[W:88]Atheism is a political doctrine

[distraff]

You will also find that there are multiple definitions, and your 'consensus' definition is going to be further down on the list, and probably described as, "informal."


It is amusing how excited atheists get when suggesting the reform of "atheism." Atheists treat the dictionary definitions just like religious doctrine. Welcome to modern information organization: Do-it-yourself dictionary editing techniques are available. Please do not be afraid to use scientific methods for deliberating the definitions of all of the words. Scientifically stable definitions will be necessary for the deliberations of reason and the details of the social contract theory.

You do believe in the Social Contract Theory - don't you?

How to Write a Dictionary Definition: 13 Steps (with Pictures)

Dictionaries are just a guideline into the meaning of words and different dictionaries can have different definitions. What really matters is what the consensus is and if the dictionary doesn't reflect the consensus, then its wrong. The consensus uses the word "atheist" to mean someone who doesn't believe in God or someone who believes God doesn't exist.

As for your political definition of atheism, very few dictionaries even list your definition and you just cherry picked one that did. Those that do have your definition have it far down the list, yours is #4 even in your cherry picked dictionary. Your political definition isn't in the etymology or actual meaning of the components of the word. The majority of the population almost never uses atheism to mean a political ideology so its not the consensus definition. So there is literally not reason to make your definition the primary definition of atheism. Its your personal definition so I ask you as per your made-up social contract to abandon this erroneous definition of atheism.

 

[zyzygy]

Can you imagine the chaos if we all made up our own dictionaries?

 

[Omega Man]

Dictionaries are just a guideline into the meaning of words and different dictionaries can have different definitions. What really matters is what the consensus is and if the dictionary doesn't reflect the consensus, then its wrong. The consensus uses the word "atheist" to mean someone who doesn't believe in God or someone who believes God doesn't exist.

As for your political definition of atheism, very few dictionaries even list your definition and you just cherry picked one that did. Those that do have your definition have it far down the list, yours is #4 even in your cherry picked dictionary. Your political definition isn't in the etymology or actual meaning of the components of the word. The majority of the population almost never uses atheism to mean a political ideology so its not the consensus definition. So there is literally not reason to make your definition the primary definition of atheism. Its your personal definition so I ask you as per your made-up social contract to abandon this erroneous definition of atheism.

I tried a handful of the tried and true online dictionary standards - Dictionary.com, Merriam Webster, Cambridge Dictionary; even the Oxford.

atheist
/ (ˈeɪθɪˌɪst) /
noun
a person who does not believe in God or gods
adjective
of or relating to atheists or atheism


atheist noun
athe·​ist | \ ˈā-thē-ist
\
Definition of atheist

: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism



atheist noun [ C ]
us ​ /ˈeɪ·θi·ɪst/
​
someone who believes that God does not exist


atheist
noun

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.


Nope, not seeing any of those superciliously irrelevant variations on the description in any of those sources.


OM

 

[Quag]

Can you imagine the chaos if we all made up our own dictionaries?

It would lead to absolute peace and harmony

 

[Secular Heckler]

Oh and furthermore, why can't you answer the question you omitted from my post? You merely exonerated the other three abstracts with nothing more than assertion, yet they can fall into the same category if one applies a little reason. Here it is again: So how does atheism become a political doctrine? Is it because some are politically active such as the FFRF?

Some Theists are politically active in furthering their agenda, so does that make Theism a political doctrine?

No - it makes their religion a political doctrine.

Some Humanists are politically active in furthering their agenda, so does that make Humanism a political doctrine?

The contemporary humanist organizations are formed under some erroneous principles, because of the lack of advanced information that I am trying to deliberate. Humanists are "politically active," unwittingly, under the auspices of opposition to theism biased doctrine as the basis for public policy - atheism. Humanists may campaign that their "way of life," is something that should be principle to the greater community/society; but they need to document the doctrine that they are going to use to guide their composing of public policy, and that is going to lead to their factioning into "schools of thought," and will be understood by the theists as being religions.

Humanism is an ontological doctrine that suggests that humans order/describe reality; it does not suggest how humans "pursue happiness," or security.

So how does atheism become a political doctrine? Is it because some are politically active such as the FFRF?

All atheist organizations are politically motivated - to protect the civil rights of atheists. But that is not why atheism is a political doctrine.

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.

If the original meaning of the word, "atheism," or "atheos," was correctly interpreted, then the original definition was erroneous, as well.

So, what was the order of events? Some Greeks professed to not believe in the gods and the aristocracy, or politicians, banned them, or something, because they were violating the theocratic laws, and at some point they designated them as, "atheists," not because they were opposed to the laws that compelled theism, but because they did not believe - right??? Or was it during the reporting of the events that the author determined to designate them as, "atheists?" What is your theory as to how it came about? Can you prove it?

The etymology does not reveal the exact circumstances. I understand why it seems to be good enough for you - your sense of scrutiny is going to be easily satisfied, because of the phenomenon of believing that previous generations were innocent and honest, and could not fail to report all aspects of any dilemma, such as what I am describing.

But my sense of scrutiny recognizes that it was a theocratic society that makes very little demarcation between religion and politics, and that the problem I am describing was of lesser significance, way back then, than the significance of the error in the modern era. As we approach perfection, the imperfect aspects of abstract ideas tend to be more significant. Certainly, you would agree that the abstract ideas of gods is adversely affecting our advancement towards a better society, and that it needs to be shunned - right? So it is with abstract ideas that are valid, but improperly deployed due to the lack of necessary information.

Atheism doesn't determine what exists, it simply rejects the assertion that gods exist owing to a dearth of supporting evidence.

That is why atheism is not an ontological doctrine.

If some choose to state categorically that there are no god or gods, then some aren't all that gifted in logic.

That is agnosticism, and it may possibly be an ontological doctrine.

 

[Secular Heckler]

I tried a handful of the tried and true online dictionary standards - Dictionary.com, Merriam Webster, Cambridge Dictionary; even the Oxford.

Nope, not seeing any of those superciliously irrelevant variations on the description in any of those sources.


OM

And you are suggesting that the dictionary editors are very scrupulous in their deliberations of definitions - right?

There is no way they could have made such a error, as I suggest, over the generations of review and editing - right?

Think, again.

 

[Omega Man]

And you are suggesting that the dictionary editors are very scrupulous in their deliberations of definitions - right?

There is no way they could have made such a error, as I suggest, over the generations of review and editing - right?

Think, again.

No, what I am suggesting, is that your suggestion of a vast intellectual conspiracy to undermine your preferred fringe descriptions is a tad off the rails.


OM

 

[NWO_Spook]

No - it makes their religion a political doctrine.

Incorrect. The religion is but a tool and in itself it cannot be politically active. It is the religious in this instance, not the religion. Do note the power of the evangelists in the USA.

The contemporary humanist organizations are formed under some erroneous principles, because of the lack of advanced information that I am trying to deliberate. Humanists are "politically active," unwittingly, under the auspices of opposition to theism biased doctrine as the basis for public policy - atheism. Humanists may campaign that their "way of life," is something that should be principle to the greater community/society; but they need to document the doctrine that they are going to use to guide their composing of public policy, and that is going to lead to their factioning into "schools of thought," and will be understood by the theists as being religions.

Yet many are members of politically active organisations campaigning for changes to education policy.

Humanism is an ontological doctrine that suggests that humans order/describe reality; it does not suggest how humans "pursue happiness," or security.

"Advocating progressive values and equality for humanists, atheists, and freethinkers"

Media Center - American Humanist Association

How does this differ from an atheist organisation? Or a politically active religious group?

All atheist organizations are politically motivated - to protect the civil rights of atheists. But that is not why atheism is a political doctrine.

Incorrect, many are merely to promote education and reason. The civil rights of atheists don't need protection in our societies, for that is enshrined in our political and legal systems.

That is why atheism is not an ontological doctrine.

Because atheism doesn't make judgments or draw conclusions on the metaphysical nature of being doesn't mean it is a political doctrine, for in my experience it is more about education.

That is agnosticism, and it may possibly be an ontological doctrine.

No, a lack of belief based on a lack of evidence has little to do with whether we can 'know' the nature of the god(s).

 

[Secular Heckler]

Can you imagine the chaos if we all made up our own dictionaries?

We are experiencing that in the discussion here at Debate Politics, and in our political system.

There is a enough misrepresentation, and various forms there of, for describing legislation and possible effects that we are experiencing what you are describing, here. And it all trickles down to the peons who parrot what their favorite politicians and pundits tell them to believe.

 

[zyzygy]

We are experiencing that in the discussion here at Debate Politics, and in our political system.

There is a enough misrepresentation, and various forms there of, for describing legislation and possible effects that we are experiencing what you are describing, here. And it all trickles down to the peons who parrot what their favorite politicians and pundits tell them to believe.

You used to be big-headed but now you are perfect.

 

[zyzygy]

And you are suggesting that the dictionary editors are very scrupulous in their deliberations of definitions - right?

There is no way they could have made such a error, as I suggest, over the generations of review and editing - right?

Think, again.

Is there no way that you can make an error?

 

[bomberfox]

Atheism doesnt really say much politically, atheists take all sorts of positions even people who are not humanists can be atheists. Staying woke is such a pretentious line used by brainwashed sheeple.

 

[zyzygy]

Atheism doesnt really say much politically, atheists take all sorts of positions even people who are not humanists can be atheists. Staying woke is such a pretentious line used by brainwashed sheeple.

I know many apolitical atheists, including myself.

 

[Secular Heckler]

Atheism doesn't really say much politically,...

Exactly, it only "says" that public policy cannot be based on theistic biased doctrine.

... atheists take all sorts of positions...

There are not an infinite number of positions. It appears that way if nobody takes the time to review the "positions," and classify them into categories, and then into "valid," and "invalid," conclusions. It requires advanced critical thinking skills to figure that out, and explain it to the student.

... even people who are not humanists can be atheists.

Really??? Like, what else, could they be???

 

[Secular Heckler]

I know many apolitical atheists, including myself.

You are probably exaggerating - I doubt if you know ten atheists well enough to evaluate their political activity.

I bet you get political if the government leaders declare that they are going to enforce the segregation of Christian values, and non-Christians need to seek refuge elsewhere.

As people "lose" religion they are going to "gain" political advocacy.

 

[zyzygy]

I bet you get political if the government leaders declare that they are going to enforce the segregation of Christian values, and non-Christians need to seek refuge elsewhere.

As people "lose" religion they are going to "gain" political advocacy.

Not really.

 

[Secular Heckler]

Is there no way that you can make an error?

Believe me, my errors are much more important than yours - I have to be much more careful. You guys are not going to criticize each other, and no one is going to side with me and defend my proposition for guiding the better enlightenment of advanced "scientific" information.

You are exercising an "inquisition."

I am under a tremendous amount of scrutiny. I have made a couple of minor errors in this discussion, but, you guys are overwhelmed with attention to protecting your dogma that you missed them.

 

[Omega Man]

...but, you guys are overwhelmed with attention to protecting your dogma that you missed them

...none of which involved political doctrines. (ahem)


OM

 

[bomberfox]

Exactly, it only "says" that public policy cannot be based on theistic biased doctrine.

There are not an infinite number of positions. It appears that way if nobody takes the time to review the "positions," and classify them into categories, and then into "valid," and "invalid," conclusions. It requires advanced critical thinking skills to figure that out, and explain it to the student.

Really??? Like, what else, could they be???

Nope. Atheism only answers one question, though secularism takes care of that. Atheists can be objectivists (ayn rand), anarchists, conservatives, liberals, communists, etc etc.. there is no dogma.

 

[bomberfox]

Believe me, my errors are much more important than yours - I have to be much more careful. You guys are not going to criticize each other, and no one is going to side with me and defend my proposition for guiding the better enlightenment of advanced "scientific" information.

You are exercising an "inquisition."

I am under a tremendous amount of scrutiny. I have made a couple of minor errors in this discussion, but, you guys are overwhelmed with attention to protecting your dogma that you missed them.

What a victim geez louise.

 

[Secular Heckler]

Dictionaries are just a guideline into the meaning of words and different dictionaries can have different definitions.

That is true, and it is a problem that is more accentuated, now, than in the past. The compiling of dictionaries is a relatively recent advancement in literary publications, and it is relatively behind our post-modern sophisticated expectations. In the not so distant past, in most communities, the only reference was a Bible; and most of the people could not read it or any other publication that may have been available.

What really matters is what the consensus is and if the dictionary doesn't reflect the consensus, then its wrong.

What really matters is that dictionary definitions need to reflect scientific reasoning for describing words; and if the consensus does not reflect the correct definitions, then the people are wrong.

We need to get stabilized definitions for all words. We are going to need such for the transition to a robot served society. You do understand that computer programs require strict syntax - don't you?

As for your political definition of atheism, very few dictionaries even list your definition and you just cherry picked one that did. Those that do have your definition have it far down the list, yours is #4 even in your cherry picked dictionary. Your political definition isn't in the etymology or actual meaning of the components of the word. The majority of the population almost never uses atheism to mean a political ideology so its not the consensus definition. So there is literally not reason to make your definition the primary definition of atheism. Its your personal definition so I ask you as per your made-up social contract to abandon this erroneous definition of atheism.

That was my rendering of a possible entry for "atheism." It was not a sample from any dictionary publication.

I would have provided a reference link.

 

[Secular Heckler]

Nope. Atheism only answers one question, though secularism takes care of that.

Nope. Secularism is unbiased, it does not care if theists advance their religious agenda in government - secularism appears to be what you want it to be, because of the politically competing religions resulting in legislative language/terminology that excludes references to theist religions.

Atheism is biased against the theists advancement of theist religious agenda, and subsequently, the religious language.

Atheists can be objectivists (ayn rand), anarchists, conservatives, liberals, communists, etc etc.. there is no dogma.

I am a little bit limited, and I doubt if you know the principle doctrines well enough to declare them to be free of dogma.

I will try to do some research, but I am very busy.

 

[zyzygy]

That is true, and it is a problem that is more accentuated, now, than in the past. The compiling of dictionaries is a relatively recent advancement in literary publications, and it is relatively behind our post-modern sophisticated expectations. In the not so distant past, in most communities, the only reference was a Bible; and most of the people could not read it or any other publication that may have been available.


What really matters is that dictionary definitions need to reflect scientific reasoning for describing words; and if the consensus does not reflect the correct definitions, then the people are wrong.

We need to get stabilized definitions for all words. We are going to need such for the transition to a robot served society. You do understand that computer programs require strict syntax - don't you?


That was my rendering of a possible entry for "atheism." It was not a sample from any dictionary publication.

I would have provided a reference link.

Do you enjoy posting nonsense?

 

[Quag]

Do you enjoy posting nonsense?

Clearly yes

 

[distraff]

That is true, and it is a problem that is more accentuated, now, than in the past. The compiling of dictionaries is a relatively recent advancement in literary publications, and it is relatively behind our post-modern sophisticated expectations. In the not so distant past, in most communities, the only reference was a Bible; and most of the people could not read it or any other publication that may have been available.


What really matters is that dictionary definitions need to reflect scientific reasoning for describing words; and if the consensus does not reflect the correct definitions, then the people are wrong.

We need to get stabilized definitions for all words. We are going to need such for the transition to a robot served society. You do understand that computer programs require strict syntax - don't you?


That was my rendering of a possible entry for "atheism." It was not a sample from any dictionary publication.

I would have provided a reference link.

There is no objective scientific reasoning for the meaning of words. Words are just a collection of sounds and have no objective meaning that can be determined with science. The meanings of these collections of sounds are what people have decided together to mean, its based on consensus only, and that consensus can easily change later on. A vote is a much better way of figuring out what a word means than a scientific study.