posted
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.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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."
But, I think "existentialist" or "materialist" might be a more mainstream moniker (leaning towards "existentialist")
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
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 Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 …)
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.
posted
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!).
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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...
"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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
