Comparing the minimal-to-nonexistent "prejudice" atheists face with the prejudice transsexuals experience is ... I was going to say "insulting," but "embarrassing" is probably a better word.
To be fair, I don't think he's making that comparison.
Also, there's actually a lot of prejudice against atheists out there. Not of the assault-rape-and/or-murder variety, let's be clear, but it's not accurate to characterize it as "minimal-to-nonexistent" either. Remember that we're still constitutionally barred from holding public office in seven U.S. states.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Comparing the minimal-to-nonexistent "prejudice" atheists face with the prejudice transsexuals experience is ... I was going to say "insulting," but "embarrassing" is probably a better word.
To be fair, I don't think he's making that comparison.
Fair enough, but I still don't think the comparison is apt. The misunderstandings of atheism out there seem to spring more from lack of exposure to the concept than from prejudice.
Also, there's actually a lot of prejudice against atheists out there. Not of the assault-rape-and/or-murder variety, let's be clear, but it's not accurate to characterize it as "minimal-to-nonexistent" either.
I can't say I experience it, and I live in Texas (but maybe it's the bubble of urban life).
I guess there's the stereotype that atheists are immoral, but I'm a lawyer so most people assume that anyway.
Remember that we're still constitutionally barred from holding public office in seven U.S. states.
A stiff breeze would blow those laws over if they were ever enforced.
I can't say I experience it, and I live in Texas (but maybe it's the bubble of urban life).
Atheists have the advantage of not looking any different than anyone else. I'm guessing you probably don't have a facial tattoo proclaiming "THERE IS NO GOD" to everyone you meet.
I can't say I experience it, and I live in Texas (but maybe it's the bubble of urban life).
Atheists have the advantage of not looking any different than anyone else. I'm guessing you probably don't have a facial tattoo proclaiming "THERE IS NO GOD" to everyone you meet.
A stiff breeze would blow those laws over if they were ever enforced.
Sure. I'm reminding you of the sentiment that created them, not their legal power.
I'm guessing most of them were passed before our parents were born. And the kinds of wacky evangelicals that support those kinds of laws today tend to think Catholics and people who have premarital sex are going to hell just as fast as atheists. They're equally prejudiced against everyone who doesn't believe their precise brand of orthodoxy, it's not an atheism thing.
You failed to inform me of how exactly this particular fallacy applies to my reasoning beyond "Here's a fallacy about etymology, therefore you committed a fallacy". You need to present an argument for why it applies in this specific case.
The etymological fallacy is that a word has a certain meaning because its roots have that meaning. Your argument is that "atheism" must mean "without a god" because its roots a- and theos mean "without" and "god". Therefore, your argument is an etymological fallacy. My counterexample, "enthusiasm", is a precise parallel: its roots en- and theos mean "in" and "god", but "enthusiasm" does not mean "has a god within" as its etymology would indicate.
(And all this is without even touching the problem that the rather vague phrase "without a god" can be interpreted in multiple ways, and does not necessarily have the specific meaning you say it does. The word "anoxic" means "without oxygen", but only refers to situations where there is definitely no oxygen, not situations where we don't know whether there's oxygen or not.)
But in that case, we're talking about the entire word - in the case of the word atheist, you would need to change either the definition of theist or the prefix applied in order for it to change meaning.
Emphatically not so. Once coined, a word can take on a life of its own independent of its roots. See again "enthusiasm", or thousands of other examples - I would venture that there are probably more Greek- and Latin-derived words in English that don't maintain their original literal meaning than do.
Different cases. In the case of aesthetic, the a- was added in the transition to English (Likely for pronunciation purposes), in the case of anesthetic, it's actually meant as a prefix. You'll note that many foreign words and names change spelling slightly when changing over to English - first example that comes to mind is the giant Surtr in Norse mythology, who is simply known as Surt in Danish. Coincidence just so had it that an A was added in front in this case. It was not meant to convey a meaning. In fact, looking up the original Greek word just to be sure, the word is aisthētikos - indicating that the A was there from the beginning.
I'm afraid you missed my point. I'm well aware of the American English custom of turning Greek diphthongs into monophthongs (British English is more conservative, and spells the word "anaesthetic"). That's not the "a" I was talking about at all. My point, rather, is that "aesthetic" and "an(a)esthetic" share precisely the same relationship as "theist" and "atheist": the second word is produced by adding the prefix a(n)- meaning "without" to the first. The literal etymologies, "feeling" and "without feeling", are clearly related to the modern definitions of the terms, but the words have drifted into different spheres of usage over the centuries and gained more specific meanings. They are certainly not now logically complementary - an an(a)esthetic is not anything that lacks an aesthetic, but rather a particular class of medical procedure (almost always a drug) that deadens physical feeling. By your argument, this usage of the word must somehow be "incorrect". But of course it's not. If you tried to use it another way, you'd get funny looks and would not be understood - your usage would be the incorrect one.
(As an aside, the -r at the end of Surtr is actually the Old Norse masculine nominative suffix - one of them, anyway; it's a crazy language. The root of the word is just Surt, which we see bare in Danish because that language, like English, simplified its inflectional system over the course of the Middle Ages by dropping almost all the suffixes. Icelandic, in contrast, just spells out the vowel sound: Surtur. And I usually see the name spelled "Surtr" or "Surtur" in English translations and retellings of the Eddas.
...If the conversation is going to continue in this vein, it's probably better for you to be aware that useless dead languages are kind of my thing.)
My personal problem with just defining yourself as agnostic is that it is, in my opinion, a fence-sitting position to take, which is something that I do not condone. It's a way of not taking a position on the matter. Which is, in and of itself, fine. But if you wish to discuss religion, why would you not have an idea of your position when doing so? To me, it seems like an application of the golden mean fallacy. "If I don't take either position, I can never be completely wrong". It's a non-assertion of your belief, when it's more than sufficient to simply say "I am an agnostic atheist. I don't know if there is a god, and as such I do not actively worship or believe in one."
Are you saying that you object to the definition of the term because you have philosophical objections to the position it is defined as?
Should I object to the definition of the term "communism" because I object to communism?
Definitions versus arguments of substance: you need to keep them clearly distinct and very, very far apart.
I'm guessing most of them were passed before our parents were born. And the kinds of wacky evangelicals that support those kinds of laws today tend to think Catholics and people who have premarital sex are going to hell just as fast as atheists. They're equally prejudiced against everyone who doesn't believe their precise brand of orthodoxy, it's not an atheism thing.
It kind of is, weirdly enough. Atheists consistently score deadlast in a variety of polled measures of acceptance and trust.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I simply don't think that languages should be defined by common misinterpretations of words, such as most people assuming that transvestite = transsexual.
We say that it's a mistake to think "transvestite" and "transsexual" mean the same thing because we can find people who are called and call themselves "transvestites", and people who are called and call themselves "transsexuals", and note that they are not the same people. The false equivalence comes about through ignorance about these communities. This is not the same thing as is happening here. Here, you're saying that the people who are called and call themselves "agnostics" and "atheists", and are well informed about these communities, are mistaken. That's not like telling ignorant outsiders they're wrong to equate "transvestite" and "transsexual"; that's like telling transvestites and transsexuals they're wrong to use those terms for themselves. A situation more parallel to the "transvestite"-"transsexual" mistake would be if a Christian started calling atheists and agnostics "pagans" - this too would be a mistake, because atheists and agnostics are not commonly called "pagans" and pagans are not commonly called "atheists" and "agnostics", so correcting this person would be appropriate.
I'm trying to say that whichever word you want to use for it - atheist, non-theist, non-religious - you are by definition this if you aren't actively religious. If you don't believe in a religion, you are a non-theist, you are irreligious. It is simply not possible to have Schrodinger's belief. Are you actively religious/theistic? If yes, you are religious/a theist. If not, then you are non-religious/a non-theist. People dislike that belief because they, like yourself, tend to associate the label with bad things, but that's exactly why it matters.
First off, I call myself an atheist. I don't associate it with bad things; I just recognize that others do.
Secondly, you may already be aware of this, but there's a term for what you're doing. And it certainly isn't a fallacy - it's a very valid and valuable logical principle. It's called the law of the excluded middle. The truth or falsehood of any proposition is a binary. If it is not true that you are religious, then it is true that you are not religious. Correct. Where your logic runs into trouble is in assuming that all these terms you have listed synonymously indicate "not religious". And that is not necessarily the case. If I may continue the gender identity analogy, it's like stating (correctly) that everything must be either male or not male, but then assuming that "not male" and "female" are synonyms.
Now, your objection to this is probably once again that "atheist" is etymologically a direct negation of "theist", whereas "female" is not a direct negation of "male" (in fact, "female" and "male" aren't even related except through reanalysis). My response is once again to point out that a word, once coined, can evolve independently of its component roots, as "anesthetic" has evolved to not be a direct negation of "aesthetic" - in fact, "atheism" is a much older word than "anesthetic", and has had correspondingly longer to do so.
I could change my choice of words to non-theism, but it really should not make a different in this case, as these two things mean the exact same thing.
Do they, though? "Non-theism" is a new coinage of yours whereas "atheism" is, again, an old word that has had lots of time to evolve a distinct meaning. Even setting that difference aside, there's another problem with this equivalence: "non-theism" is in English but "atheism" comes from Greek. "Non-theism" is negating "theism" but atheos is negating theos, which does not mean "theism" but rather "god". And while saying "no theism" pretty clearly means what you say it does, that the subject is anyone without religious belief, saying "no god" can easily be interpreted to mean only those who affirm that there is no god, just as "agnostic" means only those who affirm that they have no knowledge (rather than anyone who is not a gnostic - we could say "non-gnostic" for that).
Unless the meaning of the prefix changes, or the word theism itself changes, assuming that atheism is not the exact same as non-theism is quite simply wrong. Yes, language changes over time, but there's still set definitions for words.
I don't like calling them "set", but yes, there are definitions for words. There are definitions for words, which are not always equivalent to the definitions for the roots and affixes within them. In semantics, the whole can be very different than the sum of its parts. I've already given you word examples like "enthusiasm" and "anesthetic", and I can give you plenty more: "execution", "profane", "record", "reference", "substance", "subject", "conjecture", "commission", "computation", "disputation", "quest", "conquest", "integrate", "disintegrate"...
And the principle extends beyond words, too. When I say someone is "three sheets to the wind", you know they are drunk, even though none of the words I used have anything to do with alcohol intoxication when analyzed individually.
But since the meaning of the word atheism is apparently sliding into meaning something more akin to anti-theism, what word should one use, exactly, if they wish to retain the original meaning?
I haven't focused on this, because for me to invoke the original meaning of the word as evidence of its current meaning would be just as much the etymological fallacy as for you, but just to set the facts straight, you are mistaken about the original meaning of "atheism":
Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek; their formation is not consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said átheos and atheotēs; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, átheos was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation; this use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed. (Drachmann, A.B. Atheism in Pagan Antiquity.)
(Incidentally, "ungodly" is another example of a word that means something beyond what its etymology implies.)
Now, if you want to ask what word we should use to denote all those who are not religious, "irreligious" and your own coinage "non-theist" seem to do the job perfectly well. Or you could use "atheism", as long as you make it clear this is what you mean. The word is used this way by some people; I'm not arguing that you're wrong about that. I'm only arguing that you're wrong to insist that this is prescriptively the only correct way to use it.
(And "antitheism" is normally used to mean a belief not that God does not exist, but that God and/or religion is harmful. By the some usages it is possible to be a theist antitheist, if you believe in God but oppose him or the people who follow him.)
That being said, however, I see your point on how a minor change in meaning can occur over time and make a major difference in the end definitions. Still, this seems like a thing that would happen organically in a time before the Internet, when communication over long distances was an issue - in this day and age, there seems to be very little reason for such a thing to not simply be corrected.
The first reason is that there is nothing to correct - nothing that makes one usage better or truer than another. The second reason is that prescriptive change of language is impossible - it's like Canute commanding the tide not to come in. And quite contrary to your assumption, mass communication actually makes this already-futile task vastly more difficult, not less. Large numbers of communications are what drives linguistic evolution - small, isolated populations tend to be linguistically conservative. (Icelandic, for instance, is by far the closest of the Scandinavian languages to Old Norse.) The internet is rocket fuel for this process. And large numbers of communications are also simply more difficult to control, by the same principle that it's more difficult to herd a large group of cats than a small one. Authoritarian regimes like China and Russia would have quite a different attitude towards the internet if it made statements easier to "correct".
People misunderstand what the word atheist at its core simply means someone who isn't actively religious. People misunderstand the word and associate it with militant atheists or other similar groups, when it does not need to carry such a strong meaning.
You misunderstand that words do not have "core meanings" that are more correct than their other meanings. No word needs to carry the meaning it does. "Atheism" does not need to carry the weak meaning you want to give it either. Its meaning is determined by its usage.
Saying that you are agnostic is like if someone asks what country you're from and you respond that you're European. It's not wrong, as such, but it doesn't really define which specific European country you are from.
By your own definition of "atheist", saying "agnostic" is more specific than saying "atheist" would be. The alternate definition of "atheist" is more specific than yours.
Are you X? If not, then you are a non-X. I fail to understand why people feel this need to say no, I am not X or non-X, I am neither. It makes no sense.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on some points here, because I disagree with the notion that a word's usage should always define its meaning. Not that I am against the evolution of language as such, but I don't agree with the notion - which, yes, is the one most if not all authorities in any kind of linguistic fields have - that enough people making a mistake should change the "official" meaning of a word. I will once again refer to the example of "literally" being made to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means/meant simply because enough people got it wrong for long enough. That being said, I still acknowledge that my own objections do not actually change the facts of how words are defined. As such, I defer to your knowledge on and understanding of the matter, which is obviously superior to my own. I still don't like it or agree with it, but I also believe that personal bias should not get in the way of facts, and that would be a poor stance to take if I cannot even put aside my own bias in favour of facts.
Talking to you is/was quite enjoyable, though, you seem to know a lot about linguistics. I'll leave you with this tidbit which you may or may not be aware of, and which definitely bothered me for a long time. In Danish, for many years, the words mayonnaise and yogurt actually each had two distinct spellings. They were the ones you'd be familiar with and then majonæse and jogurt. These two, especially the former, are completely phonetic spellings of how the words are pronounced in Danish. Basically, the spellings that people would come up with if they had to guess the spellings without knowing that both words had foreign roots. Since so many people messed these spellings up, the phonetic spellings were actually considered correct for many, many years. Not until 2012 was a change made by the people in control of the Danish dictionary to actually remove these spellings from being officially correct, simply because a lot of people got it wrong.
Not sure if you're already aware of it, but an interesting and somewhat related tidbit either way.
That's interesting, because there are two legitimate English spellings of "yogurt": yogurt and yoghurt. These two spellings co-exist just fine. If there was a practical reason to implement an official change and mandate a single spelling, we might see a push to make that happen. But as of right now no one gets confused, so there's no need to decide that one is "right" and one is "wrong."
For the sake of *cough* trying to resolve the argument I inadvertently caused, I'll clarify my beliefs. I generally use the broad term "agnostic" simply because it differentiates from the common definition of Atheism: The belief that god conclusively does not exist.
When I say I am Agnostic I refer to that I acknowledge I have no way of knowing or proving whether a god(Christian or otherwise) does or does not exist, and due to that, cannot justify following any particular religion's ethical or moral code on anything but their own merits. It is not so much that I believe God does or does not exist, as I acknowledge I don't know either way and therefore using God's existence(or nonexistence) to justify an action is invalid. Therefore I make every effort not to include that as a factor in my ethical or moral code.
I suppose to use an analogy one could compare it to someone who believes whether the universe is or is not infinite in size. It could be either, we lack a way to prove it either way, and for all practical purposes it has no demonstrable effect on my life, therefore I don't really think about it except in a purely idle sense.
I don't generally keep tabs on what more specific terms like "Agnostic Theist" and "Agnostic Atheist" mean, I'm simply labeling how I differ from the "conventional" Atheist. I guess upon doing a little looking into the subject one would classify me as an Apathetic Agnostic.
I hope that clears my comment up a bit, I didn't mean to start an argument.
Those two questions are the reasons why I dont practice Christianity. How do you know that God exists? Why does God kill all beings before then say "naw, that didnt happen"? (bad example) But, really? Why do people need rules for being a good person? There is no distinct reason why people need this.
test. ahhahah!!!!! this is a test!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#TeamChimneyImpForMythic
I am trying to get better at making decks. I have had trouble creating more competitive decks as I only really build with the cards I have. I dont have that many value cards, in function or expense. I (almost) never play at FNM type events so its not like im playing against $2k decks. If I do usally play at one, Its a draft or limited game. Any advice on building decks is greatly supported! DMs are appreciated.
Thank you!
To put it more simply, it's like saying, "I can prove Jesus is real and loves you. See? Here's my Hispanic friend Jesus. He's had a crush on you for a long time. Tell em' Jesus."
Here's a joke! Whats the internal temperature of a Taun-Taun?
I suppose the main reason Christianity is unpalatable/unacceptable to me is because it is strange. Even when I was Christian, I thought it was strange.
The people that show God respect by understanding His creation better (biologists, geologists, astronomers, etc) are the most hated by Christians. It seems that in order to be a good Christian, you can't respect God, you must disrespect Him. You must dedicate your life preaching that God is a monster that builds people with flaws, blames them for His own mistakes, and murders hundreds of millions of them for it in a flood. And if you insult God enough in this manner, He'll reward you with eternal paradise.
It was once mindblowing to me that people fall for this story, but that was before I understood people. We're selfish. We want to keep on living after we die. And if putting money in the collection plate and uttering nonsense with religious fervor is what we're told to do to achieve that, then that's what we do.
Ironically, I just had too much respect for God to remain a Christian.
It was once mindblowing to me that people fall for this story, but that was before I understood people. We're selfish. We want to keep on living after we die. And if putting money in the collection plate and uttering nonsense with religious fervor is what we're told to do to achieve that, then that's what we do.
On the other hand, an infinite afterlife makes this life completely worthless. It doesn't matter how long you live or what you do in this life, if you get to live forever after you die, it meant nothing. The most logical thing for anyone who believes in an eternal afterlife is suicide, which is why so many religions have a prohibition against it.
For those that don't believe in an eternal afterlife, this life is infinitely more valuable in comparison, because you only get one shot at getting it right.
As for other god's. You can be your own god too. So there are an infinite amount of god's.
Could there be a collective conscious to the universe that travels through dark energy...? maybe, but It still would not be a god.
Is there a thing that created earth, that has power over science, and someone wants to call that god... if you want, but I would say aliens.
It's a little hard to take you seriously sometimes. But I can see where you're coming from (or, at least, I think I can). I presume this comment relates to self dependence and individuality?
Is there a thing that created earth, that has power over science, and someone wants to call that god... if you want, but I would say aliens.
I would call that existential, natural, chaotic forces.
"I contend we are both atheists, I simply believe in one fewer God than you do. When you understand why you reject all other Gods, you'll understand why I reject yours."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
It's a little hard to take you seriously sometimes. But I can see where you're coming from (or, at least, I think I can). I presume this comment relates to self dependence and individuality?
Yeah I like being creative and throwing out different opinions. Your presumption would be correct. Religious people are always talking about god, so I thought I would call myself one.
At its core, Christianity is a religion of love. I find that you can 'cut to the chase' and just do that - love. Treat others with kindness. Be good to yourself and those around you. Be grateful. Be generous. Do not hurt others. Say 'thank you' a lot. Love the world but do not be attached to it because it is fleeting and ephemeral.
At its core, Christianity is a religion of love. I find that you can 'cut to the chase' and just do that - love. Treat others with kindness. Be good to yourself and those around you. Be grateful. Be generous. Do not hurt others. Say 'thank you' a lot. Love the world but do not be attached to it because it is fleeting and ephemeral.
So your saying that you are not Christian because you don't need to be Christian to love and there would be no other reason? Or what?
At its core, Christianity is a religion of love. I find that you can 'cut to the chase' and just do that - love. Treat others with kindness. Be good to yourself and those around you. Be grateful. Be generous. Do not hurt others. Say 'thank you' a lot. Love the world but do not be attached to it because it is fleeting and ephemeral.
So your saying that you are not Christian because you don't need to be Christian to love and there would be no other reason? Or what?
More or less. I find Christianity to be quite dramatic and heavy on the pathos, you know? I don't need that stuff weighing me down. It is too complicated. Folks have been pondering the mysteries of the bible for hundreds of years and they still haven't figured it out. The answers are right in front of us! How do you see it?
At its core, Christianity is a religion of love. I find that you can 'cut to the chase' and just do that - love. Treat others with kindness. Be good to yourself and those around you. Be grateful. Be generous. Do not hurt others. Say 'thank you' a lot. Love the world but do not be attached to it because it is fleeting and ephemeral.
I'll happily agree that you don't need Christianity (or any religion) to love.
I do not agree that "At its core, Christianity is a religion of love." The Bible is like a choose-your-own-adventure book, parts of it form a genocide manual, and it has been used to justify a number of atrocities throughout history.
Yeah, there's some good stuff in the Bible as well, but I don't see how you can arrive at "love" being the core message of the religion without some serious cherry-picking.
Also, there's actually a lot of prejudice against atheists out there. Not of the assault-rape-and/or-murder variety, let's be clear, but it's not accurate to characterize it as "minimal-to-nonexistent" either. Remember that we're still constitutionally barred from holding public office in seven U.S. states.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Fair enough, but I still don't think the comparison is apt. The misunderstandings of atheism out there seem to spring more from lack of exposure to the concept than from prejudice.
I can't say I experience it, and I live in Texas (but maybe it's the bubble of urban life).
I guess there's the stereotype that atheists are immoral, but I'm a lawyer so most people assume that anyway.
A stiff breeze would blow those laws over if they were ever enforced.
Sure. I'm reminding you of the sentiment that created them, not their legal power.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You know me too well.
I'm guessing most of them were passed before our parents were born. And the kinds of wacky evangelicals that support those kinds of laws today tend to think Catholics and people who have premarital sex are going to hell just as fast as atheists. They're equally prejudiced against everyone who doesn't believe their precise brand of orthodoxy, it's not an atheism thing.
Or the irony of telling people how they need to self-identify (you can be an "agnostic theist" or and "agnostic atheist" but not an "agnostic").
(And all this is without even touching the problem that the rather vague phrase "without a god" can be interpreted in multiple ways, and does not necessarily have the specific meaning you say it does. The word "anoxic" means "without oxygen", but only refers to situations where there is definitely no oxygen, not situations where we don't know whether there's oxygen or not.)
Emphatically not so. Once coined, a word can take on a life of its own independent of its roots. See again "enthusiasm", or thousands of other examples - I would venture that there are probably more Greek- and Latin-derived words in English that don't maintain their original literal meaning than do.
I'm afraid you missed my point. I'm well aware of the American English custom of turning Greek diphthongs into monophthongs (British English is more conservative, and spells the word "anaesthetic"). That's not the "a" I was talking about at all. My point, rather, is that "aesthetic" and "an(a)esthetic" share precisely the same relationship as "theist" and "atheist": the second word is produced by adding the prefix a(n)- meaning "without" to the first. The literal etymologies, "feeling" and "without feeling", are clearly related to the modern definitions of the terms, but the words have drifted into different spheres of usage over the centuries and gained more specific meanings. They are certainly not now logically complementary - an an(a)esthetic is not anything that lacks an aesthetic, but rather a particular class of medical procedure (almost always a drug) that deadens physical feeling. By your argument, this usage of the word must somehow be "incorrect". But of course it's not. If you tried to use it another way, you'd get funny looks and would not be understood - your usage would be the incorrect one.
(As an aside, the -r at the end of Surtr is actually the Old Norse masculine nominative suffix - one of them, anyway; it's a crazy language. The root of the word is just Surt, which we see bare in Danish because that language, like English, simplified its inflectional system over the course of the Middle Ages by dropping almost all the suffixes. Icelandic, in contrast, just spells out the vowel sound: Surtur. And I usually see the name spelled "Surtr" or "Surtur" in English translations and retellings of the Eddas.
...If the conversation is going to continue in this vein, it's probably better for you to be aware that useless dead languages are kind of my thing.)
Are you saying that you object to the definition of the term because you have philosophical objections to the position it is defined as?
Should I object to the definition of the term "communism" because I object to communism?
Definitions versus arguments of substance: you need to keep them clearly distinct and very, very far apart.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It kind of is, weirdly enough. Atheists consistently score dead last in a variety of polled measures of acceptance and trust.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
First off, I call myself an atheist. I don't associate it with bad things; I just recognize that others do.
Secondly, you may already be aware of this, but there's a term for what you're doing. And it certainly isn't a fallacy - it's a very valid and valuable logical principle. It's called the law of the excluded middle. The truth or falsehood of any proposition is a binary. If it is not true that you are religious, then it is true that you are not religious. Correct. Where your logic runs into trouble is in assuming that all these terms you have listed synonymously indicate "not religious". And that is not necessarily the case. If I may continue the gender identity analogy, it's like stating (correctly) that everything must be either male or not male, but then assuming that "not male" and "female" are synonyms.
Now, your objection to this is probably once again that "atheist" is etymologically a direct negation of "theist", whereas "female" is not a direct negation of "male" (in fact, "female" and "male" aren't even related except through reanalysis). My response is once again to point out that a word, once coined, can evolve independently of its component roots, as "anesthetic" has evolved to not be a direct negation of "aesthetic" - in fact, "atheism" is a much older word than "anesthetic", and has had correspondingly longer to do so.
Do they, though? "Non-theism" is a new coinage of yours whereas "atheism" is, again, an old word that has had lots of time to evolve a distinct meaning. Even setting that difference aside, there's another problem with this equivalence: "non-theism" is in English but "atheism" comes from Greek. "Non-theism" is negating "theism" but atheos is negating theos, which does not mean "theism" but rather "god". And while saying "no theism" pretty clearly means what you say it does, that the subject is anyone without religious belief, saying "no god" can easily be interpreted to mean only those who affirm that there is no god, just as "agnostic" means only those who affirm that they have no knowledge (rather than anyone who is not a gnostic - we could say "non-gnostic" for that).
I don't like calling them "set", but yes, there are definitions for words. There are definitions for words, which are not always equivalent to the definitions for the roots and affixes within them. In semantics, the whole can be very different than the sum of its parts. I've already given you word examples like "enthusiasm" and "anesthetic", and I can give you plenty more: "execution", "profane", "record", "reference", "substance", "subject", "conjecture", "commission", "computation", "disputation", "quest", "conquest", "integrate", "disintegrate"...
And the principle extends beyond words, too. When I say someone is "three sheets to the wind", you know they are drunk, even though none of the words I used have anything to do with alcohol intoxication when analyzed individually.
I haven't focused on this, because for me to invoke the original meaning of the word as evidence of its current meaning would be just as much the etymological fallacy as for you, but just to set the facts straight, you are mistaken about the original meaning of "atheism": (Incidentally, "ungodly" is another example of a word that means something beyond what its etymology implies.)
Now, if you want to ask what word we should use to denote all those who are not religious, "irreligious" and your own coinage "non-theist" seem to do the job perfectly well. Or you could use "atheism", as long as you make it clear this is what you mean. The word is used this way by some people; I'm not arguing that you're wrong about that. I'm only arguing that you're wrong to insist that this is prescriptively the only correct way to use it.
(And "antitheism" is normally used to mean a belief not that God does not exist, but that God and/or religion is harmful. By the some usages it is possible to be a theist antitheist, if you believe in God but oppose him or the people who follow him.)
The first reason is that there is nothing to correct - nothing that makes one usage better or truer than another. The second reason is that prescriptive change of language is impossible - it's like Canute commanding the tide not to come in. And quite contrary to your assumption, mass communication actually makes this already-futile task vastly more difficult, not less. Large numbers of communications are what drives linguistic evolution - small, isolated populations tend to be linguistically conservative. (Icelandic, for instance, is by far the closest of the Scandinavian languages to Old Norse.) The internet is rocket fuel for this process. And large numbers of communications are also simply more difficult to control, by the same principle that it's more difficult to herd a large group of cats than a small one. Authoritarian regimes like China and Russia would have quite a different attitude towards the internet if it made statements easier to "correct".
You misunderstand that words do not have "core meanings" that are more correct than their other meanings. No word needs to carry the meaning it does. "Atheism" does not need to carry the weak meaning you want to give it either. Its meaning is determined by its usage.
By your own definition of "atheist", saying "agnostic" is more specific than saying "atheist" would be. The alternate definition of "atheist" is more specific than yours.
Again: "I am not male or female, I am neither."
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That's interesting, because there are two legitimate English spellings of "yogurt": yogurt and yoghurt. These two spellings co-exist just fine. If there was a practical reason to implement an official change and mandate a single spelling, we might see a push to make that happen. But as of right now no one gets confused, so there's no need to decide that one is "right" and one is "wrong."
When I say I am Agnostic I refer to that I acknowledge I have no way of knowing or proving whether a god(Christian or otherwise) does or does not exist, and due to that, cannot justify following any particular religion's ethical or moral code on anything but their own merits. It is not so much that I believe God does or does not exist, as I acknowledge I don't know either way and therefore using God's existence(or nonexistence) to justify an action is invalid. Therefore I make every effort not to include that as a factor in my ethical or moral code.
I suppose to use an analogy one could compare it to someone who believes whether the universe is or is not infinite in size. It could be either, we lack a way to prove it either way, and for all practical purposes it has no demonstrable effect on my life, therefore I don't really think about it except in a purely idle sense.
I don't generally keep tabs on what more specific terms like "Agnostic Theist" and "Agnostic Atheist" mean, I'm simply labeling how I differ from the "conventional" Atheist. I guess upon doing a little looking into the subject one would classify me as an Apathetic Agnostic.
I hope that clears my comment up a bit, I didn't mean to start an argument.
Those two questions are the reasons why I dont practice Christianity. How do you know that God exists? Why does God kill all beings before then say "naw, that didnt happen"? (bad example) But, really? Why do people need rules for being a good person? There is no distinct reason why people need this.
test. ahhahah!!!!! this is a test!
Thank you!
The people that show God respect by understanding His creation better (biologists, geologists, astronomers, etc) are the most hated by Christians. It seems that in order to be a good Christian, you can't respect God, you must disrespect Him. You must dedicate your life preaching that God is a monster that builds people with flaws, blames them for His own mistakes, and murders hundreds of millions of them for it in a flood. And if you insult God enough in this manner, He'll reward you with eternal paradise.
It was once mindblowing to me that people fall for this story, but that was before I understood people. We're selfish. We want to keep on living after we die. And if putting money in the collection plate and uttering nonsense with religious fervor is what we're told to do to achieve that, then that's what we do.
Ironically, I just had too much respect for God to remain a Christian.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
For those that don't believe in an eternal afterlife, this life is infinitely more valuable in comparison, because you only get one shot at getting it right.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
As for other god's. You can be your own god too. So there are an infinite amount of god's.
Could there be a collective conscious to the universe that travels through dark energy...? maybe, but It still would not be a god.
Is there a thing that created earth, that has power over science, and someone wants to call that god... if you want, but I would say aliens.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
It's a little hard to take you seriously sometimes. But I can see where you're coming from (or, at least, I think I can). I presume this comment relates to self dependence and individuality?
I would call that existential, natural, chaotic forces.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
"I contend we are both atheists, I simply believe in one fewer God than you do. When you understand why you reject all other Gods, you'll understand why I reject yours."
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
Yeah I like being creative and throwing out different opinions. Your presumption would be correct. Religious people are always talking about god, so I thought I would call myself one.
Yeah well that's how it did happen, I'm just saying it might be possible for some intelligent beings to make a planet and give it live
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Vagueness detected.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Sure, it's possible. A lot of things are possible.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
At its core, Christianity is a religion of love. I find that you can 'cut to the chase' and just do that - love. Treat others with kindness. Be good to yourself and those around you. Be grateful. Be generous. Do not hurt others. Say 'thank you' a lot. Love the world but do not be attached to it because it is fleeting and ephemeral.
So your saying that you are not Christian because you don't need to be Christian to love and there would be no other reason? Or what?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
More or less. I find Christianity to be quite dramatic and heavy on the pathos, you know? I don't need that stuff weighing me down. It is too complicated. Folks have been pondering the mysteries of the bible for hundreds of years and they still haven't figured it out. The answers are right in front of us! How do you see it?
I do not agree that "At its core, Christianity is a religion of love." The Bible is like a choose-your-own-adventure book, parts of it form a genocide manual, and it has been used to justify a number of atrocities throughout history.
Yeah, there's some good stuff in the Bible as well, but I don't see how you can arrive at "love" being the core message of the religion without some serious cherry-picking.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Yeah, but they still aren't gods.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru