Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
https://youtu.be/I2itlUlD10M
"I've purged from my identity any terms with theist roots. If atheists have a problem with me wishing astronauts, 'God's speed' then I am not an atheist. And those same atheists say, 'good bye' which is just short for, 'God be with you' so its kind of hypocritical. And by the way, I still use B.C. and A.D."
I'm with NdGT, 'god' is just short for 'good' and I am not anti-good.
I trust in good.
Thank goodness for good humans like NdGT.
"I've purged from my identity any terms with theist roots. If atheists have a problem with me wishing astronauts, 'God's speed' then I am not an atheist. And those same atheists say, 'good bye' which is just short for, 'God be with you' so its kind of hypocritical. And by the way, I still use B.C. and A.D."
I'm with NdGT, 'god' is just short for 'good' and I am not anti-good.
I trust in good.
Thank goodness for good humans like NdGT.
Since I don't have a problem with him saying those things, does that make him an atheist? Because his premise was that he only wasn't an atheist if atheists had a problem with him saying those things...I don't.
He doesn't believe in any god. So he's an atheist.
He may not like the term, for whatever PR/political/philsophical reasons, but it still applies. He can choose to not use it, but he's still an atheist.
He doesn't believe in any god. So he's an atheist.
He may not like the term, for whatever PR/political/philsophical reasons, but it still applies. He can choose to not use it, but he's still an atheist.
It's a difference without a distinction. To say I'm not human because I don't like what some humans do doesn't follow because I still meet the criteria of the classification.
dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a difference without a distinction. To say
> I'm not human because I don't like what some
> humans do doesn't follow because I still meet the
> criteria of the classification.
Its a free country. He can choose to identify however he wants and others have no right to tell him what label he ought to apply to himself. He thinks atheists act like assholes and doesnt want to be associated or identify with them.
Above is a perfect case in point.
(Edited by mod to remove unnecessary off topic offensive comment about Caitlin Jenner)
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2018 03:57PM by Maude.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a difference without a distinction. To say
> I'm not human because I don't like what some
> humans do doesn't follow because I still meet the
> criteria of the classification.
Its a free country. He can choose to identify however he wants and others have no right to tell him what label he ought to apply to himself. He thinks atheists act like assholes and doesnt want to be associated or identify with them.
Above is a perfect case in point.
(Edited by mod to remove unnecessary off topic offensive comment about Caitlin Jenner)
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2018 03:57PM by Maude.
So do you think that he expected his groupies to preach to whomever they could that everyone needed to be like him?
elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So do you think that he expected his groupies to
> preach to whomever they could that everyone needed
> to be like him?
No. He doesn't exoect anybody to behave according to his expectations. Which is why he bristles at atheists who expect him to act and speak the way they do, which he finds generally hypocritical and rude.
Especially when nobody complains about receiving money with "In God We Trust" printed on it or living in a country with "One Nation Under God" in its pledge of allegiance.
If they really found it so objectionable, they wouldn't accept any dollars and they'd move to North Korea or China.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So do you think that he expected his groupies to
> preach to whomever they could that everyone needed
> to be like him?
No. He doesn't exoect anybody to behave according to his expectations. Which is why he bristles at atheists who expect him to act and speak the way they do, which he finds generally hypocritical and rude.
Especially when nobody complains about receiving money with "In God We Trust" printed on it or living in a country with "One Nation Under God" in its pledge of allegiance.
If they really found it so objectionable, they wouldn't accept any dollars and they'd move to North Korea or China.
<phew!> My income goes directly into a bank account and neither my bank statement nor my debit card day anything about a deity. But I will admit to praying at an ATM...
Just as long as you are not trying to "make friends at the ATM."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLPZmPaHme0
*You only need to see the first 40 seconds.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2018 07:42PM by Lot's Wife.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLPZmPaHme0
*You only need to see the first 40 seconds.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2018 07:42PM by Lot's Wife.
koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they really found it so objectionable, they
> wouldn't accept any dollars and they'd move to
> North Korea or China.
What a load of crap.
I find religious fundamentalists objectionable, but that doesn't mean I have to move to someplace where there aren't any.
I can stay right where I am, and make good arguments for getting people out of religious fundamentalism. Or for taking silly god references off money, which I can continue to use in the meantime.
That straw man goes up in flames with the tiniest bit of examination.
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they really found it so objectionable, they
> wouldn't accept any dollars and they'd move to
> North Korea or China.
What a load of crap.
I find religious fundamentalists objectionable, but that doesn't mean I have to move to someplace where there aren't any.
I can stay right where I am, and make good arguments for getting people out of religious fundamentalism. Or for taking silly god references off money, which I can continue to use in the meantime.
That straw man goes up in flames with the tiniest bit of examination.
ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If they really found it so objectionable, they
> > wouldn't accept any dollars and they'd move to
> > North Korea or China.
>
> What a load of crap.
>
> I find religious fundamentalists objectionable,
> but that doesn't mean I have to move to someplace
> where there aren't any.
> I can stay right where I am, and make good
> arguments for getting people out of religious
> fundamentalism. Or for taking silly god
> references off money, which I can continue to use
> in the meantime.
>
> That straw man goes up in flames with the tiniest
> bit of examination.
He seemed to argue it pretty well every time Ive seen him argue why he,s definitely NOT an Atheist! Arguing against Atheists like Nill Maher last week.
Its kind of like some straight guy insisting they are straight and people insisting he is gay.
No he's not.
Its pretty rude to insist he is when he says explicitly, for many of the same reasons as Sagan and Einstein and a bunch of other wise men and women I admire, all of whom insisted they were not Atheists!
What's with Atheists insisting others, who insist they are NOT ATHEIST, identify themselves as atheists?
And then tell NON ATHEISTD how to speak, think, behave?
Fuck that.
I get why they're not atheists. Except for the Atheists I know personally, most atheists i see on line tend to be white angry males,
Even though I dont subscribe to any kind of a personal God, I do believe in Einstein's God, which doesn't play dice with the universe.
She plays dice, like NdGT says,
But they're loaded
In favor of matter,
Rather than anti-mattet
In favor of dark energy slowing down long enough to become dark matter, slowed down long enough to become light,
slowed down long enough to become God particle,
slowed down long enough to becone ghost particles,
Slowed doewn long enough to form the building blocks of matter,
Slowed down long enough to become atoms, water, life, you, me and everything that matters.
Thats good.
God is just short for good, a wholey insufficient word to describe all that matters
Or energies
E=mc^2
m=E/c^2
Matter is simply energy slowed down long enough to matter
Until it speeds up again
Like its doing to our good friends in the Florida Panhandle right now.
Matter becoming enegy.
Energy becoming matter
Creation/destruction as one creative whole
As long as the black holes balance witg white holes
The singularity exists between the super symetry
And maintains the balance
The cosmological constsnt,
Dark Energy - Dark matter
Where singularity creates
Duality
Where energy slows down long enough fir any of this to matter.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2018 08:59PM by koriwhore.
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If they really found it so objectionable, they
> > wouldn't accept any dollars and they'd move to
> > North Korea or China.
>
> What a load of crap.
>
> I find religious fundamentalists objectionable,
> but that doesn't mean I have to move to someplace
> where there aren't any.
> I can stay right where I am, and make good
> arguments for getting people out of religious
> fundamentalism. Or for taking silly god
> references off money, which I can continue to use
> in the meantime.
>
> That straw man goes up in flames with the tiniest
> bit of examination.
He seemed to argue it pretty well every time Ive seen him argue why he,s definitely NOT an Atheist! Arguing against Atheists like Nill Maher last week.
Its kind of like some straight guy insisting they are straight and people insisting he is gay.
No he's not.
Its pretty rude to insist he is when he says explicitly, for many of the same reasons as Sagan and Einstein and a bunch of other wise men and women I admire, all of whom insisted they were not Atheists!
What's with Atheists insisting others, who insist they are NOT ATHEIST, identify themselves as atheists?
And then tell NON ATHEISTD how to speak, think, behave?
Fuck that.
I get why they're not atheists. Except for the Atheists I know personally, most atheists i see on line tend to be white angry males,
Even though I dont subscribe to any kind of a personal God, I do believe in Einstein's God, which doesn't play dice with the universe.
She plays dice, like NdGT says,
But they're loaded
In favor of matter,
Rather than anti-mattet
In favor of dark energy slowing down long enough to become dark matter, slowed down long enough to become light,
slowed down long enough to become God particle,
slowed down long enough to becone ghost particles,
Slowed doewn long enough to form the building blocks of matter,
Slowed down long enough to become atoms, water, life, you, me and everything that matters.
Thats good.
God is just short for good, a wholey insufficient word to describe all that matters
Or energies
E=mc^2
m=E/c^2
Matter is simply energy slowed down long enough to matter
Until it speeds up again
Like its doing to our good friends in the Florida Panhandle right now.
Matter becoming enegy.
Energy becoming matter
Creation/destruction as one creative whole
As long as the black holes balance witg white holes
The singularity exists between the super symetry
And maintains the balance
The cosmological constsnt,
Dark Energy - Dark matter
Where singularity creates
Duality
Where energy slows down long enough fir any of this to matter.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2018 08:59PM by koriwhore.
"God is just short for good."
In French, good is "bien." And god is "dieu."
So I guess your philosophical notion only works in English?
Oh, and NgGT chooses not to call himself an atheist. That's not the same as not being one.
In French, good is "bien." And god is "dieu."
So I guess your philosophical notion only works in English?
Oh, and NgGT chooses not to call himself an atheist. That's not the same as not being one.
ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "God is just short for good."
>
> In French, good is "bien." And god is "dieu."
>
> So I guess your philosophical notion only works in
> English?
>
> Oh, and NgGT chooses not to call himself an
> atheist. That's not the same as not being one.
Yeah if you would have bothered reading or listening to, what he said, "Goodbye" is short for God Be with You.
Thank Goodness=Thank God
Oh my goodness = Oh My God
In God We Trust = In Good We Trust
For Gods sake = For goodness sake
Is it just me who sees the synonym here?
I trust in good.
I have no problem pledging Alliegience to this One Nation Under Good, which is what I always say when I'm forced to stand and say the pledge of allegiance, which is once a week for me.
No kneeling isn't an option for me.
Not while I have 2 daughters in the Army fighting to prevent WWIII.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2018 09:10PM by koriwhore.
-------------------------------------------------------
> "God is just short for good."
>
> In French, good is "bien." And god is "dieu."
>
> So I guess your philosophical notion only works in
> English?
>
> Oh, and NgGT chooses not to call himself an
> atheist. That's not the same as not being one.
Yeah if you would have bothered reading or listening to, what he said, "Goodbye" is short for God Be with You.
Thank Goodness=Thank God
Oh my goodness = Oh My God
In God We Trust = In Good We Trust
For Gods sake = For goodness sake
Is it just me who sees the synonym here?
I trust in good.
I have no problem pledging Alliegience to this One Nation Under Good, which is what I always say when I'm forced to stand and say the pledge of allegiance, which is once a week for me.
No kneeling isn't an option for me.
Not while I have 2 daughters in the Army fighting to prevent WWIII.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2018 09:10PM by koriwhore.
>> "In French, good is "bien." And god is "dieu.""
Actually the argument holds up quite well in French. You see, they both contain "ie" in the middle. If you rotate the "n"
or "u" upside down and mirror the "b" or "d" in either word, you get the other word.
So even in French "god" is exactly the same as "good". Its totally awesome that I can see the synonym when so many other smart people on the board can't! :) /s
Actually the argument holds up quite well in French. You see, they both contain "ie" in the middle. If you rotate the "n"
or "u" upside down and mirror the "b" or "d" in either word, you get the other word.
So even in French "god" is exactly the same as "good". Its totally awesome that I can see the synonym when so many other smart people on the board can't! :) /s
+10000
I'm in awe of your abilities :)
I'm in awe of your abilities :)
+ another 10,000
I'm seriously impressed, Roy G. Biv.
I'm seriously impressed, Roy G. Biv.
+100,000
Grade inflation.
Grade inflation.
+1000000. Amazing insight! LOL.
Those classifications (and codifucations in law) were based on external visible characteristics that turn out not to be reliable indicators.
Intersex or gender ambiguous births at 1-4 % XX Male syndrome and much much more give the lie to your claim. The classification system you argue for simply doesn't hold up.
We know better now.
Intersex or gender ambiguous births at 1-4 % XX Male syndrome and much much more give the lie to your claim. The classification system you argue for simply doesn't hold up.
We know better now.
So BYU’s ball zapping program didn’t work?
I neither know, nor care if there are deities on duty.
Perhaps good used to mean God. Used to. Long long ago. Like really really long.
It doesn't today. When I say good I mean good. Period.
Besides if good meant god then the phrase "Good God!" doesn't add up.
And, if you read the Old Testament and the New Testament, and the BoM where there's three days of darkness, misery, death , and upheaval and earthquakes, and the flood, don't forget the floods and killing all the first borns. And yet, you want to equate God with Good. Not so fast!
Ski caps became beanies. In slang, Bad now means good. "Wicked" means really really good. And Radical doesn't mean radical at all half the time.
Fun and games with semantics is a lousy way to try to win an argument. Just look at how well that is working for the Mormons.
It doesn't today. When I say good I mean good. Period.
Besides if good meant god then the phrase "Good God!" doesn't add up.
And, if you read the Old Testament and the New Testament, and the BoM where there's three days of darkness, misery, death , and upheaval and earthquakes, and the flood, don't forget the floods and killing all the first borns. And yet, you want to equate God with Good. Not so fast!
Ski caps became beanies. In slang, Bad now means good. "Wicked" means really really good. And Radical doesn't mean radical at all half the time.
Fun and games with semantics is a lousy way to try to win an argument. Just look at how well that is working for the Mormons.
Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps good used to mean God. Used to. Long
> long ago. Like really really long.
>
> It doesn't today. When I say good I mean good.
> Period.
You completely missed my point.
You fail to see the words God and Good as synonyms? You just rmove or ad a letter and rheyre the same word.
They are interchangeable.
It means the same thing if I say
Thank God or thank goodness,
Oh my God or oh my goodness,
In God We Trust or In Good We Trust
And you dont think theyre synonymous?
Maybe on opposite day.
> Besides if good meant god then the phrase "Good God!" doesn't add up.
>
God Good has the same meaning.
> And, if you read the Old Testament and the New
> Testament, and the BoM where there's three days of
> darkness, misery, death , and upheaval and
> earthquakes, and the flood, don't forget the
> floods and killing all the first borns. And yet,
> you want to equate God with Good. Not so fast!
>
Uh, yet humanity survived despite all tgat deztructiveness, and was stronger because of it, right?.
Yeah, I'd say thats good. I believe God is more like Mother Nature. I dont believe Nature cares about us. I care about us. Hopefully you do too. But nature is on balance, good, after all, we are still here, right?
If nature were on balance, bad or purely destructivr, evil, we wouldnt exist. Neither would any life form.
> Ski caps became beanies. In slang, Bad now means
> good. "Wicked" means really really good. And
> Radical doesn't mean radical at all half the
> time.
>
> Fun and games with semantics is a lousy way to try
> to win an argument. Just look at how well that is
> working for the Mormons.
Look how well its worked out for Einstein, Sagan and NdGT, all of whom reject the arrogant notion that they are atheists.
And its rude AF to insist tgey are something they insist they're not.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps good used to mean God. Used to. Long
> long ago. Like really really long.
>
> It doesn't today. When I say good I mean good.
> Period.
You completely missed my point.
You fail to see the words God and Good as synonyms? You just rmove or ad a letter and rheyre the same word.
They are interchangeable.
It means the same thing if I say
Thank God or thank goodness,
Oh my God or oh my goodness,
In God We Trust or In Good We Trust
And you dont think theyre synonymous?
Maybe on opposite day.
> Besides if good meant god then the phrase "Good God!" doesn't add up.
>
God Good has the same meaning.
> And, if you read the Old Testament and the New
> Testament, and the BoM where there's three days of
> darkness, misery, death , and upheaval and
> earthquakes, and the flood, don't forget the
> floods and killing all the first borns. And yet,
> you want to equate God with Good. Not so fast!
>
Uh, yet humanity survived despite all tgat deztructiveness, and was stronger because of it, right?.
Yeah, I'd say thats good. I believe God is more like Mother Nature. I dont believe Nature cares about us. I care about us. Hopefully you do too. But nature is on balance, good, after all, we are still here, right?
If nature were on balance, bad or purely destructivr, evil, we wouldnt exist. Neither would any life form.
> Ski caps became beanies. In slang, Bad now means
> good. "Wicked" means really really good. And
> Radical doesn't mean radical at all half the
> time.
>
> Fun and games with semantics is a lousy way to try
> to win an argument. Just look at how well that is
> working for the Mormons.
Look how well its worked out for Einstein, Sagan and NdGT, all of whom reject the arrogant notion that they are atheists.
And its rude AF to insist tgey are something they insist they're not.
I didn't *fail* to see good and god as synonyms.
I *succeeded* in seeing a desperate attempt to use archaic meanings and a twisting of words inside and out in order to attempt to prove a point that in fact, can't even be proven twisting words.
If basing your argument on the Good God thing is all you've got you might want to add an "Uncle" at the end.
I *succeeded* in seeing a desperate attempt to use archaic meanings and a twisting of words inside and out in order to attempt to prove a point that in fact, can't even be proven twisting words.
If basing your argument on the Good God thing is all you've got you might want to add an "Uncle" at the end.
Sorry. I forgot to add "Best Wishes" at the end, Koriwhore.
Why am I not a theist ...
I don't know if Koriwhore is the only one here who sees "good" and "God" as synonymns, but Done & Done isn't the only one who DOESN'T see it.
It also answers why one shouldnt be an attention whore either.
scmd1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know if Koriwhore is the only one here who
> sees "good" and "God" as synonymns, but Done &
> Done isn't the only one who DOESN'T see it.
Right, Done and Done isnt the only blind person here.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know if Koriwhore is the only one here who
> sees "good" and "God" as synonymns, but Done &
> Done isn't the only one who DOESN'T see it.
Right, Done and Done isnt the only blind person here.
I can't speak for Done & Done, but my vision is 20/15.
koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> scmd1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't know if Koriwhore is the only one here
> who
> > sees "good" and "God" as synonymns, but Done &
> > Done isn't the only one who DOESN'T see it.
> Right, Done and Done isnt the only blind person
> here.
koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> scmd1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't know if Koriwhore is the only one here
> who
> > sees "good" and "God" as synonymns, but Done &
> > Done isn't the only one who DOESN'T see it.
> Right, Done and Done isnt the only blind person
> here.
Another round, eh koriwhore?
Perhaps you need a recovery from atheism board?
Cheers,
Human
Perhaps you need a recovery from atheism board?
Cheers,
Human
Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another round, eh koriwhore?
>
> Perhaps you need a recovery from atheism board?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Human
Im in good company with NdGT, Bill Nye, Einstein and Sagan, all of whom rejected the atheist label, due in large part to the behavior of leading Atheists. The responses in this thread exemplify that behavior, they wanted no part of identifying with.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another round, eh koriwhore?
>
> Perhaps you need a recovery from atheism board?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Human
Im in good company with NdGT, Bill Nye, Einstein and Sagan, all of whom rejected the atheist label, due in large part to the behavior of leading Atheists. The responses in this thread exemplify that behavior, they wanted no part of identifying with.
Playing the victim didn't strengthen your arguments for me and I'm agnostic.
Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Playing the victim didn't strengthen your
> arguments for me and I'm agnostic.
I'm not playing the victim, just arguing that there are very good reasons most of us who identify as "No Religion" do not identify as atheist. For me its simple. I just prefer to identify in positive terms, like Humanist, Naturalist or Free Thinker, rather than identify myself in terms I reject.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Playing the victim didn't strengthen your
> arguments for me and I'm agnostic.
I'm not playing the victim, just arguing that there are very good reasons most of us who identify as "No Religion" do not identify as atheist. For me its simple. I just prefer to identify in positive terms, like Humanist, Naturalist or Free Thinker, rather than identify myself in terms I reject.
koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just prefer to
> identify in positive terms, like Humanist,
> Naturalist or Free Thinker, rather than identify
> myself in terms I reject.
I get that but last I checked atheist wasn't an insult. Is it to you?
When I'm called an atheist it is usually an insult but I'm not insulted or offended because it is technically correct. Like someone calling me "White" with a snide derogating voice. They are right.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just prefer to
> identify in positive terms, like Humanist,
> Naturalist or Free Thinker, rather than identify
> myself in terms I reject.
I get that but last I checked atheist wasn't an insult. Is it to you?
When I'm called an atheist it is usually an insult but I'm not insulted or offended because it is technically correct. Like someone calling me "White" with a snide derogating voice. They are right.
Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I just prefer to
> > identify in positive terms, like Humanist,
> > Naturalist or Free Thinker, rather than
> identify
> > myself in terms I reject.
>
> I get that but last I checked atheist wasn't an
> insult. Is it to you?
>
> When I'm called an atheist it is usually an insult
> but I'm not insulted or offended because it is
> technically correct. Like someone calling me
> "White" with a snide derogating voice. They are
> right.
No. I think a-theist is a false dichotomy, since it's based upon rejection of the God of Judeo Christianity, which is like Santa Claus in the sky for adults. We don't identify as a-Santa Clausists once we do the math and figure out that Santa Claus is a myth. We just become less childlike/naive than we were before we grew up and were capable of doing the math and following the evidence to its logical conclusion.
Even Richard Dawkins doesn't reject Einstein's Pantheist god, which is Spinozza's God, although he figures Einstein's god does play dice with the universe all the time, on a quantum level, but that the dice are loaded, in favor of matter rather than anti-matter.
I agree with them and many other wise men and women who reject the 'atheist' label, for good reasons, which they articulate better than me.
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I just prefer to
> > identify in positive terms, like Humanist,
> > Naturalist or Free Thinker, rather than
> identify
> > myself in terms I reject.
>
> I get that but last I checked atheist wasn't an
> insult. Is it to you?
>
> When I'm called an atheist it is usually an insult
> but I'm not insulted or offended because it is
> technically correct. Like someone calling me
> "White" with a snide derogating voice. They are
> right.
No. I think a-theist is a false dichotomy, since it's based upon rejection of the God of Judeo Christianity, which is like Santa Claus in the sky for adults. We don't identify as a-Santa Clausists once we do the math and figure out that Santa Claus is a myth. We just become less childlike/naive than we were before we grew up and were capable of doing the math and following the evidence to its logical conclusion.
Even Richard Dawkins doesn't reject Einstein's Pantheist god, which is Spinozza's God, although he figures Einstein's god does play dice with the universe all the time, on a quantum level, but that the dice are loaded, in favor of matter rather than anti-matter.
I agree with them and many other wise men and women who reject the 'atheist' label, for good reasons, which they articulate better than me.
koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. I think a-theist is a false dichotomy, since
> it's based upon rejection of the God of Judeo
> Christianity...
It's actually not a dichotomy at all.
And it's not based on any one god -- being an atheist means lacking belief in any god. Not just one.
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. I think a-theist is a false dichotomy, since
> it's based upon rejection of the God of Judeo
> Christianity...
It's actually not a dichotomy at all.
And it's not based on any one god -- being an atheist means lacking belief in any god. Not just one.
ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No. I think a-theist is a false dichotomy,
> since
> > it's based upon rejection of the God of Judeo
> > Christianity...
>
> It's actually not a dichotomy at all.
A-theism wouldnt exist without theism. It is just a reaction to theism. Which is like identifying myself in terms like ""Fucking bullshit"
I am not an atheist.
I am an anti fucking bullshitist
What do the wise men say?
Identity politics is bullshit.
And women say?
Women like Malala, Gonzales, my Mom.
>
> And it's not based on any one god -- being an
> atheist means lacking belief in any god. Not just
> one.
You reject Sagans god?
"Yes I believe in god, if by the word, god, you mean the embodiment of the immutable laws that govern the universe." Sagan
NdGT is our generations Sagan
I enjoy Holy places the wsy he does.
Especially the ones with light.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2018 08:10PM by koriwhore.
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No. I think a-theist is a false dichotomy,
> since
> > it's based upon rejection of the God of Judeo
> > Christianity...
>
> It's actually not a dichotomy at all.
A-theism wouldnt exist without theism. It is just a reaction to theism. Which is like identifying myself in terms like ""Fucking bullshit"
I am not an atheist.
I am an anti fucking bullshitist
What do the wise men say?
Identity politics is bullshit.
And women say?
Women like Malala, Gonzales, my Mom.
>
> And it's not based on any one god -- being an
> atheist means lacking belief in any god. Not just
> one.
You reject Sagans god?
"Yes I believe in god, if by the word, god, you mean the embodiment of the immutable laws that govern the universe." Sagan
NdGT is our generations Sagan
I enjoy Holy places the wsy he does.
Especially the ones with light.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2018 08:10PM by koriwhore.
> A-theism wouldnt exist without theism.
Not true. Not eating lollipops does not require lollipops.
> You reject Sagans god?
> "Yes I believe in god, if by the word, god, you
> mean the embodiment of the immutable laws that
> govern the universe."
He just said he doesn't believe in God. He believes in God if is reinterpreted to mean physics. It's a metaphor.
> NdGT is our generations Sagan
Sagan wasn't very important. In 100 years no one will remember him.
You are hanging your hat on very weak stands.
Not true. Not eating lollipops does not require lollipops.
> You reject Sagans god?
> "Yes I believe in god, if by the word, god, you
> mean the embodiment of the immutable laws that
> govern the universe."
He just said he doesn't believe in God. He believes in God if is reinterpreted to mean physics. It's a metaphor.
> NdGT is our generations Sagan
Sagan wasn't very important. In 100 years no one will remember him.
You are hanging your hat on very weak stands.
Seriously, any idea on why Koriwhore doesn't just announce what he believes and then drop the mike?
I think he wants us all to be sure and associate him with famous people he misquotes and misunderstands.
Though I can't for the life of me figure out why...
Though I can't for the life of me figure out why...
A shared label or the lack thereof is such a small, small way of identifying one self with others.
I reject all labels, for I am
Human, Poem Unlimited
(And that allows me to identify with everyone.)
I reject all labels, for I am
Human, Poem Unlimited
(And that allows me to identify with everyone.)
I wonder if he'll ever explain why he is an atheist.
There may be an element of "Don't judge me for who I am, rather judge me by those with whom I associate" going on here.
Is there perhaps a fear that if he just announces what he believes, that we won't take the time to associate him with like-minded individuals?
For instance, I like BYUBoner because just exactly who he is, not for whom he comes close to being.
Is there perhaps a fear that if he just announces what he believes, that we won't take the time to associate him with like-minded individuals?
For instance, I like BYUBoner because just exactly who he is, not for whom he comes close to being.
Since atheism is a mind set of non-belief I really don't see how anyone can really, truly BE an atheist. It's pretty difficult to promote a disbelief let alone identify as such.
"Hi. My name is Elder Pooped. Would you like to know more about all the things I don't believe in and never think about? Would you care to know why I don't think about these things?"
I don't believe in a flat earth but I don't consider myself an "Anti-Flat Earthist". I could go on for hours about the things I know others believe in but I do not. And they barely make a dent in the amount of time I've taken to consider why I do not believe in them.
I'm pretty certain the boys from the funny farm would soon be carting me off in the white wagon if Elder Pooped started preaching Atheism as a devout atheist.
BUT..... Anti-Mormon! That's something I can realy sink my teeth into.
"Hi. My name is Elder Pooped. Would you like to know more about all the things I don't believe in and never think about? Would you care to know why I don't think about these things?"
I don't believe in a flat earth but I don't consider myself an "Anti-Flat Earthist". I could go on for hours about the things I know others believe in but I do not. And they barely make a dent in the amount of time I've taken to consider why I do not believe in them.
I'm pretty certain the boys from the funny farm would soon be carting me off in the white wagon if Elder Pooped started preaching Atheism as a devout atheist.
BUT..... Anti-Mormon! That's something I can realy sink my teeth into.
Pooped Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since atheism is a mind set of non-belief I really
> don't see how anyone can really, truly BE an
> atheist. It's pretty difficult to promote a
> disbelief let alone identify as such.
It's really easy. Somebody says, "I claim there's a god!"
I say, "Hmm, since you have no evidence for your claim, I don't believe it."
See how simple that is?
> "Hi. My name is Elder Pooped. Would you like to
> know more about all the things I don't believe in
> and never think about? Would you care to know why
> I don't think about these things?"
You seem to be confusing "atheist" with "mormon missionary."
Those two things aren't the same.
> I don't believe in a flat earth but I don't
> consider myself an "Anti-Flat Earthist".
Atheist doesn't mean anti-anything. The a- and anti- prefixes have different meanings.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since atheism is a mind set of non-belief I really
> don't see how anyone can really, truly BE an
> atheist. It's pretty difficult to promote a
> disbelief let alone identify as such.
It's really easy. Somebody says, "I claim there's a god!"
I say, "Hmm, since you have no evidence for your claim, I don't believe it."
See how simple that is?
> "Hi. My name is Elder Pooped. Would you like to
> know more about all the things I don't believe in
> and never think about? Would you care to know why
> I don't think about these things?"
You seem to be confusing "atheist" with "mormon missionary."
Those two things aren't the same.
> I don't believe in a flat earth but I don't
> consider myself an "Anti-Flat Earthist".
Atheist doesn't mean anti-anything. The a- and anti- prefixes have different meanings.
I kind of agree with Neil D. Tyson. I think Sam Harris has it better, in that being label for "not" having a belief is just silly.
"Why should we fall into this trap? Why should we stand obediently in the space provided, in the space carved out by the conceptual scheme of theistic religion? It’s as though, before the debate even begins, our opponents draw the chalk-outline of a dead man on the sidewalk, and we just walk up and lie down in it."
Sam Harris
Im with Sam, Niel, Albert and Carl
Identifying myself as an atheist is like identifying myself as an anti fucking bullshitist.
Sam Harris
Im with Sam, Niel, Albert and Carl
Identifying myself as an atheist is like identifying myself as an anti fucking bullshitist.
koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Identifying myself as an atheist is like
> identifying myself as an anti fucking bullshitist.
Well, you *did* identify yourself as "an anti fucking bullshitist" above. And if, as you say, those two things are alike, why the rant for the former and the adoption of the latter?
At any rate, I disagree those two things are alike. Saying you're an atheist doesn't mean being "anti" anything. It's just a shorthand way of noting that you don't believe in the god-things other people make claims about.
Of course, you CAN be an atheist and be "anti" things. But that's not inherent in the word's definition, or its use in practice. Which is one reason I find NdGT's rant rather silly -- he uses the same kind of generalization about atheists that he would soundly reject in other circumstances. Now *that* is hypocritical.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Identifying myself as an atheist is like
> identifying myself as an anti fucking bullshitist.
Well, you *did* identify yourself as "an anti fucking bullshitist" above. And if, as you say, those two things are alike, why the rant for the former and the adoption of the latter?
At any rate, I disagree those two things are alike. Saying you're an atheist doesn't mean being "anti" anything. It's just a shorthand way of noting that you don't believe in the god-things other people make claims about.
Of course, you CAN be an atheist and be "anti" things. But that's not inherent in the word's definition, or its use in practice. Which is one reason I find NdGT's rant rather silly -- he uses the same kind of generalization about atheists that he would soundly reject in other circumstances. Now *that* is hypocritical.
ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Identifying myself as an atheist is like
> > identifying myself as an anti fucking
> bullshitist.
>
> Well, you *did* identify yourself as "an anti
> fucking bullshitist" above. And if, as you say,
> those two things are alike, why the rant for the
> former and the adoption of the latter?
I dont identify myself in negative terms because its negative. I prefer affirmative terms like humanist, naturalist or pantheist, that don't demean and alienate"others". Im anti tribalism.
>
> At any rate, I disagree those two things are
> alike. Saying you're an atheist doesn't mean
> being "anti" anything. It's just a shorthand way
> of noting that you don't believe in the god-things
> other people make claims about.
I get that and if I had to pick a side I'd say agnostic, like Einstein, Sagan and NdGT, because like Sagan said, "An atheist would have to know far more than me about the Cosmos."
>
> Of course, you CAN be an atheist and be "anti"
> things. But that's not inherent in the word's
> definition, or its use in practice. Which is one
> reason I find NdGT's rant rather silly -- he uses
> the same kind of generalization about atheists
> that he would soundly reject in other
> circumstances. Now *that* is hypocritical.
What are you talking about?
He doesnt like alienating people from his far more imporoant work of scientifically educating the public by self applying a negative, meaningless label.
Insisting he is an atheist is like insisting Caitlyn Jenner identify as a man because she has xy chromosomes.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2018 02:44PM by koriwhore.
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Identifying myself as an atheist is like
> > identifying myself as an anti fucking
> bullshitist.
>
> Well, you *did* identify yourself as "an anti
> fucking bullshitist" above. And if, as you say,
> those two things are alike, why the rant for the
> former and the adoption of the latter?
I dont identify myself in negative terms because its negative. I prefer affirmative terms like humanist, naturalist or pantheist, that don't demean and alienate"others". Im anti tribalism.
>
> At any rate, I disagree those two things are
> alike. Saying you're an atheist doesn't mean
> being "anti" anything. It's just a shorthand way
> of noting that you don't believe in the god-things
> other people make claims about.
I get that and if I had to pick a side I'd say agnostic, like Einstein, Sagan and NdGT, because like Sagan said, "An atheist would have to know far more than me about the Cosmos."
>
> Of course, you CAN be an atheist and be "anti"
> things. But that's not inherent in the word's
> definition, or its use in practice. Which is one
> reason I find NdGT's rant rather silly -- he uses
> the same kind of generalization about atheists
> that he would soundly reject in other
> circumstances. Now *that* is hypocritical.
What are you talking about?
He doesnt like alienating people from his far more imporoant work of scientifically educating the public by self applying a negative, meaningless label.
Insisting he is an atheist is like insisting Caitlyn Jenner identify as a man because she has xy chromosomes.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2018 02:44PM by koriwhore.
koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont identify myself in negative terms because
> its negative. I prefer affirmative terms like
> humanist, naturalist or pantheist, that don't
> demean and alienate"others". Im anti tribalism.
Hmm. Above, you wrote:
"I am not an atheist.
I am an anti fucking bullshitist"
And just now, you wrote "Im [sic] anti tribalism."
Those are "negative terms," aren't they?
> I get that and if I had to pick a side I'd say
> agnostic, like Einstein, Sagan and NdGT, because
> like Sagan said, "An atheist would have to know
> far more than me about the Cosmos."
Agnostic and atheist aren't mutually exclusive, you know.
And Sagan was referring to a particular batch of atheists who declare "there is no god." Which isn't the definition of the word, but it is what some atheists declare.
> What are you talking about?
> He doesnt like alienating people from his far more
> imporoant work of scientifically educating the
> public by self applying a negative, meaningless
> label.
Yet you apply negative, "meaningless" labels to yourself...(see above)?
What I was talking about was the quote you gave from him:
"If atheists have a problem with me wishing astronauts, 'God's speed' then I am not an atheist."
As I pointed out earlier, not all atheists have a problem with that. I suspect most don't. But he generalized that to be all atheists. He should know better.
> Insisting he is an atheist is like insisting
> Caitlyn Jenner identify as a man because she has
> xy chromosomes.
No, it's not. I suspect you really can see the difference, at least I hope so. If not, then work on that.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont identify myself in negative terms because
> its negative. I prefer affirmative terms like
> humanist, naturalist or pantheist, that don't
> demean and alienate"others". Im anti tribalism.
Hmm. Above, you wrote:
"I am not an atheist.
I am an anti fucking bullshitist"
And just now, you wrote "Im [sic] anti tribalism."
Those are "negative terms," aren't they?
> I get that and if I had to pick a side I'd say
> agnostic, like Einstein, Sagan and NdGT, because
> like Sagan said, "An atheist would have to know
> far more than me about the Cosmos."
Agnostic and atheist aren't mutually exclusive, you know.
And Sagan was referring to a particular batch of atheists who declare "there is no god." Which isn't the definition of the word, but it is what some atheists declare.
> What are you talking about?
> He doesnt like alienating people from his far more
> imporoant work of scientifically educating the
> public by self applying a negative, meaningless
> label.
Yet you apply negative, "meaningless" labels to yourself...(see above)?
What I was talking about was the quote you gave from him:
"If atheists have a problem with me wishing astronauts, 'God's speed' then I am not an atheist."
As I pointed out earlier, not all atheists have a problem with that. I suspect most don't. But he generalized that to be all atheists. He should know better.
> Insisting he is an atheist is like insisting
> Caitlyn Jenner identify as a man because she has
> xy chromosomes.
No, it's not. I suspect you really can see the difference, at least I hope so. If not, then work on that.
ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I dont identify myself in negative terms
> because
> > its negative. I prefer affirmative terms like
> > humanist, naturalist or pantheist, that don't
> > demean and alienate"others". Im anti tribalism.
>
>
> Hmm. Above, you wrote:
> "I am not an atheist.
> I am an anti fucking bullshitist"
> And just now, you wrote "Im anti tribalism."
>
> Those are "negative terms," aren't they?
I'm trying to make a point that identifying myself in negative terms is divisive and alienates people who are whatever I say I am opposed to.
I get that it's a polemic in a debate with Theists, but even Bill Nye says he's not an Atheist and he debates guys like Ken Hamm.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/bill-nye-on-belief-in-god_n_4645891.html
>
> > I get that and if I had to pick a side I'd say
> > agnostic, like Einstein, Sagan and NdGT,
> because
> > like Sagan said, "An atheist would have to know
> > far more than me about the Cosmos."
>
> Agnostic and atheist aren't mutually exclusive,
> you know.
> And Sagan was referring to a particular batch of
> atheists who declare "there is no god." Which
> isn't the definition of the word, but it is what
> some atheists declare.
Like Bill Nye says, "Atheists are really agnostics, because we can't know whether or not there's a giant entity running things or choosing not to. We need to transcend tribes to realize we're all in this together. No I don't think the world would be better off without community or tribes."
>
> > What are you talking about?
> > He doesnt like alienating people from his far
> more
> > imporoant work of scientifically educating the
> > public by self applying a negative, meaningless
> > label.
>
> Yet you apply negative, "meaningless" labels to
> yourself...(see above)?
Like I said, I, like NdGT, Einstein, Sagan and Nye, prefer affirmative identities that don't alienate others, like humanist or naturalist. I don't really identify myself as an "anti fucking bullshitist" I was just trying to illustrate that it's offensive to go around telling people you identify yourself in terms that are completely opposed to their identity. That's not transcending tribalism, it's reinforcing it.
>
> What I was talking about was the quote you gave
> from him:
> "If atheists have a problem with me wishing
> astronauts, 'God's speed' then I am not an
> atheist."
>
> As I pointed out earlier, not all atheists have a
> problem with that. I suspect most don't. But he
> generalized that to be all atheists. He should
> know better.
>
> > Insisting he is an atheist is like insisting
> > Caitlyn Jenner identify as a man because she
> has
> > xy chromosomes.
>
> No, it's not. I suspect you really can see the
> difference, at least I hope so. If not, then work
> on that.
Maybe you can work on articulating the difference.
I fail to see it.
He doesn't identify the way atheists want him to identify, because he doesn't like the way atheists behave, for example, insisting he's an atheist, when he insists he's not.
He also prefers to avoid discussions about race, for the same reasons. He doesn't want to alienate people he's trying to educate, by focusing on identity politics, which he thinks are poisonous and detract from his more important mission.
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I dont identify myself in negative terms
> because
> > its negative. I prefer affirmative terms like
> > humanist, naturalist or pantheist, that don't
> > demean and alienate"others". Im anti tribalism.
>
>
> Hmm. Above, you wrote:
> "I am not an atheist.
> I am an anti fucking bullshitist"
> And just now, you wrote "Im anti tribalism."
>
> Those are "negative terms," aren't they?
I'm trying to make a point that identifying myself in negative terms is divisive and alienates people who are whatever I say I am opposed to.
I get that it's a polemic in a debate with Theists, but even Bill Nye says he's not an Atheist and he debates guys like Ken Hamm.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/bill-nye-on-belief-in-god_n_4645891.html
>
> > I get that and if I had to pick a side I'd say
> > agnostic, like Einstein, Sagan and NdGT,
> because
> > like Sagan said, "An atheist would have to know
> > far more than me about the Cosmos."
>
> Agnostic and atheist aren't mutually exclusive,
> you know.
> And Sagan was referring to a particular batch of
> atheists who declare "there is no god." Which
> isn't the definition of the word, but it is what
> some atheists declare.
Like Bill Nye says, "Atheists are really agnostics, because we can't know whether or not there's a giant entity running things or choosing not to. We need to transcend tribes to realize we're all in this together. No I don't think the world would be better off without community or tribes."
>
> > What are you talking about?
> > He doesnt like alienating people from his far
> more
> > imporoant work of scientifically educating the
> > public by self applying a negative, meaningless
> > label.
>
> Yet you apply negative, "meaningless" labels to
> yourself...(see above)?
Like I said, I, like NdGT, Einstein, Sagan and Nye, prefer affirmative identities that don't alienate others, like humanist or naturalist. I don't really identify myself as an "anti fucking bullshitist" I was just trying to illustrate that it's offensive to go around telling people you identify yourself in terms that are completely opposed to their identity. That's not transcending tribalism, it's reinforcing it.
>
> What I was talking about was the quote you gave
> from him:
> "If atheists have a problem with me wishing
> astronauts, 'God's speed' then I am not an
> atheist."
>
> As I pointed out earlier, not all atheists have a
> problem with that. I suspect most don't. But he
> generalized that to be all atheists. He should
> know better.
>
> > Insisting he is an atheist is like insisting
> > Caitlyn Jenner identify as a man because she
> has
> > xy chromosomes.
>
> No, it's not. I suspect you really can see the
> difference, at least I hope so. If not, then work
> on that.
Maybe you can work on articulating the difference.
I fail to see it.
He doesn't identify the way atheists want him to identify, because he doesn't like the way atheists behave, for example, insisting he's an atheist, when he insists he's not.
He also prefers to avoid discussions about race, for the same reasons. He doesn't want to alienate people he's trying to educate, by focusing on identity politics, which he thinks are poisonous and detract from his more important mission.
It's not that he objects to atheist behavior en masse. It's that he objects to leading atheist behavior, the strident preaching atheists.
He is targeted in his critique.
Whereas you paint atheism with a broad brush unfairly and inaccurately.
He is targeted in his critique.
Whereas you paint atheism with a broad brush unfairly and inaccurately.
Maybe theists should adopt this.
"anti fucking Mormon bullshitist" could describe Nelson and "fucking Mormon bullshitist" Hinckley?
"anti fucking Mormon bullshitist" could describe Nelson and "fucking Mormon bullshitist" Hinckley?
koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm trying to make a point that identifying myself
> in negative terms is divisive and alienates people
> who are whatever I say I am opposed to.
OK. Then why do you keep identifying yourself in negative terms?
If you haven't noticed yet, I'm pointing out that you've been contradicting yourself on this. Over and over. You're still doing it.
> I get that it's a polemic in a debate with
> Theists, but even Bill Nye says he's not an
> Atheist and he debates guys like Ken Hamm.
Why do you care how Bill Nye (or anyone else) identifies themselves?
> Like Bill Nye says, "Atheists are really
> agnostics, because we can't know whether or not
> there's a giant entity running things or choosing
> not to. We need to transcend tribes to realize
> we're all in this together. No I don't think the
> world would be better off without community or
> tribes."
OK. But that doesn't change the fact that agnostic and atheist aren't mutually exclusive. A person can be both. Most atheists, in fact, are both.
> Like I said, I, like NdGT, Einstein, Sagan and
> Nye, prefer affirmative identities that don't
> alienate others...
But you keep applying "negative" identities to yourself (see above)...
> Maybe you can work on articulating the
> difference.
>
> I fail to see it.
Jenner really feels like a female. And so self-identifies as a female. There are lots of valid biological reasons why Jenner really feels like a female (and some psychological ones). Jenner doesn't claim to be a biological female. Jenner doesn't claim to NOT be a biological male. She's not claiming to be something she's not, or to not be something she is.
Tyson may not like the term "atheist," but by definition he is one anyway. It's fine if he doesn't want to use the term. He still lacks belief in claimed god-things, so he's an atheist.
See the difference now?
> He doesn't identify the way atheists want him to
> identify...
As I've pointed out, not all atheists want him to identify as anything at all. I think it's safe to say most don't care. You're using the same faulty generalization he did in his quote.
> because he doesn't like the way atheists
> behave...
News flash: not all atheists "behave" the same way.
Other than a lack of belief in claimed god-things, they're all very different individuals. Same faulty generalization.
> for example, insisting he's an atheist,
> when he insists he's not.
By definition, he is. He doesn't have to use the term to self-identify if he doesn't want to, and I don't care if he does or doesn't -- but by definition, he's an atheist.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm trying to make a point that identifying myself
> in negative terms is divisive and alienates people
> who are whatever I say I am opposed to.
OK. Then why do you keep identifying yourself in negative terms?
If you haven't noticed yet, I'm pointing out that you've been contradicting yourself on this. Over and over. You're still doing it.
> I get that it's a polemic in a debate with
> Theists, but even Bill Nye says he's not an
> Atheist and he debates guys like Ken Hamm.
Why do you care how Bill Nye (or anyone else) identifies themselves?
> Like Bill Nye says, "Atheists are really
> agnostics, because we can't know whether or not
> there's a giant entity running things or choosing
> not to. We need to transcend tribes to realize
> we're all in this together. No I don't think the
> world would be better off without community or
> tribes."
OK. But that doesn't change the fact that agnostic and atheist aren't mutually exclusive. A person can be both. Most atheists, in fact, are both.
> Like I said, I, like NdGT, Einstein, Sagan and
> Nye, prefer affirmative identities that don't
> alienate others...
But you keep applying "negative" identities to yourself (see above)...
> Maybe you can work on articulating the
> difference.
>
> I fail to see it.
Jenner really feels like a female. And so self-identifies as a female. There are lots of valid biological reasons why Jenner really feels like a female (and some psychological ones). Jenner doesn't claim to be a biological female. Jenner doesn't claim to NOT be a biological male. She's not claiming to be something she's not, or to not be something she is.
Tyson may not like the term "atheist," but by definition he is one anyway. It's fine if he doesn't want to use the term. He still lacks belief in claimed god-things, so he's an atheist.
See the difference now?
> He doesn't identify the way atheists want him to
> identify...
As I've pointed out, not all atheists want him to identify as anything at all. I think it's safe to say most don't care. You're using the same faulty generalization he did in his quote.
> because he doesn't like the way atheists
> behave...
News flash: not all atheists "behave" the same way.
Other than a lack of belief in claimed god-things, they're all very different individuals. Same faulty generalization.
> for example, insisting he's an atheist,
> when he insists he's not.
By definition, he is. He doesn't have to use the term to self-identify if he doesn't want to, and I don't care if he does or doesn't -- but by definition, he's an atheist.
He doesn't lije the way "leading Atheists" (read New Atheists, Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Krauss, Mahr....) behave and does not want to be in their little clique.
His tribe is humanity.
I'm with him, among others.
His tribe is humanity.
I'm with him, among others.
koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He doesn't lije the way "leading Atheists" (read
> New Atheists, Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Krauss,
> Mahr....) behave and does not want to be in their
> little clique.
Yeah, we know. But then he really should stop referring to all atheists, shouldn't he?
> His tribe is humanity.
> I'm with him, among others.
Good for you.
-------------------------------------------------------
> He doesn't lije the way "leading Atheists" (read
> New Atheists, Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Krauss,
> Mahr....) behave and does not want to be in their
> little clique.
Yeah, we know. But then he really should stop referring to all atheists, shouldn't he?
> His tribe is humanity.
> I'm with him, among others.
Good for you.
Is anyone calling you an atheist that this is an issue for you?
I think it's what they may mean when they call him whatever they call him that concerns him!
In the same vein that being labeled for anything is silly in my opinion. We are obviously not labels but can't avoid them so attempting not to get offended by them sounds like food for thought.
Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed. Please start another thread and continue the conversation.