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.
Agreed, so long as you are discussing what defines you. However, when you venture into informing someone else what defines them, and then arguing with what they say due to such flimsy points as "genes", "morals", and "actions" ARE SO labels, you have become quite silly.
bold above, good point. (and central to paths of "religion and spirituality")
for instance i am not (defined by) my body. i am not (defined by) my bank account. i am not (defined by) my career or my marital status or my age or race or ethnicity. i am not my thoughts or emotions or history or family, i am not the letters after my name or what i own or where i live.
i don't think it's silly or picky to discuss these, although probably it better belongs in the general R&S section than in this sub-section of A&A.
Picky was not meant to be used in a negative sense. Instead, it was meant to describe the style of interaction which was point-by-point.
A description of me would include all of those items in your second paragraph. Then others would immediately know what I am not. For example, I am a female. Therefore, I am not a male. I am defined by that particular descriptor. The same would be for atheism. As a result, I am not a theist or a believer of a religion of any kind. A person can then kind of guess things about me based on these point-by-point descriptors. However, they wouldn't be the only things that define me.
None of these are meant to create a wall, a division of me vs them. I also get the sense from your posts that you don't want that as well. They are simply meant to show how special I view myself. (I know it's a corny thing to say but the word choice is intentional.)
Picky was not meant to be used in a negative sense. Instead, it was meant to describe the style of interaction which was point-by-point.
A description of me would include all of those items in your second paragraph. Then others would immediately know what I am not. For example, I am a female. Therefore, I am not a male. I am defined by that particular descriptor. The same would be for atheism. As a result, I am not a theist or a believer of a religion of any kind. A person can then kind of guess things about me based on these point-by-point descriptors. However, they wouldn't be the only things that define me.
None of these are meant to create a wall, a division of me vs them. I also get the sense from your posts that you don't want that as well. They are simply meant to show how special I view myself. (I know it's a corny thing to say but the word choice is intentional.)
Nicely stated.
Human beings are complicated. I've been trying to think of some person I have known who could be defined by one attribute. I can't. Although perhaps an observer might only see one particular attribute as defining another person. Instead each of us has cumulatively lived through a variety of experiences that make us who we are, some of those experiences are more dominant than others, but it's a mix.
Picky was not meant to be used in a negative sense. Instead, it was meant to describe the style of interaction which was point-by-point.
A description of me would include all of those items in your second paragraph. Then others would immediately know what I am not. For example, I am a female. Therefore, I am not a male. I am defined by that particular descriptor. The same would be for atheism. As a result, I am not a theist or a believer of a religion of any kind. A person can then kind of guess things about me based on these point-by-point descriptors. However, they wouldn't be the only things that define me.
None of these are meant to create a wall, a division of me vs them. I also get the sense from your posts that you don't want that as well. They are simply meant to show how special I view myself. (I know it's a corny thing to say but the word choice is intentional.)
bold above
intentional how so, in what way. what are you intending to convey?
regarding the word "picky" thank you for clarifying.
"specific" then or "to clarify" or to "look more closely at"
for instance looking at and bringing in word origins adds an element and layer of depth and consideration and richness to a discussion.
a person can be a not-theist and still participate in religion, for instance Buddhism. so "guess things about me" referenced in above post does not follow.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 10-03-2021 at 11:07 AM..
bold above
intentional how so, in what way. what are you intending to convey?
regarding the word "picky" thank you for clarifying.
"specific" then or "to clarify" or to "look more closely at"
for instance looking at and bringing in word origins adds an element and layer of depth and consideration and richness to a discussion.
a person can be a not-theist and still participate in religion, for instance Buddhism. so "guess things about me" referenced in above post does not follow.
I view the attempt to be picky or specific as an attempt to clarify.
In regards to your question, seeing oneself as special is mocked with some people. But I am using it in the same way as "specific" which is to "look more closely at."
Yes, a non-theist can participate in religion as we often do with religious traditions. When I think of a religious follower I think of a person who references a particular book and tries to stay loyal to the intentions behind the book. I am a loyal person in some ways but not in others. It is difficult for me to define this.
I view the attempt to be picky or specific as an attempt to clarify.
In regards to your question, seeing oneself as special is mocked with some people. But I am using it in the same way as "specific" which is to "look more closely at."
Yes, a non-theist can participate in religion as we often do with religious traditions. When I think of a religious follower I think of a person who references a particular book and tries to stay loyal to the intentions behind the book. I am a loyal person in some ways but not in others. It is difficult for me to define this.
Some forms of atheism may be belief systems. But for a lot of people it is not a belief system - it is the lack of a belief in God, not a belief in no God.
Some forms of atheism may be belief systems. But for a lot of people it is not a belief system - it is the lack of a belief in God, not a belief in no God.
I enjoy referring to myself as a polyatheist. I believe we lack evidence for many Gods instead of just the one true likely non-existent God.
atheism is lack of belief in god or gods.
not belief in lack of evidence.
evidence is not part of what is atheism.
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.
