Legitimate questions: Why? What changed? Simple answer: Nothing.
Was I converted to a main-stream religion? NO. Was I integrated in some obscure religious sect? NO. Do I worship some personal deity? NO. Do I worship anything? NO.
Then, if I’m not an atheist, what am I? I’ll call myself an “egotheologist”, meaning that I am the proud author of my own and personal “theology”, containing all the “knowledge” that I have which is outside the Scientific Method …ism. It’s definitely different than Christianity (of any flavour), Buddhism, Hinduism, Islamism, Greek, Roman or Nordic polytheistic mythology, IPU-ism, and many more isms.
Then, why make a distinction? Firstly, because “atheist” is too close to “godless” which is too close to “sinful” which is too close to “amoral” and I think I have enough moral values not to be mistaken for the antichrist. Secondly, because it’s too artificial.
I don’t want to define myself as an “a-something” or a “non-something”. I’m not opposed to theism, and even if I exclude myself from all forms of theism that I know of, this is not a “special” position. I think it should be counted as the “default” position. Like Sam Harris said (one of the four “horsemen of Apocalypse” in a recent thread), it is unusual to hear someone define themselves as an “non astrologer”.
Plus, recently atheists have “spoke persons” such as Richard Dawkins (another of the four) whose lack of consideration and tact I don’t care to be automatically associated with. I may have my own downfalls, but I want to be judged for what I am, not the preconception about some “label”. I think there are many atheists that can be helpful in a dialogue or debate, but unfortunately the most radical (or even fanatic) are the ones who are seen most.
I acknowledge that Science cannot give all the answers to all the questions. Its field is rapidly expanding, but in the meanwhile anyone is entitled to have their answers to the unanswered questions. Or they can blindly believe others’ answers. After learning many available options, I did choose the ones that I liked, and that can be sufficiently self-consistent for my logic. I am continuously learning more and more, and I’m adapting my theology accordingly, it is certainly not written in stone.
Also, I think any theist could (and maybe should) call themselves “egotheologists” also, because the religious message being so complex in general, what they believe is quite probably their personal interpretation of the version their “teachers” understood from their interpreted meaning of the message received from their own “teachers” (and so on).
I chose to base my life (my practical life) on logic and Scientific Method rather than faith (the religious kind). I leave all that is outside the former to a “wishful thinking” kind of collection of answers. I’m an egotheologist.
What about you?
A.
PS: this is not a landmark, because my views haven’t changed, the only thing I renounce is the label “atheist”, which I came to the conclusion that doesn’t make me any good, and which simultaneously puts me in the cross fire of prejudice and intolerance (not here, but in general RL).
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Hey, if that's what you like, go for it.
I prefer "godless heathen" for myself. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Also, I think any theist could (and maybe should) call themselves “egotheologists” also
Theists who believe God to be a power greater than themselves would see little point in appending ego to their moniker.
I'm not really sure why you retain the "theo" morpheme in your moniker.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
While this comes closer to my own view, it still doesn't sum it up - primarily because of pooka's point.
I don't believe in a god or gods, per se. I don't rule them out, but I don't include them in my default worldview, either. Nor do I rule out spirits, the soul, or other supernatural concepts.
I like the "self defined" aspect of the new distinction, but not so much the "theist" aspect. I also find "atheist" both too broad (including those that believe in a world of spirits/souls etc without connection to a specific god) and too limiting (not "anti-theist" as you say, just not bound to the concept of "god/gods").
I've always sort of adopted the term "pagan" - meaning (in my own definition) someone who falls outside the major socially accepted groupings. but even this carries with it so much confusion and misunderstanding that it isn't really that good as a label.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Theists who believe God to be a power greater than themselves would see little point in appending ego to their moniker.
A very good point. It’s only natural that each believer should decide their “moniker”. The fact that I see the “ego” as an important part of one’s belief system, is not enough reason to force it on anyone else.
quote:I'm not really sure why you retain the "theo" morpheme in your moniker.
Well, as long as my beliefs (outside the ones derived by the Scientific Method) do answer to questions like “where we come from?”, “what is our purpose?”, “what should we do?”, “where are we going?” etc, which are questions that most theologies are interested in, I don’t see why not. The fact that most theologies have some deity at their basis doesn’t bother me, but I don’t see it enough argument not to call my beliefs a “theology” if it doesn’t have at the origin a personal deity.
A.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: I’ll call myself an “egotheologist”
Does that mean you study egotheism?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: I’ll call myself an “egotheologist”
Does that mean you study egotheism?
As a matter of fact, I did study it, by its official definition. I kind of used the term wrongly for a while, until that changed to “egotruism”, which is an epistemological matter, and led me naturally to egotheologism. I’d still insist that an egotruist can be a theist, but the “available” deities that are compatible with egotruism are quite few.
A.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
"theo" does not mean "large questions of life." It means "god."
"Egotheism" sounds to me like "I am God."
There is surely a word for what you describe, but it seems to me that if the objection to "atheist" is that it takes God as the starting and defines from there, the same objections belong to "egotheist."
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Not really.
People who do not take God as the starting point will object to starting the definition there.
People who take God as the starting point will object to starting the defintion with a lack of a deity.
If you object ot the first, you likely won't object to the latter, and vice versa. While the same objections may exist, they likely won't exist for the same people.
For instance, someone from England would consider themselves "English" as a default, not "Non-French", whereas people from France would consider themselves "French" and not "Non-English".
To a theist, it makes sense to label those who don't believe in a god or gods as "atheist", but to someone who doesn't believe in a god or gods, it may seem strange to label your identity only in relation to its being "not" someone else's identity.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Maybe you should call yourself an egnostic. Mostly I don't like "ego" because it is overwhelming used to describe only a portion of the self. I prefer the morpheme "aut" as in authentic and author.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: "theo" does not mean "large questions of life." It means "god."
Ok, I won’t deny that. Yet, theology does not restrict itself to the study of some specific deity, does it?
quote:"Egotheism" sounds to me like "I am God."
That’s the official definition as far as I know. (That is, the belief that one is the deity).
quote:There is surely a word for what you describe, but it seems to me that if the objection to "atheist" is that it takes God as the starting and defines from there, the same objections belong to "egotheist."
That’s why I don’t call myself an egotheist. Egotheologist is something different, because it is not limited to the “theo” but has “logos” in it too. Which, together, stand for “knowledge about deities” in general. My belief system does contain such knowledge, quickly resumed into “I am not convinced of the existence of any personal deity whatsoever, YET”.
Hence, my belief system is a theology.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Maybe you should call yourself an egnostic. Mostly I don't like "ego" because it is overwhelming used to describe only a portion of the self. I prefer the morpheme "aut" as in authentic and author.
I remember that from another thread. Truth be told, I did think about “autotheology” also, but my tongue ended up in a knot so I don’t like it.
Also, “ego” is just a portion of my self here, because there is all that other side (of my belief system) which is based on the Scientific Method.
BTW:
I dislike the term "agnostic" (and anything related with it) because it starts with the (self-limiting) misconception that we are unable to know.
I also dislike (a lot less) the term “skeptic” because it kind of suggest that I don’t let myself to be convinced of anything, while I do state that with sufficient proof (Scientific Method kind of proof) I can be convinced of anything.
A.
[edit: spelling]
[ January 08, 2008, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: suminonA ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:That’s why I don’t call myself an egotheist. Egotheologist is something different, because it is not limited to the “theo” but has “logos” in it to. Which, together, stand for “knowledge about deities” in general. My belief system does contain such knowledge, quickly resumed into “I am not convinced of the existence of any personal deity whatsoever, YET”.
Hence, my belief system is a theology.
Is your principle concern with the nature of god(s) or with the meaning of life questions you alluded to later?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Is your principle concern with the nature of god(s) or with the meaning of life questions you alluded to later?
They go together in my book. And my theology includes the results of the study of both of them.
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wouldn't call it a theology. It's pretty clearly a philosophy. The word you're looking for, again, is "existentialist."
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
A distinction between "egotheist" and "egotheology" is always going to be paper-thin. One means "I am God," the other means "The knowledge of my Godness."
I give you six months before you start agreeing with TomDavidson and call yourself an existentialist.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I wouldn't call it a theology. It's pretty clearly a philosophy. The word you're looking for, again, is "existentialist."
You mean that for you, a theology is a philosophy that includes at least a deity (as in starting with the premise that said deity exists) ?
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:I dislike the term "agnostic" (and anything related with it) because it starts with the (self-limiting) misconception that we are unable to know.
Well crud, now I have to go look up agnostic.
I can see where you wouldn't want to principally describe yourself as agnostic. But I think the morpheme "gnosis" (knowledge) is much more relevant to your philosophy than "theo."
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: A distinction between "egotheist" and "egotheology" is always going to be paper-thin. One means "I am God," the other means "The knowledge of my Godness."
I don’t agree that the other means "The knowledge of my Godness." It means more “My knowledge about Godness”. Prove me wrong.
quote:I give you six months before you start agreeing with TomDavidson and call yourself an existentialist.
I’ll agree with TomDavidson today if he brings enough arguments to convince me. He or anyone else, for that matter.
A.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Proud apatheist. "Don't Know, Don't Care."
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Proud apatheist. "Don't Know, Don't Care."
I care, though.
A.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
sA: You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: sA: You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Come on, is this your best argument?
A.
PS: I appreciate the Princess Bride reference. Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But I think the morpheme "gnosis" (knowledge) is much more relevant to your philosophy than "theo."
Yes, and no. I mean, my theology does contain “knowledge” about an “exo-natural” (What’s with me and the new terms?) entity that I put even higher on the probability of existing than any other personal deity. I am an egotheologist because I made an informed choice concerning the “extra-natural”, which does contain a Meta Entity, as far as I’m concerned. I won’t be boring you with details here. But I don’t see why do you (royal you) think that theology should be exclusively used for some specific kind of deities. Is the knowledge about the IPU a theology for you? It is for me.
A.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Have you considered using the word "humanist" instead? The word is already used to mean much of what you mean. One definition of humanism in the OED is "Any system of thought or action which is concerned with merely human interests (as distinguished from divine), or with those of the human race in general (as distinguished from individual); the ‘Religion of Humanity’."
Personally, I find the term "egotheology" implies a self centered philosophy. Perhaps this is what you intend but if you are seeking to avoid the association of athiest with amoral then picking a term that could easily be construed as selfish is not a great idea.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It's not an argument. I don't argue with anyone taking pride in not being persuaded. Like Humpty Dumpty, you have decided to make up new meanings for old words. At that point, you're on your own.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:A central proposition of existentialism is that existence precedes essence; that is, that a human being's existence precedes and is more fundamental than any meaning which may be ascribed to human life: humans define their own reality.
This is just from wikipedia, but when the subject is what words are proper to express oneself to others, I find wikipedia sufficient.
I'm often told Mormons don't have theology per se, since we believe that our spirits are the children of God, so a study of Him would only be the study of our better selves. Rather, eternal life is to know Him; not about Him. We do not need to know the properties of God, but we would be like Him, which is only possible through the atonement and the laying down of one's will before Him. Thus he that would save his life shall lose it, and he that will lose his life for My sake shall find life eternal.
Well, I've gained a lot from this discussion. I never knew what this "will" was that we sacrifice.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:I don’t agree that the other means "The knowledge of my Godness." It means more “My knowledge about Godness”. Prove me wrong. [Wink]
Uh, because "ego" is not a possessive word? The only reason any of us monolinguals have ever heard the word "ego" is because Freud's translator's were too stupid to properly render ich as "I". Ego is I, not my/mine. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
How does ego decline? Does it? I'm only coming up withe meus, mea as an adjective. What is the genitive of ego? Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:I’ll agree with TomDavidson today if he brings enough arguments to convince me. He or anyone else, for that matter. [Smile]
To convince you of what? That existentialism is true? I don't think it is. That you are actually an existentialist but don't know it? I don't think you are. I just think you'll stumble your way into it because it is the gist of the egoism you're looking for.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
ego mei mihi me me
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It's all Greek to me.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Have you considered using the word "humanist" instead? The word is already used to mean much of what you mean. One definition of humanism in the OED is "Any system of thought or action which is concerned with merely human interests (as distinguished from divine), or with those of the human race in general (as distinguished from individual); the ‘Religion of Humanity’."
Close, but still no cigar. (that’s for the proposed term, not for the poster )
I am interested in more than merely human interests (as distinguished from the divine). That’s a point for the “theology” part. My belief system, ASIDE humanism and existentialism, contains “knowledge” about “the divine”. And I assign the same value to that as to any other theology others have. Why should mine be any less valuable, while you (again, royal you) don’t even know what it contains? For all you know, I might be in possession of the Absolute Truth and you should seek to learn it too. The thing is I don’t claim to be in possession of such thing (ant that might be a point against the “theology” part of my moniker.) But still you can’t prove my beliefs wrong, which is the case with most theologies.
quote:Personally, I find the term "egotheology" implies a self centered philosophy. Perhaps this is what you intend but if you are seeking to avoid the association of athiest with amoral then picking a term that could easily be construed as selfish is not a great idea.
Well, I believe that all personal philosophies are in great measure “self centered”, because if not, they are the “copy/paste” of some other’s people, and as an egotruist I reject that. It is MY system of beliefs, and even if it’s not 100% original, I did choose it for myself and take responsibility for it. I have that power from myself, from the “ego” of you will, not from any other personal source. Is that “amoral”? Maybe I should look up the definition of that term (again), but I doubt that there is some equivalence between “selfish” and “amoral”.
And “egotheologist” is the picked term for now, I never said it will never change. I am open to debate abut it, and I have the impression that’s exactly what’s going on.
I accept the possibility that this term was defined “officially” elsewhere and that I don’t have knowledge of it. I accept the possibility that there might be a term to describe exactly what I’m looking for, but I sure don’t have exhaustive knowledge on any dictionary.
I’m here to learn, not to make you swallow my “inventions”.
BTW, it strikes me as curious that none of you is concerned about my “leaving the atheist camp” (which might still be a wrong choice of words) and you care more about how wrong my new term is.
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Walter Kaufmann described Existentialism as, "The refusal to belong to any school of thought, the repudiation of the adequacy of any body of beliefs whatever, and especially of systems, and a marked dissatisfaction with traditional philosophy as superficial, academic, and remote from life"[2].
quote:Existentialism generally postulates that the absence of a transcendent force (such as God) means that the individual is entirely free, and, therefore, ultimately responsible. (Nevertheless, Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky were Christians.) It is up to humans to create an ethos of personal responsibility outside of any branded belief system. That personal articulation of being is the only way to rise above humanity's absurd condition (suffering and death, and the finality of the individual).
The only thing that makes you possibly seem not an existentialist is your apparent cheerfulness, which I would attribute to the Sickness unto death effect. In Sickness unto death, Kiekegaard criticizes contemporary skeptics who believe they are able to pick up the thread of knowledge that their philosophical forbears took a lifetime to attain (that the only sure knowledge is that life is meaningless) and merrily build from there.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
But I could call you an atheist and I'd be right, neh? You're an atheist with a specific take on things, like every single one does. Dawkins is not speaking for me either.
quote:I don’t want to define myself as an “a-something” or a “non-something”.
Why? I don't think saying you're an atheist sums you up as a person, it's just one of the many things you happen to be, right?
You rock on with your thing, man, but if I was wondering if someone I knew believed in a higher power and I asked "are you and atheist" and they all stood up straight and looked me the eyes to respond "no, I'm an Egotheologist!" I would pretty much punch them in the neck. If we're talking about things the summon up insta-judgements an all. Like what The Rabbit was saying.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I agree with the punch in the neck thing. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:BTW, it strikes me as curious that none of you is concerned about my “leaving the atheist camp” (which might still be a wrong choice of words) and you care more about how wrong my new term is.
That's probably because you said you didn't change any beliefs, that the only thing you renounce is the term "atheist". The main thing you are disagreeing with is the term, so that is why I'd guess people are talking about whether they like or dislike the new term.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think it's more an argument of to what degree we dislike the new term. Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Yeah. An equally intelligible term for your beliefs, sA would be supercalafragilisticology. I think it sounds cooler.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Ooooo. Shorten it, Foust, and you've got something.
I'm a superist!
Wait...no. That's too close to supremacist. Never mind.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The only thing that makes you possibly seem not an existentialist is your apparent cheerfulness, which I would attribute to the Sickness unto death effect. In Sickness unto death, Kiekegaard criticizes contemporary skeptics who believe they are able to pick up the thread of knowledge that their philosophical forbears took a lifetime to attain (that the only sure knowledge is that life is meaningless) and merrily build from there.
Existentialism certainly does not preclude one from being cheerful. That's mostly a pop culture stereotype rooted in the thoughts and writings of some of the more glum existentialists of the world, who thought existentialism inherently led to some sort of despair. Yet there were/are more than just a few existentialists who considered it a very positive and liberating way of looking at things.
It should also be noted that existentialists can and have often been members of mainstream religions like Christianity. Existentialism isn't really centered upon the issue of how one should approach belief in God or other spiritual entities, so I don't think "existentialist" is at all the right term for what suminonA is talking about.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
rationalist?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Considering that IPU stands for Invisible Pink Unicorn, I shouldn't think so.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: rationalist?
Or just 'rational'. No -ist required.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I don't argue with anyone taking pride in not being persuaded. Like Humpty Dumpty, you have decided to make up new meanings for old words. At that point, you're on your own.
Would you be so kind as to indicate me where did I give you that impression? Thanks.
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Uh, because "ego" is not a possessive word? The only reason any of us monolinguals have ever heard the word "ego" is because Freud's translator's were too stupid to properly render ich as "I". Ego is I, not my/mine.
Nice piece of knowledge. Thanks.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: ego mei mihi me me
Is this supposed to be the declination of “ego”? Which one of those is the genitive?
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:Existentialism generally postulates that the absence of a transcendent force (such as God) means that the individual is entirely free, and, therefore, ultimately responsible.
This, I digg 100%. It appears though as existentialism has other “accepted” definitions too, so I say it for the record that THIS is the definition by which you can adequately describe me as “existentialist”.
quote: Originally posted by pooka: The only thing that makes you possibly seem not an existentialist is your apparent cheerfulness, which I would attribute to the Sickness unto death effect. In Sickness unto death, Kiekegaard criticizes contemporary skeptics who believe they are able to pick up the thread of knowledge that their philosophical forbears took a lifetime to attain (that the only sure knowledge is that life is meaningless) and merrily build from there.
What exactly does this Sickness unto death effect mean? On which side of the criticism you place me?
quote:Originally posted by The Flying Dracula Hair: But I could call you an atheist and I'd be right, neh? You're an atheist with a specific take on things, like every single one does. Dawkins is not speaking for me either.
quote:I don’t want to define myself as an “a-something” or a “non-something”.
Why? I don't think saying you're an atheist sums you up as a person, it's just one of the many things you happen to be, right?
You can call me what you want, this is about what I’m calling myself. I am many “not somethings”, but in the case of “atheism” the prejudice is far too great to ignore.
quote:Originally posted by The Flying Dracula Hair: You rock on with your thing, man, but if I was wondering if someone I knew believed in a higher power and I asked "are you and atheist" and they all stood up straight and looked me the eyes to respond "no, I'm an Egotheologist!" I would pretty much punch them in the neck. If we're talking about things the summon up insta-judgements an all. Like what The Rabbit was saying.
I hope the “man” thing is a default label, I don’t subscribe to a gender Htrack-wise either.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I agree with the punch in the neck thing.
Really, what’s with all this aggressive impulses?
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Yeah. An equally intelligible term for your beliefs, sA would be supercalafragilisticology. I think it sounds cooler.
I don’t look for “cool”. I look for dialogue.
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: rationalist?
Or just 'rational'. No -ist required.
That’s funny, because I consider myself to be quite irrational, at times.
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Considering that IPU stands for Invisible Pink Unicorn, I shouldn't think so.
Why not?
A.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Nice piece of knowledge. Thanks.
And that nice piece of knowledge means that you are wrong in your use of "ego." But apparently being "wrong" is a trivial thing to you.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:What exactly does this Sickness unto death effect mean? On which side of the criticism you place me?
I am suggesting that you are like the young skeptics, though I can see where you'd be confused as Kierkegaard is considered a proto-existentialist.
I thought existentialism was fascinating when I was in college, and then I dropped it for a while, went out and lived life for another 18 years, and can come back and look at it. Though I think it is still too extreme in parts, and it was the extreme parts that attracted me when I was a youngster -- things like the pre-eminence of consciousness.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: And that nice piece of knowledge means that you are wrong in your use of "ego."
Do you need a medal for being right? Do you want me to applaud you and say that I was wrong? Anything to make you happy.
quote:But apparently being "wrong" is a trivial thing to you.
It is if I can learn to right the wrong. I’d thank you for your help, but it seems to me that all you’re interested in is proving me wrong, not helping me learn and get it right. Which may be a trivial distinction for you.
A.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
quote:I am many “not somethings”, but in the case of “atheism” the prejudice is far too great to ignore.
Really? It's yet to be an issue in my life. People invested in this sort of thing, whether they're a theist or atheist just to inquire further. We start off with that, and then specifics are talked about, y'know?
Which is where I, me personally, find 'some' sour taste for these kinds of words. I just don't like that these home-made tags are made to do all the talking for you, it seems like if you can come up with enough and someone wants to get to know you in casual way you can just open your mouth and unload all these terms and then just RUN away and leave the person to piece together your character. If you're really afraid the specific dude you happen to be talking to is going to judge you can't you say I don't believe in a God/gods/am-an-atheist BUT I don't buy this this and this. Rather than go for the K.O right away and drop I'm a Hepleglorpemist!! Yeah!
Especially since you're probably going to have to explain what you mean anyway with this specific one.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
Well whatever name an atheist takes will come to assume the connotation of "godless sinner" or whatever it is that you want to avoid by the sheer fact that atheists are such an extreme minority when compared to those who profess a belief in something Higher. One reasonable response though is perhaps not to have a name for atheism, the same way you wouldn't have a name for not believing in witches or dwarfs.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I wouldn't call it a theology. It's pretty clearly a philosophy. The word you're looking for, again, is "existentialist."
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Crap!
I think I'm an a-egotheist.
But, I think "existentialist" or "materialist" might be a more mainstream moniker (leaning towards "existentialist")
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Flying Dracula Hair:
quote:I am many “not somethings”, but in the case of “atheism” the prejudice is far too great to ignore.
Really? It's yet to be an issue in my life. People invested in this sort of thing, whether they're a theist or atheist just to inquire further. We start off with that, and then specifics are talked about, y'know?
Well, I can only wish you get more experience.
In my experience, too often at the sound of the label “atheist”, people exclaim “What!?, I won’t talk to such an amoral person, I can’t learn anything valuable from you, I being right already!”. When you deal with that for a few times, you’ll probably renounce the label too. Unless you won’t mind the prejudice.
quote:Originally posted by The Flying Dracula Hair: Which is where I, me personally, find 'some' sour taste for these kinds of words. I just don't like that these home-made tags are made to do all the talking for you, it seems like if you can come up with enough and someone wants to get to know you in casual way you can just open your mouth and unload all these terms and then just RUN away and leave the person to piece together your character. If you're really afraid the specific dude you happen to be talking to is going to judge you can't you say I don't believe in a God/gods/am-an-atheist BUT I don't buy this this and this. Rather than go for the K.O right away and drop I'm a Hepleglorpemist!! Yeah!
Especially since you're probably going to have to explain what you mean anyway with this specific one.
See, this is where I’m going with this. Finding a term that sounds “familiar”, but is original enough to show from the start that a mere label doesn’t explain anything. And that would force people to have a dialogue to find out what my real stand is. If they decide I’m very close to what they call an “atheist”, then they would probably prefer that label. Yet, it’s not the distinction per se that triggered this discussion, but MAKING the distinction. Starting a discussion acknowledging that the label is not all there is to one’s system of beliefs is my goal.
Think about this: Where do you think the difference is greater, between two “atheists” or between two “ego(the genitive if there is one)theologists” ? In my experience people don’t bother to think more than “if you’re an atheist, you surely applaud R. Dawkins”. I hate that. In the case of my new label, they won’t know what I’m talking about from the label itself, so the acknowledgement I’m looking for is easier to get.
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: Well whatever name an atheist takes will come to assume the connotation of "godless sinner" or whatever it is that you want to avoid by the sheer fact that atheists are such an extreme minority when compared to those who profess a belief in something Higher.
When someone learns what my system of beliefs contains, they might find something that they consider “something Higher”, and put me in some theist camp. I think that interpretation would be wrong, but that would be their right to do it. And if I’m a “godless sinner” by definition of their favourite deity, then that’s what they believe, but I’m not going to put myself in that position by default.
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: One reasonable response though is perhaps not to have a name for atheism, the same way you wouldn't have a name for not believing in witches or dwarfs.
This is the point Sam Harris makes. I agree with it.
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Crap!
I think I'm an a-egotheist.
But, I think "existentialist" or "materialist" might be a more mainstream moniker (leaning towards "existentialist")
I have a question: do you reject all form of “divine” or “Higher Power” (I call it Meta Entity)? Do you think that any such concept is a by-product of our existence (that is, of our imagination), the same way our existence is a by-product of the material Universe?
A.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: ... atheists are such an extreme minority when compared to those who profess a belief in something Higher.
We're the extreme minority. Rock. What does that mean? We're not just a normal minority group but we also snowboard and play beach volleyball at the same time Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian: ... atheists are such an extreme minority when compared to those who profess a belief in something Higher.
We're the extreme minority. Rock. What does that mean? We're not just a normal minority group but we also snowboard and play beach volleyball at the same time
Gnarly.
Since when is 10% an extreme minority?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: In the case of my new label, they won’t know what I’m talking about from the label itself, so the acknowledgement I’m looking for is easier to get.
Well, this might be your problem. In general, the point of language is to communicate something. If you're intentionally looking for a word that doesn't communicate, then a lot of people are going to be giving you advice that doesn't meet your goal.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: In the case of my new label, they won’t know what I’m talking about from the label itself, so the acknowledgement I’m looking for is easier to get.
Well, this might be your problem. In general, the point of language is to communicate something. If you're intentionally looking for a word that doesn't communicate, then a lot of people are going to be giving you advice that doesn't meet your goal.
You can look at it that way. But what I want this label to communicate is X, where X is the fact that more communication is needed than just the label. I think X is important and that is the reason of this thread.
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Back in my network marketing days, the gurus would advise us to find ways to get people to ask us about the stuff we were selling. But it can backfire. Like there was some billboard for something in Utah. It just had a face and a word on it, and they clearly wante dme to go plug the word into the internet. But I can't remember what the word was. And I didn't like feeling manipulated like that.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
pooka, I see your point. Come to think of it, I’d rather be “manipulated” into communication than just applying the prejudice that comes with a “known” label. I know I myself have a lot of prejudices because when I analyse what I know about some label/story and why I believe what I believe about it, most of the times I realize my knowledge is limited and my belief is not justified (in the context of the larger picture). The only way out is education, which cannot exist without communication.
(BTW, I think the ability to communicate, as poor as it is, is what makes Human Kind be the dominant species on this planet. So if it’s our greatness, let’s not use it for indoctrination and limiting ourselves …)
A.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Then, why make a distinction? Firstly, because “atheist” is too close to “godless” which is too close to “sinful” which is too close to “amoral”
You don't need a religion to have morals and ethics. I think this misunderstanding has so many religious people afraid of atheists...they seem to think that the only thing keeping them good is religion. Not true at all. Atheists are the most humanist people around. The key to morals/ethics is how you treat Humanity. As long as you are good to the Human Race you are good.
As for myself atheist/agnostic/humanist all discribe me.
Great post btw!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As long as you are good to the Human Race you are good.
Not to nitpick, but I probably wouldn't consider someone "good" if they tortured small dogs.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Maybe the Humanists put their accent on Human Race, in such a way that the threshold for what would be considered “torture” for small dogs would be quite different as compared to the threshold for Humans. So, in a situation where one has to choose between the two, (imagine perfecting a drug for Humans involving the extraction of parts of the nervous system of living small dogs – I must have a very sick imagination right now), what would you say? If the Human disease is incredibly torturing, and there is no other way, what would you think of the scientist doing the research on small dogs?
Replace even, “small dogs” with “stem cells” (which for a while were only available from very young Human embryos!).
A.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
What if the small dogs have valuable information pertaining to national security?
I was going to put one definition of torture and then realized that's not the predominant usage.
If one's impetus to communicate is exemplified by obfuscation, it will be a rare correspondent who will strike the bait.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
If someone told me was an egotheologist with the express purpose of starting a conversation about himself, I would drop the "theolo" and the conversation.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Javert Hugo, would you prefere it if I presented myself with no label at all?
Something like: "I'm labeless".
A.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I had this exact conversation on Sunday:
"What is your religious background?" "I grew up [blank], but I believe [blank] and am interested in [blank]."
That would work fine. Much better than the "I am God. Ask me how!" button.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, that would make sense. Labels are shortcuts. What you seem to want is for people not to take shortcuts to understanding your philosophy. Labeling it seems contrary to what you want.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well, that would make sense. Labels are shortcuts. What you seem to want is for people not to take shortcuts to understanding your philosophy. Labeling it seems contrary to what you want.
I have no problem with sticking to the "labeless" label. (It also engenders a Paradox, so I love it!)
Javert Hugo, it seems you can help me too, in a very weird way...
A.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: That would work fine. Much better than the "I am God. Ask me how!" button.
Oooo...where can one acquire such buttons?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Just get a "that was easy" button and a sharpie.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Just use "egotheist" or "egotheologist".
A.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Answering suminomA,
"I have a question: do you reject all form of “divine” or “Higher Power” (I call it Meta Entity)? Do you think that any such concept is a by-product of our existence (that is, of our imagination), the same way our existence is a by-product of the material Universe?"
Do I reject...? Yes.
Do I think that such concepts are by-products of our existence? Wha? I think that they are all a comforting fiction.
Do I think that there is something amazing about self-awareness? You bet.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)