|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Atheists and Holidays
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So we have some indirect speech ("Dawkins said that:") where we don't even have a journalists' "quote", much less his actual words, and his report of someone telling him that an aspect of their Catholic upbringing was worse than sexual abuse.
Your point?
So are you asserting Dawkins was misrepresented in the article?
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So we have some indirect speech ("Dawkins said that:") where we don't even have a journalists' "quote", much less his actual words, and his report of someone telling him that an aspect of their Catholic upbringing was worse than sexual abuse.
Your point?
So are you asserting Dawkins was misrepresented in the article?
I think it eminently likely that the journalist's report of what Dawkins said, which doesn't even include a "quote", bears only a passing resemblance to what he actually said.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So we have some indirect speech ("Dawkins said that:") where we don't even have a journalists' "quote", much less his actual words, and his report of someone telling him that an aspect of their Catholic upbringing was worse than sexual abuse.
Your point?
So are you asserting Dawkins was misrepresented in the article?
Namely her Protestant friend roasted in hell
Yes - not to misrepresent child abuse - abuse before the age of 7 can lead to fragmentation of the soul. But trauma is only defined by what feels to be overwhelming. A one-off abuse in relatively ameliorating circumstances (lack of violence, support and solidity and a sense of protection in the family, etc) might not lead to major long term traumatiusation. But the problem with religion is that it operates at the ultimate Meta level. You can escape a rapist by all kinds of means, but you can't escape a vengeful and malicious God. And in that sense, the pernicious and malevolent drivel preached by xenophobic and bigoted so-called upholders of particular faiths is about the worst kind of abuse there is. Maybe they think that scaring children is one way to ensure their salvation by making them "God-fearing", but it's one of the most destructive generational myths (thinat this is useful) to ever have existed. How many people growing up to fear God have learned to love themselves and love God? Precious few. It's hard enough for a child that has not been loved ("attachment deficit") to contemplate alowing itself to accept love from a fellow human being.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nevertheless, after the insult is decanted, there is still a point left in the bottle: "Thank" is a transitive verb, and that implies an object. I can thank my mom for a Christmas present, I can thank my wife for marrying me, but I can't just thank. Thanking requires a thankee.
Sure. But that linguistic object can be unreal or conceptual, as in I thank my lucky stars!, or thank goodness for that!, or even thank fuck!.
One need not believe in lucky stars or gods to thank them, nor need they exist. Gods and lucky stars are very similar like that.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Surely we can just be thankful, without having an object for our thanks?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Nope, sorry. You cannot be thankful unless you're thankful to something, and, if you thank god, logic states that god must exist. Da-daa! The the existence of gods was so much easier to prove than everyone thought!
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nope, sorry. You cannot be thankful unless you're thankful to something, and, if you thank god, logic states that god must exist. Da-daa! The the existence of gods was so much easier to prove than everyone thought!
Shouldn't atheists be thankful for the Earth and its resources that provide the basis for most of what we have? Our intellect and opposable thumbs would be little use without that.
Theists have it easy of course: we thank God or the gods. Any day.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nope, sorry. You cannot be thankful unless you're thankful to something
You've never felt a sense of undefined or unfocused gratitude? The sort of feeling that you might get when something you thought was going to be a disaster, by some fluke actually turns out quite well and you feel very relieved and thankful, but have no clear idea who or what to attribute that to?
(Emotions aren't logical.)
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Absolutely, yes. My above post was entirely sarcastic.
I think we all feel this sense of gratitude for good things that we experience. It's probably one of the main reasons people invent gods and lucky stars and heavens and all that- to function as objects of their gratitude (and the same goes for fear, awe and all the other superstitious feelings we have hardwired in our natural fabric).
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nope, sorry. You cannot be thankful unless you're thankful to something, and, if you thank god, logic states that god must exist. Da-daa! The the existence of gods was so much easier to prove than everyone thought!
Shouldn't atheists be thankful for the Earth and its resources that provide the basis for most of what we have? Our intellect and opposable thumbs would be little use without that.
Theists have it easy of course: we thank God or the gods. Any day.
Nah, I thank God whenever I'm feeling fortunate. It's pithy.
(It doesn't magic Him into existence, though. Sorry about that.)
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I am often very thankful with no object for my thanks.
I'm a Christian and believe in God - but I'm not happy with God at the moment and I'm throwing a strop which has lasted a year or so.
But I am very thankful for many, many things every day. I've just, somehow, lost God as the focus for that thanks.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
My Sarkometer needs a recharge.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Sorry, SS. I was trying to appear clever. I should just have replied to mousethief's nonsense with "Bullshit".
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
amongst other things Dawins says
quote:
Professor Dawkins said at the festival that children should be taught religion but scorn should be poured on its claims.
Sounds like teaching atheism to me!!
There is actually no supporting quote from Dawkins in the article on the “scorn” point. The quotes that do appear suggest that he thinks it essential to teach children about religion, but wrong to indoctrinate them with it. Which is what I said.
I don’t doubt, by the way, that you could find a quote by Dawkins saying that religious claims should be treated with scorn. However the Mail article appends that to his views on religious education as if he were saying that religious claims should be treated with scorn in the specific context of teaching children what the various religions believe. That is the point where the supporting evidence vanishes. If he has ever said any such thing it would be at odds with his much better known views on the importance of teaching about religion in a cultural context, and the importance of evidence-based thinking in the search for truth.
Dawkins does actually care passionately about what is true. That is the driving force behind just about everything he has written. Understanding the world, and helping others to do so, is, for him, the greatest purpose and privilege of life. If you don’t get that, you don’t understand him.
quote:
He also belittles child abuse in a way that, quite rightly would be decried if a representative of the church did so
I think it’s generally foolish to compare anything to child abuse. The emotional connotations that the mention of child abuse raises are so powerful as to swamp anything else.
That said, it requires only a little effort to see that belittling child abuse is not part of his objective at all. And what he actually says is both moderate and fair. It is not unreasonable to suggest (on the basis of a victim’s personal testimony) that being subjected to a sexual assault was less unpleasant than being made to believe that a person (a child) she cared about would suffer unspeakable pain for ever at the hands of God. I can well imagine that I would feel the same thing. Saying that does not in any way minimise the evil of abusing children.
I accept that it is to a degree Dawkins’ own fault that he is misunderstood in this way, but it’s still a misunderstanding to think that he belittles child abuse.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I do think that Dawkins' approach to religion is often sloppy, especially when he attempts to discuss more philosophical issues.
Can you give an example? (she asks in a very mild, non-challenging voice!)
I hadn't forgotten your question; I just had to dig some books out of their depository - in other words, I'd lost them.
One of the themes running through 'The God Delusion' is the improbability of God; Dawkins refers to it as the 'ultimate Boeing 747'. This refers to Fred Hoyle's analogy of a hurricane sweeping through a junk-yard, and producing a 747, in other words, something extremely improbable. The analogy was not about God but the existence of life on earth, but Dawkins borrows it.
OK, he makes this interesting comment: 'however statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable' (TGD, p. 138, Black Swan ed.).
I feel that this argument is vitiated however, since while Boeings are material things, God is not. In fact, I would say that you can't use probability estimates about non-natural or supernatural entities.
So in this case, I think Dawkins is equivocating like mad about probability, and also the nature of God. I don't think that the supernatural is probable or improbable. Some people go so far as to argue that theism is not truth-apt; hmm, well, pass on that.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nope, sorry. You cannot be thankful unless you're thankful to something, and, if you thank god, logic states that god must exist. Da-daa! The the existence of gods was so much easier to prove than everyone thought!
sigh
The definition for thank is "Express gratitude to"
mt is correct. People are misusing the word when thanks are not directed towards something.
Perhaps if Alanis Morrisette wrote a song about thanks, this would be more clear.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nevertheless, after the insult is decanted, there is still a point left in the bottle: "Thank" is a transitive verb, and that implies an object. I can thank my mom for a Christmas present, I can thank my wife for marrying me, but I can't just thank. Thanking requires a thankee.
Sure. But that linguistic object can be unreal or conceptual, as in I thank my lucky stars!, or thank goodness for that!, or even thank fuck!.
I never said otherwise.
quote:
One need not believe in lucky stars or gods to thank them, nor need they exist. Gods and lucky stars are very similar like that.
I never said otherwise.
You and Palimpsest are accusing me of saying something I never said. A careful reading of what I said would reveal this, I believe.
quote:
Sorry, SS. I was trying to appear clever. I should just have replied to mousethief's nonsense with "Bullshit".
But you explicitly agreed with what I said. "Thank" takes a direct object. You added bullshit to it that I never said -- if you thank God that proves he exists. THAT is the real bullshit here. Not what I said.
Clearly one can do eisegesis with other things than scripture. For instance, posts on Ship of Fools.
Read what people say, people, not what you think they said.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nope, sorry. You cannot be thankful unless you're thankful to something, and, if you thank god, logic states that god must exist. Da-daa! The the existence of gods was so much easier to prove than everyone thought!
sigh
The definition for thank is "Express gratitude to"
mt is correct. People are misusing the word when thanks are not directed towards something.
Perhaps if Alanis Morrisette wrote a song about thanks, this would be more clear.
Maybe I'm being thick here. Please bear with me while I try to get this right (and I apologise to anyone who finds this tangential or just plain silly).
We are NOT talking here about the act of expressing thanks. We are talking about being or feeling thankful. The two are categorically different.
A sense of gratitude, or being thankful, is not possible unless it's directed at some specific thing which confers that gratitude on the thankful person. Is that really what you're saying? Because it's utter bollocks. It's saying that one cannot have a feeling of gratitude for, say, a happy feeling when the sun comes out on a rainy day, except where there is a recipient object of that thankful feeling.
Help me here.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I am saying it is a misuse of the word. Perhaps happy or relieved would be more accurate words. hence my reference to ms Morrisette. Nothing in her song is ironic, despite many people using the word in the ways she does.
Now, it could be argued that the word thanks has been misued often enough that it has acquired new meanings, but in its original definition it does require a thanked.
But this is a tangent to the original discussion that does not further it, so I'd rather not go too far with it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Happy or relieved do not describe the feeling of gratitude that comes over me when I feel glad to be alive, and that I so easily couldn't be. It's thankful. Nothing else.
Isn't this just one of those cases in which theists claim a monopoly on something that is in fact universal?
[ 19. November 2014, 15:13: Message edited by: Yorick ]
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Happy or relieved do not describe the feeling of gratitude that comes over me when I feel glad to be alive, and that I so easily couldn't be. It's thankful. Nothing else.
Isn't this just one of those cases in which theists claim a monopoly on something that is in fact universal?
Not at all, but in addition to being thankful for something, theists have someone or something they can be thankful to.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
The OP is full of this sort of presumptuous rubbish. Atheists are not only entitled to and logically coherent in celebrating religious festivals, but they are also capable of feeling thankful for the exact same kinds of things as theists. Clue: we're all the fucking same.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I do think that Dawkins' approach to religion is often sloppy, especially when he attempts to discuss more philosophical issues.
Can you give an example? (she asks in a very mild, non-challenging voice!)
I hadn't forgotten your question; I just had to dig some books out of their depository - in other words, I'd lost them.
One of the themes running through 'The God Delusion' is the improbability of God; Dawkins refers to it as the 'ultimate Boeing 747'. This refers to Fred Hoyle's analogy of a hurricane sweeping through a junk-yard, and producing a 747, in other words, something extremely improbable. The analogy was not about God but the existence of life on earth, but Dawkins borrows it.
OK, he makes this interesting comment: 'however statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable' (TGD, p. 138, Black Swan ed.).
I feel that this argument is vitiated however, since while Boeings are material things, God is not. In fact, I would say that you can't use probability estimates about non-natural or supernatural entities.
So in this case, I think Dawkins is equivocating like mad about probability, and also the nature of God. I don't think that the supernatural is probable or improbable. Some people go so far as to argue that theism is not truth-apt; hmm, well, pass on that.
You are making Dawkins point for him. If you read around page 113. What he is doing is turning the intelligent designer argument of improbability being an argument FOR god into an argument against god. If probability does not apply to god it also undermines its use in favor of god's existence. If it can be used for, it can be used against.
[ 19. November 2014, 15:42: Message edited by: Ikkyu ]
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Happy or relieved do not describe the feeling of gratitude that comes over me when I feel glad to be alive, and that I so easily couldn't be. It's thankful. Nothing else.
Isn't this just one of those cases in which theists claim a monopoly on something that is in fact universal?
This is why we can't have a decent language.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The OP is full of this sort of presumptuous rubbish. Atheists are not only entitled to and logically coherent in celebrating religious festivals,
Agreed
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
but they are also capable of feeling thankful for the exact same kinds of things as theists.
Yeah, but I still say a different word would be better. Not because theists own the word, but because it just doesn't mean what you are using it for. Now, this is very likely because belief in something more has been the default for longer than the language has existed.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Clue: we're all the fucking same.
Good Gods, I hope not.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
Leaving aside all the various reasons whether historical or otherwise as to why we celebrate the holidays we do, it really does seem to me that celebrating holidays is part of how we humans do community life together....
So I honestly don't get the problem here: theist or atheist we come together bringing whoever we truly are at our very core and we celebrate and find meaning in that. Of course I find a special meaning in celebrating Christmas (the Incarnation quite frankly blows me away) but that has never stopped some of my atheist colleagues from enjoying singing carols with me. Why exclude anyone/ Equally why force anyone to join in?
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Thanksgiving has its roots in religious and cultural traditions and has long been celebrated as a secular manner as well.
Christmas is part of a secular tradition as well, along with its carols and other religious symbols. It doesn't intrinsically harm your celebration because others enjoy it as well.
[...]
I think we all feel this sense of gratitude for good things that we experience. It's probably one of the main reasons people invent gods and lucky stars and heavens and all that- to function as objects of their gratitude (and the same goes for fear, awe and all the other superstitious feelings we have hardwired in our natural fabric).
What you seem to be saying is that atheists have to co-opt God in order to have a secular culture or to have an object for their secular gratitude, etc.
This may be true, but it doesn't seem to marry up well with the oft-heard argument that atheists are more logical and rational than Christians.
Wouldn't it be more logical to tear oneself away from the most obvious cultural accretions of Christianity, precisely because they recall and celebrate the errors and superstitions of the past? Don't we (from an atheistic perspective) need to do more to create more honest and truthful celebrations?
Non-specialist though I am, I'm reminded of the 'melancholy, long withdrawing roar' of religion mentioned by Matthew Arnold. Or Nietzsche's longing not only to kill God but also his shadow. The atheists who sing carols are clearly not trying to kill his shadow. Maybe it's too soon.
[ 19. November 2014, 16:59: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Ikkyu wrote:
You are making Dawkins point for him. If you read around page 113. What he is doing is turning the intelligent designer argument of improbability being an argument FOR god into an argument against god. If probability does not apply to god it also undermines its use in favor of god's existence. If it can be used for, it can be used against.
Well, I was going to go on and point out that references to a 'designer' show that Dawkins is mainly targeting creationists.
None the less, it struck me that D does actually argue that God is improbable, since he/it/she must be complex, if it designed complex things.
Well, you can use that argument vis a vis creationism, but not other forms of theism, since in many Christian formulations God is simple and not material, and is not a designer, (secondary causes come in here, and so on). Most Christians are not occasionalists, but perhaps many Muslims are.
Thus, this kind of probability estimate is simply not apt for most kinds of Christian theism.
I don't blame Dawkins for aiming at creationism, but I think it produces a kind of blurred effect, as if arguments against that, also hold against theism in general; I don't think they do.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Svetlana
I'm not saying atheists need to co-opt anything. Just that that the word thankful has a thanked in its definition. One could be thankful to a parent or a friend.
When used in a non-person specific manner, it is not the best word to use.
But I suppose it could be seen as a parallel to the general thrust of the thread. The comfort of use is there even though the underlying belief is not.
[ 19. November 2014, 17:10: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Svitlana's point about creating new rational festivals reminds me of the French Revolution, where various people created Festivals of Reason, Temples of Reason, and so on.
There's a very good line by Thomas Carlyle, since sometimes the Goddess of Reason was portrayed by a real woman, and Carlyle observed one, and remarked that she was very good, only her teeth were a little defective.
Well, Robespierre also created the Cult of the Supreme Being, (somewhat deistic, I think).
Well, all of this ended very well! I suppose partly because Robespierre also noted that virtue without terror is powerless. Possibly this is true for governments.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Ikkyu wrote:
You are making Dawkins point for him. If you read around page 113. What he is doing is turning the intelligent designer argument of improbability being an argument FOR god into an argument against god. If probability does not apply to god it also undermines its use in favor of god's existence. If it can be used for, it can be used against.
Well, I was going to go on and point out that references to a 'designer' show that Dawkins is mainly targeting creationists.
None the less, it struck me that D does actually argue that God is improbable, since he/it/she must be complex, if it designed complex things.
Well, you can use that argument vis a vis creationism, but not other forms of theism, since in many Christian formulations God is simple and not material, and is not a designer, (secondary causes come in here, and so on). Most Christians are not occasionalists, but perhaps many Muslims are.
Thus, this kind of probability estimate is simply not apt for most kinds of Christian theism.
I don't blame Dawkins for aiming at creationism, but I think it produces a kind of blurred effect, as if arguments against that, also hold against theism in general; I don't think they do.
Dawkins spends most of chapter one in talking about other definitions of God and about why he is targeting this one. He is arguing against an "interventionist, miracle wreaking, thought reading, sin-punishing, prayer answering God" .
Not against Deist or ground of Being or Pantheistic versions.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Svetlana
I'm not saying atheists need to co-opt anything. Just that that the word thankful has a thanked in its definition. One could be thankful to a parent or a friend.
Sorry for the confusion: my above post was aimed more at the argument about atheists and the celebration of Christmas rather than atheists and the problem of thankfulness.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Ikkyu
Well, to really go into this, you would have to discuss the development of the idea of secondary causes among medieval philosophers, which removed God as a direct cause. OK, TGD is a popular book, and a chapter on that would have sunk its sales!
But the notion of secondary causation probably helped the development of science, so it is an interesting aspect of these medieval discussions.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Ikkyu
Well, to really go into this, you would have to discuss the development of the idea of secondary causes among medieval philosophers, which removed God as a direct cause. OK, TGD is a popular book, and a chapter on that would have sunk its sales!
But the notion of secondary causation probably helped the development of science, so it is an interesting aspect of these medieval discussions.
I believe we agree more than we disagree, but secondary causation is not what is usually taught to children or preached from pulpits.
And is not what "intelligent design" proponents want to put in textbooks. And fundamentalists would probably argue that letting science develop was a mistake leading to all sort of godless consequences.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
but they are also capable of feeling thankful for the exact same kinds of things as theists.
Yeah, but I still say a different word would be better.
Better? For whom?
Hmm. Well, okay then. What word would you suggest?
Imagine the following. I am stood alone on the top of a high chalk cliff on the Jurassic Coast of Dorset, looking out to the grey sea horizon as a heavy rain shower sweeps darkly across the bay and arrives in a sudden squall, the wind flapping my coat and the torrents stinging the skin of my face, and I feel a deep-seated sense of gratitude to be alive. I am silently thankful- yes, that’s it, full of thanks- for my time here on Earth, truly glad that, against the incomprehensibly tiny mathematical odds, I am here to feel the rain on my skin. What word, then, would you use to describe this sense of gratitude?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
The pin-head on which this highly-attenuated minuet proceeds seems to be shrinking, from holidays to ordinary courtesies.
I can't help wondering why it's so important for believers to inquire so closely into the actions of minding-our-damn-business atheists (in whose number I personally don't count loudmouth Dawkins).
There's a faintly Inquisitorial niff about the endeavor. Surely your god knows who's who and what's what; why must you?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
This thread throws up lots of interesting general problems that go beyond popular celebrations.
In some churches the meaning of words is very important. Preachers don't want people to recite liturgies they don't mean; this is why they sometimes make it clear that it's okay to stand in silence if you don't share the faith or intend to abide by the vows in a particular liturgy. Belonging is about having a shared belief.
In other churches, the concept of a shared heritage seems to be more important than a shared theology as such, and the liturgies and hymns are an important part of that. So the act of participation is an act of belonging in itself, without requiring a shared theology.
The first type of church is evidently nosier and less individualistic in a theological sense, and less useful to anyone who wants to participate on his or her own terms. But I suppose the problem is that these things are never discussed, churches aren't always sure which category they belong to, and mixed messages are sent out. Christmas is the obvious time of year for this distinction to become blurred.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think that in the same situation I would say I was so glad I was alive.
Apparently that's not good enough. One must be able to use a transitive verb as if it were intransitive.
It's like arguing, "I'm not saying I give anything to anyone. There is no thing given, and there is no recipient. I just give. Why must you theists insist on hogging this word to yourself?"
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
And what's wrong with my thanking the community gathered together at the feast? When did they turn into an unworthy recipient of my thanks?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
And what's wrong with my thanking the community gathered together at the feast? When did they turn into an unworthy recipient of my thanks?
Who said this is wrong??
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
And what's wrong with my thanking the community gathered together at the feast? When did they turn into an unworthy recipient of my thanks?
Who said this is wrong??
quote:
Originally posted by Dog Dad:
So, if someone is an avowed atheist, I take it to mean that they eschew any religion or spiritual beliefs. Therefore, would that lack of belief mean that aside from Patriotic holidays, they really should not celebrate any holidays that invoke any deity....New Year's Eve is fine, but even something like Thanksgiving could potentially be 'out'. Is anyone so devoutly 'undevout' that nothing is celebrated (Leaving out the Jehovahs' Witnesses, of course- who celebrate nothing!)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Oh, I thought you were addressing mousethief's post immediately preceding yours. Apologies.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Apparently that's not good enough. One must be able to use a transitive verb as if it were intransitive.
It's like arguing, "I'm not saying I give anything to anyone. There is no thing given, and there is no recipient. I just give. Why must you theists insist on hogging this word to yourself?"
Give. How interesting.
So, mousethief, after you have given charitably to the cause of grammar fascism, one cannot say that 'mousethief gave already' because that would be an abuse of a transitive verb.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Hoists storm cones
I think the Hosts will be very grateful and thankful if this thread does not move into the territory of mutual personal irritation (C4). As it is now threatening to do.
(Just noted that C4 is also the name of an explosive ..)
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Acknowledged.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Without being inflammatory, English has the reputation of being quite fluid in relation to transitivity and intransitivity. See for example, 'walking the dog', as intrans changing to trans, and 'I mind' as trans to intrans. <Tip-toes away.>
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I was thankful recently when, on an icy morning, my skidding car failed to hit anything or anyone. Who or what, in this case, should I thank?
Myself, for more-or-less successfully steering out of the skid;
The manufacturer of the brakes, tires, etc. on the car;
The arranger of pole sitings, tree plantings, etc. for placement that enabled me to avoid them;
Other drivers, for not being in my path as I did a 180 on the road before stopping the car at the verge;
Pedestrians for not choosing that moment to cross the path of a skidding vehicle;
The existence of forces like gravity, friction, and resistance which contributed to bringing the car to a halt;
Forces I'm unaware of and have no control over somehow collaborating to prevent a crash;
All of the above;
None of the above;
Something else which I've failed to list.
Given the number of times I've heard people say they were thankful FOR something without mentioning anything or anyone TO WHOM or TO WHICH they were thankful, I submit that insisting on filling in a direct object for the verb "thank" is now grammatically superfluous, at least in American usage.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That's an interesting point, as some grammarians argue that American English is more fluid about transitivity than British English. I'm told for example, that 'protest' as a trans verb, started in the US, but that may not be true, as usually somebody finds an example in 1759 in London. I suppose things like 'lawyered up' are from the US? But does Jack McCoy say it? That is the bench-mark.
[ 20. November 2014, 11:13: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I am wrong about 'protest', as 'protesting your innocence' is probably pretty old in Brit English; it's things like 'protesting the cuts' which sound American. One thing I learned in linguistics: there is always a counter-example.
Other interesting ones are 'disappear' (as trans verb); 'grow' as in 'grow the economy'; 'appeal' (but found in Shakespeare as trans verb, I think).
Letters of protest to the Telegraph, please.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I will point out for all of those who think Atheists are wrong to use the term "Thanksgiving" since it must mean thanks to one or more Gods, that if you did find a better word and change the name of the holiday, we'd be hearing nonsense from the people who claim that there is a War on Christmas that there's also a War on Thanksgiving.
Society has defined slots on the calendar for holidays which coincide with the important holidays of popular religions. That doesn't mean that those who are not members of those religions can't have holidays or must be rationed to only one holiday. The slots get repurposed to be secular holidays for the secular. They will probably mix older customs in.
You may protest that your Yule log, Christmas Tree, Chanukah bush or Festivus pole is being profaned by others adopting the custom but not the religious symbolism. Expect laughter.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
