
Patrick, for you the word "atheism" will be what you make it.
Atheism is disbelief in or unawareness of theism. That's all. It's generally theists who make it mean something more.
The words that often accompany it -- "must"; "cannot", "should" and "should not" concern me more. The first pair often accompany authoritarianism; the second pair often accompany idealism. In history, both have led to the slaughter of millions.
Do you mean atheism-- lack of belief in God(s)-- is responsible for millions of deaths? That belief in God inoculates people against doing such things?
Do I mean atheism-- lack of belief in God(s)-- is responsible for millions of deaths?
Most assuredly NOT.
It's believers who depend on the words must, cannot, should and should not (authoritarians and idealists) who are responsible for millions of deaths. Add totalitarians to the ranks of those responsible.
In this debate over the words "theism"and "atheism" we are ignoring power, raw power: the first to occupy a place (a piece of land, for instance) gets to name it.
Long before written communication appeared, there was spoken communication. Before that there was what some linquists call "grunt and groan" communication. It includes more than the sounds that pre-humans were making.
At a time unknown to us, someone started a behavior to which someone else attached the sound that became "theism".
To whatever behavior preceded theism, no one attached a name because it was the only behavior.
Therefore, the behavior that at first had no name and needed no name was given a name to distinguish it from the behavior that had been given the name "theism".
(Don't anyone dare say "chicken" or "egg"!
Very disappointing David. You were almost interesting when you tried to stick to your lies but now that you've descended into vitriolic drivel your presence here is an embarrassment.
That is the way he deals, Heather. Look at all of his discussions. They all start off somewhat condescending, and gradually slide into ranting insults.