Wow, you really still don’t get it, do you?
Atheism is not an organized body of thought. False equivalences to Christianity (not theism, since you clearly don’t understand other religions, either) are clouding your thought.
It is a lack of belief in any gods. Full stop.
There’s nothing to “pull together”, so it’s not at the beginning stages of anything.
Have you figured out if you were or were not an atheist at that time?
No, you just don’t know what it is. Which is sort of amazing, because you can sum up atheism in a very short sentence. I guess perhaps you want it to be another religion or a challenge or something, but that’s not what it is.
I did not consider myself an atheist at that time, I considered myself a political activist and I thought that religion would just slow me down.
Please answer my questions in post 458.
Atheism is the lack of belief in any God or deity but may offer something more sometime in the future.
Do you guys realize that posting garbage like this makes you look almost as dumb as pchaos? I mean, that’s a hard feat, but you almost manage it.
How about we all stop inventing actions and motivations for groups we don’t actually understand, huh? I mean, Circle of Life? Really? And I bet you think that’s clever too…
“More” of what?
What does that mean? Does that mean that the definition of the word may change in the future? Why should it? We’re always going to need a word that means not having a belief in the existence of gods with no other attachments and atheism works perfectly. Likewise, theism merely means being with the belief in the existence of at least one god and it doesn’t need another definition in the future.
If laws can change, then definitions can change. Generally, people are pretty sharp at SDMB. Why bother fighting ignorance unless you are hoping that some change will come about in the future?
Knock it off or take it to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Right now we’re hoping, apparently in vain, that you’ll figure out how to separate your assumptions from reality.
You’re clearly ignoring some of my post. Do you agree that we’re always going to need a word that means nothing more than being without belief in the existence of any gods? If so, why change the definition of atheism when we’ll just have to come up with a new word to replace what it means now?
A - without
Theism - Belief in the existence of at least one god.
Do you see why the definition shouldn’t change?
Fighting ignorance does not mean hoping that everything changes. It will be much harder to fight ignorance if the definitions of words change for no good reason. This thread is a perfect example.
And? There will still be a need for a term to describe a lack of belief in any gods.
So, I can just redefine monotheism to just mean Christianity, right? I’m sure all the Jewish and Muslim folk will just love that.
Monotheism:Christianity :: atheism:New Jodhpurism (a new ethical structure I made up)
Monotheism describes one aspect of Christianity. But it does not solely define Christianity and Christianity does not have a monopoly on monotheism.
Likewise, atheism describes one aspect of New Jodhpurism, but New Jodhpurism is not solely defined by atheism and does not have a monopoly on atheism.
Get it?
Understood. But words do change and the changes can be powerful.
From Karl Marx, Marxism developed. Then Marxism-Leninism and then Marxist-Lenist Mao-Tse-Tung Thought. You get the idea.
If you were able to get God out of our lexicon it would be major accomplishment. Would you really want to stop at that point. After you get rid of ignorance, there must be something that needs to be accomplished? Why not create a word for it now?
That is the most compelling argument you’ve made yet.
Yeah, I thought it was funny considering how pchoas suggested atheists need a crumbling cross for a logo, so I was curious how he felt about the cross. And yes, I thought Lenny Bruce’s bit along with the circle of life clever; and not sorry if you’re too humorless or witless to appreciate it.
Where did you get the idea that atheists want to remove God from any lexicon? More importantly, why can you not understand that atheism isn’t a rejection of just your particular deity?
Even more importantly, it’s not a rejection of any deities (except in the sense Santa is “rejected”). It’s simple non-belief.
pchaos is trying to posit some kind of a-holy war between Christians (again, not theists, as he doesn’t get other religions either) and whatever group into which he incorporates atheists.
What it suggests to me is that he hasn’t learned anything from this whole goddamn discussion. He still thinks that “atheism” is “anti-Christianity.” It is beyond his ability to comprehend that atheism would also have to have a crumbling Star of David, a crumbling lightning bolt, a crumbling world-tree, a crumbling Reclining Buddha, a crumbling Queztlcoatl, a crumbling Kali, etc. A billion symbols, but he can only perceive it through the lens of his Christianity.
(Oh, yeah, a crumbling Kyklopes!)
Yep! Someone wrote a story in which the Romans developed electricity, and Christians wore a little Electric Chair on their necklaces.
Someone else created a statue of a woman dying on a cross, to indicate that suffering, sacrifice, and holiness are not unique to men. Naturally, a shit-load of ministers and priests issued a Christian fatwa against the work and the artist. These are not people who are tolerant of symbolic analysis!
It is fun to poke him with sticks, isn’t it.
[Poke… poke, poke.] Look, it’s moving!
Well poke it again!
Ok. [poke, poke]
[Snicker] Look! it twitches when I poke it!