DT

Joined

• started 178 topics
• posted 1,239 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by DT

• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  "Atheist

  1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god". A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."'

  It appears that this definition doesn't tell the whole story. I won't pretend to fully understand the long and confusing history of the term atheist. However, here is something interesting from Wikipedia,

  "The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[20] predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571.[21] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577."
  

  It would appear that the 1571 definition is the original definition in English and it is remarkably similar to how most atheist describe themselves today. It's interesting that the word began to have a more negative connotation in 1577. I expect it was probably theists who began to gradually alter the impression of the word to further their agenda and criticize those who weren't in their club.
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  "The definition of atheist as not a theist is supported by numerous dictionaries"

  Is it? Can you provide numerous examples? Clearly an atheist is not a theist but that is certainly not what the word itself means.

  It would be tiresome to cut and paste a lot of examples. Most dictionaries I checked list disbelief in god (or a close variation) as one of the definitions. If you define theist as belief in god then the two terms would be closely related. We just have to define disbelief. It seems we come back to the same basic question. Is disbelief belief in the opposite or a mere reluctance to believe? Once again definitions vary but many express the idea of reluctance or uncertainty without requiring belief in the opposite. Therefore, an atheist would be just someone who doesn't meet the definition of a theist.

  There are problems with many dictionary definitions. Most people look up a word to find what it means, rather than what it doesn't mean. However, atheist does literally mean not a theist (since the prefix a means not). It's often hard to come up with a positive definition that includes everything excluded by another definition, and some dictionaries don't seem to be trying very hard. Furthermore, most dictionary writers are probably theists (just an assumption based on probabilities). Also the origins of the term atheist have been used exclusively as an insult for centuries before anyone willingly applied the label to themselves, based on what it literally means. Words change over time. It would be unusual to continue to apply the term atheist as an insult to Christians. In a similar way, there is no need to continue to apply the term as in insult to those who don't view themselves as theists. (I view the more narrow definition of a theism as an active belief in there being no god as an insult to other atheists because someone who met that definition (in my opinion) would be either intellectually dishonest or mentally unstable or both.)
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  The definition of atheist as not a theist is supported by numerous dictionaries and common usage, especially among atheists themselves. Of course, others define it differently. The history of the word atheist is certainly interesting, but it's not the same as modern usage. Also, the term atheist was often used by people with an agenda, as in those who called early Christians atheists. It would be silly to be burdened by the same archaic notions of atheism today.

  I don't mind people using any of the accepted definitions of atheism as long as they keep in mind who they are talking to and how the term is likely to be understood. I'm happy to clarify my perception of atheist as a non theist among those who would otherwise misunderstand it. I don't mind other people using the other definition of atheist as long as they don't try to imply that everyone who claims to be an atheist meets their more narrow definition.
• 
  67

  SERIOUS QUESTION: just how many demons will fit inside a person?

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  are demons big or little?

  do they take up space?.

  do they infest our cells and peer out like they are trapped inside a jelly bean?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  The must be foot demons, hand demons, leg demons, etc. They each get their own body part. There is no chain of command. They just cause random movements that look strangely like epilepsy.
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  "I don't get why people keep blurring and misapplying terms. The way people are redefining 'atheist' renders it impossibly broad and therefore meaningless. It is blurring into and subsuming agnosticism. It's becoming a amorphous catch-all philosophical shmoosh. LOL" Atheist is a very broad term, but so are many other words. We just sometimes have to come up with more specific words to express our thoughts. As a prefix, "a" just means not. Atheist is a useful term to describe what some people aren't. If you want to talk about what these people are, there are more precise words for that purpose. For example, I recently got a phone call from a bill collector asking for a Robert. I told him that I'm not Robert (he must have had my phone number before me). He then asked me who I was. I told him it was none of his business. All he needed to know was that I'm not Robert. Similarly, atheist is useful to describe people who aren't theists. If we couldn't use atheist, we would have to come up with a different word for that purpose. That seems pointless when atheist already has a structure that matches that definition. I do agree that atheists often tend to have their own beliefs. It may be in the nonexistence of god, the usefulness of science or even the existence of aliens. These beliefs may be well reasoned, based on evidence, or fanatical and requiring as much faith as a theist. The problem is that atheist says nothing about what someone believes. It only excludes one specific belief. Was it the Romans who came up with the term Atheist to describe Christians who didn't believe in the Roman Gods? (Or was the word used before that?) In any case, it abuses the word atheist to describe early Christians. It's ironic that some Christians have also made a habit of abusing the word atheist to misrepresent others.
• 
  243

  Let's settle this for once and for all...... is atheism a belief, a non-belief or an anti-belief?

  by Quillsky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my opinion is that atheism is not a belief.

  it is a belief in no belief..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  I think it is unnecessary to define the term atheist. An atheist is just someone who isn't a theist. You can just come up with a good definition of theist and then use atheist to refer to everyone who is excluded by your definition of theist. Yes, this makes atheist a very broad and generic term. This probably helps to explain why atheists get upset when people make broad and stereotypical comments that only apply to a portion of the atheist community.

  I think it would be helpful to have a term that refers to the opposite of a theist, something like antitheist. While an atheist simply lacks belief in a god (with or without an accompanying belief in the nonexistence of god), an antitheist would actually believe in the nonexistence of god. I'm sure true antitheists are pretty rare, even though many theists like to portray all atheists as antitheists. (I realise that some definitions imply that all atheists are antitheists, however that is not how people who actually claim to be atheists usually view it. I guess it's fine for theists to use that definition provided they specify that they are using that narrow definition and that most people who claim to be atheists don't have to be offended by what would otherwise be ignorant generalisations.)

  The term agnostic can be confusing because it includes some atheists and even, possibly, some theists. For example, I considered myself an agnostic when I was a theist and still consider myself an agnostic now that I'm an atheist. The only groups that are excluded by agnostic are those with absolute faith in either the existence or nonexistence of god.
• 
  8

  Are you a theist and an agnostic?

  by DT in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i know this question could be either trivial, with a lot of theists shouting no, or overly complicated with endless debates about the definitions of theist and agnostic.

  so, since i asked the question, why don't i also provide definitions.

  please answer the question in relation to the definitions provided.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  Thanks for the comments. I personally considered myself an agnostic, even when I was a JW and a theist. I still consider myself an agnostic now that I'm an atheist. I view an agnostic as one who admits the impossibility of complete certainty about anything. Of course, there are many other definitions of agnostic.

  I view an atheist as one who is simply not a theist. According to that definition, everybody would be one or the other and there would be no room for another group of agnostics to fit between them. Agnostics would have to overlap the other two groups. I can also see the appeal of spectrum approach of going from theist to agnostic to atheist. It just gets confusing when we have a hard time agreeing on the definitions.
• 
  16

  Should a DF'd person lie to get reinstated?

  by DT in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  suppose someone is wrongfully disfellowshipped and is unable to appeal successfully.

  suppose he still believes in the watchtower society and tries to get reinstated as soon as possible.

  imagine that the elders want to make sure that he is repentant by insisting that he shows remorse for what he is accused of doing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  Thanks for the comments. I agree that it is usually pointless to try to return to that organization. I can see why some might do that for family, but I never would.

  What I find interesting is that many JWs would say it is better to be honest than to sacrifice your honesty to be part of the organization again. The problem is that they don't think of the implications for those who don't join because they can't honestly support all the current teachings of the governing body or those who leave because they feel that staying would compromise their honesty. In those situations, JWs tend to favor being part of the organization over being honest.
• 
  16

  Should a DF'd person lie to get reinstated?

  by DT in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  suppose someone is wrongfully disfellowshipped and is unable to appeal successfully.

  suppose he still believes in the watchtower society and tries to get reinstated as soon as possible.

  imagine that the elders want to make sure that he is repentant by insisting that he shows remorse for what he is accused of doing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  Suppose someone is wrongfully disfellowshipped and is unable to appeal successfully. Suppose he still believes in the Watchtower Society and tries to get reinstated as soon as possible. Imagine that the elders want to make sure that he is repentant by insisting that he shows remorse for what he is accused of doing. From a JW perspective, would it be better for this person to dishonestly pretend to be sorry for something that he didn't do, or just accept that he won't be able to return to "Jehovah's organisation"? If he chooses to be honest and not get reinstated, would this mean that he would have God's favor despite not being in his organisation? How do you think a JW would answer these questions? Have you heard of any cases like this?
• 
  8

  Are you a theist and an agnostic?

  by DT in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i know this question could be either trivial, with a lot of theists shouting no, or overly complicated with endless debates about the definitions of theist and agnostic.

  so, since i asked the question, why don't i also provide definitions.

  please answer the question in relation to the definitions provided.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DT

  I know this question could be either trivial, with a lot of theists shouting no, or overly complicated with endless debates about the definitions of theist and agnostic. So, since I asked the question, why don't I also provide definitions. Please answer the question in relation to the definitions provided. Then if you disagree with these definitions, feel free to debate as much as you want. Theist- one who believes in a god or gods. Agnostic- one who is uncertain of all claims to knowledge. For example, I would consider someone who believes in God but admits that his existence can't be proven to be both a theist and an agnostic. You might have a different opinion. Please share it. (Or if you are an atheist, do you also consider yourself to be an agnostic?)