|
Woo! More poo poo: Alternatively: why can't people tolerate me saying hateful poo poo     Was... America going away?
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:The phenomenon that I can't believe is that atheism, A-theism, anti-theism, is a religion. That's an incorrect etymology, the a- prefix is a seperate prefix from anti-. A- is without, anti- is against or opposed to. So: a- without, theos god, -isma doctrine or set of beliefs. A doctrine of set of beliefs without a god. Your general point is still correct, but anti-theism and atheism are two separate things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:That's an incorrect etymology, the a- prefix is a seperate prefix from anti-. A- is without, anti- is against or opposed to. So: a- without, theos god, -isma doctrine or set of beliefs. A doctrine of set of beliefs without a god. Your general point is still correct, but anti-theism and atheism are two separate things. Historically and theoretically, atheism has been defined by a belief that there is no god, or by opposition to a broader theological set of constructs and ideas. The definition of atheism has become a contested and political thing unto itself in the past couple decades, as the new atheist movement has attempted to argue that atheism contains agnosticism, primarily because it gives a very convenient rhetorical benefit to be able to shift back and forth between agnostic and atheistic claims on the fly. (This is often phrased as "absence of belief, not belief in the absence" in talking points).
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:the new atheist movement is irrelevant and full of ignorant naifs wallowing in bathos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
I agree that new atheism is pretty terrible, but they've been successful, in part due to their prominent internet presence, in convincing a lot of people that atheism is a form of I'm-just-asking-questions agnosticism. This is frustrating to other theists, atheists and agnostics, because it has the effect of confusing and politicizing the terms of the discussion around religion. This has made it harder for people trying to find common ground in these areas to communicate when there are actual things at stake. In other words, new atheism being new atheism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
People who do not believe in God don't want to be called atheists because they don't want to associate with those who use that label to identify themselves. I've seen people go to great lengths to explain that they're not an atheist, despite having no belief in any good or religious dogma. I think a lot of that has to do with the stigma of the label. I see it a lot on these boards in particular, mostly as a way to distance ones self from the kind of people who post on r/atheism. Atheists are also one of those groups that gets called militant without being violent. (See also vegetarians/vegans and feminists.) I've always found that absurd.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Master Twig posted:People who do not believe in God don't want to be called atheists because they don't want to associate with those who use that label to identify themselves. I've seen people go to great lengths to explain that they're not an atheist, despite having no belief in any good or religious dogma. I think a lot of that has to do with the stigma of the label. I see it a lot on these boards in particular, mostly as a way to distance ones self from the kind of people who post on r/atheism. quote:mil·i·tant So they get called 'militant' if they get combative or aggressive in support of their social cause and tend to favor extreme and confrontational methods. Don't see the issue. Also isn't that like an ancient internet meme? Like three pictures, one of a dude in a bomb vest called "militant islam" one of an old crusader because that's still a thing called "militant christianity" and one of just like, a harmless white guy drinking coffee called a "militant athiest" or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:That's an incorrect etymology, the a- prefix is a seperate prefix from anti-. A- is without, anti- is against or opposed to. So: a- without, theos god, -isma doctrine or set of beliefs. A doctrine of set of beliefs without a god. Your general point is still correct, but anti-theism and atheism are two separate things. I agree with your general point (a and anti are very different) but I'd break down the word as (without (doctrines and beliefs about gods)) rather than (doctrines and beliefs (without gods)). Atheists in general don't have doctrines and beliefs. Agnosticism is a stupid attempt either at being less offensive or sounding more intelligent, and it fails at both. "We have no proof either way so I won't take a stance" is ludicrous because you'll never have proof of absence. The default rational view of things is that they don't exist unless there is some evidence to the contrary: if I tell you there exist unicorns with elephant trunks, you aren't going to shrug and say "I have no proof either way, so I can't know," you're going to say "there is absolutely no evidence that unicorniphants exist so until you actually present some I'm going to assume your wild claim is bullshit."
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Master Twig posted:Atheists are also one of those groups that gets called militant without being violent. (See also vegetarians/vegans and feminists.) I've always found that absurd. "militancy" often is used to signify the invocation of violence in rhetoric. The idea of "militant atheists" is also largely a byproduct of the publicity of the new atheist movement, which has defined itself oppositionally in ways other forms of atheism haven't. In some respects, it's helpful to understand that the new atheist movement has most of its origins, and a great deal of its support base, in the UK, where historical factors have made the movement simultaneously theoretical and political. Militancy claims regarding vegetarianism/veganism may partially stem from overlap with the animal rights movement, which does have an ongoing and active militant/violent fringe, at least in the US. Choadmaster posted:Agnosticism is a stupid attempt either at being less offensive or sounding more intelligent, and it fails at both. "We have no proof either way so I won't take a stance" is ludicrous because you'll never have proof of absence. The default rational view of things is that they don't exist unless there is some evidence to the contrary: if I tell you there exist unicorns with elephant trunks, you aren't going to shrug and say "I have no proof either way, so I can't know," you're going to say "there is absolutely no evidence that unicorniphants exist so until you actually present some I'm going to assume your wild claim is bullshit." It's a separate set of theological and philosophical viewpoints with historical roots that go back, at least in Europe, about 250 years. I'd recommend looking into it before summarizing it this way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:So they get called 'militant' if they get combative or aggressive in support of their social cause and tend to favor extreme and confrontational methods. Don't see the issue. Atheists aren't combative or aggressive in America. They just appear that way to a certain type of Christian who is used to getting to control everyone's lives and is now butthurt they can't impose their religion on everyone all the time anymore. Militant atheism was a thing in Revolutionary France or the Soviet Union though, when Christians were targeted for their beliefs, so it definitely does exist. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Sep 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
I know a guy from Canberra who is agnostic, but whinges about how bad Christians have it in Australia. Don't they have Christian chaplains in public schools or something like that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Which ones are those?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Atheists aren't combative or aggressive in America. They just appear that way to a certain type of Christian who is used to getting to control everyone's lives and is now butthurt they can't impose their religion on everyone all the time anymore. You can be aggressive without literally shooting priests in the face.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I agree that new atheism is pretty terrible, but they've been successful, in part due to their prominent internet presence, in convincing a lot of people that atheism is a form of I'm-just-asking-questions agnosticism. This is frustrating to other theists, atheists and agnostics, because it has the effect of confusing and politicizing the terms of the discussion around religion. This has made it harder for people trying to find common ground in these areas to communicate when there are actual things at stake. In other words, new atheism being new atheism. Why is it that people that a quick to talk about "new atheism" so often don't know what the words they're using actually mean? First, you're wrong to say that atheists and agnostics are necessarily mutually exclusive groups. A/theism and a/gnosticism answer two completely separate questions; what you believe and what you know. So someone can be a Gnostic Atheist, Agnostic Atheist, Gnostic Theist, and Agnostic Atheist. So someone claiming to be an agnostic is almost universally an atheist, but because of the social stigma of calling oneself an atheist (mostly the fear of being thought of as a smug douchebag) they don't like to use that label. When you're talking about "New Atheists" you're talking about Gnostic Atheists, which are hardly new. Gnostic Atheism has been around for just as long as Gnostic Theism has, they just simply have never had as much of a voice as they do in today's society. But these are not complex terms and these definitions have been around as long as the words themselves have. To say that people are muddying the waters or whatever bullshit you're going on about shows that you're woefully under informed about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:
I love this one because the only comment you would ever need to make is just "by*"
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's a separate set of theological and philosophical viewpoints with historical roots that go back, at least in Europe, about 250 years. I'd recommend looking into it before summarizing it this way. I've never heard anyone use it except in that way, so if there's more to it I'd love to see... Got anywhere useful to point me to?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Which ones are those? All the other ones 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Agnosticism is a stupid attempt either at being less offensive or sounding more intelligent, and it fails at both. "We have no proof either way so I won't take a stance" is ludicrous because you'll never have proof of absence. The default rational view of things is that they don't exist unless there is some evidence to the contrary: if I tell you there exist unicorns with elephant trunks, you aren't going to shrug and say "I have no proof either way, so I can't know," you're going to say "there is absolutely no evidence that unicorniphants exist so until you actually present some I'm going to assume your wild claim is bullshit." Boy, I'd like to be able to sum up a theological stance going back hundreds of years in a pithy manner while completely missing the point like you.  I believe agnosticism also means that you believe there is a god, or a higher power, but you do not worship or in any way attempt to please said being. The reasons could vary. "It's not a god, it's just another being and it happened to create us, but it's not 'divine'." "The greater being set the world spinning and then just sort of left and doesn't give a gently caress so why should I?" "I believe there is a god, but I think it's an evil being so I don't worship it." Ironically, one of the best arguments for Agnosticism I've ever seen was in a young adult's book about religion. I can't remember the name of the book, it was part of a series. But the theory proposed to the characters went thus: "What if there existed before us, a 2D plane of existence. We could interact with it, but the creatures living on this 2D plane, do not understand. Say one of these creatures, with no understanding of 'up' or 'down', had a rock roll in front of their house. We were watching and saw they were upset, so we picked the rock up and moved it. To the creatures on the plane, the rock vanished, and reappeared in the distance. They would have no explanation for this that they could understand or comprehend. So it'd be a miracle to them." The implication there was that clearly, god was some greater other dimensional being that was capable of doing such things, and we were stuck on this stupid third dimension while he was in some sort of glorious other dimension where we just couldn't see it. At first, I thought this was a cool idea on how god did his 'miracles'. . .but the more I thought about it, the more I realized then that if that was true, god wasn't 'divine', it was just. . .someone else in another dimension loving with us. It didn't explain heaven, it didn't explain the idea of hell, it didn't even explain the idea that god is 'love' or forgiveness or if he even wanted us to do what was in the bible. Choadmaster posted:I've never heard anyone use it except in that way, so if there's more to it I'd love to see... Got anywhere useful to point me to? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Which ones are those? The known hellhole of Sweden 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:There are a bunch of "atheists" who are just rebelling; they're the ones who convert back and become "ex-atheists." And then they ascribe that same mentality to literally anyone else who doesn't believe in God/their exact version of the Christian God for the same reason as the universal law discussion about anti-science views earlier. It was true for me so therefore anyone else calling themselves an atheist has to have the same motivations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:I've never heard anyone use it except in that way, so if there's more to it I'd love to see... Got anywhere useful to point me to? Anything prior to the rise of new atheism, or most academic work in theology or philosophy on the subject. The distinction set Who What Now is advocating exists, but that's not the problem of how the terms are exploited in new atheist discourse. The problem is that new atheism shifts between gnostic and agnostic positions depending on their rhetorical strength. Notice, for example, that there isn't a "gnostic atheism" page, but that it instead redirects to "negative and positive atheism", which doesn't have any links going back to agnostic atheism. The section on Richard Dawkins there is informative: "Under this positive/negative classification, some agnostics would qualify as negative atheists. The validity of this categorization is disputed, however, and a few prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins avoid it. In The God Delusion, Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between "very high" and "very low" as "agnostic" and reserves the term "strong atheist" for those who claim to know there is no God. He categorizes himself as a "de facto atheist" but not a "strong atheist" on this scale." Contrast this with other statements by Dawkins. The strong/weak distinction, which is a lot younger, allows for very rhetorically useful position selection. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Sep 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:You can be aggressive without literally shooting priests in the face. Yeah but mocking Christians on the internet doesn't qualify even if a Christian does go seek out r/atheism to get all offended that people don't respect Jesus like he thinks they should. What's funny is that Christians can say atheists deserve to burn for eternity for their evil ways and no one calls that militant because that's just expressing a belief, but if you laugh about talking animals then oh god save us all from militant atheists! Call out atheists who are dickbags to believers for being rude all you want, but unless they're advocating actual violence then they're not militant. Why accept a term invented to foster a false sense of persecution among people who are butthurt that they only get to run most of society and not all of it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:Ironically, one of the best arguments for Agnosticism I've ever seen was in a young adult's book about religion. I can't remember the name of the book, it was part of a series. But the theory proposed to the characters went thus: "What if there existed before us, a 2D plane of existence. We could interact with it, but the creatures living on this 2D plane, do not understand. Say one of these creatures, with no understanding of 'up' or 'down', had a rock roll in front of their house. We were watching and saw they were upset, so we picked the rock up and moved it. To the creatures on the plane, the rock vanished, and reappeared in the distance. They would have no explanation for this that they could understand or comprehend. So it'd be a miracle to them." That's just Flatland.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:That's just Flatland. e: The parts where they go down to the lower dimensional worlds, and the four spatial dimensions stuff. The class and gender things are very strange. Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Sep 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Anything prior to the rise of new atheism, or most academic work in theology or philosophy on the subject. The distinction set Who What Now is advocating exists, but that's not the problem of how the terms are exploited in new atheist discourse. The problem is that new atheism shifts between gnostic and agnostic positions depending on their rhetorical strength. Notice, for example, that there isn't a "gnostic atheism" page, but that it instead redirects to "negative and positive atheism", which doesn't have any links going back to agnostic atheism. The section on Richard Dawkins there is informative: Trying to frame the "shifting between strong and weak atheism" as intellectually dishonest or merely a rhetorical tactic is itself dishonest. Theism is not some monolithic thing, it's an immensely broad range of beliefs and values, each of which needs to be addressed and answered on it's own. For example, I am a gnostic/strong/positive atheist when it comes to Gods like Thor, Zeus, Cthulu, and certain descriptions of the Abrahamic God. But I'm an agnostic/weak/negative atheist on claims of some sort of vague "God is the creator" or Deistic god claims. This isn't a rhetorical tactic, it's being honest about one's beliefs. Also, no one cares what Dick Dorkins says. He is not the atheist prophet. He's an increasingly irrelevant public figure grasping futilely for any shred of relevance he can get anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Trying to frame the "shifting between strong and weak atheism" as intellectually dishonest or merely a rhetorical tactic is itself dishonest. Theism is not some monolithic thing, it's an immensely broad range of beliefs and values, each of which needs to be addressed and answered on it's own. For example, I am a gnostic/strong/positive atheist when it comes to Gods like Thor, Zeus, Cthulu, and certain descriptions of the Abrahamic God. But I'm an agnostic/weak/negative atheist on claims of some sort of vague "God is the creator" or Deistic god claims. This isn't a rhetorical tactic, it's being honest about one's beliefs. It really seems like you've built up a mental image of my position that isn't what it is. It might be productive to go back and reread this chain of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
It's like Who What Now and Discendo Vox are stuck in an elevator at an atheist conference or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
I never understood why people were so insistent on coming up with a universal set of adjectives to describe the spiritual positions of every single person on the planet. I mean, who gives a poo poo if someone who doesn't believe in gods calls themselves agnostic as opposed to atheist? Are you really going to grill someone on whether they're referring to knowledge of god or belief in god when they describe their spiritual belief as "agnostic"? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:It's like Who What Now and Discendo Vox are stuck in an elevator at an atheist conference or something. I hope neither of them is a woman because things could get really uncomfortable 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:I never understood why people were so insistent on coming up with a universal set of adjectives to describe the spiritual positions of every single person on the planet. I mean, who gives a poo poo if someone who doesn't believe in gods calls themselves agnostic as opposed to atheist? Are you really going to grill someone on whether they're referring to knowledge of god or belief in god when they describe their spiritual belief as "agnostic"? Considering the type of people who argue about it on the internet, the answer is yes, repeatedly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
I had a great conversation last Friday with a Jehova's Witness couple who wanted to convert me. They took it well in stride when I told them that I actively disagree with all religious/supernatural ideas, and we had a very interesting discussion about the bible. This thread is worse than that conversation. Post some loving email forwards you jackasses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
I am not a book posted:This thread is worse than that conversation. Post some loving email forwards you jackasses. Ask and Ye Shall Receive: Facebook: [ GIANT RED TEXT] Cheerleaders Defy School Ban on Prayer During ACLU-Enforced ‘Moment of Silence’ [/GIANT RED TEXT]  quote:When a Tennessee school district decided to ban prayer, cheerleaders at the school defied that decision. Now many Americans are thrilled by how they – and the crowd at the game, responded. E-mail 1 quote:The Hug of the Century For some reason that was accompanied by this:  E-mail 2: Old one I have seen in here before I think, but nevertheless: quote:
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:Ask and Ye Shall Receive: Ahhhh yeah that's the good stuff. Like Heroin. Every time I read that I mentally substitute "union workers" for "soldiers".
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:I never understood why people were so insistent on coming up with a universal set of adjectives to describe the spiritual positions of every single person on the planet. I mean, who gives a poo poo if someone who doesn't believe in gods calls themselves agnostic as opposed to atheist? Are you really going to grill someone on whether they're referring to knowledge of god or belief in god when they describe their spiritual belief as "agnostic"? People like to put things into nice neat little categories because having things in neat categories makes processing information about them easier. People like their categories so much that they are willing to just cram as much of a thing into the category as will fit and then just ignore or cut off the bits that don't fit while claiming that their category is all-inclusive. As a result, many people invest far too much effort into trying to come up with a universal categorization for things that are important to them; a favorite is to categorize people who disagree with you as 'wrong' and 'possibly evil'
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Hey, you know what's fun? Having a gun argument with someone you thought was a decent friend on facebook who's defending some students' desire to have Concealed Carry on a college campus by doing the usual poo poo of "GUN OWNERS ARE VIRTUOUS AND OMNISCIENT AND NEVER MAKE BAD DECISIONS OR MISUSE THEIR WEAPONS OR MISS," and then near the end of the argument goes "Well if this passes I wonder if you'll hold the same opinion when you're sharing a classroom with a Concealed Carrier. " gently caress. That. I had no idea that particular person was such an insufferable loving shitheel, to build his entire drat argument around the inherent virtue and wisdom of the gun holder, and then end the argument by destroying all of that and throwing down a petty loving "Say that to my gun" threat - and simultaneously implying that I'm a craven loving coward - like I guess he must be. The sheer insufferable gall of it, I just aaaaaaaaaa  gently caress facebook politics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
You've almost directly got your response there. Ask them if they're implying that the threat the concealed carrier holds should change your mind, and which direction it should change it in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Facebook politics are the worst; I severed from a person I thought was a good guy after, in an argument about affirmative action, he tried using Nicki Minaj tweets about "white shaming" in predominantly black high schools to justify just scrapping AA and saying "black people just need to improve their CULTURE" after I said "hey you know those comment are pretty racist".
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You've almost directly got your response there. Ask them if they're implying that the threat the concealed carrier holds should change your mind, and which direction it should change it in. I did. Thanked him for the poorly veiled threat and told him what a good case he was making for why I should feel safe surrounded by reasonable gun-owners. Left him too much room to say "Well why did you think I was making a threat, you anti-gun people sure are bound by emotion unlike us rational gun owners " (he'd been harping on how 'emotional' proponents of gun control are all day) in hindsight, but gently caress him. I assume he's smart enough to understand his own drat implications. He hasn't gotten back to me and I unfollowed the post in question because, seriously, gently caress him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:gently caress. That. I had no idea that particular person was such an insufferable loving shitheel, to build his entire drat argument around the inherent virtue and wisdom of the gun holder, and then end the argument by destroying all of that and throwing down a petty loving "Say that to my gun" threat - and simultaneously implying that I'm a craven loving coward - like I guess he must be. The sheer insufferable gall of it, I just aaaaaaaaaa But wait, I thought guns didn't kill people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
VideoTapir posted:But wait, I thought guns didn't kill people. Yeah, people kill people, like the person with a gun who is apparently supposed to make me reconsider my stance on firearms in public places ...Wait a sec, that person sounds kinda lovely Spiritus Nox fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Sep 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 04:42
|
|