Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would say it is human nature to use language that is informative. Language can be used to show how concepts are related and unrelated, how this is this way but the other is that way. One function of labels through language is to put a thing in a box, to define it, to set limitations upon it, and in a figurative sense, to have it positioned against the things outside of the box in order to contrast it. Not necessarily to be against it in the negative sense of stopping it from existing, but to know it better.
We know what polite is when positioned against impolite.
We know what insolent is when positioned against solent even if the latter is now obsolete.
I find the same is true with theism. We know it better when positioned against atheism. The <a> prefix is the figurative boundary of the "box". This is not my choice but that of the people who have accepted it as part of the English lexicon. Humans as you say. Like you, I detest the labels because of the active role that each side perceives coming from the other. Maybe one day they will become obsolete as solent has, but remain a part of our history to learn from.
Human beings cannot be boxed and labeled, defined, and set limitations upon. They are sentient beings who change, evolve, grow from ignorance to enlightenment, from gross to sublime, question, and quarrel, and love and hate. They are inscrutable. I understand the distinction you are making, that by means of negation we get closer to the truth. I believe that does not work with human beings.
The fact is the word theism itself is problematic. Believers look at the worshipped, a statue of Buddha, Jesus on the cross, picture of Shiva, meditating on OM, as representation of the Divine. Not the Divinity itself which has no shape or form or can even be described in words. It can only be known through awareness.
If theism itself is problematic, atheism is more so. What believers experience is based on faith. Divinity exists because faith exists. If you have no faith there is no existence and fighting non-existence is delusional.
Just because words exist in the dictionary does not mean they are eternal truth. As you say solent is obsolete, and thank you for that nugget of information. There are words beyond the dictionary, with meaning, that have not been added yet. Updating the dictionary is a huge project. Limiting oneself to the dictionary is limiting one’s own thinking.
This is a charge that is made weekly, if not almost daily, by some christian and even a warped atheist.
So for the rest of us atheists, is that your goal -- to "stop" or "end" religion?
Everyone is welcome on the bus. The question becomes about who is DRIVING the bus.
Not the religious please.
Human beings cannot be boxed and labeled, defined, and set limitations upon. They are sentient beings who change, evolve, grow from ignorance to enlightenment, from gross to sublime, question, and quarrel, and love and hate. They are inscrutable. I understand the distinction you are making, that by means of negation we get closer to the truth. I believe that does not work with human beings.
The fact is the word theism itself is problematic. Believers look at the worshipped, a statue of Buddha, Jesus on the cross, picture of Shiva, meditating on OM, as representation of the Divine. Not the Divinity itself which has no shape or form or can even be described in words. It can only be known through awareness.
If theism itself is problematic, atheism is more so. What believers experience is based on faith. Divinity exists because faith exists. If you have no faith there is no existence and fighting non-existence is delusional.
Just because words exist in the dictionary does not mean they are eternal truth. As you say solent is obsolete, and thank you for that nugget of information. There are words beyond the dictionary, with meaning, that have not been added yet. Updating the dictionary is a huge project. Limiting oneself to the dictionary is limiting one’s own thinking.
I agree with you that humans cannot be boxed in, but the use of language attempts to do this figuratively. Can language be used to actively be against something? Yes. That is the connotative meaning being applied to a word as opposed to simply describing something which is called its denotation. However, that is not language's only function. Through language, humans attempt to relate things as well. I think religion is one of the manifestations of this attempt.
If theism itself is problematic, atheism is more so. What believers experience is based on faith. Divinity exists because faith exists. If you have no faith there is no existence and fighting non-existence is delusional.
I have no problem with people believing in whatever they want, as long as they don't try to impose it on others, whether going door-to-door like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, or starting wars over religious differences. Even recent wars have been based on religious differences, such as the Iran–Iraq War, Bosnian War and the Sudanese Civil War.
If you mean the mere action of going door to door is an act of imposing their will on others I would offer the following viewpoint
The simple definition of impose includes the following: force, demand, penalize
Individuals may cross the line but as a group I don't see this happening when these groups go door to door.
On the contrary, I see many societies impose their will on religious groups even when these groups are neutral.
If you mean the mere action of going door to door is an act of imposing their will on others I would offer the following viewpoint
The simple definition of impose includes the following: force, demand, penalize
Individuals may cross the line but as a group I don't see this happening when these groups go door to door.
On the contrary, I see many societies impose their will on religious groups even when these groups are neutral.
Remember, some people feel that the act of not thinking like them is "imposing your will."
Be them atheist or theist is only how that notion is expressed. Lets test it.
List how a theist might behave with that base axiom.
then
List how an atheist might behave with that base axiom.
If you mean the mere action of going door to door is an act of imposing their will on others I would offer the following viewpoint
The simple definition of impose includes the following: force, demand, penalize
Individuals may cross the line but as a group I don't see this happening when these groups go door to door.
On the contrary, I see many societies impose their will on religious groups even when these groups are neutral.
But when you have a sign on your door that says 'no soliciting', that means no soliciting.
If you mean the mere action of going door to door is an act of imposing their will on others I would offer the following viewpoint
The simple definition of impose includes the following: force, demand, penalize
Individuals may cross the line but as a group I don't see this happening when these groups go door to door.
On the contrary, I see many societies impose their will on religious groups even when these groups are neutral.
"No soliciting" ... If I listen to that sign with that girl .... I wouldn't be married to her for 33 years.
What if, maybe we try something like "I have been hurt by religion ... stay away".
I agree with you that humans cannot be boxed in, but the use of language attempts to do this figuratively. Can language be used to actively be against something? Yes. That is the connotative meaning being applied to a word as opposed to simply describing something which is called its denotation. However, that is not language's only function. Through language, humans attempt to relate things as well. I think religion is one of the manifestations of this attempt.
Atheism (or godlessness) connotes and denotes reflexively to God. It is a bit ironical that by doing so it affirms that Brhman exists, exists everywhere, and there is no place it does not exist, even in the minds of the Godless. Atheism cannot exist without the belief in God, in Brhman, in “something else out there. “ Every argument atheists make refers to god and religion. Their obsession with religion and god is endless, deeper than a believer’s.
Yes language can denote actively against something. Against wars. Because wars exist. Against capital punishment because murder by state exists. Against love, because love exists. Against god, because god exists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
