The Admiral

Forgive me for I have sinned. I posted this in the wrong place. Is this the place?


The Admiral
Secular Web Visitor
Member # 790
posted February 09, 2002 04:46 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi; I wonder if I could get a little help or advice. The post below I copied from another board, United Devices. I seem to have sparked a debate, which is good, but I'm not sure I'm competent. This persons argument seems like pure goobledegook to me. Can anyone here give me some advice?
Caffienyellow5
Senior Member
Member # 489
Member Rated:

posted February 09, 2002 23:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
O.K. It is as such...without or not, as CH pointed out at the offset(which I knew, I just worded my first post incorrectly), but my point stood in light of this information. It still does not agree with, nor does it negate the possibilty of God. What it does is neutralize the idea of God to enter the mind and life of the atheist.
Now Dave, I must take you to task about the Theos/theist thing. The word suffix ist is added to the word Theos, just as the prefix A is added to it. So the root is not the believer in atheism, but the theos itself.

A = without
Theos = God
Ist = person believing or following

Atheist = Person believing or following without God.

...or...

A = not
Theos = God
Ist = person believing or following

Atheist = Person believing or following not God.

Now along those lines, how would one proselytize atheism? That was the question I wanted to see answered in an inteligable way in the first place. The only way to do so is to reject God, thus ceasing to be an atheist and becoming anti-god. You cannot proselyte atheism, because you cannot cause someone to not reject Him while not accepting Him at the same time. You would have to make them lie to themself in one direction or the other.

See, I didn't want to scrap, I wanted to get an answer to the origional question without answering it myself. And I still haven't.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 18 | From: Racine, Wi. USA | Registered: Sep 2000 | IP: Logged



All times are PT (US & Canada)

Vorkosigan

Nonsense. You can accept an idea as a working hypothesis without believing it. Indeed, if you are doing any kind of serious thinking, that is a normal strategy. For example, if I want to think about the social consequences of having only one sentient sex, do I need to "believe" in such a thing, or can I just contemplate it as an interesting possibility, without commitment? What if I want to discuss the negatives of Nazism? Do I have to become a Nazi first? If I want to think about what it is like to be woman, do I first have to get a sex change? Is this person arguing that when Louis McMaster Bujold wrote about her fictional hero Miles Vorkosigan, that while she was writing, she genuinely believed she was a man? That Tolkien genuinely believed himself a woman when he was penning dialog for Eowyn or Galadriel? ROTFL!

Michael

The Admiral

Turtonm;

Okay, thanks, I think I understand what you say. But what I really need is concrete suggestions as to how to answer this person. Perhaps I shouldn't even engage in this sort of debate. I am after all a person of very little education and perhaps I should back off and let those better qualified do the job. But there doesn't seem to be anyone there willing to do it. Maybe I should just let this guy rave on unhindered. Probably nobody is listening to him anyway. But thanks again.

The Admiral

Monkeybot

I'm not too sure where to put this either, but we'll see what it does in Miscellaneous Religious Discussions.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, if I'm following this properly, the first thing is to address his or her definition.

The prefix "A" is a qualifier of the noun and the suffix "ist" is meant to personify the context of the noun, which, in this case is Theos. The addendum of "believing or following" is not justified.

Therefore, the technical definition would be: A Theos Ist = Person Without God.

This is, of course, academic, because the word "Atheist" is a derivation from Atheism, which in turn is merely a negation of Theism, the belief in a god or gods.

So, an Atheist is, quite simply, a person without belief in a god or gods.

Tell him he deconstructed the wrong noun from which Atheist is derived.

As for the other tripe:

One cannot "proselytize" atheism necessarily, since it isn't a faith based cause, which is the normal meaning of "proselytize" ( to induce someone to convert to one's faith).

It's interesting that he took such pains to (illegitimately) deconstruct "atheist," but then tossed all that aside and failed to so deconstruct "atheism."

Atheism=Without belief in a god or gods.

How then, can one "induce someont to convert" to the absence of belief? Trust me, we've been trying to here for ages and it rarely works . Technically speaking (as he seems to be attempting) there's nothing to "convert" to.

Doubtful, or else he/she would have deconstructed "atheism," not "atheist" and immediately found the flaw in his own question.

One can't "reject" something that hasn't been demonstrated to factually exist. Well, not in any meaningful sense, anyway. I "reject" Santa Clause, but who cares?

It's nothing more than yet another transparent attempt to illegitimately shift the burden of proof that crushes theists. You should point out that even if you grant his invalid reasoning, this still would not relieve the theist's burden of proof.

Unless he/she can prove such a fictional creature factually exists, there's nothing there for you to either "reject" or "accept."

You cannot "proselyte atheism" period. As I said before, there's nothing to convert to. The only thing the atheist can do is attempt to deconvert (or, better, deprogram) the theist.

Regardless, without proof that there is a "Him" to begin with, there is no way to "reject" or "accept" anything, so his "point" is moot.

Non-sequitur. The theist is already lying to themselves by believing that fictional creatures factually exist.

This is nothing more than a poorly worded attempt to disingenuously shift the burden of proof onto the atheist's shoulders where it does not belong. I'd say send this person our way, but we have more than enough of them here already.

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>