Old 10-03-2008, 02:46 PM   #1
Allighiero
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow Cliche Opening Statement

I have a generally apathetic or haphazard view of the various philosophies on that highly debated "Why" that we are here. I really don't adhere to any particular view and I migrate depending on what rational and/or convincing information or argument I happen to stumble across...or learn myself in. An atheist? Well there are so many definitions that the ones I most put stock in, no, not an atheist at all. I grew up without a religion- not atheist though, I didn't even know there was such thing as a god until I was 12- And ever since then I haven't known what to think. Life was so much more simple before this whole deity concept entered into my field of vision. Then again, I'm only 19- I'm allowed some time to figure this "life" thing out.

I've been through many faiths and lack thereof and I haven't yet found the quintessential representation of what I want to refer to myself as or what best resembles my beliefs, so until I do, I find its pretty unintelligent to present myself as anything given the my volatile mood and what one could call beliefs. At best, a wandering free thinker.

I can get along with the religious and irreligious well and am fortunate enough to have intelligent friends from the wide spectrum of religious, philosophical and ethical views. So, I can't say that I've been exposed much to the creationist crybabies, secular imbeciles or those few and far between. Perhaps I'm heading toward a rude awakening on this forum however one can't always expect to win the lottery every time one decides to place a bet.

Other than that, I'm a science major/ photojournalism major and its been a pleasure to introduce myself to such an interesting forum.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2008, 03:03 PM   #2
dogpet
Obsessed Member
 
dogpet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,833
Hi Allighiero. Many on here will envy your first twelve years. Unlucky 13 huh?

thank goodness he's on our side
dogpet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2008, 04:37 PM   #3
Tenspace
I Live Here
 
Tenspace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
Quote:
Allighiero wrote
An atheist? Well there are so many definitions that the ones I most put stock in, no, not an atheist at all.
Well, the traditional meaning, before it was usurped by every religious group that hated those not like themselves, is really self-defining:

A-Theism == Without Theism.

Welcome to our forums, A.

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
Tenspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2008, 05:03 PM   #4
Eva
Super Moderator
 
Eva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 9,775
welcome to our humble forum, Allighiero!

One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected....That they should have this immunity is an outrage. There is nothing in religious ideas, as a class, to lift them above other ideas. On the contrary, they are always dubious and often quite silly.
H. L. Mencken
Eva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2008, 05:21 PM   #5
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Quote:
Tenspace wrote View Post

A-Theism == Without Theism.

Does that mean christians are without holes?

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2008, 05:56 PM   #6
Kate
Mistress Monster Mod'rator Spy
 
Kate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The North Coast
Posts: 15,428
Not exactly.

"I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death."
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Kate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2008, 10:42 PM   #7
Allighiero
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Tenspace wrote View Post
Well, the traditional meaning, before it was usurped by every religious group that hated those not like themselves, is really self-defining:

A-Theism == Without Theism.

Welcome to our forums, A.

Over one hundred year ago the etymological meaning of the word would have been the accepted view, however, I wasn't born 100 years ago. I disagree that "religious groups" usurped the definition, like most words they evolve from their original usage because each decades contemporary vernacular differ from the past decades. The word as it is defined today in most lexicons and by many philosophers isn't anywhere close to that etymological meaning. I believe we should look to how it is defined in the present day instead of erroneously believing that the past is a continuous representation of the contextual and defined meaning of a word. I also think it is severely unwise to continue to cling to those archaic representations. If we did look to the "traditional" meanings of many of the words we use, we'd see some stark differences.

So, I look toward contemporary not traditional representations of what this or that is, instead of debating what it is or isn't, when it comes to the semantics and the general example of what a word examples. Though, I'm hardly trying to change your mind- I'm not here to argue semantics.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2008, 08:11 AM   #8
nkb
He who walks among the theists
 
nkb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
Not to continue the argument about the meaning of the word "atheism", but it is relevant here. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, which is how you appear to have lived for your first 12 years.

What you seem to be bristling against is the definition of a militant or strong atheism, which generally involves the position that there is no god.

So, to address your last point, the definition of atheism as a lack of belief in a god is not archaic, and absolutely still applies today, religious people's protestations notwithstanding.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
nkb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2008, 09:46 AM   #9
Allighiero
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
nkb wrote View Post
Not to continue the argument about the meaning of the word "atheism", but it is relevant here. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, which is how you appear to have lived for your first 12 years.

What you seem to be bristling against is the definition of a militant or strong atheism, which generally involves the position that there is no god.

So, to address your last point, the definition of atheism as a lack of belief in a god is not archaic, and absolutely still applies today, religious people's protestations notwithstanding.

I respectfully disagree. The etymological definition "A = Sans Theism = God" Is an archaic representation of atheism and wholly irrelevant to the contemporary understanding. That contemporary understanding is that atheism is an active disbelief in God. As I did not know of the concept of God for 12 years, I was neither able to believe or disbelieve in that concept. There was no active force occurring.

You may retort, "You're an implicit atheist then." Well that is a compelling argument for some, implicit/explicit atheism, however I see no validity in those arguments from George Smith. There are a few mainstream atheist authors who do, like Richard Dawkins, accept the weak/strong and implicit/explicit stances. However, I also don't look to a prominent atheist figure to define to me a concept. I look to a lexicon, to get a unbiased and objective stance. So you say I am confused on strong and militant atheist, however, I suggest that you are confused and put too much weight into the philosophical understanding of atheism versus the commonplace understanding.

Of course, this means I disagree with the stances that children are born atheists, and that agnostics can only be atheistic or theistic. Much as Socrates did, I do not like viewing the world through a black and white filter and accept there are excluded middles. I understand that you seem a bit hostile to religion however, there isn't any religious group directly involved or threatening semanticists when they labouriously try to determine the contemporary understanding of a concept from an objective standpoint.

Hopefully this disagreement with you and Teenspace won't serve to make you both irate.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2008, 09:52 AM   #10
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
Quote:
Allighiero wrote View Post
That contemporary understanding is that atheism is an active disbelief in God.

Says who? What is an "active disbelief"? Can you see a distinction between not believing that there is a god and believing that there is no god?

God and leprechauns and thetans could all exist, but they probably don't and there's no evidence for any of them and it is therefore a waste of time to pay any attention to the possibility when there are more pressing realities to deal with in life.

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2008, 09:56 AM   #11
ghoulslime
I Live Here
 
ghoulslime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 20,923
Quote:
Allighiero wrote View Post
I respectfully disagree. The etymological definition "A = Sans Theism = God" Is an archaic representation of atheism and wholly irrelevant to the contemporary understanding. That contemporary understanding is that atheism is an active disbelief in God. As I did not know of the concept of God for 12 years, I was neither able to believe or disbelieve in that concept. There was no active force occurring.

You may retort, "You're an implicit atheist then." Well that is a compelling argument for some, implicit/explicit atheism, however I see no validity in those arguments from George Smith. There are a few mainstream atheist authors who do, like Richard Dawkins, accept the weak/strong and implicit/explicit stances. However, I also don't look to a prominent atheist figure to define to me a concept. I look to a lexicon, to get a unbiased and objective stance. So you say I am confused on strong and militant atheist, however, I suggest that you are confused and put too much weight into the philosophical understanding of atheism versus the commonplace understanding.

Of course, this means I disagree with the stances that children are born atheists, and that agnostics can only be atheistic or theistic. Much as Socrates did, I do not like viewing the world through a black and white filter and accept there are excluded middles. I understand that you seem a bit hostile to religion however, there isn't any religious group directly involved or threatening semanticists when they labouriously try to determine the contemporary understanding of a concept from an objective standpoint.

Hopefully this disagreement with you and Teenspace won't serve to make you both irate.
Actually, I'm guessing that it is likely to be the beginning of a serious ass fucking for you. You obviously haven't observed Raving Atheists toying with their food before they kill it and eat it. I'm breaking open the beer and peanuts and gettin' ready for the show. Chew toy! This could be entertaining.

The Leprechauns do not forbid the drawing of Their images, as long as we color within the lines. ~ Ghoulslime H Christ, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Masturbator
ghoulslime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2008, 10:03 AM   #12
Allighiero
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Choobus wrote View Post
Says who? What is an "active disbelief"? Can you see a distinction between not believing that there is a god and believing that there is no god?

God and leprechauns and thetans could all exist, but they probably don't and there's no evidence for any of them and it is therefore a waste of time to pay any attention to the possibility when there are more pressing realities to deal with in life.
Merriam Webster, American Hermitage and among others. You will see it commonly listed as "A doctrine which states there is no God" or "A disbelief in God or Belief there is no God." Disbelief itself, is active because it requires ones to know of the concept to form that opinion. They aren't my definitions, but they are a credible source, and if you want to dispute them- Contact the respective companies.

You did not quote it, but I again reference the implicit/explicit atheism stance. It is a philosophical argument from an opinionated and brilliant man but one I hold no stock in. It find it silly and quite incorrect that when one does not know of God, one is an atheist given the contemporary bastardization and/or meaning of the word based on ones view. Now later in my life, I was an atheist however, not my first 12 year
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2008, 10:05 AM   #13
ghoulslime
I Live Here
 
ghoulslime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 20,923
Quote:
Choobus wrote View Post
Says who? What is an "active disbelief"? Can you see a distinction between not believing that there is a god and believing that there is no god?

God and leprechauns and thetans could all exist, but they probably don't and there's no evidence for any of them and it is therefore a waste of time to pay any attention to the possibility when there are more pressing realities to deal with in life.
A very valid point, sir!

Allighiero, I am a Leprechaunist, a believer in leprechauns. (It is my sincere prayer that you will mend the error of your ways and join me on the true path to the Emerald Lawns of Eternity.) I suspect that you do not believe in Leprechaunism.

Is your disbelief in Leprechaunism the antithesis of my belief? Is your position opposed by an equally assertible and contradictory proposition to my devout Leprechaun fundamentalism? ? It would seem to me that the semantic juxtaposition is a little off balance there, buddy.

The Leprechauns do not forbid the drawing of Their images, as long as we color within the lines. ~ Ghoulslime H Christ, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Masturbator
ghoulslime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2008, 10:08 AM   #14
ghoulslime
I Live Here
 
ghoulslime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 20,923
Quote:
Allighiero wrote View Post
Merriam Webster, American Hermitage and among others. You will see it commonly listed as "A doctrine which states there is no God" or "A disbelief in God or Belief there is no God." Disbelief itself, is active because it requires ones to know of the concept to form that opinion. They aren't my definitions, but they are a credible source, and if you want to dispute them- Contact the respective companies.

You did not quote it, but I again reference the implicit/explicit atheism stance. It is a philosophical argument from an opinionated and brilliant man but one I hold no stock in. It find it silly and quite incorrect that when one does not know of God, one is an atheist given the contemporary bastardization and/or meaning of the word based on ones view. Now later in my life, I was an atheist however, not my first 12 year
What does Merriam Webster have for someone who is obstinately and willfully obtuse?
Iím having a hard time thinking of the right word. I was thinking maybe you could help me out because you are obviously such a smart guy.

The Leprechauns do not forbid the drawing of Their images, as long as we color within the lines. ~ Ghoulslime H Christ, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Masturbator
ghoulslime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2008, 10:08 AM   #15
Kate
Mistress Monster Mod'rator Spy
 
Kate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The North Coast
Posts: 15,428

"I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death."
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Kate is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:12 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational