|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:00 pm
Well, it has to be "great devotion" to something. I'm way too much of a slacker to have that kind of devotion.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:00 pm
c a u s t i c
I don't feel like breaking everything up into quotes. It's a word game. Everyone just keeps using different meanings of the word, dictionary needed or not. We could really just go in circles forever.
If you connect my sentences in paragraph form rather than trying to make mini statements, I was trying to say that in order to think of it as a cult then that would just mean atheism was like that for you personally and maybe with a group you were involved with. I wasn't trying to say atheism in general had to be considered a cult, but rather if you wanted to look at your involvement with atheism and a group then your personal involvement could be like a cult.
I mentioned cult films. A cult for a film is a different definition of the word. They do not agree on anything except their love of the film. That's the use of cult based on sharing that devotion.
In general, atheism does not have to be a cult. But depending on how you use the term cult, it can be one for you. If I can essentially be part of a Nine Inch Nails cult or a X-Files cult, then I could be in a cult based on atheism. Precisely my point. Technically speaking, almost any sort of idea or devotion can be a cult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:12 pm
shinobikun Okay the only thing I have with this type of arguement is the fact that you might hold definitions from dictionary as whole authority from one specific book (that is what irks me the most) My friend caught me reading this and he was in a lecture about words and whole authority about their definitions. REMBER that this is him speaking and not me he may be harsh so please do not take it too personally because IT IS NOT FROM ME- You have been notified- Shinobikun's friend Well, let me just offer something that I think you already know but are probably having a hard time putting into words: It seems to me that what is going on is what is called "weasle words". That is, your opponent here is using weasle words to shore up his position. He is using a definition of a word that does not correspond to the context in which he is using the word, then claiming that his mis-usage supports his position. That's not a terribly honest way to approach an argument. Words have both a denotative meaning and a connotative meaning. A denotative meaning is a series of definitions we apply to a word so that we have a working agreement of what a word means. The dictionary lists denotative meanings of words. But there are also connotative meanings--that is, definition delimited by the context in which the word is used. The connotative meaning of a word is more precise than a denotative meaning, and actually limits the definition of a word by placing it within its specified context. While technically one can say that the word "cult" refers to devotion to something, that is part of its denotative meaning. When talking about belief systems, the context of the word "cult" has a very specific connotative meaning, and one that precludes the denotative meaning of "devotion to something". Your opponent is dishonestly engaging in weasle words because no one using reason would suggest that the deontative meaning of a word is acceptable as a defense of a specific position. Context is key.* Thus, by engaging in this tactic, your opponent is TECHNICALLY correct but fundamentally wrong. Your opponent does something similar when appealing to a dictionary definition of "atheist". Knowing full well the difference between a weak atheist and a strong atheist, your opponent is aware that the dictionary definition he insists upon is not accurate, regardless of whether it is the "official dictionary of the English language" or not (I would say that there is no such thing, and the definition of a word is only as good as the way the word is actually used). So again, he engages in weasle words to shore up a position that is untenable at best. *An example for you: "ball". A ball is a spherical object that is used in a numbers of games. It is also a party characterized by dancing and eating. It is also one of a pair of reproductive organs that produces sperm and androgen. If you and I are playing catch, and I toss a ball to you, am I tossing a party to you? Am I tossing a testicle to you? Your friend is correct, sir. The point of this thread was to point out how "cult" is a misused term. It wasn't meant to attribute any belief system negatively with the term "cult", since I was basically showing that "cult" isn't a negative term at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:20 pm
shinobikun Ok This will probably be my last post in this thread since I have caught attentioned and angered someone. I apologize for anyone whom I may have offended and I will cease this debate (unless I am told to continue) I would like to continue this Lethkar but I have angered someone and I would not like a ban from a guild on my personal record. Also I would like to note that when in a debate I am passionate for I overanalyze a lot of things( I'm sorry but it is just a weird habit I have)
Don't worry. As long as it doesn't end in anything that could actually be extreme enough to fall under TOS for harassment or something like that then you're fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:50 pm
This is Off Topic, but I don't see how a person can say they have a lack of faith in something such as God, and then turn around and say that there is chance...and call themself an Athiest. To me that sounds more like an agnostic.
To me it seems like this(I might be wrong):
Lack of Belief/Denying the existance of God= Athiest
Lack of Belief/Stating there is a chance but lack of evidence= Agnostic
To me Athiesm is not a Cult. Cult is a word that has been overused in religious propoganda since day one.
To me Agnostsicism(is that a word?) is not a Cult.
Just because a group of people share a common idea does not make thier group a cult.
Oh...and an FYI: Pink Whales do exist. Dolphins are classified as whales. There is a type of dolphin that lives near certain rainforests that have pink skin...thus Pink Whales are real.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:37 pm
Sanguvixen This is Off Topic, but I don't see how a person can say they have a lack of faith in something such as God, and then turn around and say that there is chance...and call themself an Athiest. To me that sounds more like an agnostic. Nope. It's what's called "weak atheism". Many of us here are weak atheists. I'm only a weak atheist because of a man named Rene Descartes. Quote: To me it seems like this(I might be wrong): Lack of Belief/Denying the existance of God= Athiest Lack of Belief/Stating there is a chance but lack of evidence= Agnostic And lo and behold, you are wrong. Lack of Belief/Denying the existance of God= Strong Athiest Lack of Belief/Stating there is a chance, no matter how small= Weak Atheist Lack of Belief/Doesn't really know=Agnostic A weak atheist is basically an extremely sceptical agnostic. Quote: To me Athiesm is not a Cult. Cult is a word that has been overused in religious propoganda since day one. And technically, you're wrong. There being no deity is an idea. Therefore atheism is a cult. Quote: To me Agnostsicism(is that a word?) is not a Cult. I'm pretty sure you're right. Quote: Just because a group of people share a common idea does not make thier group a cult. Actually, that's one of the definitions of a cult. Quote: Oh...and an FYI: Pink Whales do exist. Dolphins are classified as whales. There is a type of dolphin that lives near certain rainforests that have pink skin...thus Pink Whales are real. I'd never heard of this. What kind of species is that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:46 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:43 pm
Dude that is so cool. But it almost proved his point. Pink whales sounds ridiculous, but there's always that possibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:56 pm
Meh... not something I expect since it came off the top of my head I would have put pink and yellow polka dotted elephant but you seem to get it. Lethkar And technically, you're wrong. There being no deity is an idea. Therefore atheism is a cult. I still disagree with this statement because I shall quote it again Lethkar The nonexistance of a Theistic Being?Duh. Nope, atheism is not the same as nosticm, er, def. spelled wrong. One does not have to know of the non-existence of a deity in order to be an atheist. For example, a baby does not devout to the idea of no gods and is still labeled atheist. Lethkar The atheist movement? More and more people are becoming atheists or agnostics, you know. Again, atheism is simply a lack or absence of belief in god(s). One is not subscribed to a movement if the label of atheist is placed upon oneself. It is perfectly reasonable for me to be an atheist and also not be persuaded if the atheist movement halts, diminishes, or grows. Lethkhar Wrote: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary Wrote: Main Entry: athe·ist Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist Function: noun : one who believes that there is no deity - athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective - athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb Definitions do not hold the "whole authority" of the meaning of the word because as posted from another post Another Post from above shinobikun Wrote: Okay the only thing I have with this type of arguement is the fact that you might hold definitions from dictionary as whole authority from one specific book (that is what irks me the most) My friend caught me reading this and he was in a lecture about words and whole authority about their definitions. REMBER that this is him speaking and not me he may be harsh so please do not take it too personally because IT IS NOT FROM ME- You have been notified- Shinobikun's friend Wrote: Well, let me just offer something that I think you already know but are probably having a hard time putting into words: It seems to me that what is going on is what is called "weasle words". That is, your opponent here is using weasle words to shore up his position. He is using a definition of a word that does not correspond to the context in which he is using the word, then claiming that his mis-usage supports his position. That's not a terribly honest way to approach an argument. Words have both a denotative meaning and a connotative meaning. A denotative meaning is a series of definitions we apply to a word so that we have a working agreement of what a word means. The dictionary lists denotative meanings of words. But there are also connotative meanings--that is, definition delimited by the context in which the word is used. The connotative meaning of a word is more precise than a denotative meaning, and actually limits the definition of a word by placing it within its specified context. While technically one can say that the word "cult" refers to devotion to something, that is part of its denotative meaning. When talking about belief systems, the context of the word "cult" has a very specific connotative meaning, and one that precludes the denotative meaning of "devotion to something". Your opponent is dishonestly engaging in weasle words because no one using reason would suggest that the deontative meaning of a word is acceptable as a defense of a specific position. Context is key.* Thus, by engaging in this tactic, your opponent is TECHNICALLY correct but fundamentally wrong. Your opponent does something similar when appealing to a dictionary definition of "atheist". Knowing full well the difference between a weak atheist and a strong atheist, your opponent is aware that the dictionary definition he insists upon is not accurate, regardless of whether it is the "official dictionary of the English language" or not (I would say that there is no such thing, and the definition of a word is only as good as the way the word is actually used). So again, he engages in weasle words to shore up a position that is untenable at best. *An example for you: "ball". A ball is a spherical object that is used in a numbers of games. It is also a party characterized by dancing and eating. It is also one of a pair of reproductive organs that produces sperm and androgen. If you and I are playing catch, and I toss a ball to you, am I tossing a party to you? Am I tossing a testicle to you? Your friend is correct, sir. The point of this thread was to point out how "cult" is a misused term. It wasn't meant to attribute any belief system negatively with the term "cult", since I was basically showing that "cult" isn't a negative term at all. Whether postitive or negative on your meaning of cult by your definition it is harshly put that atheism is strictly noted and deny the existance of a diety and the fact is that you yourself admit being a weak atheist prove that you LACK belief rather than having a sheer determination to prove that God cannot exist. Cults follow a single ideology and as posted above atheism does not follow a single ideology this is how I see most non theistic religion (pardon my cheap paint skills)  look into these and I forgot to include a few more i.e. Nihilism and Paganism, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:23 am
shinobikun Meh... not something I expect since it came off the top of my head I would have put pink and yellow polka dotted elephant but you seem to get it. Lethkar And technically, you're wrong. There being no deity is an idea. Therefore atheism is a cult. I still disagree with this statement because I shall quote it again Lethkar The nonexistance of a Theistic Being?Duh. Nope, atheism is not the same as nosticm, er, def. spelled wrong. One does not have to know of the non-existence of a deity in order to be an atheist. For example, a baby does not devout to the idea of no gods and is still labeled atheist. Lethkar The atheist movement? More and more people are becoming atheists or agnostics, you know. Again, atheism is simply a lack or absence of belief in god(s). One is not subscribed to a movement if the label of atheist is placed upon oneself. It is perfectly reasonable for me to be an atheist and also not be persuaded if the atheist movement halts, diminishes, or grows. Lethkhar Wrote: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary Wrote: Main Entry: athe·ist Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist Function: noun : one who believes that there is no deity - athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective - athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb Definitions do not hold the "whole authority" of the meaning of the word because as posted from another post Another Post from above shinobikun Wrote: Okay the only thing I have with this type of arguement is the fact that you might hold definitions from dictionary as whole authority from one specific book (that is what irks me the most) My friend caught me reading this and he was in a lecture about words and whole authority about their definitions. REMBER that this is him speaking and not me he may be harsh so please do not take it too personally because IT IS NOT FROM ME- You have been notified- Shinobikun's friend Wrote: Well, let me just offer something that I think you already know but are probably having a hard time putting into words: It seems to me that what is going on is what is called "weasle words". That is, your opponent here is using weasle words to shore up his position. He is using a definition of a word that does not correspond to the context in which he is using the word, then claiming that his mis-usage supports his position. That's not a terribly honest way to approach an argument. Words have both a denotative meaning and a connotative meaning. A denotative meaning is a series of definitions we apply to a word so that we have a working agreement of what a word means. The dictionary lists denotative meanings of words. But there are also connotative meanings--that is, definition delimited by the context in which the word is used. The connotative meaning of a word is more precise than a denotative meaning, and actually limits the definition of a word by placing it within its specified context. While technically one can say that the word "cult" refers to devotion to something, that is part of its denotative meaning. When talking about belief systems, the context of the word "cult" has a very specific connotative meaning, and one that precludes the denotative meaning of "devotion to something". Your opponent is dishonestly engaging in weasle words because no one using reason would suggest that the deontative meaning of a word is acceptable as a defense of a specific position. Context is key.* Thus, by engaging in this tactic, your opponent is TECHNICALLY correct but fundamentally wrong. Your opponent does something similar when appealing to a dictionary definition of "atheist". Knowing full well the difference between a weak atheist and a strong atheist, your opponent is aware that the dictionary definition he insists upon is not accurate, regardless of whether it is the "official dictionary of the English language" or not (I would say that there is no such thing, and the definition of a word is only as good as the way the word is actually used). So again, he engages in weasle words to shore up a position that is untenable at best. *An example for you: "ball". A ball is a spherical object that is used in a numbers of games. It is also a party characterized by dancing and eating. It is also one of a pair of reproductive organs that produces sperm and androgen. If you and I are playing catch, and I toss a ball to you, am I tossing a party to you? Am I tossing a testicle to you? Your friend is correct, sir. The point of this thread was to point out how "cult" is a misused term. It wasn't meant to attribute any belief system negatively with the term "cult", since I was basically showing that "cult" isn't a negative term at all. Whether postitive or negative on your meaning of cult by your definition it is harshly put that atheism is strictly noted and deny the existance of a diety and the fact is that you yourself admit being a weak atheist prove that you LACK belief rather than having a sheer determination to prove that God cannot exist. Cults follow a single ideology and as posted above atheism does not follow a single ideology this is how I see most non theistic religion (pardon my cheap paint skills) look into these and I forgot to include a few more i.e. Nihilism and Paganism, etc. It is ONE ideaology that makes you an atheist. There's only ONE defintion of an atheist, and only ONE requirement for being one. And that is to believe that there is no deity. It is an idea. Many people have this idea. It is a cult. So is Christianity, Buddhism, Hindusim, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Confucianism, Baha'ism, Wicca, Sikhism, Pastafarianism, and the hundreds of other belief systems that I missed. A cult does not require everyone to share the same values and beliefs, it merely requires that they have at least one thing in common.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:31 am
Lethkhar It is ONE ideaology that makes you an atheist. There's only ONE defintion of an atheist, and only ONE requirement for being one. And that is to believe that there is no deity. It is an idea. Many people have this idea. It is a cult. So is Christianity, Buddhism, Hindusim, Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Confucianism, Baha'ism, Wicca, Sikhism, Pastafarianism, and the hundreds of other belief systems that I missed. A cult does not require everyone to share the same values and beliefs, it merely requires that they have at least one thing in common. As far as your stance that atheism is an ideology, I stil Disagree with you. It is the ABSCENCE or LACK OF a belief. There can be more than one requirements of being an Atheist and you have a narrow view on that requirement. What you failed to read in a previous post is that every word in the dictionary has a connotative and denotative wording. Agains I shall post up with bolding Shinobikun's friend Well, let me just offer something that I think you already know but are probably having a hard time putting into words: It seems to me that what is going on is what is called "weasle words". That is, your opponent here is using weasle words to shore up his position. He is using a definition of a word that does not correspond to the context in which he is using the word, then claiming that his mis-usage supports his position. That's not a terribly honest way to approach an argument. Words have both a denotative meaning and a connotative meaning. A denotative meaning is a series of definitions we apply to a word so that we have a working agreement of what a word means. The dictionary lists denotative meanings of words. But there are also connotative meanings--that is, definition delimited by the context in which the word is used. The connotative meaning of a word is more precise than a denotative meaning, and actually limits the definition of a word by placing it within its specified context. While technically one can say that the word "cult" refers to devotion to something, that is part of its denotative meaning. When talking about belief systems, the context of the word "cult" has a very specific connotative meaning, and one that precludes the denotative meaning of "devotion to something". Your opponent is dishonestly engaging in weasle words because no one using reason would suggest that the deontative meaning of a word is acceptable as a defense of a specific position. Context is key.* Thus, by engaging in this tactic, your opponent is TECHNICALLY correct but fundamentally wrong. Your opponent does something similar when appealing to a dictionary definition of "atheist". Knowing full well the difference between a weak atheist and a strong atheist, your opponent is aware that the dictionary definition he insists upon is not accurate, regardless of whether it is the "official dictionary of the English language" or not (I would say that there is no such thing, and the definition of a word is only as good as the way the word is actually used). So again, he engages in weasle words to shore up a position that is untenable at best. *An example for you: "ball". A ball is a spherical object that is used in a numbers of games. It is also a party characterized by dancing and eating. It is also one of a pair of reproductive organs that produces sperm and androgen. If you and I are playing catch, and I toss a ball to you, am I tossing a party to you? Am I tossing a testicle to you? [Lethkar="Lethkar"]Your friend is correct, sir. The point of this thread was to point out how "cult" is a misused term. It wasn't meant to attribute any belief system negatively with the term "cult", since I was basically showing that "cult" isn't a negative term at all. whether it be positive or negative you are fundementally wrong in putting a strong sense that Atheism is one thing and you yourself are a weak Atheist yet according your definition you posted if you were to be an atheist Main Entry: athe·ist Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist Function: noun : one who believes that there is no deity - athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective - athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb now according to your logic (or so I read) you would be a strong Atheist (i.e GOD does not exist rather than I just DON'T believe in God) and that would make anyone else an atheist a Strong atheist rather than their own unique set of ideology on what Atheism means each person who has a different view of atheism. If you would wish to continue this debate I would actually take this whole debate to another forum where a couple of people I know would like to challege your statement at another website (with your permission of course) just simply PM me and I will tell you where to meet because this is my last post for this thread and done (if you want to continue PM me please I would like to continue answering any concers you may have with my statements) we should end the headache we give people on this thread so they can get along with whatever business they may want to have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:39 pm
Lethkhar Dude that is so cool. But it almost proved his point. Pink whales sounds ridiculous, but there's always that possibility. I fail to agree. All that shows is the power of ignorance(I'm not saying he's ignorent...its just a statement). The point is some things have validity because you can look for it, and find some sort of valid evidence.
When it comes to the idea of a Deity or a God you are dealing with a whole new realm where photogenic evidence does not exist. It as all about faith. But that goes into a whole new area of debate that I do not care to get involved in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:44 pm
Sanguvixen Lethkhar Dude that is so cool. But it almost proved his point. Pink whales sounds ridiculous, but there's always that possibility. I fail to agree. All that shows is the power of ignorance(I'm not saying he's ignorent...its just a statement). The point is some things have validity because you can look for it, and find some sort of valid evidence.
When it comes to the idea of a Deity or a God you are dealing with a whole new realm where photogenic evidence does not exist. It as all about faith. But that goes into a whole new area of debate that I do not care to get involved in. His point was that he was pretty sure that pink whales do not exist, but he knew that it was always possible. And lo and behold, it was a possibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:10 pm
Lethkhar Sanguvixen Lethkhar Dude that is so cool. But it almost proved his point. Pink whales sounds ridiculous, but there's always that possibility. I fail to agree. All that shows is the power of ignorance(I'm not saying he's ignorent...its just a statement). The point is some things have validity because you can look for it, and find some sort of valid evidence.
When it comes to the idea of a Deity or a God you are dealing with a whole new realm where photogenic evidence does not exist. It as all about faith. But that goes into a whole new area of debate that I do not care to get involved in. His point was that he was pretty sure that pink whales do not exist, but he knew that it was always possible. And lo and behold, it was a possibility. ;sighs; How do I explain this?
A person can grow up living a sheltered life. They might never see a mexican or ever even hear of the race. They live in....Africa. However, just because one individual person has not heard of a mexican, nore met one, does not mean that mexicans do not exist. Nore does that validate that race as a subject when it comes to belief.
What I mean is that there is a thing called collective knoweldge. Think of it as everything humanity knows and has documented. It encomposses everything that has been seen and learned. Every human has only limited access to that collective knoweldge.
One person might not know that a Pink Whale exists. However there can be thousands of others that see it as common knowledge.
The analagy to the Pink Whale was weak because the creature exists. Also...if it didn't exist one could look...and proof would be a picture or the actual animal. It only proves the limits of the human mind as far as current knoweldge.
There are some things that can exist. There could be pink aliens in the next galaxy. Can we search for that? Not yet. However if we were to search for pink aliens and find them...than what would we do? We would photograph them...or start having relations with them. That would validate thier existance to us.
However if we were to go searching for a god or deity to find evidence of....there is nothing. You cannot photograph it, and you cannot rely on history, artifacts, or even books.
So when it comes to Weak Athiesm...a person might say...well anything is possible, thus even a god is possible. Using the Pink Whale though as an example of proof of concept doesn't work though, because the way you would go about trying to prove the existance of a pink whale, and the existance of some deity that created our world is different.
One you can document phsyically...the other you don't know about until you die. Do you get the point?
All I am trying to say is be careful. You know...now I think I have effectively confused myself.
I never did agree with the "Anything is Possible Philosophy."
I can jump of a cliff, and it might be a possibility that I'd sprout wings and fly(or so some might say). However I tend to listen to the logical part of my brain. Logic tells me that I live in the real world(not a video-game)...and as I'm falling I'll remember that little saying that goes "It is not the fall that kills you but the impact" before hitting the ground. Yes...I'll be dead.
There you go...logic in the face of the absurd.
If you cannot understand what it is I am saying that I'm afriad I know no other way to explain it. Thiests and Atheists often trip up over thier own feet during debate on the Internet, and in real life because of thier inability to understand this concept.
The ability to understand this allows a person to debate certain topics on both sides much more intellectually, and allows for a person to commit a pawn over and over again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
