[W:88]Atheism is a political doctrine

There is a major error in the popular definition of "atheism," because of various reasons of convenience, compliance, and lack of reliable knowledge classification, in the past.​

To get it straight, you have to go over the three terms that are being compared. You you have to understand what theism and humanism are, and why atheism is not in the same classification category:

• Theism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that a supernatural deity orders/defines reality.
• Humanism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that humans order/define reality.
• Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy, because it is absurd to designate an ontology as the antithesis of a designated ontology; which is what you are doing when you suggest that atheism has something to do with determining what exists - (lack of) belief in the existence of a supernatural dimension of reality - gods.

My argument is valid and sound. Your counter-arguments are based on dogma - compromised definitions from bygone eras of sophistication dominated by Christian dictionary editors unwittingly appeasing the Christian world.

Smarten-up - Stay Woke​

Prof_Lunaphiles said:

There is a major error in the popular definition of "atheism," because of various reasons of convenience, compliance, and lack of reliable knowledge classification, in the past.​

To get it straight, you have to go over the three terms that are being compared. You you have to understand what theism and humanism are, and why atheism is not in the same classification category:

• Theism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that a supernatural deity orders/defines reality.
• Humanism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that humans order/define reality.
• Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy, because it is absurd to designate an ontology as the antithesis of a designated ontology; which is what you are doing when you suggest that atheism has something to do with determining what exists - (lack of) belief in the existence of a supernatural dimension of reality - gods.

My argument is valid and sound. Your counter-arguments are based on dogma - compromised definitions from bygone eras of sophistication dominated by Christian dictionary editors unwittingly appeasing the Christian world.

Smarten-up - Stay Woke​

Click to expand...

I don't know what dictionary you are getting your definition of atheism from. I get mine from the original meaning of the world. Atheism comes from the Greek a (without) - theos (Gods) and literally means people without the belief in Gods.

Completely incorrect. Atheism means simply lacking a belief in any gods. Nothing more, nothing less and there is zero political aspect to it. You're making up things because you have an agenda.

Merriam Webster
Definition of atheism

1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

Click to expand...

Words have meanings, you don't get to arbitrarily change them.

Prof_Lunaphiles said:

There is a major error in the popular definition of "atheism," because of various reasons of convenience, compliance, and lack of reliable knowledge classification, in the past.​

To get it straight, you have to go over the three terms that are being compared. You you have to understand what theism and humanism are, and why atheism is not in the same classification category:

• Theism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that a supernatural deity orders/defines reality.
• Humanism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that humans order/define reality.
• Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy, because it is absurd to designate an ontology as the antithesis of a designated ontology; which is what you are doing when you suggest that atheism has something to do with determining what exists - (lack of) belief in the existence of a supernatural dimension of reality - gods.

My argument is valid and sound. Your counter-arguments are based on dogma - compromised definitions from bygone eras of sophistication dominated by Christian dictionary editors unwittingly appeasing the Christian world.

Smarten-up - Stay Woke​

Click to expand...

The "I win you lose" defense in your opening statement?

Prof_Lunaphiles said:

There is a major error in the popular definition of "atheism," because of various reasons of convenience, compliance, and lack of reliable knowledge classification, in the past.​

To get it straight, you have to go over the three terms that are being compared. You you have to understand what theism and humanism are, and why atheism is not in the same classification category:

• Theism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that a supernatural deity orders/defines reality.
• Humanism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that humans order/define reality.
• Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy, because it is absurd to designate an ontology as the antithesis of a designated ontology; which is what you are doing when you suggest that atheism has something to do with determining what exists - (lack of) belief in the existence of a supernatural dimension of reality - gods.

My argument is valid and sound. Your counter-arguments are based on dogma - compromised definitions from bygone eras of sophistication dominated by Christian dictionary editors unwittingly appeasing the Christian world.

Smarten-up - Stay Woke​

Click to expand...

Wrong.

Though atheism has a few proselytizers such as Dawkins and Hitchens, it's really not even an ideology, much less a political belief. Even in the so-called unreligious dictatorships of the 20th Century (Soviet Union, Mao's China), the cult of personality replaced a state religion. It was never a cause in itself and in that respect these countries never went without belief in something.

But Atheism by definition is the very absence of belief. If one never had a belief instilled in them that would be their default state. 'Nothing' cannot be a 'doctrine'.

Prof_Lunaphiles said:

There is a major error in the popular definition of "atheism," because of various reasons of convenience, compliance, and lack of reliable knowledge classification, in the past.​

To get it straight, you have to go over the three terms that are being compared. You you have to understand what theism and humanism are, and why atheism is not in the same classification category:

• Theism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that a supernatural deity orders/defines reality.
• Humanism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that humans order/define reality.
• Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy, because it is absurd to designate an ontology as the antithesis of a designated ontology; which is what you are doing when you suggest that atheism has something to do with determining what exists - (lack of) belief in the existence of a supernatural dimension of reality - gods.

My argument is valid and sound. Your counter-arguments are based on dogma - compromised definitions from bygone eras of sophistication dominated by Christian dictionary editors unwittingly appeasing the Christian world.

Smarten-up - Stay Woke​

Click to expand...

You do not put forward an argument, merely pretentious twaddle, cloaked in pseudo-learning and absurd definitions.

Is there a full moon tonight?

distraff said:

I don't know what dictionary you are getting your definition of atheism from. I get mine from the original meaning of the world. Atheism comes from the Greek a (without) - theos (Gods) and literally means people without the belief in Gods.

Click to expand...

RabidAlpaca said:

Completely incorrect. Atheism means simply lacking a belief in any gods. Nothing more, nothing less and there is zero political aspect to it. You're making up things because you have an agenda.




Words have meanings, you don't get to arbitrarily change them.

Click to expand...

You guys are closer to right than the OP, but still not quite right. Atheism is a spectrum of positions, from an absence of belief to a belief there are no gods. The OP is trying very hard to baffle with bull**** to put his own definition on the word, and then argue against that position. A variation on a straw man argument.

Redress said:

You guys are closer to right than the OP, but still not quite right. Atheism is a spectrum of positions, from an absence of belief to a belief there are no gods. The OP is trying very hard to baffle with bull**** to put his own definition on the word, and then argue against that position. A variation on a straw man argument.

Click to expand...

One could call it an argument, with a certain generosity of spirit.

zyzygy said:

One could call it an argument, with a certain generosity of spirit.

Click to expand...

Athiests don't believe in spirits.

KevinKohler said:

Athiests don't believe in spirits.

Click to expand...

Jamaican rum is a good spirit.

zyzygy said:

Jamaican rum is a good spirit.

Click to expand...

This makes me think of that dude in the movie Major League.


"Never touch Jobus rum. It would be very bad."

KevinKohler said:

This makes me think of that dude in the movie Major League.


"Never touch Jobus rum. It would be very bad."

Click to expand...

God made the sugar cane grow where it's hot,
And teetotal abstainers to grow where it's not.
Let the sin bosun warn of perdition to come;
We'll drink it and chance it, so bring on the rum.

CHORUS:
Bundaberg rum, and it's overproof rum,
Will tan your inside and grow hair on your bum.
Let the blue ribbon beat on his empty old drum
Or his waterlogged belly, but we'll stick to our rum.

We're men who drink it, oh yes, men indeed,
Of the bushranging hairnecked olden time breed.
We shave with our axes. We dress in old rags.
We feed on old boots and we sleep on old bags.

Dull care flies away when our voices resound,
And the grass shrivels up when we spit on the ground.
When we finally die and are buried in clay,
Our bodies are pickled and never decay.

On the Morning of Judgment, when the skies are rolled back,
We'll stroll from our graves up the long golden track,
And our voices will echo throughout Kingdom Come
As we toast the archangels in Bundaberg Rum.

zyzygy said:

God made the sugar cane grow where it's hot,
And teetotal abstainers to grow where it's not.
Let the sin bosun warn of perdition to come;
We'll drink it and chance it, so bring on the rum.

CHORUS:
Bundaberg rum, and it's overproof rum,
Will tan your inside and grow hair on your bum.
Let the blue ribbon beat on his empty old drum
Or his waterlogged belly, but we'll stick to our rum.

We're men who drink it, oh yes, men indeed,
Of the bushranging hairnecked olden time breed.
We shave with our axes. We dress in old rags.
We feed on old boots and we sleep on old bags.

Dull care flies away when our voices resound,
And the grass shrivels up when we spit on the ground.
When we finally die and are buried in clay,
Our bodies are pickled and never decay.

On the Morning of Judgment, when the skies are rolled back,
We'll stroll from our graves up the long golden track,
And our voices will echo throughout Kingdom Come
As we toast the archangels in Bundaberg Rum.

Click to expand...

What's that from?

KevinKohler said:

What's that from?

Click to expand...

Bundaberg Rum - Wikipedia

Prof_Lunaphiles said:

There is a major error in the popular definition of "atheism," because of various reasons of convenience, compliance, and lack of reliable knowledge classification, in the past.​

To get it straight, you have to go over the three terms that are being compared. You you have to understand what theism and humanism are, and why atheism is not in the same classification category:

• Theism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that a supernatural deity orders/defines reality.
• Humanism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that humans order/define reality.
• Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy, because it is absurd to designate an ontology as the antithesis of a designated ontology; which is what you are doing when you suggest that atheism has something to do with determining what exists - (lack of) belief in the existence of a supernatural dimension of reality - gods.

My argument is valid and sound. Your counter-arguments are based on dogma - compromised definitions from bygone eras of sophistication dominated by Christian dictionary editors unwittingly appeasing the Christian world.

Smarten-up - Stay Woke​

Click to expand...

Its pretty dogmatic to redefine words to match your beliefs.

KevinKohler said:

Athiests don't believe in spirits.

Click to expand...

Prof_Lunaphiles said:

There is a major error in the popular definition of "atheism," because of various reasons of convenience, compliance, and lack of reliable knowledge classification, in the past.​

To get it straight, you have to go over the three terms that are being compared. You you have to understand what theism and humanism are, and why atheism is not in the same classification category:

• Theism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that a supernatural deity orders/defines reality.
• Humanism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that humans order/define reality.
• Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy, because it is absurd to designate an ontology as the antithesis of a designated ontology; which is what you are doing when you suggest that atheism has something to do with determining what exists - (lack of) belief in the existence of a supernatural dimension of reality - gods.

My argument is valid and sound. Your counter-arguments are based on dogma - compromised definitions from bygone eras of sophistication dominated by Christian dictionary editors unwittingly appeasing the Christian world.

Smarten-up - Stay Woke​

Click to expand...

Is this member an Angel sock by any chance????

Prof_Lunaphiles said:

There is a major error in the popular definition of "atheism," because of various reasons of convenience, compliance, and lack of reliable knowledge classification, in the past.​

To get it straight, you have to go over the three terms that are being compared. You you have to understand what theism and humanism are, and why atheism is not in the same classification category:

• Theism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that a supernatural deity orders/defines reality.
• Humanism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that humans order/define reality.
• Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy, because it is absurd to designate an ontology as the antithesis of a designated ontology; which is what you are doing when you suggest that atheism has something to do with determining what exists - (lack of) belief in the existence of a supernatural dimension of reality - gods.

My argument is valid and sound. Your counter-arguments are based on dogma - compromised definitions from bygone eras of sophistication dominated by Christian dictionary editors unwittingly appeasing the Christian world.

Smarten-up - Stay Woke​

Click to expand...

You're confusing atheism with secularism.

Prof_Lunaphiles said:

There is a major error in the popular definition of "atheism," because of various reasons of convenience, compliance, and lack of reliable knowledge classification, in the past.​

To get it straight, you have to go over the three terms that are being compared. You you have to understand what theism and humanism are, and why atheism is not in the same classification category:

• Theism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that a supernatural deity orders/defines reality.
• Humanism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that humans order/define reality.
• Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy, because it is absurd to designate an ontology as the antithesis of a designated ontology; which is what you are doing when you suggest that atheism has something to do with determining what exists - (lack of) belief in the existence of a supernatural dimension of reality - gods.

My argument is valid and sound. Your counter-arguments are based on dogma - compromised definitions from bygone eras of sophistication dominated by Christian dictionary editors unwittingly appeasing the Christian world.

Smarten-up - Stay Woke​

Click to expand...

Feel free to redefine words all you want, but I think Christians allegedly have a huge problem with that.

Dragonfly said:

Is this member an Angel sock by any chance????

Click to expand...

Same exact format and the same type of subject, pretty much right where Frank left off.

Prof_Lunaphiles said:

My argument is valid and sound. Your counter-arguments are based on dogma - compromised definitions from bygone eras of sophistication dominated by Christian dictionary editors unwittingly appeasing the Christian world.

Click to expand...

Why do you need to redefine “atheism” to mean something else just because you consider the established definition pointless? If you want to discuss “a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy”, wouldn’t it make more sense to define that separately? Applying the word “atheism” to it, in contrast to the commonly understood meaning, can only serve to create confusion and argument.

Unless, of course, you’re only here to create confusion and argument, which would be sad.

Prof_Lunaphiles said:

There is a major error in the popular definition of "atheism," because of various reasons of convenience, compliance, and lack of reliable knowledge classification, in the past.​

To get it straight, you have to go over the three terms that are being compared. You you have to understand what theism and humanism are, and why atheism is not in the same classification category:

• Theism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that a supernatural deity orders/defines reality.
• Humanism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that humans order/define reality.
• Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy, because it is absurd to designate an ontology as the antithesis of a designated ontology; which is what you are doing when you suggest that atheism has something to do with determining what exists - (lack of) belief in the existence of a supernatural dimension of reality - gods.

My argument is valid and sound. Your counter-arguments are based on dogma - compromised definitions from bygone eras of sophistication dominated by Christian dictionary editors unwittingly appeasing the Christian world.

Smarten-up - Stay Woke​

Click to expand...

"Amazing every word of what you just said... was wrong" (Relevant movie quote.)

Not sure where you are getting your terms but Ontology is just the study of being. Theism and Atheism are words with actual meanings unchanged back to their Greek origins, and are simply theos or atheos meaning God or without God.

No branch of philosophy took those terms and made them into something else, especially your asinine idea of including Theism / theos in Ontology and excluding Atheism / atheos. The only place you were sorta close is where you aligned Humanism, but you still got it very wrong in position against Theism and Atheism.

Humanism is a philosophical stance suggesting value and agency (as in individual or collective) of human beings in defining reality from critical thinking and evidence based conclusions to philosophical questions asked in a manner as to dismiss dogma and superstition. Humanism was not an answer directly to being Atheist, but in effect the answers from the Humanism branch of Philosophy are Atheist just as much as they reject predestination, karma, kismet, whatever else. Humanism was not about targeting the Theism or Atheism debate specifically, but rather asking the right questions as a means to dismiss all things humanity tends to make up in order to explain something. It leans system of science.

Ultimately for just about all schools of thought from Philosophy there is still reason to keep the relation of Theism to Atheism given the nature of what those questions tends to lead to. And there is just as much reason to keep the relation of systems of process (sciences) that humanism draws conclusions from as adversarial to systems of belief (religion) as in organized to draw conclusions from based on interpretation from text, spirituality, what have you.

This line of thinking has even made its way into some areas of Physics, Quantum Physics, and Theoretical Mathematics because of the ideas of place, time, etc.

But at no time was Atheism severed from the relation and made into an exclusive political doctrine removed from what Ontology is trying to suggest. Atheism still has a place in all areas of Philosophy talking about these questions and subjects of what defines reality. Human to supernatural does not change that, nor does it change the meaning of these words. If we have gained any new understandings from these questions it means having a concrete base to ask the right questions from.

The real compromised definitions here are of your own doing.

HonestJoe said:

Applying the word “atheism” to it, in contrast to the commonly understood meaning, can only serve to create confusion and argument.

Unless, of course, you’re only here to create confusion and argument, which would be sad.

Click to expand...

I was well aware that I was going to cause argument. If I can get atheists to claim, "confusion," I will be impressed.

As you are well aware this is a recurring topic in atheist circles.

HonestJoe said:

Dragonfly said:

So tell me, how do you define "atheist" or "atheism"? (in your own words please)

Click to expand...

It means we’re in for another endless etymological argument that achieves less than nothing. How about not attacking each other with labels and instead just explaining what you think and, more significantly, actually taking notice when others are explaining what they do?

Click to expand...

I am very confident that I have the correct definition, and I believe that a discussion dedicated to it is the best approach to use the discussions as evidence of dogma that adversely affects atheists reasoning, and ultimately, the campaign for the approach to world peace.

You do agree that a world of reasonable atheists is more inclined to be peaceful compared to a mix of religious people - right???

HonestJoe said:

Why do you need to redefine “atheism” to mean something else just because you consider the established definition pointless? If you want to discuss “a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy”, wouldn’t it make more sense to define that separately?

Click to expand...

The quotation above, from the other thread, clearly indicates that you are aware that the established definition is in dispute.

I do not want to discuss the generation of a word to describe a political doctrine that atheists use to organize opposition to theist doctrine as the basis of public policy - that is what atheists organizations ultimately do. Atheists organizations do not exist to inform the public that atheism is the non-belief in gods. Atheist organizations form on the basis that they are going to protect atheists from theists in the political realm of society. Theists do not need atheists to explain to them what atheism is.