ETO isn’t in any dictionary that I have, yet you felt free to use that acronym in a post without defining it.
Different people, different experiences, different expectations about what is automatically recognizable and what gets you to scratch your head for a bit, look it up and say “Oh, THAT’s what that means!”
Well, the safe way for an author is to assume that not all of his readers are cognizant of what acronyms stand for and it doesn’t really take all that much time to write out the meaning just once at the beginning. As you say, different people, different experiences and the object is, or ought to be, that all of your readers can follow what in hell you are talking about.
ETO quickly became a recognized acronym because a large audience was vitally interested in the war in Europe. If a large enough audience were vitally interested in the technique of movie making maybe everyone would recognize CGI. And I would expect that ETO was written as the European Theater of Operations (ETO) for some period of time when first used. I certainly would expect that more people recognize ETO than SHAEF and even now would expect to see the latter defined. And, of course while we’re on WWII we mustn’t ignore the CBI in which the CNO was quite interested…
Ooooh! Auntie Meme.
And don’t forget the famous football player who started life as little Joe Green.
The mime is in the house! I repeat, call is coming from inside! :eek:
AMEN!
Not that I think, for example, that Blacks should casually and outside of very narrow contexts use “nigger” (or its various bullshit permutations) in public or in mixed company, but yeah, I totally agree with you.
The gay thing reminds me of a routine that Bobcat Goldthwait (IIRC) did about homophobia. Afraid to face who I really am, and all that.
Although I tend to use the term “anti-Jewish” (based on the same reasoning–some of which I realize is just run-of-the-mill smart-assery–that the bigots employ, i.e., not all Semites are Jews) I understand that when other people use “anti-Semitic,” they generally mean “anti-Jewish.”
I forget where I read this (many years ago), but someone once likened agnosticism to an insurance policy. Although I, myself, don’t “know” if there’s a (using the term broadly) “god” or not (nor, frankly, do I care, i.e., I can live an ethical life on my own just fine, thank you very much), I truly don’t believe that there is, hence, my atheism.
What’s wrong with agnosticism? I don’t particularly believe there is a God, but that doesn’t preclude the fact that he could exist. I just think it’s about being open-minded. Hell, for all I know, the entire universe is a simulation, and I’m the only conscious person in it. Everyone else is simply a simulated consciousness that extends no further than their interaction with me. I can’t know whether this is true or not either. There’s so many possibilities when you really keep your mind open to such things. On the other hand, I identify with atheists in a lot of areas, but it requires belief in my opinion as well.
The Pope was in the Hitler Youth, you know.
I really hate total non-sequitor posts that just grab a term used earlier in the thread, as if they’re making a contribution.
IIRC, Lucille Ball played Auntie Meme in some old show-tunes movie.
Oh, no, please don’t misunderstand me.
Though agnosticism wouldn’t work for me, I actually don’t think that there’s anything wrong with it, and I’m sorry that I didn’t make that clear in my post. It’s just that the whole “insurance” thing popped up first in my head when I read Lemur866’s post, and I wanted to share that antecdote. I intended no offense.
I would like to add, though, that I don’t believe that being an atheist–or even a theist, for that matter–is, in and of itself, any less open-minded than being agnostic. My thing is this: what works for me, works for me, and I don’t require that it work for anyone else. Part of the reason that we’re in so much trouble now is that so many others (apologies to the you-live-your-life-and-I’ll-live-mine-but-just-do-right-by-other-people theists out there ['cause I like you folks, e.g., Bishop John Shelby Spong], but it’s mostly people who identify as theists, even if it’s not y’all) don’t share this attitude.
And I agree, Merkwurdigliebe, being an atheist does indeed require some belief. For me, it’s a belief in the ability of both myself and (difficult as I often–very often–find this) humanity to strive towards the eradication of injustice and hatred, and towards justice and ethical behavior, and not on “god” to fix humanity’s fuck-ups. Or to cure disease, or what have you.
It’s refreshing to hear an atheist admit that secularism is basically a religion.
But it isn’t. It doesn’t matter if a hundred atheists say so, it just isn’t.
Being an atheist means refusing to accept statements of fact without some empirical evidence. That’s it. It’s nice Li’l Pluck is concerned for his fellow humans, but it’s not required for atheism. Many theists are concerned for humanity, many atheists are cynical bastards.
What part of that is a religion???
1 a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
–definiton of “religion,” from m-w.com
I’m not trying to be unreasonably nitpicky, but I assume that you’re speaking in terms of definition #4. If so (though I have issues with the word “faith” here), I agree, but I think we both know that the word “religion” is commonly used in terms of definition #'s 1 and 2, which is why I wouldn’t use “religion” (apart from my putative adherence to Judaism, and even then, with qualifiers) to define my belief system.
And what **Larry Borgia ** and **Hamadryad ** said.
Both did. Lucille Ball in 1974.
Nonsense. Atheism is a philosophical stance for which empirical evidence is impossible.
Atheism is just as much a matter of unreasoning, gut level belief as theism. That’s why I consider both atheism and secularism to be essentially religious.
So you consider it reasonable to believe in something without any evidence to support it? By your definition, you are unreasonable if you disbelieve in anything. BTW, I disbelieve in the tooth fairy-what would you call this “religion”?
Let’s test this theory right now. What empirical evidence do you have?
All of it. He has substituted a vision of an earthly paradise for the hope of heaven. Unfortunately, it’s never going to happen. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot–all of them pursued that vision. That’s why the twentieth century was the bloodiest century in human history. Pardon my cynicism, but more people were killed in the name of science, reason and social justice than were ever killed in the name of God.