|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 1, 2019 11:56:00 GMT
Unless Arlon is being ironic, this flies directly in the face of what he has previously argued when it suits: that to be valid any definition must be mutually agreed. They must be mutually agreed before a debate, otherwise have at it. And this thread does not represent a debate, or dispute?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 1, 2019 12:06:42 GMT
They must be mutually agreed before a debate, otherwise have at it. And this thread does not represent a debate, or dispute? I ordinarily write clearly enough for a person who genuinely wants to know what I mean. It is efficient. I often do not bother trying to write so clearly that a person who maliciously intends to miss my meaning will surrender. Such people (you?) are going to miss the meaning no matter what I do anyway. The thread is certainly not a formal debate. I consider it a "casual setting." Should I not? Of course participants might "debate" individual points as they occur and should assemble themselves at some point if it appears necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 1, 2019 12:09:54 GMT
So... You find comfort in what you believe. Very religious of you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 12:12:46 GMT
The only sense in which atheism is a religion is the "something you are intensely into" sense. Like when people say "Football is his religion" or "Shopping is his religion". But note, in this sense it's not about the object of your attention but the nature of your attention. Saying Football is his religion doesn't mean that football is actually a religion, it means that the person we're talking about acts as people normally do towards religion.
In other words no, atheism cannot be considered a religion. But people can treat it as if it was, just as they can treat anything as if it was.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 1, 2019 12:14:35 GMT
And this thread does not represent a debate, or dispute? I ordinarily write clearly enough for a person who genuinely wants to know what I mean. It is efficient. I often do not bother trying to write so clearly that a person who maliciously intends to miss my meaning will surrender. Such people (you?) are going to miss the meaning no matter what I do anyway. The thread is certainly not a formal debate. I consider it a "casual setting." Should I not? Of course participants might "debate" individual points as they occur and should assemble themselves at some point if it appears necessary. I didn't ask if it was a formal debate. Assuming, though that formal debates are never to be found on this board, and your regular 'rule' suddenly does not apply, then thank you for the clarification "All definitions are arbitrary". That will be very useful, knowing that they then not need be mutually agreed after all to proceed to discussion. Please just do not argue contrary-wise again - although of course feel free to debate with dictionaries on this basis, which I know you like to do so (and win).
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 1, 2019 12:21:18 GMT
The only sense in which atheism is a religion is the "something you are intensely into" sense. Like when people say "Football is his religion" or "Shopping is his religion". But note, in this sense it's not about the object of your attention but the nature of your attention. Saying Football is his religion doesn't mean that football is actually a religion, it means that the person we're talking about acts as people normally do towards religion. In other words no, atheism cannot be considered a religion. But people can treat it as if it was, just as they can treat anything as if it was. My opinion, lowly regarded as it might be, is that atheism is not a religion, but it is a simple belief. A "religion" is a "systematic" belief. There are a few denominations and people who avoid denominations for whom their "religion" is only a simple belief lacking any system. Obviously the world does not subscribe to my opinions all the time.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 1, 2019 20:44:41 GMT
Do you have a point? No. I thought not. Is one required here? Ten paragraphs often has ten points. In this case I can't even decipher one.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 1, 2019 21:30:18 GMT
So... You find comfort in what you believe. Very religious of you. You DO know what 'liberating' means, right? For the dummies Being not religious and often times irreligious is what I find liberating. Also see what Graham said about having a hobby, that doesn't qualify as a 'belief'. Strangely you liked that post yet hypocritically don't seem to be able to see my point. Very stupid of you.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 1, 2019 23:41:07 GMT
Ten paragraphs often has ten points. In this case I can't even decipher one. What a surprise! When I said I could "see your point" I meant I could understand what you were trying to say, not that it was a well constructed argument. I believe I mentioned that already. I then put so many holes in it that it should float away in the next breeze. The United States does have a serious problem lately with poor, uneducated people and people whose education did them no good, but so do many countries, like it's contagious. Despite that, the United States remains a world leader in arts, sciences and education. Webster's New World College Dictionary is still very authoritative. Please write that down. I should have mentioned the Associated Press requires another book, the " Stylebook yyyy" of the Associated Press. The " yyyy" means a year is part of the title. That book contains the few instances where the AP disagrees with Webster's. Mostly though it has a lot of writing style not addressed by Webster's. It also has a "briefing on media law," and my 2002 version has information on the internet, but not much and nothing technical. Anyone can buy one of those online for the current year. A better dictionary is The American Heritage Dictionary. If you find online dictionaries too flighty as I still do, I recommend you get a print edition. Even the ones with a very large number of entries are affordable for the casual student of English. Print editions before the internet can be free from the interference of the herd mentality. Is beauty a curse? Are beautiful people treated differently and then fail to learn properly? I can think of one possibility. Not now, but in his youth Donald Trump was probably treated differently because of his looks as much as because of his family's wealth. He never learned much because he didn't have to learn much. That's sad. Remember the Hertz and Avis Commercials? That was very long ago. They were car rental companies. Avis had a slogan about "#2" trying harder. I have nothing much against the Oxford dictionary. There is that one error about atheism. Still I own one as I said, and I use it often. When I debated Cambridge I learned the British pronunciation of words better. That makes understanding the pronunciation key easier. The Oxford dictionary however is not the "acknowledged arbiter" of the English language except perhaps regarding Shakespeare. Which brings up the this controversy about whether Shakespeare wrote "of" or "on" in the famous line from The Tempest.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 2, 2019 1:01:34 GMT
Ten paragraphs often has ten points. In this case I can't even decipher one. What a surprise! When I said I could "see your point" I meant I could understand what you were trying to say, not that it was a well constructed argument. I believe I mentioned that already. I then put so many holes in it that it should float away in the next breeze. The United States does have a serious problem lately with poor, uneducated people and people whose education did them no good, but so do many countries, like it's contagious. Despite that, the United States remains a world leader in arts, sciences and education. Webster's New World College Dictionary is still very authoritative. Please write that down. I should have mentioned the Associated Press requires another book, the " Stylebook yyyy" of the Associated Press. The " yyyy" means a year is part of the title. That book contains the few instances where the AP disagrees with Webster's. Mostly though it has a lot of writing style not addressed by Webster's. It also has a "briefing on media law," and my 2002 version has information on the internet, but not much and nothing technical. Anyone can buy one of those online for the current year. A better dictionary is The American Heritage Dictionary. If you find online dictionaries too flighty as I still do, I recommend you get a print edition. Even the ones with a very large number of entries are affordable for the casual student of English. Print editions before the internet can be free from the interference of the herd mentality. Is beauty a curse? Are beautiful people treated differently and then fail to learn properly? I can think of one possibility. Not now, but in his youth Donald Trump was probably treated differently because of his looks as much as because of his family's wealth. He never learned much because he didn't have to learn much. That's sad. Remember the Hertz and Avis Commercials? That was very long ago. They were car rental companies. Avis had a slogan about "#2" trying harder. I have nothing much against the Oxford dictionary. There is that one error about atheism. Still I own one as I said, and I use it often. When I debated Cambridge I learned the British pronunciation of words better. That makes understanding the pronunciation key easier. The Oxford dictionary however is not the "acknowledged arbiter" of the English language except perhaps regarding Shakespeare. Which brings up the this controversy about whether Shakespeare wrote "of" or "on" in the famous line from The Tempest. More guff! More gibberish points without meaning or connection, except the laughable one about the Oxford dictionary on atheism! Websters' American Johnny Come Lately dictionary can never 'Trump' the English English dictionaries.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 2, 2019 5:58:04 GMT
So... You find comfort in what you believe. Very religious of you. You DO know what 'liberating' means, right? For the dummies Being not religious and often times irreligious is what I find liberating. Also see what Graham said about having a hobby, that doesn't qualify as a 'belief'. Strangely you liked that post yet hypocritically don't seem to be able to see my point. Very stupid of you. 1) Mine was more of a tongue-in-cheek post.. 2) Already commented on the hobby bit.... If you work at not having a hobby (and constantly spend time exhorting the joys of not having a hobby)... That becomes your hobby. Very WAFFLEy of you.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 2, 2019 6:09:31 GMT
You DO know what 'liberating' means, right? For the dummies Being not religious and often times irreligious is what I find liberating. Also see what Graham said about having a hobby, that doesn't qualify as a 'belief'. Strangely you liked that post yet hypocritically don't seem to be able to see my point. Very stupid of you. 1) Mine was more of a tongue-in-cheek post.. 2) Already commented on the hobby bit.... If you work at not having a hobby (and constantly spend time exhorting the joys of not having a hobby)... That becomes your hobby. Very WAFFLEy of you. Thanks for the ignominious backdown...loser
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jul 2, 2019 6:55:08 GMT
1) Mine was more of a tongue-in-cheek post.. 2) Already commented on the hobby bit.... If you work at not having a hobby (and constantly spend time exhorting the joys of not having a hobby)... That becomes your hobby. Very WAFFLEy of you. Thanks for the ignominious backdown...loser Figures you'd be stupid enough to see it as a backdown. Thanks for the waffles... WAFFLE.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 2, 2019 9:11:53 GMT
What a surprise! When I said I could "see your point" I meant I could understand what you were trying to say, not that it was a well constructed argument. I believe I mentioned that already. I then put so many holes in it that it should float away in the next breeze. The United States does have a serious problem lately with poor, uneducated people and people whose education did them no good, but so do many countries, like it's contagious. Despite that, the United States remains a world leader in arts, sciences and education. Webster's New World College Dictionary is still very authoritative. Please write that down. I should have mentioned the Associated Press requires another book, the " Stylebook yyyy" of the Associated Press. The " yyyy" means a year is part of the title. That book contains the few instances where the AP disagrees with Webster's. Mostly though it has a lot of writing style not addressed by Webster's. It also has a "briefing on media law," and my 2002 version has information on the internet, but not much and nothing technical. Anyone can buy one of those online for the current year. A better dictionary is The American Heritage Dictionary. If you find online dictionaries too flighty as I still do, I recommend you get a print edition. Even the ones with a very large number of entries are affordable for the casual student of English. Print editions before the internet can be free from the interference of the herd mentality. Is beauty a curse? Are beautiful people treated differently and then fail to learn properly? I can think of one possibility. Not now, but in his youth Donald Trump was probably treated differently because of his looks as much as because of his family's wealth. He never learned much because he didn't have to learn much. That's sad. Remember the Hertz and Avis Commercials? That was very long ago. They were car rental companies. Avis had a slogan about "#2" trying harder. I have nothing much against the Oxford dictionary. There is that one error about atheism. Still I own one as I said, and I use it often. When I debated Cambridge I learned the British pronunciation of words better. That makes understanding the pronunciation key easier. The Oxford dictionary however is not the "acknowledged arbiter" of the English language except perhaps regarding Shakespeare. Which brings up the this controversy about whether Shakespeare wrote "of" or "on" in the famous line from The Tempest. More guff! More gibberish points without meaning or connection, except the laughable one about the Oxford dictionary on atheism! Websters' American Johnny Come Lately dictionary can never 'Trump' the English English dictionaries. Why? Because you said so? Little soldier?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 2, 2019 21:14:46 GMT
More guff! More gibberish points without meaning or connection, except the laughable one about the Oxford dictionary on atheism! Websters' American Johnny Come Lately dictionary can never 'Trump' the English English dictionaries. Why? Because you said so? Little soldier? 'It is a truth universally acknowledged' that an English English dictionary has more authority than an American one. Hence Websters' dictionaries are American ones.
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Jul 2, 2019 21:25:10 GMT
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”
Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.
While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion.
Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion. That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion, only that our sincerely held (lack of) beliefs are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others. Similarly, many “interfaith” groups will include atheists. This, again, does not mean that atheism is a religious belief.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 2, 2019 22:25:04 GMT
goz said: [full text here]< clip >
'It is a truth universally acknowledged' that an English English dictionary has more authority than an American one. Argumentum ad populum combined with argumentum ad potentiam, what else could there be? Oh I remember now, logic. Do you remember? When people who "lack" beliefs join debates it isn't logical. Without beliefs what could they possibly join a debate with? See how stupid that is? What difference does it make that your dictionary is east of the Atlantic really? None! That was a fascinating discussion of various spellings (see full text), but not really relevant. Spelling obviously changed over time in England. Would you really want to go back to Chaucer? Spelling has nothing to do with meaning. The issue is what words mean. I am trying to develop meanings that are useful, that are found. You are trying to create meaning in a definition to disguise what has been found. It has been found that atheists join debates and you are trying to make it seem they have no beliefs when they do that, which is totally ridiculous, I don't care if you're Queen Elizabeth II.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 2, 2019 22:41:05 GMT
Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.” Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion. That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion, only that our sincerely held (lack of) beliefs are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others. Similarly, many “interfaith” groups will include atheists. This, again, does not mean that atheism is a religious belief. You can play with the words all day. It still won't change the fact that when they join debates atheists display their belief that there is no god. "Agnostics" also correctly defined in "older" dictionaries refrain from debating thus displaying their true "lack" of belief. Your notion that the "new" dictionaries are "correct" is based on herd mentality. Please apologize and correct yourselves.
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Jul 2, 2019 23:07:59 GMT
Who is "they"? Some subset? So I can say that when Christians hold up "God hates F---s signs," they define Christianity. Fringe position straw man.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 2, 2019 23:27:47 GMT
Who is "they"? Some subset? So I can say that when Christians hold up "God hates F---s signs," they define Christianity. Fringe position straw man. There are i) people who believe there is a god, ii) people who believe there is no god, and iii) people who lack belief. That is a reality that defies your attempts to confuse people about beliefs with your sloppy definitions. It doesn't matter what you call them, the people who join debates are either i) or ii) because the people who are iii) do not join debates. The attempt to define "atheism" as a "lack" of belief incorrectly conflates ii) and iii) in a deliberate attempt to make atheists appear more intelligent and founded in fact than art and science indicate. The people who do that are either dishonest or stupid. Which are you? The term "Christianity" is indeed problematic. People with diametrically opposed beliefs all call themselves "Christians." That is because the criteria for calling oneself a Christian are (actually criterion is) too simple. Other terms with more criteria are needed and available.
|
|