Koriwhore's thread, "Why I'm not an Atheist, even though I'm not a theist either. http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1482782"; closed before I could respond.

Well said koriwhore. To me arguing for the superiority of your label of reality and self-identity is being religious.

From Rumi:
Define and narrow me, you starve yourself of yourself.
Nail me down in a box of cold words, that box is your coffin.
I do not know who I am.
I am in astounding lucid confusion.
I am not a Christian, I am not a Jew, I am not a Zoroastrian,
I am not even a Muslim.

I am still not sure which god I don't believe in.But I am sure all are equally as valid.

What if you're atheist and don't care what anybody else thinks about it?

What if you're atheist and aren't interested in arguing for the superiority of it?

What if you're atheist and don't think that reality needs a label? I actually don't even know what that means to label reality.

Now arguing for the superiority of your stance that you are neither theist or atheist does seem to be exactly that--labeling reality, or, nailing yourself down with two words for the price of one.

Almost all people are theists or atheists.

Theist: Believes in one or more gods.
Atheist: Does not believe in any gods.

It is the rare individual who does not know what he or she believes. Balancing on the razor's edge. Refusing to admit that he or she does not actually believe in gods, while at the same time having so much doubt that gods exist that he or she will not admit to being a believer. For most people this would be a very short-lived phase. The scales tend to tip one way or the other rather than remaining in an oh-so-precarious equilibrium.

Some people would argue that according to the definitions, it is impossible to be undecided on this issue. Some would say that if you will not admit that you do not believe in gods then you are automatically a theist. Some would argue that if you will not profess a belief in gods, then you are automatically an atheist.

So the people often referred to as agnostics (in reference to this particular issue) do not actually exist. Most of them are actually atheists, and the more faithful agnostics are actually theists.

This is different from the other kind of agnostic. Those who doubt that it is possible for anyone to actually know if gods exist. Those people actually do exist, but since they do not know if gods exist, they are atheists at the same time they are agnostics.

If you used the actual negation that the "A" in atheist implies, then there are only two groups, Belief in God or the negation not belief in God. Classic logic means that the negation of a group means everything EXCEPT that group. If X="belief in God"
then (Not X) is EVERYTHING that is NOT "belief in God" that would include those on the razors edge. As long as they do not believe in God, they are atheist.

Sorry folks, that is the way negation works in logic.

One does not have to argue the superiority of their label to be Atheist. To assume that all atheist argue the superiority of their label is prejudice.

It would be stupid to assume that because someone self-identifies as non-religious they are religious. What a stupid place to put a non-religious person in.

BTW, all words are labels. You "define and narrow" you by using the label ab. You "define and narrow" yourself every time you describe yourself or state your opinion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2015 08:58PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BTW, all words are labels. You "define and narrow"
> you by using the label ab. You "define and narrow"
> yourself every time you describe yourself of state
> your opinion.

Truer words were never typed. I like how you think MJ.

"To me arguing for the superiority of your label of reality and self-identity is being religious."

So, the only people who are not religious are those who have concluded that their understanding of the nature of the universe is equal to or less reasonable than the those people who base their understanding of the universe on the belief that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2015 08:01PM by thingsithink.

"To me arguing for the superiority of your label of reality and self-identity is being religious."

I have a hard time understanding the tendency of some religious people to label everything that's not religion "religious." That seems very much to have defined and narrowed -- incorrectly -- something that's not religious.

I do not believe in god and I also believe that consciousness survives bodily death.

People have a right to label themselves however they like, but it seems to me that the OP is playing with words. It also seems to me that you believe or don't believe or don't know what you think. Of course there are degrees of all those categories.

Yes, people are free to label themselves how they want, but if a human labels them self as non-human, does that make them, in fact, non-human?

The reality is, a human that labels themselves as non-human are still human by definition. How one labels themselves may have nothing to do with a thing called REALITY.

And I didn't say differently, did I? The OP is redefining words which is what I meant by playing word games.

Belief in an afterlife does not necessarily require you to believe in God. We exist here and now whether or not there is a God and who is to say that we might not exist in some form after death with or without God?

my point still stands, a person is free to label themselves how they want, it does not make it true.

And I agree with that and said so, so what is your problem?

I was not talking about redefining words (what you are talking about), I was talking about making false claims about one's self, something different.

I have no problem, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem though.

I have a reading comprehension problem ? That is rich coming from you,the king of misunderstanding people. Lol. I am done. Not playing your game. You want to fight even when I agree with you. Geesh.

INSULTS.

Going to start on your vendetta posts again?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2015 09:45PM by MJ.

Aren't we all blessed that we have the leisure time available to discuss whether we believe in ghawd or not?

And who do we have to thank for that?

Elder OldDog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And who do we have to thank for that?

OMG! LOL!

Elder OldDog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aren't we all blessed that we have the leisure
> time available to discuss whether we believe in
> ghawd or not?
>
> And who do we have to thank for that?

Um...my nearly 40 years of hard work that got me where I can be semi-retired and have leisure time is to thank for that.
In my case, anyway :)

In the old movie, Shenandoah, starring Jimmy Stewart, he sits down to a harvest celebration meal and his wife reminds him to say a prayer of thanks. So he bows his head and intones (paraphrasing, cuz it was an awful long time ago!!):

"I tilled the soil, I planted the seats, I weeded the crops and I broke my back bringing in the harvest. But thanks anyway, ghawd."

Elder Berry got my point. (not that I really ever have a point.)

Without the intention of identifying myself as being on any one ‘side’ (so don’t assume anything please), I would like to add an observation to this discussion.

There seems to be a vernacular use these days of the word atheism.

Technically, as has been argued, an atheist is a person who does not believe in God or gods.

A theist does. An agnostic is not sure, and suspends judgement thinking it might be possible, that we can’t (or don’t’) know. A possibility.

What about the portion of people who are as certain as an atheist that there is no guys in the sky (gods), yet still believe in a spiritual component to the world. (i.e.: life after death, consciousness being external and residing in the body, etc.)

This last group of people, of whom I do encounter from time to time, resist the label of atheist …because it implies (at least in the vernacular) a disbelief in any spiritual component to the world. So they don’t identify as atheist, as theist, nor agnostic (because they are certain of no god in the sky). Yet they do believe in a metaphysical component to the universe, maybe even thinking it might someday be explained by science.

What is that person labelled? Maybe that fills the missing numbers in on the stats quoted in the previous thread? These people don’t want to be (vernacularly) labeled as atheists. Yet they are neither theists nor agnostics. What are they?

Is that what sometimes causes the contentions in these arguments?

Does our modern age require a new label for this type of belief?

Do you know terms like asymmetrical and atypical? You what the "a" is about, right? It is a "not". Putting the a infront of symmetrical makes it "not symmetrical". So there is symmetrical and not symmetrical. This example only applies to symmetrical, nothing else.

The same is true with typical.

The same is true with theist.

When discussing atheist and theist, you are talking about god alone and not necessarily spirituality which may or may not exist with or without God.

Nice non sequitur, though.

Just trying to define a new animal I've spotted recently, that's all. Thought it was relevant.

I was told on here once not to take the word 'bastard' the wrong way. That it didn't mean that anymore. It had some new 'vernacular' meaning. I think I am seeing this happen to the word 'athiest' in our world too. Old meanings, new meanings, I get confused sometimes.

Sorry to bother you MJ.

Do you have something that actually addresses my point or is innuendo aimed at me personally all you have.

What someone else said about bastard and how you should take it has nothing to do with what I have said. Nice strawman though.

No MJ. It was not unnuendo. It was furthering my point of the concept of 'vernacular' uses of words, as was the point of my discussion.

Relax, I'm the only bastard here I know of. :)

You mean your misuse of words to try to further an invalid point.

And I do not think there is anything wrong with being a bastard, don't know why you keep bring it up as if it means or proves anything.,

All I wanted to point out was that society attaches connotations to words beyond their technical meanings. That matters in a society that uses language. I don’t think that is necessarily irrelevant in a discussion about labels. But thanks for setting me straight. You certainly have proved something to me.

And I attach different meanings to your words than you. You do not speak for all of society. What we all have in common is the technical definitions of the words. To claim that what you want to attach to those words is better or more true that what I, another member of society attach is arrogant bull shit.

Because the religious have tried to demonize the word atheist does not mean we have to accept that demonetization. Pander to the religions at your own risk.

To ignore the technical meaning of a word because SOME members of society have hung some arbitrary meaning to the word is silly nonsense. It only shows how people will ignore the technical meaning of the word in order to project their own views, likes and hates to the word.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2015 10:16PM by MJ.

I didn't claim I was attaching the meaning, I pointed out that others do, and have, and will. It was an observation. How can someone so smart be so...

...never mind. You don't talk with people. Just at them. Later dude.

Silly way to live.

The fact that others do it does not make it right or that we should blindly go along with what others say and do.

Well, maybe that is the way you live your life, but not me.

Saying that others hang their prejudice on words does not mean I, or anyone else, have to accept that prejudicial definition. You can, but that is a sheepish way to live IMHO.

seriously, "others" burn christian Crosses in the yards of homes owned by blacks, does that change the meaning of the cross for Christians?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2015 10:31PM by MJ.

To MJ and the other semantic zealots in this discussion...

Why do you waste so much energy insisting that people are either "theists" or "atheists"? What possible value is there in convincing others how to define themselves?

On the surface, this binary thinking sounds logical, but, in my opinion, the problem is not that the terms "theist" and "atheist" aren't clearly defined... The problem instead is that "god"/"gods" is not clearly defined--or rather, too many assumptions are made about what someone (other than yourself) means when they think of "god".

I personally believe that mankind has the capacity to make such technological advancements as to become truly god-like. Meaning, all of the attributes that are commonly attributed to a "god" are arguably in humanity's reach.

Does this make me a theist? Does this make me an atheist?

Is "god" universally defined as "the supernatural"? Is "god" only definable as someone/something that one prays to?

If we humans were to seed life on another planet, and future civilizations on that planet were to argue where life came from... Would those who adhere to the idea that life was seeded by intelligent beings be considered "theists" or "atheists"?


Unless you are going to be equally passionate about defining what you mean by "god", arguing the binary logic of "theist" and "atheist" seems rather pointless, IMHO.

upThink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To MJ and the other semantic zealots in this
> discussion...

Ah, personal insults, what childish behavior.

>
> Why do you waste so much energy insisting that
> people are either "theists" or "atheists"? What
> possible value is there in convincing others how
> to define themselves?

Intellectual integrity. As I said other places, how one defines themselves is their business, but if a human defines themselves as non-human, their defining themselves as such does not reflect reality. Their defining themselves as non-human does not actually mean they are not human, now does it?

>
> On the surface, this binary thinking sounds
> logical, but, in my opinion, the problem is not
> that the terms "theist" and "atheist" aren't
> clearly defined... The problem instead is that
> "god"/"gods" is not clearly defined--or rather,
> too many assumptions are made about what someone
> (other than yourself) means when they think of
> "god".

The do not need to clearly defined. No matter how you define theist, atheist is the negation of theist. Yes, it is binary, that is how negation of a group works in logic.

For ever group "A" you have "not A" the two make up everything because "A" and everything that is not A is everything.

>
> I personally believe that mankind has the capacity
> to make such technological advancements as to
> become truly god-like. Meaning, all of the
> attributes that are commonly attributed to a "god"
> are arguably in humanity's reach.

Last I checked god-like is not god. So, an Omnipotent, eternal, invisible and is everywhere is within humanitiy's reach? In what universe is this?

>
> Does this make me a theist? Does this make me an
> atheist?

It does not matter, as I said above, atheist is the negation of theist. However you define theist, atheist is the negation of theist.

>
> Is "god" universally defined as "the
> supernatural"? Is "god" only definable as
> someone/something that one prays to?

Does not matter, see above.

>
> If we humans were to seed life on another planet,
> and future civilizations on that planet were to
> argue where life came from... Would those who
> adhere to the idea that life was seeded by
> intelligent beings be considered "theists" or
> "atheists"?
>
>

Does not matter, see above.

> Unless you are going to be equally passionate
> about defining what you mean by "god", arguing the
> binary logic of "theist" and "atheist" seems
> rather pointless, IMHO.

No, the reality is, atheist is the negation of theist no matter how you define god or theist.

Sorry, being god like is not god. Humans seeding life on other planets is humans seeding life on other planets, not gods. Trying to redefine humans as gods because they are seeding other planets is nonsense. Humans pretending to be gods to those civilizations is still humans pretending to be something they are not. They are still just humans.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2015 09:51PM by MJ.

I didn't personally attack you, I simply used words to accurately describe your behavior. Can you refute that "semantic zealot" doesn't apply?

You just said that "god" doesn't need to be clearly defined, but then you go on and define "god" when you think it suits your argument:

"Last I checked god-like is not god. So, an Omnipotent, eternal, invisible and is everywhere is within humanitiy's reach? In what universe is this?"

You've now defined god as:
- Omnipotent
- Eternal
- Invisible
- Omnipresent

So anyone who doesn't hold this view of god is an atheist? By this definition, Mormons must be atheists as they don't believe god is everywhere.

No, I just used a commonly held belief as to what god is. Are you denying that what I described is not a commonly held belief?

But I like how you ignore so much to focus on that. That commonly held belief in God (it would include the Christian God) is not in reach of humanity. If god is defined that way AND NOTICE THAT I SAID IF, then that would be one of the ways that theist can believe in God, there can be others.

You really should take a class in logic.

upThink, your point about defining God is well made.

Defining terms is critical to any discussion. There are people who say each of us is our own god. Some say the Universe is. Even people in the same religion view their god differently to each other sometimes. So there's a lot of "apples and oranges" talk going on here.

However, when negation is concerned the point is not so valid.

For every group (other than the group of absolutely everything) there is a negation of the group that represents everything that is not in that group. The issues with defining the groups lies with those that define the group, the things that are not in that group are based on the group.

So, if you have a problem with the definition of theist, take it up with the theist.

If the theist want to play semantic games claiming that humans with machines suddenly become gods, it is up to them to show what level of technology turns humans into gods.

Some have pointed out that the "resistance" of such people isn't very accurate, though it clearly may be based in practical matters (for example, surveys in the US show "atheists" are hated and not trusted, so even if you are one, you might not want to let the neighbors know!).

For the people with beliefs as you describe, perhaps they can come up with their own "label?" Sort of a hierarchy, if that's what they want...humans are, after all, vertebrates -- but making our main "label" further down the hierarchical tree provides more information. So such people would be atheists, but add a hierarchical level defining their "spirituality" or "metaphysicalism" if they'd like.

They're still atheists, though :)

Thanks ificouldhietokolob, that makes sense. That's the kind of response I was looking for. I agree they are athiests, though they don't really like the label. Thanks again for you thoughts.

I like the way you expanded the discussion, torturednevermo. I think it goes to the same point as upThink made which is defining the terms.

Which basically is a problem for people that believe in God because it seems they can't define god.

For the atheist, it is a negation of theist. So it seems the theist are the one facing the dilemma defining what they believe.

But they do not want to because they can hid behind the ossification. As long as they will not define their beliefs, there beliefs can not be challenged. But isn't it silly to believe in something without having some definition of what it is? faklsrdeaksjgr, I do not know what it means and I will not define it, but I will believe faklsrdeaksjgr based on faith that faklsrdeaksjgr exists. Sounds silly doesn't it?