Cliche Opening Statement

ghoulslime wrote

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.

I was pretty sure the rules stated no flaming, and if they want to start a fight I will still treat them with basic respect. However, if you think that I am a "chew toy," then you should be in for a surprise. Nonetheless, my views on atheism is one other atheists and nonatheists share and I'm certainly not going to call you an idiot for your view, even if I find it idiotic- but if you and others have to do so back that is your prerogative.

[ghoulslime]

Kate wrote

That's the spirit, Kate! You WILL be blessed!

[Tenspace]

Allighiero wrote

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.

No, it takes more than a childish play on my nom de plume to drag me into the abyss of irateness.

So, what do word do you suggest we use to identify those who have never heard of the god concept, or those, like me, Choobus, and others who simply do not follow any doctrine?

I look forward to your inventive nomenclature.

ghoulslime wrote

What does Merriam Webster have for someone who is obstinately and willfully obtuse?
I’m 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.

Strongly inferring that my arguments are counterproductive and the antithesis of reason does not refute my stance or serve as an intelligent retort. Now if you want to have a debate instead of calling me an idiot whilst your own argument is nothing more than a implicit ad hominen attack, I will gladly take you head on instead of exchanging slurs back and forth.

[Tenspace]

Choobus wrote

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.

Choobus, I think he sees the distinction, yet he is unwilling to accept that one word can have multiple meanings. I'll have to give a go at the etymology of atheism; see if any of the grand lexicographers have flagged its original meaning to reflect his stance that our acceptable definition is archaic.

[Tenspace]

By the way, at this level of discourse, is it perfectly acceptable to critique you grammar and spelling? We have a Grammar Pitbull on a short leash. He started salivating at "ad hominen".

ghoulslime wrote

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.

Parodies are very fun but lets try to be more serious here so that I can take you seriously. But I guess I will play.

I have never heard of your leprechaunism, thus I currently have no opinion on your beliefs, neither belief in or a disbelief of because I have no idea what this new and wonderful religion really is. Could you list your core beliefs?

Tenspace wrote

By the way, at this level of discourse, is it perfectly acceptable to critique you grammar and spelling? We have a Grammar Pitbull on a short leash. He started salivating at "ad hominen".

Well I am not a native English speaker so feel free to correct me on any misspellings and I will commit those to memory. It is my third language so I don't expect to be very perfect at it.

[Kate]

[ghoulslime]

Allighiero wrote

I was pretty sure the rules stated no flaming, and if they want to start a fight I will still treat them with basic respect. However, if you think that I am a "chew toy," then you should be in for a surprise. Nonetheless, my views on atheism is one other atheists and nonatheists share and I'm certainly not going to call you an idiot for your view, even if I find it idiotic- but if you and others have to do so back that is your prerogative.

Wow! A law abiding citizen and a noble! Allighiero climbs right up on top of mount morality! “I’m not a chew toy!” he squeaks!



It looks like you have a couple of teeth marks on you already.

Other atheists and nonatheists agree with your position! Oh, my! I’ve been backed into a corner with a fierce argumentum ad populum.

See that pointy hat on your head? That’s a dunce cap. Keep your fingers pointed in the direction of the idiocy, please.

I’ve already postured my prerogative here:

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.

Were you having trouble responding to it? Is that why you had to resort to empty bluster?

[Kate]

Tenspace wrote

No, it takes more than a childish play on my nom de plume to drag me into the abyss of irateness.

So, what do word do you suggest we use to identify those who have never heard of the god concept, or those, like me, Choobus, and others who simply do not follow any doctrine?

I look forward to your inventive nomenclature.

Actually it was not a childish play on your pen name, I misread your name because I did not see it well in the first place. Now you suggest my nomenclature is inventive, as if I'm simply making this up on the spot-Then how do you refer to implicit and explicit atheism, which was also needless to say- made up on the spot. I'm not agreeing that my statements were this, but seeking for a clarification in your position.

But to the topic, I never suggested that that you did follow any doctrine or that I particularly liked the "doctrine" definition. There are various definitions, even within the same lexicon, and I most align wuth the view that atheism is a disbelief in God and not a doctrine which I will expand more on in your other reply. Before I respond, I first want to ask you a question- Do you view the godless Buddhism sects as an atheistic Religion?

[Tenspace]

Okay,

According to Random House Dictionary, an atheist is one who actively denies or disbelieves in the existence of a supreme being. They go on to state, an agnostic is one who believes it is impossible to know anything about God or the creation of the universe (guess that excludes you, Choob). Furthermore, an Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity; and, a skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.

Therefore, using the RHD as the source, those of us who simply don't give a shit about religious beliefs are infidels. That would include any human tribes who are unaware of religion, as well as folks like our instigator here, during his formative years when he was unaware of the God concept.

Now, personally, I think Random House is the McDonald's of lexicography, so I'll dig a bit deeper.

American Heritage, Webster's, and other mainstream dictionaries also parrot the RH definition - or does Random House sit on the shoulder of Webster's? - Anyway, the only differentiation I could discern is that RH prefers to qualify the object as a "supreme being", whereas the others prefer, "God or gods". All of the big three posit an active denial in belief.

Enough of the bullshit, though. Let's go right to the epochal source. Since we - or most - of us are aware that atheist comes from the Greek a-theos, where Theos means god (f. Thea, goddess), a grokking of the origins would place the ancient Greeks right in Alli's camp, since the modifier "a", denoting "without", in the time of an accepted pantheon of supreme figures, would undeniably infer active denial.

So, little one, you win this round, because people do believe in God or gods. Therefore, I would suggest you refrain from referring to us as atheists, unless you find specific instance of our active denial, and instead forthwith use the moniker, nontheist. With an emphasis on the non.

[ghoulslime]

Allighiero wrote

Well I am not a native English speaker so feel free to correct me on any misspellings and I will commit those to memory. It is my third language so I don't expect to be very perfect at it.

Swoon! Swoon! We are in the presence of greatness! Were we supposed to be impressed with three languages?

Do simple semantics trip you up in all of them?

[Tenspace]

Allighiero wrote

Actually it was not a childish play on your pen name, I misread your name because I did not see it well in the first place. Now you suggest my nomenclature is inventive, as if I'm simply making this up on the spot-Then how do you refer to implicit and explicit atheism, which was also needless to say- made up on the spot. I'm not agreeing that my statements were this, but seeking for a clarification in your position.

But to the topic, I never suggested that that you did follow any doctrine or that I particularly liked the "doctrine" definition. There are various definitions, even within the same lexicon, and I most align wuth the view that atheism is a disbelief in God and not a doctrine which I will expand more on in your other reply. Before I respond, I first want to ask you a question- Do you view the godless Buddhism sects as an atheistic Religion?

Inferred apology accepted. And yes, I do view godless religions as atheistic. Please see my previous post if you wish to continue this discourse further.

And, my apologies for not realizing English was not your primary language; you speak, or rather type it very well. However, Tenspace isn't really a word, and Teenspace could be easily construed as a lame attempt at belittlement. So, try not to hold down the "e" key too long, or you will find that that could beeeeeeeeee offeeeeeeeeeenisiveeeeeeeeeee.