NationStates Jolt Archive


A non-theist in the US Congress

The Nazz
12-03-2007, 17:45
And yes, this really is a big deal. (http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html)
Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a member of Congress since 1973, acknowledged his nontheism in response to an inquiry by the Secular Coalition for America (www.secular.org ). Rep. Stark is a senior member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and is Chair of the Health Subcommittee.

Although the Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, the Coalition's research reveals that Rep. Stark is the first open nontheist in the history of the Congress. Recent polls show that Americans without a god-belief are, as a group, more distrusted than any other minority in America. Surveys show that the majority of Americans would not vote for an atheist for president even if he or she were the most qualified for the office.
Now, he's been in office since 1973, so I don't imagine this will hamper his re-election hopes should he have them, but it is a big deal, at least to me. I'd like to think that eventually, belief or lack thereof will stop being a campaign issue, though I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

And I have no idea why they're using non-theist instead of atheist.
Ifreann
12-03-2007, 17:46
And yes, this really is a big deal. (http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html)

Now, he's been in office since 1973, so I don't imagine this will hamper his re-election hopes should he have them, but it is a big deal, at least to me. I'd like to think that eventually, belief or lack thereof will stop being a campaign issue, though I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

And I have no idea why they're using non-theist instead of atheist.

Well the redneck mobs are gonna have trouble finding non-theists to lynch in the streets.
Arthais101
12-03-2007, 17:46
And I have no idea why they're using non-theist instead of atheist.

Likely because an atheist is one who believes in no god where as a non-theist doesn't believe in a god.

Subtle but important distinction. Personally I have no idea why they're using non-theist instead of agnostic, which is technically what the phrase means.
The Nazz
12-03-2007, 17:53
Well the redneck mobs are gonna have trouble finding non-theists to lynch in the streets.

We do tend to look like everyone else, once we've hidden our horns.
Andaluciae
12-03-2007, 17:57
Not much of a surprise, knowing the ratios of people in the US who are religious. Politicians tend to try to be as identifiable to the voting populace as is possible, and since religion is such a very important issue to so many people, they'll often say whatever needs to be said to get people's vote.
Ifreann
12-03-2007, 17:57
We do tend to look like everyone else, once we've hidden our horns.

And most people will inform the good rednecks that they're not non-theists at all, they're atheists, which is a totally different thing.
The Nazz
12-03-2007, 18:00
And most people will inform the good rednecks that they're not non-theists at all, they're atheists, which is a totally different thing.

Which will hopefully confuse them just long enough for you to make your escape. :D
Soviestan
12-03-2007, 18:00
Why is it a big deal? most democrats in congress are non-theists/atheists they just don't say it publicly, but everyone knows.
Eve Online
12-03-2007, 18:07
Why is it a big deal? most democrats in congress are non-theists/atheists they just don't say it publicly, but everyone knows.

Most politicians on both sides of the aisle, actually. Religion in their eyes is a mere prop - hence the pandering at churches by one and all.
The Nazz
12-03-2007, 18:16
Most politicians on both sides of the aisle, actually. Religion in their eyes is a mere prop - hence the pandering at churches by one and all.

I don't know about most. Certainly some, and among some of the professed believers I'd certainly say there are varying levels of devoutness.
Eve Online
12-03-2007, 18:19
I don't know about most. Certainly some, and among some of the professed believers I'd certainly say there are varying levels of devoutness.

When a politician does hamhanded visits and pandering, I can smell it instantly. The mere fact that a particular politician might do it stinks on ice, and makes me think they don't believe any of it.
Farnhamia
12-03-2007, 18:20
Likely because an atheist is one who believes in no god where as a non-theist doesn't believe in a god.

Subtle but important distinction. Personally I have no idea why they're using non-theist instead of agnostic, which is technically what the phrase means.

I imagine it's because "atheist" certainly and "agnostic" less so are hot-button terms these days. Them's fightin' words. Call someone an atheist and you'll be invited out back to discuss the issue. Call someone a "non-theist" and you'll a smile, a nod, and "So who do you like for the American League pennent this year?"
Call to power
12-03-2007, 18:28
Well at least he’s not getting any bad ideas from God
Slolangos
12-03-2007, 18:36
Likely because an atheist is one who believes in no god where as a non-theist doesn't believe in a god.

Subtle but important distinction. Personally I have no idea why they're using non-theist instead of agnostic, which is technically what the phrase means.

Atheist: Believes there is no God.
Non-theist (if not just a P.C. word for 'atheist'): Does not believe in God.
Agnostic: Believes that there is not enough information to register a belief one way or the other. Agnostics don't believe in God, but are open to the possibility. They don't 'not' believe in God, so they're not atheists, though I suppose 'non-theist' covers both groups.

i.e. All agnostics are non-theists, but not all non-theists are agnostic.
Eve Online
12-03-2007, 18:39
I would rather the politician in question just come out and say it.

"I am an atheist, and I find religious belief silly."
or
"I am a Catholic, and you Protestants are reprobates."
or
"I am a Scientologist and believe in Xenu the Alien."
or
"I am a born-again Christian and will get you baptized at once."

each line followed by, "of course, my beliefs will never enter into my job as <Senator, President, whatever>"
The Nazz
12-03-2007, 18:42
I would rather the politician in question just come out and say it.

"I am an atheist, and I find religious belief silly."
or
"I am a Catholic, and you Protestants are reprobates."
or
"I am a Scientologist and believe in Xenu the Alien."
or
"I am a born-again Christian and will get you baptized at once."

each line followed by, "of course, my beliefs will never enter into my job as <Senator, President, whatever>"
See, I'd rather just have them come out and say "why does it matter? I'm asking to be your Congressperson, not your priest/rabbi/deacon/guru/imam/elder/etc."
Eve Online
12-03-2007, 18:43
See, I'd rather just have them come out and say "why does it matter? I'm asking to be your Congressperson, not your priest/rabbi/deacon/guru/imam/elder/etc."

That would be good, but I don't trust all of them to "just leave out their beliefs".
Kyronea
12-03-2007, 18:45
And yes, this really is a big deal. (http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html)

Now, he's been in office since 1973, so I don't imagine this will hamper his re-election hopes should he have them, but it is a big deal, at least to me. I'd like to think that eventually, belief or lack thereof will stop being a campaign issue, though I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

And I have no idea why they're using non-theist instead of atheist.

Sadly, my parents are both among the majority who would not vote for an athiest if one ran and was the most qualified, because as open-minded as they are, they idiotically believe that someone MUST have a spiritual component to their life. Luckily they don't ever yell at me for not having one except for the occasional prayer joke or something whenever I'm bowing my head in my hands(which I occasionally do for various reasons) or something like that.

So this makes me a little happy, at least. I think they're using non-theist because the word sounds more appealing than atheist, which suggests someone is anti-theistic rather than just not believing in God or what have you.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 18:46
Likely because an atheist is one who believes in no god where as a non-theist doesn't believe in a god.

Subtle but important distinction. Personally I have no idea why they're using non-theist instead of agnostic, which is technically what the phrase means.

Atheist: Believes there is no God.
Non-theist (if not just a P.C. word for 'atheist'): Does not believe in God.
Agnostic: Believes that there is not enough information to register a belief one way or the other. Agnostics don't believe in God, but are open to the possibility. They don't 'not' believe in God, so they're not atheists, though I suppose 'non-theist' covers both groups.

i.e. All agnostics are non-theists, but not all non-theists are agnostic.

Oy, oy, oy! There's no subtlties or complications here. There's theists, aye? Everyone else is atheist.

Agnostic is a seperate scale from those two. Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know the answer to the question "Does God exist". Both Theists and Atheists can be Agnostic, and many are.
Eve Online
12-03-2007, 18:48
At least we don't have to hear anything about how God has affected and guided his life and is a part of his political decisions.

Yeah, he could spout off about Xenu instead, or tell us that religion is to be stamped out, and start burning churches, or maybe we'll have to worship the candidate instead (like they do in North Korea).

Batshit insane is not restricted to the religious.
The Nazz
12-03-2007, 18:49
Sadly, my parents are both among the majority who would not vote for an athiest if one ran and was the most qualified, because as open-minded as they are, they idiotically believe that someone MUST have a spiritual component to their life. Luckily they don't ever yell at me for not having one except for the occasional prayer joke or something whenever I'm bowing my head in my hands(which I occasionally do for various reasons) or something like that.

So this makes me a little happy, at least. I think they're using non-theist because the word sounds more appealing than atheist, which suggests someone is anti-theistic rather than just not believing in God or what have you.

Yeah, I know lots of people like that. They're the same people who don't seem to understand that it's possible to search for and find the transcendent without depending on a god. Hell, I write poetry--I would say for a living, but I don't actually earn much money for it--as part of my career, and that's a constant search for the transcendent in the universe as I see it. And I'm an atheist. Go figure.
Refused-Party-Program
12-03-2007, 18:49
See, I'd rather just have them come out and say "why does it matter? I'm asking to be your Congressperson, not your priest/rabbi/deacon/guru/imam/elder/etc."

Because you need to know exactly how batshit insane someone is before you vote for one insane power-hungry wanker over another.
Utracia
12-03-2007, 18:50
At least we don't have to hear anything about how God has affected and guided his life and is a part of his political decisions.
New Genoa
12-03-2007, 18:50
Well that's good to know.:)
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 18:54
And I have no idea why they're using non-theist instead of atheist.Non-theist has been accepted as a broad category including atheists, agnostics, humanists, and a variety of less organized versions of godlessness.

I suspect that political groups are rallying behind "non-theist" so as to increase the number of Americans they can claim to represent.
Bottle
12-03-2007, 18:54
And yes, this really is a big deal. (http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html)
Gasp. The godless?! IN ELECTED OFFICE?!!!

Sigh.
Arthais101
12-03-2007, 18:55
Atheist: Believes there is no God.
Non-theist (if not just a P.C. word for 'atheist'): Does not believe in God.
Agnostic: Believes that there is not enough information to register a belief one way or the other. Agnostics don't believe in God, but are open to the possibility. They don't 'not' believe in God, so they're not atheists, though I suppose 'non-theist' covers both groups.

i.e. All agnostics are non-theists, but not all non-theists are agnostic.

in general as I said, literally a "non-theist" means someone who does not have a believe in god. It does not mean someone who believes in no god. Technically I suppose what you said is correct, it's true to call all agnostics non-theists but not all non-theists as agnostic.

So I suppose the article was fair enough, he may be someone who simply does not believe in god, but doesn't have the intellectual fence sitting of agnosticism. Therefore neither atheist nor agnostic is technically "proper"

I suppose a non-theist is someone who doesn't believe in god, and doesn't really think too much about it either way *shrug*

I suppose one can argue that all agnostics are non-theists, and all atheists are non-theists, but a non-theist may not be either an agnostic or an atheist, and perhaps the writers of this, not being sure whether he doesn't believe in god, or believes in no god, simly chose a term that could encompass both.
The Nazz
12-03-2007, 18:56
Gasp. The godless?! IN ELECTED OFFICE?!!!

Sigh.
Isn't it shitty that this is newsworthy?
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 18:58
So I suppose the article was fair enough, he may be someone who simply does not believe in god, but doesn't have the intellectual fence sitting of agnosticism. Therefore neither atheist nor agnostic is technically "proper"


Dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy)

B and not-B

Sounds like he doesn't believe in a god, so atheist is completely technically proper.
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 18:59
Sadly, my parents are both among the majority who would not vote for an athiest if one ran and was the most qualified, because as open-minded as they are, they idiotically believe that someone MUST have a spiritual component to their life.Depending on your definition of "spirit" or "spiritual," that really shouldn't be a problem for many atheists.

The problem is that religious nuts have narrowed the definition of spiritual experience to mean "communion with other-worldly entities" or some shit like that.

Personally, I think there are aspects of aesthetic experience, for instance, which cannot simply be reduced to "pleasures" or "joys," but which capture a "higher essence" of what it means to be human, what it means to aspire to a better world, what it means to get ourselves out of our own narrow-minded self-interest once in a while.

Savoring a quality Scotch, for instance, is a spiritual experience for me.

:D
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 19:00
Isn't it shitty that this is newsworthy?

It gives me an excuse to post the dichotomy link again, it's been a while since I did that.

Otherwise, ye. I never see "Redhead in Office" on the news.
Kyronea
12-03-2007, 19:00
Yeah, I know lots of people like that. They're the same people who don't seem to understand that it's possible to search for and find the transcendent without depending on a god. Hell, I write poetry--I would say for a living, but I don't actually earn much money for it--as part of my career, and that's a constant search for the transcendent in the universe as I see it. And I'm an atheist. Go figure.

I've tried to explain it to them multiple times but they never understand it and sometimes it seems they just refuse to listen at all.

Of course it was mainly my dad who was always saying this stuff and I've never spoken to my mom separately about the subject...considering she tends to actually have differing opinions and just supports whomever I'm arguing with if they're close(she did it when I was arguing with her friend Jean--Amusingly enough, my mom goes by her middle name of Jean--short for Eugenia--as well--about black neighborhoods and the safety of going through them even though she didn't agree with Jean) so...I don't know...maybe I should talk to my mom separately about it for once. :confused:
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 19:05
Oy, oy, oy! There's no subtlties or complications here. There's theists, aye? Everyone else is atheist.No, as contemporary terminology has developed, there are theists and there are non-theists. Atheists are one variety of non-theist.

Agnostic is a seperate scale from those two.No, agnostics do not believe in a deity, which makes them non-theists. The difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that an agnostic can imagine that there might be. A true atheist is committed to the idea that there is NOT.

Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know the answer to the question "Does God exist".This is misleading. I am probably the most committed atheist you will ever meet, but I do not believe it is possible to "know," with any philosophically rigorous definition of knowledge, that God does not exist.

Both Theists and Atheists can be Agnostic, and many are.I disagree. Theists and atheists are committed to a particular belief. Agnostics "reserve judgment" in one way or another, waiting for some ill-defined evidence to tip the scales for them.

In my opinion, agnostics simply wimp out on the problem of theological commitment.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 19:09
No, as contemporary terminology has developed, there are theists and there are non-theists. Atheists are one variety of non-theist.

non-theist and atheist mean the same thing.

No, agnostics do not believe in a deity, which makes them non-theists. The difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that an agnostic can imagine that there might be.

Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without" and gnosis, "knowledge", translating to unknowable) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities—is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable.

A true atheist is committed to the idea that there is NOT.

No true scotsman, eh? Bull. Atheism is not theism. Period. End of definition.

This is misleading. I am probably the most committed atheist you will ever meet, but I do not believe it is possible to "know," with any philosophically rigorous definition of knowledge, that God does not exist.

Then you are an agnostic atheist.
Kyronea
12-03-2007, 19:11
Depending on your definition of "spirit" or "spiritual," that really shouldn't be a problem for many atheists.

The problem is that religious nuts have narrowed the definition of spiritual experience to mean "communion with other-worldly entities" or some shit like that.

Personally, I think there are aspects of aesthetic experience, for instance, which cannot simply be reduced to "pleasures" or "joys," but which capture a "higher essence" of what it means to be human, what it means to aspire to a better world, what it means to get ourselves out of our own narrow-minded self-interest once in a while.

Savoring a quality Scotch, for instance, is a spiritual experience for me.

:D
Here's the thing: I'm skeptical by nature. I tend not to believe in something such as spirituality or a diety or magic or other difficult things to believe without proof. Show me proof and I'll believe it no problem, but otherwise I can't. I'm not entirely close-minded to the idea, but...logically the idea of a diety makes no sense, nor does spirituality.
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 19:15
non-theist and atheist mean the same thing.No, they don't.

From the OED:

Non-theist: a person who is not a theist.
Atheist: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

The difference may seem subtle at first, but it is very real. Imagine an atheist, an agnostic (non-theist), and a theist having a conversation.

Theist: "I believe in God."
Agnostic (non-theist): "I don't, but some day I might."
Atheist (also non-theist): "I don't, and I never will. God does not exist."

Atheism is not theism. Period. End of definition.Atheism is also not ice cream, but that doesn't make much of a definition....

Then you are an agnostic atheist.No, just because I do not believe that the non-existence of God can be "proven" does not make me an agnostic. An agnostic would admit that some evidence, at some point... some experience or other... might convince him to believe in God.

As an atheist, I do not believe I can prove the non-existence of God. But I do know that, given ANY evidence claiming to demonstrate God's existence, I will commit to denying that it has any such significance.

Booming voice from the sky? I would sooner believe it were aliens playing a prank on me than that it were God attempting to get my attention.

An agnostic might bow down and pray.

That's the difference.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 19:22
No, they don't.

From the OED:

Screw the OED. 'A-' means not.


Theist: "I believe in God."
Agnostic Atheist(non-theist): "I don't, but some day I might."
Non-Agnostic Atheist (also non-theist): "I don't, and I never will. God does not exist."

Fixed.

Atheism is also not ice cream, but that doesn't make much of a definition....

You misunderstand. Atheism is, literally, "not theism".

No, just because I do not believe that the non-existence of God can be "proven" does not make me an agnostic.

Yes, it does.

As an agnostic, I do not believe I can prove the non-existence of God.

Also fixed.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 19:25
Allow me to review for you.

Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without" and gnosis, "knowledge", translating to unknowable) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities—is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable.

Greek α- used before a consonant for αν-.

Prefix

a-
1. forming words denoting absence or lack, e.g. abyss, amoral
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 19:25
logically the idea of a diety makes no sense, nor does spirituality.Perhaps you're not grasping my redefinition of the spiritual.

I'm not talking about "magic" here, or about mystical beings.

I am talking about a way of being in the world, a sense of one's self, a "feeling" that is not simply reducible to the pleasurable stimulation of my senses or to an aspect of cognitive thought. It is, perhaps, some combination of mental elements that cannot quite be described.

It does involve both thinking and feeling. It involves enjoying the aesthetic qualities of an experience, but also analyzing them, getting to know them better. I mentioned Scotch. A quality Scotch tastes good, of course, right away... but there is another layer of experience contained in the attempt to pick out its particular flavors, to imagine how the choice of certain oak casks affected its character, to think about how the particular waters and atmosphere of an Islay lagoon helped to produce these flavors.

Thinking about these things, and about the human labors that went into production, the love and the tradition that transcends generations...

There is something more to that than just a pleasant drink. Lacking better words to describe it, I choose to call it "spiritual" and to suppose that in connecting with that higher sense of my place in the world among the artisans and the laborers and the peat moss and the sea foam... I have discovered "spirit."

There is nothing "magical" about it, even though it may feel that way.

Of course, Scotch is not my only spiritual experience, I just have it on the mind because I hosted a whisky tasting part Saturday night. :D
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 19:26
Screw the OED. 'A-' means not.Yes, but the meaning of words is not their construction. Their meaning is how they are actually used in language.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 19:29
Yes, but the meaning of words is not their construction. Their meaning is how they are actually used in language.

atheism means not theism.

There, I used it in language.

Want me to do some more?

"I went down the road, and took a foruda"

The word 'foruda' now means 'right'.
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 19:31
atheism means not theism.

There, I used it in language.Now you're just being infantile.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 19:32
Now you're just being infantile.

*shrug* Sorry, you'll need to be more specific.
Eve Online
12-03-2007, 19:33
Jefferson was a theist. To be more accurate, he was a Deist. Marx was an atheist.
Utracia
12-03-2007, 19:38
Yeah, he could spout off about Xenu instead, or tell us that religion is to be stamped out, and start burning churches, or maybe we'll have to worship the candidate instead (like they do in North Korea).

Batshit insane is not restricted to the religious.

Well the crazies who get elected into office are mostly of the religious type.

Besides who wants to hear from their officials that they hear a voice that tells them how to vote? Is incredibly spooky when you think about it.
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 19:39
*shrug* Sorry, you'll need to be more specific.Fine, I'll humor you.

The meaning of a word, the meaning that we record in dictionaries and that we take as a standard against which to judge its use in individual instances, arises from how it is generally used by human beings in the living language in question.

Since use is up for grabs, meaning is susceptible to change over time. Etymology and word constructions give us hints about what words may have meant before or how their meanings have been derived--and these insights may be very useful in understanding important aspects of our own history as expressed through the history of words--but they do not simply supply the meaning of a word.

Dictionary writers are, in a sense, empirical scientists. They cast a broad net to find examples of words as they are used in language, and they conclude from this usage the various ways in which a word may be defined.

In the case of "atheist," you are quite correct to assert that it originally meant "anyone who does not believe in a deity," as its Greek construction suggests. You are equally correct about the original meaning and construction of "agnostic."

However, these words have undergone many centuries of active use, and in this use their respective meanings have been fine-tuned and distinguished from one another. Today, "atheist" refers to a person who denies the existence of God, whether or not he believes he can prove that he is correct. "Agnostic" refers to a person who is "undecided" about his personal belief in God. And "theist" refers to a person who believes in the existence of God, whether or not he believes he can prove it.
Eve Online
12-03-2007, 19:39
Well the crazies who get elected into office are mostly of the religious type.

Besides who wants to hear from their officials that they hear a voice that tells them how to vote? Is incredibly spooky when you think about it.

Kim Jong-Il is an atheist. Spooky, isn't it?
Deep World
12-03-2007, 19:39
Buddhists are non-theists, in that their religion does not incorporate any inherently supernatural entities (i.e., deities) into their spiritual perspective. This in no way disqualifies them from being a religion. Non-theist is a big category.
Kyronea
12-03-2007, 19:41
*snip*
Well...I don't know...maybe...I'm a bit too tired right now to seriously consider it, though.
Deep World
12-03-2007, 19:41
Kim Jong-Il is an atheist. Spooky, isn't it?

And the leaders of the Spanish Inquisition were devout Christians. Your point?

Yay! Post #200! :)
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 19:43
If American voters let in someone similar to Jong-Il, we would deserve what happens as a result.Perverse entertainment??

EDIT: Yay, time warp!! Who's a deity now, huh? ;)
Utracia
12-03-2007, 19:44
Kim Jong-Il is an atheist. Spooky, isn't it?

If American voters let in someone similar to Jong-Il, we would deserve what happens as a result.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 19:45
Fine, I'll humor you.

The meaning of a word, the meaning that we record in dictionaries and that we take as a standard against which to judge its use in individual instances, arises from how it is generally used by human beings in the living language in question.

Since use is up for grabs, meaning is susceptible to change over time. Etymology and word constructions give us hints about what words may have meant before or how their meanings have been derived--and these insights may be very useful in understanding important aspects of our own history as expressed through the history of words--but they do not simply supply the meaning of a word.

Dictionary writers are, in a sense, empirical scientists. They cast a broad net to find examples of words as they are used in language, and they conclude from this usage the various ways in which a word may be defined.

In the case of "atheist," you are quite correct to assert that it originally meant "anyone who does not believe in a deity," as its Greek construction suggests. You are equally correct about the original meaning and construction of "agnostic."

However, these words have undergone many centuries of active use, and in this use their respective meanings have been fine-tuned and distinguished from one another. Today, "atheist" refers to a person who denies the existence of God, whether or not he believes he can prove that he is correct. "Agnostic" refers to a person who is "undecided" about his personal belief in God. And "theist" refers to a person who believes in the existence of God, whether or not he believes he can prove it.

*shrug*

I suppose, then, in line with language's nature, it's can now also be the possesive for it? If something's simply wrong, I wouldn't necessarily agree that it's okay now cuz a lot of people do it.

Incidentally, if grammar's not your bit, this changes the meanings of, say, words like effect?
Eve Online
12-03-2007, 19:46
And the leaders of the Spanish Inquisition were devout Christians. Your point?

Yay! Post #200! :)

My point is that craziness is not limited to the religious.
Congo--Kinshasa
12-03-2007, 19:49
And the leaders of the Spanish Inquisition were devout Christians. Your point?

Yay! Post #200! :)

Congrats!
The Nazz
12-03-2007, 19:50
I guess I should have known that this would eventually turn into a "difference between atheist and non-theist" thread. I had hopes...
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 19:51
*shrug*

I suppose, then, in line with language's nature, it's can now also be the possesive for it?Perhaps some day, but currently I suspect there's enough active resistance to oppose it. If something's simply wrong, I wouldn't necessarily agree that it's okay now cuz a lot of people do it.Then how do you know what "cuz" means? ;)

The fact of the matter is that even professional grammarians change the rules over time. They fight about it for a while, but eventually a sufficient number of grammar texts are out there that say it is now acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition... and, considering that most people do this without confusing their listeners, it is in fact acceptable.

Thus, since we all understand the meaning of the sentence "What's it for?" and we generally think that "For what is it?" sounds pretty funny, modern grammar generally accepts the validity of "What's it for?" (Although if you're like me and ending with a preposition still feels wrong, you just say, "What purpose does it serve?") ;)

Incidentally, if grammar's not your bit, this changes the meanings of, say, words like effect?Again, potentially. I'd say we're certainly not there yet.

Grammar and meaning are empirical concepts more than logical ones. Therefore, they are subject to change. It's only natural.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 19:52
Kim Jong-Il is an atheist. Spooky, isn't it?

Not necessarily...It leaves the possibility he doesn't believe in an afterlife, and won't be very eager to die.
Zerania
12-03-2007, 19:52
You guys might disagree with this but most U.S. politicians and Congress men are secularists.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 19:54
Perhaps some day, but currently I suspect there's enough active resistance to oppose it.

Consider this my active resistance to improper use of 'atheist' then.

Then how do you know what "cuz" means? ;)

:p Just cuz it's understandable to some doesn't make it right.

The fact of the matter is that even professional grammarians change the rules over time. They fight about it for a while, but eventually a sufficient number of grammar texts are out there that say it is now acceptable to end a sentence with a preposition... and, considering that most people do this without confusing their listeners, it is in fact acceptable.

Thus, since we all understand the meaning of the sentence "What's it for?" and we generally think that "For what is it?" sounds pretty funny, modern grammar generally accepts the validity of "What's it for?" (Although if you're like me and ending with a preposition still feels wrong, you just say, "What purpose does it serve?" ;)

Again, potentially. I'd say we're certainly not there yet.

Grammar and meaning are empirical concepts more than logical ones. Therefore, they are subject to change. It's only natural.

I hear a lot of change and eventually. What makes you say we've passed this point for 'atheist' or not passed it for another word, and how would that be determined one way or the other?
Utracia
12-03-2007, 20:00
Perverse entertainment??

EDIT: Yay, time warp!! Who's a deity now, huh? ;)

If our similar politician has the same hairstyle it very well might work. :p
Eve Online
12-03-2007, 20:05
"Secularists" in what sense?

Well, they do worship money, sex, and drugs.
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 20:05
Consider this my active resistance to improper use of 'atheist' then.Unfortunately, I'm afraid that battle's already lost. Also, since the words used here--non-theist, atheist, agnostic--serve to make real distinctions between politically and intellectually active groups, I'm not sure what purpose it serves to mindlessly insist that we should use the Greek definition just because they thought of it.

I hear a lot of change and eventually. What makes you say we've passed this point for 'atheist' or not passed it for another word, and how would that be determined one way or the other?This is one of the reasons that dictionaries are still useful. Dictionary writers do the very hard work of collecting as many examples of a word as it is used in language as they can, then they sit down to figure out exactly what those uses are.

Besides using dictionaries, you just have to pay attention. By paying attention, I find that people who call themselves "atheist" mean to indicate an active denial of the existence of God, but I do not find that many self-described atheists think God can be disproven with any philosophically rigorous proof. Likewise, the majority of modern "theists" seem to have accepted that the whole point of "faith" is belief without proof--you would call them agnostics, but this actually seems to muddy the term, since many of these people are nevertheless very devout believers. People who call themselves "agnostic," meanwhile, indicate a fence-sitting that tends to justify their failure attend church while all the while avoiding the afterlife-risking position of active denial of God's existence.

Historically, to maintain a useful meaning "agnostic" had to change precisely because epistemology drifted in such a way that it became increasingly difficult for atheists and theists alike to suppose that they could "know," objectively, that they are correct. "Knowledge" and "belief," that is, drifted farther apart. It therefore became increasingly common for people to believe one way or another about the existence of God without being so arrogant as to claim that they know they are right.

The "middle ground" of agnosticism thus shifted from an expression of "what I can know" to an expression of "what I accept or believe." This defines a unique group of people who reserve judgment about God, while theists and atheists make a judgment even in the absence of demonstrable knowledge.

EDIT: Alternatively, you could say that agnostics refuse to base a belief on anything they cannot know. Atheists and theists are willing to accept a belief--whether as a regulative ideal, as a practical commitment, or as a leap of faith--without insisting that they must "know" in order to "believe."
Infinite Revolution
12-03-2007, 20:06
And I have no idea why they're using non-theist instead of atheist.

my guess is that 'non-theist' suggests he just doesn't concern himself with theology either way, whereas 'atheist' or 'agnostic' are words for specific positions on the issue that are at odds with the vast majority (it seems) of the US voters. as a 'non-theist' he can safely ignore the issue altogether and lead people along with him to discuss the things he is actually interested in pushing. i think it's a clever use of words, stating his position at the same time as brushing it aside. i think a lot of people will 'fall' for it.
Soheran
12-03-2007, 20:07
You guys might disagree with this but most U.S. politicians and Congress men are secularists.

"Secularists" in what sense?
Heikoku
12-03-2007, 20:34
Kim Jong-Il is an atheist. Spooky, isn't it?

Osama Bin Laden is a theist. So is Fred Phelps. Your point being?
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 20:38
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that battle's already lost. Also, since the words used here--non-theist, atheist, agnostic--serve to make real distinctions between politically and intellectually active groups, I'm not sure what purpose it serves to mindlessly insist that we should use the Greek definition just because they thought of it.

This is one of the reasons that dictionaries are still useful. Dictionary writers do the very hard work of collecting as many examples of a word as it is used in language as they can, then they sit down to figure out exactly what those uses are.

Besides using dictionaries, you just have to pay attention. By paying attention, I find that people who call themselves "atheist" mean to indicate an active denial of the existence of God, but I do not find that many self-described atheists think God can be disproven with any philosophically rigorous proof. Likewise, the majority of modern "theists" seem to have accepted that the whole point of "faith" is belief without proof--you would call them agnostics, but this actually seems to muddy the term, since many of these people are nevertheless very devout believers. People who call themselves "agnostic," meanwhile, indicate a fence-sitting that tends to justify their failure attend church while all the while avoiding the afterlife-risking position of active denial of God's existence.

Historically, to maintain a useful meaning "agnostic" had to change precisely because epistemology drifted in such a way that it became increasingly difficult for atheists and theists alike to suppose that they could "know," objectively, that they are correct. "Knowledge" and "belief," that is, drifted farther apart. It therefore became increasingly common for people to believe one way or another about the existence of God without being so arrogant as to claim that they know they are right.

The "middle ground" of agnosticism thus shifted from an expression of "what I can know" to an expression of "what I accept or believe." This defines a unique group of people who reserve judgment about God, while theists and atheists make a judgment even in the absence of demonstrable knowledge.

EDIT: Alternatively, you could say that agnostics refuse to base a belief on anything they cannot know. Atheists and theists are willing to accept a belief--whether as a regulative ideal, as a practical commitment, or as a leap of faith--without insisting that they must "know" in order to "believe."

As agnosticism's realm drifted, it differentiated.

Recently suggested variations include:

* Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of god(s) are unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.
* Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God(s) is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available.
* Apathetic agnosticism—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God(s), but since any God(s) that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway.
* Non-practicing agnosticism—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God(s), and that it's meaningless to care.
* Ignosticism—the view that the concept of God(s) as a being is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence.
* Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence.
* Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of God(s), but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)
* Agnostic spiritualism—the view that there may or may not be a God(s), while maintaining a general personal belief in a spiritual aspect of reality, particularly without distinct religious basis, or adherence to any established doctrine or dogma.
* Relative agnosticism—similar to Agnostic spiritualism, but with the added view that if it was empirically proven that God(s) do or do not exist, it would not affect the beliefs of the Relative Agnostic.
* Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of god(s), and do not believe in god(s).[2]


All this remaining an aside to the discussion. Theism/Atheism is still about belief, Agnosticism, as a component of it's various forms, is still about knowledge.

I do not believe in a god. Therefore, I am not a theist. I am not a fence-sitter. There is no fence. I have moved nowhere from where I began, and the most succinct way of describing my position is "not theism". If you prefer Latin, that's non-theism. If you like Greek, atheism.

By paying attention, I find that dictionaries are neither be-all nor end-all of language. I find that those that describe themselves as agnostic neglect to mention the necessary defining word, be it theist or atheist.
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 21:03
As agnosticism's realm drifted, it differentiated.Yes, but you're attempting to insist on a specialized academic use of the term in a context in which this is inappropriate.

Let me make this very simple. If I pose the question, "Do you believe in God?" and someone answers, "I'm agnostic," the person's meaning is very clear: he/she withholds judgment as to the existence of God.

By your definition, you would have to insist that this person just told you absolutely nothing about whether he/she does or does not believe in God. You would say, "You just told me that you don't know whether God exists, but you haven't told me whether you are a believer."

Just as meaning depends on use, use depends on context. The term "agnostic," in the generalized context of the question of whether God exists, very clearly indicates a reservation of judgment, and you would need to be intentionally ignorant not to see this.

You would have to pretend that when someone refers to herself as agnostic, you just have no idea what she is talking about. And I find that very hard to believe.

Of course, I suppose you could always insist that you know what she means better than she does... but again, that's not really how language works. If a word is generally used to mean something, it means just that.
Cannot think of a name
12-03-2007, 21:05
We do tend to look like everyone else, once we've hidden our horns.
That's why I wear a hat ;)
Well at least he’s not getting any bad ideas from God

"Never do business with a religious son of a bitch, his word isn't worth shit. Not with the 'good lord' tellin' him how to fuck you on the deal..."
Words of Advice to Young People - William S. Burroughs
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 21:06
Yes, but you're attempting to insist on a specialized academic use of the term in a context in which this is inappropriate.

Let me make this very simple. If I pose the question, "Do you believe in God?" and someone answers, "I'm agnostic," the person's meaning is very clear: he/she withholds judgment as to the existence of God.

If one is withholding judgement, is it possible that they believe?
"You just told me that you don't know whether God exists, but you haven't told me whether you are a believer."

I suppose they haven't, but I could guess. I, personally, like to be clear, and remove guesswork.

P.S. Incidentally, you say I insist on a specialized definition, when I had just stated and shown how it has varied to cover a wide range. I'm not sure I follow that comment...
Soheran
12-03-2007, 21:10
That's why I wear a hat ;)

How do you deal with the tail, though?
Cannot think of a name
12-03-2007, 21:11
How do you deal with the tail, though?

Baggy pants of course...
The Nazz
12-03-2007, 21:12
How do you deal with the tail, though?

Wrap it around the front. It adds to the "package" and makes it positively frightening. :p
Zerania
12-03-2007, 21:13
"Secularists" in what sense?
...



Atheists.
South Lizasauria
12-03-2007, 21:14
And yes, this really is a big deal. (http://www.secular.org/news/pete_stark_070312.html)

Now, he's been in office since 1973, so I don't imagine this will hamper his re-election hopes should he have them, but it is a big deal, at least to me. I'd like to think that eventually, belief or lack thereof will stop being a campaign issue, though I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

And I have no idea why they're using non-theist instead of atheist.

This is ridicuals, making a big deal about a non-atheist in congress, everyone in congress was non-atheist when it started, this is as just like having people make a big deal about a Chinese president for the Chinese government.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 21:14
...



Atheists.

That's silly.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 21:15
This is ridicuals, making a big deal about a non-atheist in congress, everyone in congress was non-atheist when it started, this is as just like having people make a big deal about a Chinese president for the Chinese government.

Non-theist. No a.
Soheran
12-03-2007, 21:19
Atheists.

Why do you think that "most U.S. politicians and Congress men" are atheists?
Dempublicents1
12-03-2007, 21:19
LOL, the bane of any sociologist even trying to touch a religiosity study. Belief is too varied to be able to fit it into nice little categories and any question you ask (not to mention how you interpret the answer) is going to be at least somewhat biased by your own beliefs.

You want to know what someone does or does not believe? Ask them. If they use a general word, but you actually really want to know what they believe, ask them to elaborate. Otherwise, it simply isn't going to happen.
Andaras Prime
12-03-2007, 21:24
Honestly, it's sad to see where the US is today from what it's founders wanted it to be. The US is a secular country, that was how it was always supposed to be.
South Lizasauria
12-03-2007, 21:27
Non-theist. No a.

Damn my poor vision...:(
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 21:28
If one is withholding judgement, is it possible that they believe?No, since I have been using the two more or less interchangeably.

Incidentally, you say I insist on a specialized definition, when I had just stated and shown how it has varied to cover a wide range. I'm not sure I follow that comment..."Specialized" in the sense that the word acquires those meanings with respect to the special field of epistemology--that is, when one takes the philosophy of knowledge as delimiting the scope and terms of the discussion. In this case, one may describe many different "kinds" of agnostic according to criteria regarded as secondary to their basic stance toward a certain kind of knowledge.

In a linguistic sense, this privileging of particular concerns for the purposes of precise meaning is essentially definitive of a "specialized language."

I sense that there may be some confusion between us because you do not see that a definition can be "clear" or "coherent" (that is, meaningful) without being "precise."
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 21:32
No, since I have been using the two more or less interchangeably.

So, one withholding judgement is currently not believing?

"Specialized" in the sense that the word acquires those meanings with respect to the special field of epistemology--that is, when one takes the philosophy of knowledge as delimiting the scope and terms of the discussion. In this case, one may describe many different "kinds" of agnostic according to criteria regarded as secondary to their basic stance toward a certain kind of knowledge.

In a linguistic sense, this privileging of particular concerns for the purposes of precise meaning is essentially definitive of a "specialized language."

I sense that there may be some confusion between us because you do not see that a definition can be "clear" or "coherent" (that is, meaningful)without being "precise."

Generally, a discussion of one's position on God or gods is epistemological. Regardless, it doesn't have to be just that field. I don't see why I couldn't say, for example, 'ignostic' in any other field or discussion.
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 21:49
So, one withholding judgement is currently not believing?That seems appropriate to the discussion, yes.

I believe that there is no God. I have made a subjective judgment as to the existence of God. I am an atheist. I do not, however, believe that I can demonstrate the objective validity of that judgment to the satisfaction of any reasonable epistemological standard.

My father believes that there is a God. He has made a subjective judgment as to the existence of God. He is a theist. He does not, however, believe that he can demonstrate the objective validity of that judgment to the satisfaction of any reasonable epistemological standard.

My roommate does not have a belief in God, but he also does not believe affirmatively that there is no God. He refuses to believe anything that he cannot know, and simply withholds judgment on such things. He is an agnostic. Like my father and myself, he does not believe that the existence or non-existence of God can be demonstrated objectively to the satisfaction of any reasonable epistemological standard.

Generally, a discussion of one's position on God or gods is epistemological.That is objectively false. I discuss religion, religiosity, and atheism all the time without ever considering the epistemological question of how we could "know" that there is or is not a God. I do not discuss this question because, in the company I keep, there is a general agreement that God (or the absence of God) cannot be known objectively.

Our discussions are therefore about reasons for belief independent from knowledge.

Regardless, it doesn't have to be just that field. I don't see why I couldn't say, for example, 'ignostic' in any other field or discussion.You might. But you didn't.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 21:59
That seems appropriate to the discussion, yes.

I believe that there is no God. I have made a subjective judgment as to the existence of God. I am an atheist. I do not, however, believe that I can demonstrate the objective validity of that judgment to the satisfaction of any reasonable epistemological standard.

My father believes that there is a God. He has made a subjective judgment as to the existence of God. He is a theist. He does not, however, believe that he can demonstrate the objective validity of that judgment to the satisfaction of any reasonable epistemological standard.

My roommate does not have a belief in God, but he also does not believe affirmatively that there is no God. He refuses to believe anything that he cannot know, and simply withholds judgment on such things. He is an agnostic. Like my father and myself, he does not believe that the existence or non-existence of God can be demonstrated objectively to the satisfaction of any reasonable epistemological standard.

Interestingly enough, you're all agnostic. We can, as I showed, better specify the term, but alone, it describes you all.

And, continuing the progression: one who is not believing currently doesn't believe in a god, correct?

That is objectively false. I discuss religion, religiosity, and atheism all the time without ever considering the epistemological question of how we could "know" that there is or is not a God. I do not discuss this question because, in the company I keep, there is a general agreement that God (or the absence of God) cannot be known objectively.

Perhaps I should have been more specific with "position on".

You might. But you didn't.

When did I get the chance? I mean, I obviously used it just know, as an example of a subset of agnosticism. I don't know what you're refering to when you say "I didn't". I obviously would aviod using it in a place where it was not appropriate.
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 22:19
Interestingly enough, you're all agnostic. We can, as I showed, better specify the term, but alone, it describes you all.Yes, when considered in the specialized epistemological sense.

When considered more broadly as a term that people use to describe their personal judgment as to the existence of a deity, however, only my roommate is agnostic.

You seem uninterested in acknowledging the simple fact that any given word can have more than one meaning, or perhaps the related fact that meaning depends on context. If we cannot get even that far, then I am afraid there is little point to continuing this discussion.

And, continuing the progression: one who is not believing currently doesn't believe in a god, correct?Yes, but there is a very real difference between lacking a god-belief and believing that there is no god.

Perhaps I should have been more specific with "position on".I'm not sure what you mean. As a human being and an ethicist, my "position" on God is that he does not exist. As an epistemologist, my "position" on God is that I can never know objectively whether such a being does or does not exist.
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 22:21
In fact, the more I reflect on this discussion, the more I understand the problem here.

Dinaverg wants the word "agnostic" to have one, and only one, meaning.

I am comfortable with the fact that meaning depends on context.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 22:24
In fact, the more I reflect on this discussion, the more I understand the problem here.

Dinaverg wants the word "agnostic" to have one, and only one, meaning.

I am comfortable with the fact that meaning depends on context.

I do? Well, perhaps. Is that a problem? There are various possible subdivisions which allow one to specify that meaning.

And, really, it's all an aside. My point is that there is an atheism/theism dichtomy, in the form of 'B and not-B'.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 22:26
Yes, when considered in the specialized epistemological sense.

When considered more broadly as a term that people use to describe their personal judgment as to the existence of a deity, however, only my roommate is agnostic.

How is it more broad if it includes fewer people?

Yes, but there is a very real difference between lacking a god-belief and believing that there is no god.

There is. However, do either of these fall under theism?

I'm not sure what you mean. As a human being and an ethicist, my "position" on God is that he does not exist. As an epistemologist, my "position" on God is that I can never know objectively whether such a being does or does not exist.

Nevermind, doesn't matter.
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 22:36
And, really, it's all an aside. My point is that there is an atheism/theism dichtomy, in the form of 'B and not-B'.No.

The reason people have reached back into the grab-bag of dead languages and pulled out "non-theist" to take up the "not-B" part of that dichotomy is that the term "atheist" as it is actually used in language no longer serves that role.

The fact of the matter is that "atheist" served as the negative of a dichotomy with "theist" so long as "atheist" itself remained a relatively vague term without any specific content.

But as atheist philosophy has developed over the course of the last several hundred years, it has become clear that there is a range of beliefs that are "not theist." "Atheist" has come to be associated with those that affirmatively deny God. "Agnostic" has come to be associated with those that negatively withhold belief in God.

To compensate for this historical development, "non-theist" has stepped in as the "new" dichotomous opposite with "theist."

Words have histories. For all we know, in another few hundred years "non-theist" will refer to a particular brand of other-than-theism, and people will have invented a new term to cover the opposition. Or they'll just settle on "not theist" as all we really need for the negation.

But for now, if we want to be understood we need to use words in a way that people will understand. And virtually everyone but you seems to understand that when a person refers to herself as "agnostic" in the course of a non-specialized conversation, she is indicating that she has no belief in God, but does not affirmatively deny the possibility of God.
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 22:38
How is it more broad if it includes fewer people?It is broader linguistically because it applies to a broader range of possible conversations, not a broader range of individuals.

There is. However, do either of these fall under theism?No. They fall under non-theism.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 22:39
The fact of the matter is that "atheist" served as the negative of a dichotomy with "theist" so long as "atheist" itself remained a relatively vague term without any specific content.

The who of the what? Do you mean the opposite of theism? That would be anti-

it has become clear that there is a range of beliefs that are "not theist."
Which could thus be a range of beliefs that are atheist. Rather simple, no?

But for now, if we want to be understood we need to use words in a way that people will understand. And virtually everyone but you seems to understand that when a person refers to herself as "agnostic" in the course of a non-specialized conversation, she is indicating that she has no belief in God, but does not affirmatively deny the possibility of God.

How did we get back to agnostic? It's totally not about agnostic. Agnostic is an aside, I don't care what if you call it atheism or non-theism, two essentially equivalent terms, agnosticism isn't even on that scale. I'm not on about agnosticism.

It's also rather simple to understand that those refering to themselves as atheists aren't theists, surely?
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 22:42
It is broader linguistically because it applies to a broader range of possible conversations, not a broader range of individuals.

So why is that a factor...like...at all? I can't use 'syzygy' in a lot of conversations (though I would like to). Does that make it not a good word?

No.

Now now, let's not jump ahead.
So, these things are not theism?
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 22:49
No, "anti-" means "against," and it would more appropriately signify a person who is opposed to theism. I am an atheist, but I am not particularly concerned with weeding out theism as such. I am certainly not an "anti-theist."

*shrug*

Could be, but isn't. Words do not always obey the laws of their Greek or Latin origins.

Aye, you could refer to it as simply 'not theism', instead of atheism. You know, meaning the same thing and all. ^_^

Incidentally, why does it obey latin here and not greek?

Yes, but it is equally simple to understand that those referring to themselves as Christians aren't Muslims, but that does not mean that Christian means "not Muslim."

Nor do we have any reason to think it does. That's not the case here.

Atheists are "not theist," but we are also "not agnostic." We are not the simple negation of either of them.

Actually, I am agnostic. Agnostic atheist, to be specific. I do not believe it is knowable, and I do not believe.

P.S. It's fairly predictable atheism wouldn't be the negation of agnosticism, as atheism is not believing, and agnosticism is not knowing. Yanno, seperate?
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 22:50
The who of the what? Do you mean the opposite of theism? That would be anti-No, "anti-" means "against," and it would more appropriately signify a person who is opposed to theism. I am an atheist, but I am not particularly concerned with weeding out theism as such. I am certainly not an "anti-theist."

Which could thus be a range of beliefs that are atheist. Could be, but isn't. Words do not always obey the laws of their Greek or Latin origins.

It's also rather simple to understand that those refering to themselves as atheists aren't theists, surely?Yes, but it is equally simple to understand that those referring to themselves as Christians aren't Muslims, but that does not mean that Christian means "not Muslim."

Atheists are "not theist," but we are also "not agnostic." We are not the simple negation of either of them.
Ifreann
12-03-2007, 22:54
Incidentally, why does it obey latin here and not greek?

That's the english language for you. It doesn't have rules of grammar, it has suggestions.
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 22:56
So why is that a factor...like...at all? I can't use 'syzygy' in a lot of conversations (though I would like to). Does that make it not a good word?We're not talking about "good" or "bad" words, we're talking about how to understand people in ordinary conversation.

It is a rather simple rule to assume, by default, that if someone does not explicitly restrict their meaning and they are not engaged in a conversation with specialized sense, then their use of terms should assumed to be in a general sense.

Imagine my using the word "Concept" in ordinary conversation. Should I get upset if people fail to understand that I mean to use the term as Hegelian jargon with a very specific meaning? Not at all.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 22:57
We're not talking about "good" or "bad" words, we're talking about how to understand people in ordinary conversation.

Understand me when I use 'a-' and then I use 'theism' it means not theism.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 22:57
That's the english language for you. It doesn't have rules of grammar, it has suggestions.

:P

I blame the speakers of English, m'self.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 23:00
Because that's just how the history of the English language has evolved. You still seem to want to find a "logic" to these things, but any such logic can only be loosely defined at best. This is why the etymology and philology of a word are still listed separately from its "definition" in a dictionary. Sometimes they follow the "rules," sometimes not.

*shrug* Incidentally, how big is the pool from which I am the only one who thinks atheism is not theism?

Whether meaning is predictable based on etymology is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is what words actually mean..

*again, shrug* It's not like you even needed to mention agnosticism.
New Granada
12-03-2007, 23:01
I dont see why this is important at all.

Also, I am not fond of the uberPC whineycrybaby-ese in the article like "without a god-belief" or "nontheist," neither of which are the English idiom.
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 23:02
Incidentally, why does it obey latin here and not greek?Because that's just how the history of the English language has evolved. You still seem to want to find a "logic" to these things, but any such logic can only be loosely defined at best. This is why the etymology and philology of a word are still listed separately from its "definition" in a dictionary. Sometimes they follow the "rules," sometimes not.

P.S. It's fairly predictable atheism wouldn't be the negation of agnosticism, as atheism is not believing, and agnosticism is not knowing.Whether meaning is predictable based on etymology is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is what words actually mean..
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 23:02
No.

In Greek it means "not theism."

In modern English it means "the belief that there is no God."

Actually, in greek the word is 'atheos', and there's some accents in there.

In english, 'a-' is not, or without
In english, 'theism' is a belief in a god or gods

Understand me. When I say 'a-' and then I say 'theism'. That I mean 'not theism'.
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 23:03
Understand me when I use 'a-' and then I use 'theism' it means not theism.No.

In Greek it means "not theism."

In modern English it means "the belief that there is no God."
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 23:20
Actually, in greek the word is 'atheos', and there's some accents in there.Apologies for being not-too-specific in allowing the transliteration to speak for itself.
In english, 'a-' is not, or withoutActually, in English "a-" can mean... not, without, to, towards, in the process of, in a particular state, of, or completely, and possibly some others I cannot think of right now.

The word "atheist" is a whole word borrowed from Greek, NOT a combination of "given" English roots.
Understand me. When I say 'a-' and then I say 'theism'. That I mean 'not theism'.Well, then be prepared to be misunderstood. A lot.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 23:23
Actually, in English "a-" can mean... not, without, to, towards, in the process of, in a particular state, of, or completely, and possibly some others I cannot think of right now.

True there are more meanings. No longer productive, really, but meanings nonetheless.

Well, then be prepared to be misunderstood. A lot.

I've done rather well so far. In fact, if you'd care to point out a situation where I've been misunderstood?...


P.S. Still wondering about that sample size.

P.P.S. Were it a transliteration, you probably would've used some Greek letters.
AnarchyeL
12-03-2007, 23:39
True there are more meanings. No longer productive, really, but meanings nonetheless.What do you mean by "no longer productive"? Did I miss the day when "aside" was declared no longer valid English? Or aback, aglow, aflame, anew, abashed, ashamed...? Need I go on?

In fact, if you'd care to point out a situation where I've been misunderstood?...Considering that this entire discussion is based on your misuse of a very simple English word, I'm guessing I wouldn't have to look very far. But if you're asking if I'd like to expend the effort to scour your posts for something specific... no. No, I don't actually care that much.

P.S. Still wondering about that sample size.I must have missed something...

P.P.S. Were it a transliteration, you probably would've used some Greek letters.What?

To transliterate: to change letters or words of one alphabet or language into the corresponding characters of another alphabet or language.
Dinaverg
12-03-2007, 23:45
What do you mean by "no longer productive"? Did I miss the day when "aside" was declared no longer valid English? Or aback, aglow, aflame, anew, abashed, ashamed...? Need I go on?

As in, like, we tend not to create new words in that manner. Unlike, say, 'non-', for example.

Considering that this entire discussion is based on your misuse of a very simple English word, I'm guessing I wouldn't have to look very far. But if you're asking if I'd like to expend the effort to scour your posts for something specific... no. No, I don't actually care that much.

I don't think I've been misunderstood. After all, right here in this thread, I came right in with the meaning of atheism when I used it. So I doubt I've been misunderstood here. Nor can I can think of anywhere else, nor, moreover, do I expect it in the future. So, as far as we are now, your statement was just bullshit.

To transliterate: to change letters or words of one alphabet or language into the corresponding characters of another alphabet or language.

You used the word atheism. An English word in the normally used Roman script. You didn't change to any other characters. Atheos is a transliteation, a Greek word, in Roman script. 'Ocha' is a transliteration, a Japanese word in the Roman script.
Muravyets
12-03-2007, 23:52
Perhaps you're not grasping my redefinition of the spiritual.

I'm not talking about "magic" here, or about mystical beings.

I am talking about a way of being in the world, a sense of one's self, a "feeling" that is not simply reducible to the pleasurable stimulation of my senses or to an aspect of cognitive thought. It is, perhaps, some combination of mental elements that cannot quite be described.

<etc>
You seem to be describing experiences that are transcendant. Possibly also (more intense) experiences that are ecstatic, meaning that through them, one steps outside of oneself in one's consciousness.

Both transcendance and ecstasy are spiritual experiences, because "spiritual" is the word in English that best describes the quality of such experiences, but they are not automatically associated with religion or other supernatural beliefs. It is common for people to experience transcendance and ecstasy through ordinary but intense personal activities, including such things as childbirth, extraordinary sports performances or the arts, viewing natural scenes, excitement of the senses -- as in a great Scotch -- prolonged sickness or intense fear, and so on and on. It is also possible to get these feelings from religious activity. Pretty much anything that excites the senses and focuses the mind in the right way will allow a person to access transcendance or ecstasy within themselves.

Whether a person likes the word "spiritual" or not, the kinds of experiences associated with that word should not all be lumped together under the heading of "religion" or "superstition" or "magic."
Muravyets
12-03-2007, 23:57
That's why I wear a hat ;)


"Never do business with a religious son of a bitch, his word isn't worth shit. Not with the 'good lord' tellin' him how to fuck you on the deal..."
Words of Advice to Young People - William S. Burroughs

Thank every god that is believed in or not believed in for William S. Burroughs. Can't stand his books, but I love the man. :)
Muravyets
13-03-2007, 00:00
After reading the whole thread, I'm starting to think that the reason Americans are so hung up on minutiae like this is not because they are so all-fired religious but because they don't know what the key words in public debates mean. :D
AnarchyeL
13-03-2007, 00:02
As in, like, we tend not to create new words in that manner. Unlike, say, 'non-', for example.Even if that were true, what relevance would that have for understanding existing words?

I don't think I've been misunderstood. After all, right here in this thread, I came right in with the meaning of atheism when I used it.Yes, and the controversy has not waned...

So I doubt I've been misunderstood here.Only because I have compelled you to make your meaning clear.

You used the word atheism. An English word in the normally used Roman script. You didn't change to any other characters. Atheos is a transliteation, a Greek word, in Roman script. 'Ocha' is a transliteration, a Japanese word in the Roman script.All right, how about this?

I'll admit to using the word "transliteration" in a rather loose manner (which, nevertheless, I expect everyone--including you--understood perfectly well)... but for the record, "atheos" in Greek does not even mean the same thing as "atheism" in English. The latter refers to a godless belief (from "ism"), while the Greek word is merely an adjective meaning "godless."

But we get even further afield, and this is pointless. When asked the question, "Do you believe in God?" there are three broadly understood and meaningful responses:

"Yes" = Theist.
"Definitely not" = Atheist.
"I don't know"/"Not right now" = Agnostic.

Everyone else understands this, and that's what gives the terms meaning.

/Discussion.
AnarchyeL
13-03-2007, 00:05
You seem to be describing experiences that are transcendant. Possibly also (more intense) experiences that are ecstatic, meaning that through them, one steps outside of oneself in one's consciousness.Seriously, what is the obsession with definitions in this forum? Everyone seems so eager to jump down each other's throats crying, "No, don't use your term!! Use mine!! MINE!!"

Whether a person likes the word "spiritual" or not, the kinds of experiences associated with that word should not all be lumped together under the heading of "religion" or "superstition" or "magic."On this we certainly agree.

;)
Dinaverg
13-03-2007, 00:07
Even if that were true, what relevance would that have for understanding existing words?

Nothing. Ignore it.

Yes, and the controversy has not waned...
But they understood me. People may think I'm wrong, but they understand.

When asked the question, "Do you believe in God?" there are three broadly understood and meaningful responses:

And anything not 'yes' would fall under atheism.

I don't know where you got the idea you were allowed to say 'everyone else'. At the very least, I haven't seen the survey.
Muravyets
13-03-2007, 00:21
Seriously, what is the obsession with definitions in this forum? Everyone seems so eager to jump down each other's throats crying, "No, don't use your term!! Use mine!! MINE!!"

On this we certainly agree.

;)

Oh, relax. :p I only posted that because there seemed to be a disconnect between you and the person you were talking to, and you yourself, in posts related to the one I quoted, indicated that you weren't sure you were expressing your idea clearly enough. So I offered supplemental words to help explain it and qualified my statement in case I had also not understood you correctly. Sorry if I put an extra twist in your knickers. :D
AnarchyeL
13-03-2007, 01:17
Sorry if I put an extra twist in your knickers. :DNot at all!

Actually, I was poking fun at myself at least as much as at everyone else. :p
Zarakon
13-03-2007, 01:22
We do tend to look like everyone else, once we've hidden our horns.

Well, except for Richard Dawkins, whose 4 foot long horns combined with his daggerlike fangs and claws, and his aura of flames and smell of brimstone. He can't hide very well. Richard Dawkins has been known to rip churches out of the ground and throw them into the air to express his anger at the christian right. Fortunately, Pat Robertson always charges him astride a steed of light and cleaves through his shroud of darkness with his blessed sword, casting Dawkins back into the dark pit of Tarturus for another week, where Dawkins will work on writing his next book.
Muravyets
13-03-2007, 01:35
Not at all!

Actually, I was poking fun at myself at least as much as at everyone else. :p
Point taken.

Now let's argue about what we mean by "point." ;)
AnarchyeL
13-03-2007, 01:43
Point taken.

Now let's argue about what we mean by "point." ;)Nah... We would inevitably get drawn into a pointless discussion to determine whether the appropriate frame of reference is baseball or logic, only to discover that the entire thing begs the question because I began by using the word "pointless" without ever deciding on "point."

Meanwhile, zebras are black with white stripes, not white with black stripes.
Muravyets
13-03-2007, 01:51
Nah... We would inevitably get drawn into a pointless discussion to determine whether the appropriate frame of reference is baseball or logic, only to discover that the entire thing begs the question because I began by using the word "pointless" without ever deciding on "point."
Haha! You just summed up the debate of this thread and of much of both politics and religion in the US. :D

Meanwhile, zebras are black with white stripes, not white with black stripes.
The Mephisto you say! You'll never get elected with talk like that.