| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Abner Mintz" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2003 12:40:13 AM |
| Object: |
Re: why do non believers need a badge? |
JethroUK© <reply@the.board> wrote:
i thought 'atheists' just dont beleive in god
if so, why do you need a badge?
why not just 'not beleive'
There are three ways to answer your question. The
first is to note that there are many terms that
refer to lack of a property - for instance,
amoral, apolitical, neuter, unconscious, immortal,
unusual, disinterested, and nonstick. *grins* Some
such terms may be more important than others when
talking about people, but nonetheless, when X could
have a property or not, it's good to have a term
to refer to the not having the property as well
as having the property. Usually we do so using a
prefix like a-, dis-, im-, non-, un- applied to
the term indicating the property. Atheism is no
different than the rest.
Secondly, why regard atheism as important to our
identity, as compared with, say, nonstick? Well,
the importance of not having a property is tied
to two things: the importance of having the
property, and the possibility of not having the
property. Is theism an important property to
theists? Extremely so, from what I have seen.
It influences their morals, ethics, politics, etc.
to the point where they have trouble imagining
atheists having such! If theism is so influential
over thought for so much of humanity, then lack
of that influence could be quite 'influential' as
well, much as the trajectory of an object propelled
without influence of gravity will diverge from
the trajectory of an object propelled within a
gravity field.
Third, mankind is a social animal; we tend to form
groups with others, often based on similarities.
If atheism can lead to similar deviations from
theistic thought processes, then atheists might
well have some things to talk about with each
other that they wouldn't have to talk about with
any theist. Further, since theists tend to form
into groups, atheists may need groups to help
deal with and sometimes oppose such theistic
groups when they start acting in ways hostile
towards atheists.
So, in short, it is valid to use negative
terms to describe things, negative terms can
sometimes be important, and groups can be
forged together by a lack if that lack
leads to similarities or if those with the
property tend to treat unfairly those without.
Does that answer your question?
.
|
|
| User: "JethroUK©" |
|
| Title: Re: why do non believers need a badge? |
26 Jul 2003 08:07:31 PM |
|
|
"Abner Mintz" <abnermintz@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1fyok77.1r9kw8d1q6m9rmN%abnermintz@earthlink.net...
JethroUK© <reply@the.board> wrote:
i thought 'atheists' just dont beleive in god
if so, why do you need a badge?
why not just 'not beleive'
There are three ways to answer your question. The
first is to note that there are many terms that
refer to lack of a property - for instance,
amoral, apolitical, neuter, unconscious, immortal,
unusual, disinterested, and nonstick. *grins* Some
such terms may be more important than others when
talking about people, but nonetheless, when X could
have a property or not, it's good to have a term
to refer to the not having the property as well
as having the property. Usually we do so using a
prefix like a-, dis-, im-, non-, un- applied to
the term indicating the property. Atheism is no
different than the rest.
excellent answer (just the sort of thing i wanted) - i didn't know that
"atheist" was a derived term (involuntary badge, from "theist") as opposed
to a created/voluntary term/badge/label whatever
that tells me where the term came from & the fact that this badge was given
to you by others & not made up by yourselves. which leaves me with that last
part of my question:
Why the need to wear this term/badge/label/whatever?
if an a-theist has no religious convictions at all - why the need to say
so? - i dont have any religious conviction at all, but i dont feel the need
to say so either - i'm totally inert about religion (as the term 'atheist'
implies by your concise definition) - but in practise atheists are far from
inert - atheist are more anti-religious (active/volatile), which isn't the
same at all as being inert (a-religious)
by definition then, [i] am more an atheist than a real stereo-typical
atheist, but i wouldn't associate myself with atheism, simply because of the
volatile/anti-religious overtones (but that's my problem)
to use your own examples to make my point:
where is alt.apolitical?
where is alt.amoral?
these also have an involuntary badge - but they dont 'wear it' (as their
name implies - they have no axe to grind - they dont care [who] calls them
[what] for views they [dont] hold :o) - just like those people who dont
visit alt.idontlikebananas :o) - but you can prolly see where part2 of my
question comming from
Secondly, why regard atheism as important to our
identity, as compared with, say, nonstick? Well,
the importance of not having a property is tied
to two things: the importance of having the
property, and the possibility of not having the
property. Is theism an important property to
theists? Extremely so, from what I have seen.
It influences their morals, ethics, politics, etc.
to the point where they have trouble imagining
atheists having such! If theism is so influential
over thought for so much of humanity, then lack
of that influence could be quite 'influential' as
well,
an a-theist (as an a-political) have no conviction in the relevant field
(it's [should] by definition, have no importance/influence on them what so
ever)
much as the trajectory of an object propelled
without influence of gravity will diverge from
the trajectory of an object propelled within a
gravity field.
that's not a good analogy - an object floating around in space will be
influence by things-in-space, and so could not be described as
"a-spaceinfluenced" - however, a goldfish in a bowl, right here on good old
terra-firma [could] be described as "a-spaceinfluenced"
Third, mankind is a social animal; we tend to form
groups with others, often based on similarities.
If atheism can lead to similar deviations from
theistic thought processes, then atheists might
well have some things to talk about with each
other that they wouldn't have to talk about with
any theist. Further, since theists tend to form
into groups, atheists may need groups to help
deal with and sometimes oppose such theistic
groups when they start acting in ways hostile
towards atheists.
but i'd have to say that atheist (again by definition of the term) shouldn't
care 2 hoots what anyone thinks of religion at all - noone could offend
(even stir an interest in) me (the goldfish), by any of their space talk -
it's alllllllll just fairytales to me - it washes over me completely
So, in short, it is valid to use negative
terms to describe things, negative terms can
sometimes be important, and groups can be
forged together by a lack if that lack
leads to similarities or if those with the
property tend to treat unfairly those without.
the point about opposing theistics ('negative terms') should really then
(from where i'm standing) fall under a different umbrella (anti-theists)
Does that answer your question?
All of them Perfectly - thanx
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JethroUK©" |
|
| Title: Re: why do non believers need a badge? |
26 Jul 2003 08:12:53 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:bfu472$h2j$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
Abner Mintz wrote:
JethroUK© <reply@the.board> wrote:
i thought 'atheists' just dont beleive in god
if so, why do you need a badge?
why not just 'not beleive'
snip
So, in short, it is valid to use negative
terms to describe things, negative terms can
sometimes be important, and groups can be
forged together by a lack if that lack
leads to similarities or if those with the
property tend to treat unfairly those without.
Does that answer your question?
Nice answer, but I doubt the troll was looking for an answer.
well strange as i may seem - i was looking for an answer & abner answered it
perfectly
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jforbes2
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Abner Mintz" |
|
| Title: Re: why do non believers need a badge? |
26 Jul 2003 10:23:01 AM |
|
|
J Forbes <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Nice answer, but I doubt the troll was looking for an answer.
Thanks ... and I agree that the person was probably
trolling, but sometimes you get a pleasant surprise
if you reply as if they were serious. More often,
though, you get ignored because you're not their
desired victim. :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: why do non believers need a badge? |
26 Jul 2003 05:53:58 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:23:01 GMT, (Abner Mintz) wrote in alt.atheism:
J Forbes <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Nice answer, but I doubt the troll was looking for an answer.
Thanks ... and I agree that the person was probably
trolling, but sometimes you get a pleasant surprise
if you reply as if they were serious. More often,
though, you get ignored because you're not their
desired victim. :)
I really enjoyed your illustration using ballistics in the presence or absence of gravity.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by vernon; NEW! IMPROVED! plonked by Lani_girl
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abner Mintz" |
|
| Title: Re: why do non believers need a badge? |
27 Jul 2003 06:08:41 AM |
|
|
Apostate <Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote:
I really enjoyed your illustration using ballistics in the presence or absence
of gravity.
Glad you liked it. With the addition of noting that people use the
term 'weightless' to indicate absence of gravity, it might be a
really useful analogy for explaining why we use the term 'atheism'. :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Erickson" |
|
| Title: Re: why do non believers need a badge? |
07 Apr 2005 04:11:29 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 05:40:13 GMT, (Abner
Mintz) wrote:
JethroUK© <reply@the.board> wrote:
i thought 'atheists' just dont beleive in god
if so, why do you need a badge?
why not just 'not beleive'
There are three ways to answer your question. The
first is to note that there are many terms that
refer to lack of a property - for instance,
amoral, apolitical, neuter, unconscious, immortal,
unusual, disinterested, and nonstick. *grins* Some
such terms may be more important than others when
talking about people, but nonetheless, when X could
have a property or not, it's good to have a term
to refer to the not having the property as well
as having the property. Usually we do so using a
prefix like a-, dis-, im-, non-, un- applied to
the term indicating the property. Atheism is no
different than the rest.
Secondly, why regard atheism as important to our
identity, as compared with, say, nonstick? Well,
the importance of not having a property is tied
to two things: the importance of having the
property, and the possibility of not having the
property. Is theism an important property to
theists? Extremely so, from what I have seen.
It influences their morals, ethics, politics, etc.
to the point where they have trouble imagining
atheists having such! If theism is so influential
over thought for so much of humanity, then lack
of that influence could be quite 'influential' as
well, much as the trajectory of an object propelled
without influence of gravity will diverge from
the trajectory of an object propelled within a
gravity field.
Third, mankind is a social animal; we tend to form
groups with others, often based on similarities.
If atheism can lead to similar deviations from
theistic thought processes, then atheists might
well have some things to talk about with each
other that they wouldn't have to talk about with
any theist. Further, since theists tend to form
into groups, atheists may need groups to help
deal with and sometimes oppose such theistic
groups when they start acting in ways hostile
towards atheists.
So, in short, it is valid to use negative
terms to describe things, negative terms can
sometimes be important, and groups can be
forged together by a lack if that lack
leads to similarities or if those with the
property tend to treat unfairly those without.
Does that answer your question?
That was a good and honest one, and I'm glad you got to it before I
did. Cheers.
Slobbering Skeleton
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: why do non believers need a badge? |
26 Jul 2003 10:45:04 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:46:25 -0700, J Forbes wrote:
Abner Mintz wrote:
JethroUK© <reply@the.board> wrote:
i thought 'atheists' just dont beleive in god if so, why do you need a
badge?
why not just 'not beleive'
snip
So, in short, it is valid to use negative
terms to describe things, negative terms can sometimes be important,
and groups can be forged together by a lack if that lack leads to
similarities or if those with the property tend to treat unfairly those
without.
Does that answer your question?
Nice answer, but I doubt the troll was looking for an answer.
Only the answer in the back of his teacher's edition...
--
Mark K. Bilbo #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
________________________________________________________________
"In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader
may have to 'enter into evil.' This is the chilling insight
that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging
we are rotten....It's true that we can achieve greatness if,
and only if, we are properly led."
- Michael Ledeen, neoconservative leader
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
