|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Young atheists
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The article is interested in how Christianity can strengthen itself; the answer is for them to be honest and to acknowledge the unknown.
Which is very interesting, because the article seems to conclude the exact opposite. Being vague and not giving strong, clear answers based on Biblical values is going to breed an army of mini-Dawkins, apparently.
But one of the many problems with this article is that there's no attempt to create a baseline or any sort of control. What proportion of children are brought up atheist, or in churches that conform to this or that description? How does that compare to the results? Has anyone attempted to check whether atheist converts who were brought up in conservative churches are more likely to still be closeted (or at least not members of an openly atheist group) at college?
I'm starting to think I need to blog about this, but there's almost too much to cover.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Many young atheists are such due to the failure of churches and Christian communities to speak to them effectively. There was an NPR series on this topic not long ago and there were similar views - church is obsessed with political/sexual issues, church is not authentic, Christians do not behave as if their belief has any transformative effect on them.
Indeed, especially your final point. On a more general note, was it Ghandi who said something like 'I like Christ, but I don't like Christians'?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
The main slant of this article seems to be a rebuke to churches, and laying the blame purely on bad experiences as a cause of atheism. It subtly undermines the scientific, rational aspect of the belief, by linking Phil's "conversion" to his pastor leaving. I wonder if, satisfied that there is no debating these points, this is an alternative tactic for abating the slide of Christians into atheism - "you're only doing it because you're emotionally damaged".
This is interesting. It's often levelled at Christians that their conversion was due to emotional damage.
I wonder whether it's more to do with ego. The greater our ego, the less likely we are to be ready to be humble before God. Quite where this fits in to this study if at all I don't know, but if emotional damage helps us to see how small we are and allows us to be open to Christ we will go one way, while if it convinces us that a God who is supposed to give us a rosy glow all our lives doesn't exist, we may go the other way.
In retrospect we reflect on the reasons for and results of our train of thought, and then it's common to criticise the system we left. An ex-employee, for example, has much to say about what was wrong with the company he left, but the reasons he gives later may not be what caused the move.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes. Atheism is a reaction, not something that exists in and of itself.
Are you saying that without the postulation of a god atheism couldn't exist?
Yes I am.
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
However, to link that to people who are atheists largely coming from churched families doesn't make a whole lot of sense; most of the atheists I know here in Britain were brought up in non-religious families. Sure they're not militant about it - but it is what it is. Over time as an idea gains viability the opposing views stand on their own rather than dependent on the original view.
How can an opposing view stand on it's own without a view to oppose?
But I think I might get what you're saying. I suspect the original atheism might morph into something else in time. Nature abhors a vacuum after all.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Atheism is a reaction, not something that exists in and of itself.
This is arrant nonsense. You’re talking about ‘strong atheism’ or, more likely, antitheism. Atheism is very simply the lack of belief in god(s). It is the default neutral position, annulled by belief (either that there is a god, or that there is not in the case of strong atheism or antitheism).
It is not the default neutral position at all.
You cannot lack something that does not exist. For example, if I make a cake and leave it out and my son takes a piece, I will notice a lack of a piece.
Without the cake (God) I would have never noticed the lack (atheism).
A lack means something is missing. How can something be missing if nothing was there in the first place?
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
We are all born atheists- not agnostics, as has been claimed above.
No. We are born theists. God creates souls and they are born. Newborns have innate, intrinsic knowledge of God. They lose this later as they become more human and are subject to human limitations.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I have been pushed to the edge of Christianity, though not (yet?) an atheist. This never would have happened had I not married an evangelical. Many evangelicals insist on believing the demonstrably untrue (and no amount of evidence will change them; but if you ask them for evidence, you won't get it), which sets up its adherent to follow two basic paths: full submission to the fantasy or be marginalised by one means or another. That kind of evangelical culture is demonstrable destructive and it sets up all those involved for a considerable fall; and I will be glad when it eats itself. The article is interested in how Christianity can strengthen itself; the answer is for them to be honest and to acknowledge the unknown.
K.
Agreed.
If I was born and raised in a Christian household that believed in penal substitution, I would certainly be an atheist by now.
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The article is interested in how Christianity can strengthen itself; the answer is for them to be honest and to acknowledge the unknown.
Which is very interesting, because the article seems to conclude the exact opposite. Being vague and not giving strong, clear answers based on Biblical values is going to breed an army of mini-Dawkins, apparently.
Exactly.
No wonder I thought something was fishy about it.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
People who become atheists come from church-going families. Is that what you would expect? What about the rest of their conclusions? Those of you who are atheists, what do you think of the article?
Your first sentence here is is probably truer of the USA than the UK, especially England. In England, we've already had several generations of families that aren't especially religious, so being an atheist isn't necessarily about rejecting an overtly Christian upbringing.
It does happen, of course. We still come across lapsed Catholics who are sometimes very negative about Christianity. Anglicans and people from closely related churches seem to drift away quietly, without great proclamations or attempts to attack the foolishness of religious belief. Evangelicals moved to the margins of the culture fairly early in the last century, or even sooner, so modern accounts of British evangelicals becoming atheists don't surface that often. One famous British ex-evangelical (Elim Pentecostal) is the author Jeanette Winterson. Another is the athlete Jonathan Edwards.
Young people are already in short supply in most British churches, and those who do attend Sunday School often leave at a quite young age. Atheism isn't usually the reason, although they may become atheists later. Evangelical churches probably lose more young people to atheism, but that's partly because they have more young people to start with.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes. Atheism is a reaction, not something that exists in and of itself.
Are you saying that without the postulation of a god atheism couldn't exist?
Yes I am.
You appear to be confusing the existence of something with having or needing a special name for it. Either that, or you're employing a definition of atheism so idiosyncratic that it borders on Humpty-Dumptyism.
If no god was postulated, everyone would be atheists by any reasonable measure. They almost certainly wouldn't have a name for such a position, on account of having no need to differentiate between them and the non-existent theists, but atheists they would be.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It is helpful, for example, to understand that newborn babies are in fact atheists, because an appreciation of this fact affects our further understanding of things.
It is not a fact. It is a tendentious decision to define a word in a particular way for polemical purposes.
Are you suggesting (like Evensong) that a newborn baby is by definition theist? If so, how does that work, and how is it not an equally ‘tendentious decision to define a word in a particular way for polemical purposes’?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Newborns have innate, intrinsic knowledge of God. They lose this later as they become more human and are subject to human limitations.
What. The. Fuck?!
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It is not a fact. It is a tendentious decision to define a word in a particular way for polemical purposes.
Are you suggesting (like Evensong) that a newborn baby is by definition theist? If so, how does that work, and how is it not an equally ‘tendentious decision to define a word in a particular way for polemical purposes’?
Yorick, sometimes your posts seem deliberately obtuse. Clearly, atheism, like theism, is a philosophical construct ("-ism" is a pretty good clue for this sort of thing.) There is no reason that I can think of to imagine that any such construct is present at birth.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Atheism. a-theism. No-theism.
Babies are born with no idea of gods. Right?
I agree however, that when most people use the word, they think of Dawkins or whatever. Maybe we could call this atheism 'non-theism'?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
They seem to have ideas about what is beautiful or exciting immediately, after all.
Oh, well that settles it then.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It is not a fact. It is a tendentious decision to define a word in a particular way for polemical purposes.
Are you suggesting (like Evensong) that a newborn baby is by definition theist?
The baby is no more an atheist or a theist than an apple is. Calling someone an atheist or a theist implies that person has the capacity to hold beliefs about the relevant subject matter. Babies and apples do not.
That said, you can attribute religion based on practice. A child being brought up by practicing Hindus is presumably participating in Hindu religious practices even if only by proxy. One should certainly count such a child as a Hindu if, for example, deciding whether to lay on pureed lentils or pureed beef as a weaning food.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Atheism. a-theism. No-theism.
Babies are born with no idea of gods. Right?
I agree however, that when most people use the word, they think of Dawkins or whatever. Maybe we could call this atheism 'non-theism'?
No, it is not an -ism at all. The assumption of theoretical sophistication that this implies is unwarranted. Failing to have a thought construct does not make you an atheist (although some here would probably disagree...) You might as well say that Neanderthal man was an opponent of string theory.
--Tom Clune
[ 20. June 2013, 14:28: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Massive tangent, ergo, new thread.
(With apologies to Josephine.)
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
You might as well say that Neanderthal man was an opponent of string theory.
That's only a valid comparison if you define an atheist as someone who is opposed to theism. If, as Yorick appears to, you simply define atheism as the absence of any belief in any god/gods, then that is not the case. Under such a definition babies are indeed atheists, as they are incapable of having any such beliefs.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
You might as well say that Neanderthal man was an opponent of string theory.
That's only a valid comparison if you define an atheist as someone who is opposed to theism. If, as Yorick appears to, you simply define atheism as the absence of any belief in any god/gods, then that is not the case. Under such a definition babies are indeed atheists, as they are incapable of having any such beliefs.
And the wholesale redefinition of words is precisely what I am taking issue with. We can define "atheist" as "featherless biped" and claim that most people are atheists. But it is not at all compelling.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
And the wholesale redefinition of words is precisely what I am taking issue with. We can define "atheist" as "featherless biped" and claim that most people are atheists. But it is not at all compelling.
From dictionary.com:
a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist]
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
(emphasis mine)
It seems to me that all that is required to be an atheist is to not believe in a/any god/gods. No actual opposition or hostility towards theism is required. In a culture where the concept of god/gods simply does not exist, every person would be a de facto atheist, even though they wouldn't have a clue what the word even means.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
And the wholesale redefinition of words is precisely what I am taking issue with. We can define "atheist" as "featherless biped" and claim that most people are atheists. But it is not at all compelling.
From dictionary.com:
a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist]
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
(emphasis mine)
It seems to me that all that is required to be an atheist is to not believe in a/any god/gods. No actual opposition or hostility towards theism is required. In a culture where the concept of god/gods simply does not exist, every person would be a de facto atheist, even though they wouldn't have a clue what the word even means.
"Disbelieve" is not equivalent to "being without an opinion." If I say that I disbelieve that UFOs are real, I am not claiming to have no opinion on the subject, and I am not claiming to have no idea what a UFO is.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Will you concede that there is a position of non-belief that may legitimately be called atheism?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
"Disbelieve" is not equivalent to "being without an opinion."
So what would you call a baby who is neither atheist nor theist?
I doubt many people would have problems with calling a baby "apolitical" because it lacks the ability to have an opinion on politics. But isn't that the same thing as calling it "atheist" because it lacks the ability to have an opinion on theism?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
@tclune If we are not allowed to use the word atheist to describe someone who doesn't believe in God then what word should we use?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
"Disbelieve" is not equivalent to "being without an opinion."
So what would you call a baby who is neither atheist nor theist?
I doubt many people would have problems with calling a baby "apolitical" because it lacks the ability to have an opinion on politics. But isn't that the same thing as calling it "atheist" because it lacks the ability to have an opinion on theism?
Rocks are atheists too. Trees. Frogs.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tea
Shipmate
# 16619
|
Posted
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Those of you who are atheists, what do you think of the article?
The article did not echo my move towards atheism, which took place during my adolescence in the Britain of the seventies.
From about the age of twelve onwards, I associated monotheism in general and Christianity in particular with a stifling social, cultural, and political conservatism. I wanted to rebel against that conservatism.
I had long been fascinated by the world of classical antiquity, and both Judaism and Christianity seemed joyless, sexless, and colorless in comparison. I admired the building of the Parthenon rather than the destruction of the golden calf, and found myself more drawn to the birth of Venus than the death of Jesus. I also found the openmindedness of many of the pagans of antiquity with regard to a plurality of gods and cults more attractive than what appeared to me as the narrow intolerance of the First Commandment.
Many of the Christians I encountered at school were conservative evangelicals, some of whom made strenuous efforts to convert me to their beliefs. Not only did I find their find their apologetics unconvincing, but I also detected a nasty streak of anti-intellectualism in their rhetoric. I was also repelled by the cult-like pretense of personal concern and friendship which, I felt, masked anger at my continued rejection of their beliefs and a desire to notch up a conversion that was of much greater importance to them than any wish to engage in honest intellectual exploration and argument.
One of these evangelists insisted I go with him to a Baptist service. This long, long morning in spent in an architectural horror with hymn after hymn, a seemingly interminable sermon, and prayers that made me cringe appalled me.
As an undergraduate at a rather conservative university, I became aware that the Christian Union acted as a a mobilizing network for social conservatives. This conservatism made me, for a while, quite outspoken in my atheism.
As I have grown older, better read, and more conscious both of my own heritage (mixed Anglican and Jewish) and of the many threads that make up our collective past, I have qualified and modified many of the judgements that I made with such confidence in my youth.
So my reading of history in general and US history in particular made me revise my earlier conflation of Christianity with conservatism.
I became aware that some (not all) modern celebrations of pagan antiquity have carried the virus of antisemitism.
I remember my school chaplain, a 1928 Prayer Book Anglican, whose Christianity was less simplistic and more challenging than that of the evangelical peers. I also remember that the university SCM, although tiny in comparison with the Christian Union, contained powerful voices for justice and social solidarity.
I was lucky enough to stumble upon authors - James Barr is one that comes to mind - who showed me that evangelical Christianity need not be identical with fundamentalism. I am also thankful for the various splendours and wonders of those Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox churches that I have visited.
These revisionary thoughts do not mean that I am reconsidering my atheism; the problem of evil presents what I consider to be an insuperable problem for believers and there are many other reasons that I neither want nor expect to be a believer.
I hope, though, that my brief sketch of my move to atheism shows that the implied (conservative evangelical) recommendations of the article Josephine brought to our attention would not "work" with me - and I think I am by no means unusual as far as the history and shape of my atheist thinking goes.
Posts: 66 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Rocks are atheists too. Trees. Frogs.
They don't believe in any god/s, so yes it could be said that they are.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...So what would you call a baby who is neither atheist nor theist?..
Let me try and answer that. We have many small children (I'm talking under 1 year old in some cases) in our church, and they are given communion and considered "Christians", not "potential Christians." Baptism I think is the litmus test at that age - what else could suffice?
If a child's parents don't baptize him and desire he be an atheist (or humanist) then that is what he is - for now. If, God willing, he should become a christian when he gets older, then he has finished with atheism and become a theist, a Christian.
These are just my opinions of course, but if I am wrong then why use the word "convert?"
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
That's certainly one way of looking at it, Mark - it's a question of what the "default setting" for baby humans is, and "whatever their parents are" is a perfectly valid answer. It's not one I necessarily agree with, but it's arguable.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
..."Disbelieve" is not equivalent to "being without an opinion." If I say that I disbelieve that UFOs are real, I am not claiming to have no opinion on the subject, and I am not claiming to have no idea what a UFO is.
--Tom Clune
For those "without an opinion" ie. not interested, I don't know what you would call them. It is not "atheism" as we know it (Jim), simply apathy. Is there a name for people of such a position?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Fencesitters
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I think "agnostic" would be closer than "atheist."
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I think "agnostic" would be closer than "atheist."
When describing young children, I've always thought "heathen" fit the bill... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niminypiminy
Shipmate
# 15489
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
..."Disbelieve" is not equivalent to "being without an opinion." If I say that I disbelieve that UFOs are real, I am not claiming to have no opinion on the subject, and I am not claiming to have no idea what a UFO is.
--Tom Clune
For those "without an opinion" ie. not interested, I don't know what you would call them. It is not "atheism" as we know it (Jim), simply apathy. Is there a name for people of such a position?
Apatheist?
--------------------
Lives of the Saints: songs by The Unequal Struggle
http://www.theunequalstruggle.com/
Posts: 776 | From: Edge of the Fens | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Slightly more seriously, it is interesting that we have such an aversion to the notion of ignorance that we refuse to apply it to those who literally and nonjudgmentally are ignorant.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
If I say that I disbelieve that UFOs are real, I am not claiming to have no opinion on the subject, and I am not claiming to have no idea what a UFO is.
Yes, you are. Not by saying you disbelieve in them, but by using the term "UFO". By definition, you have no idea what an Unidentified Flying Object is.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Slightly more seriously, it is interesting that we have such an aversion to the notion of ignorance that we refuse to apply it to those who literally and nonjudgmentally are ignorant.
I think it has more to do with the aversion to the term "atheist". It seems to be regarded in religious circles as one of the most dire and insulting thing you can say about anyone, hence the offense at calling poor, innocent babies by such a vile term.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niminypiminy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
..."Disbelieve" is not equivalent to "being without an opinion." If I say that I disbelieve that UFOs are real, I am not claiming to have no opinion on the subject, and I am not claiming to have no idea what a UFO is.
--Tom Clune
For those "without an opinion" ie. not interested, I don't know what you would call them. It is not "atheism" as we know it (Jim), simply apathy. Is there a name for people of such a position?
Apatheist?
Meh-theism.
But this betrays some interesting biases. There are many people who don't really care about religion either way, possibly even the majority of the population. But most people fitting that description, in this country anyway, would probably identify as Christian if pushed. They vaguely identify with the church for a portfolio of cultural reasons, even if they have to be carried in both times they attend a service.
So maybe the answer's CofE. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
If I say that I disbelieve that UFOs are real, I am not claiming to have no opinion on the subject, and I am not claiming to have no idea what a UFO is.
Yes, you are. Not by saying you disbelieve in them, but by using the term "UFO". By definition, you have no idea what an Unidentified Flying Object is.
That is truly ludicrous. Just about everyone who uses the term has a pretty clear idea of what a UFO is. They may be wrong, but the implication is unmistakable.
--Tom Clune
[ 21. June 2013, 15:18: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, you are. Not by saying you disbelieve in them, but by using the term "UFO". By definition, you have no idea what an Unidentified Flying Object is.
That is truly ludicrous. Just about everyone who uses the term has a pretty clear idea of what a UFO is. They may be wrong, but the implication is unmistakable.
Not at all. The terminology was coined by the US Air Force and meant to be a catch-all for any flying object of unknown nature. To borrow a little from Slacktivist:
quote:
If you’re not familiar with Chris Carter’s wonderful 1990s TV show [The X-Files], it follows the adventures of two FBI agents who are tasked with investigating unexplained phenomena. Agent Scully, played by Gillian Anderson, is the one who believes in UFOs.
Many people get that backwards. Since Scully is the skeptical scientist and Mulder the idealistic true believer, they mistakenly think Mulder believes in UFOs. He doesn’t. Mulder can’t abide allowing flying objects to remain unidentified. He doesn’t believe in UFOs, he believes in alien spacecraft.
Emphasis added by me.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
You are mistaking etymology for meaning.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You are mistaking etymology for meaning.
I'm not sure it's even etymology, just phrase construction. "Unidentified Flying Object" seems to be a set of three words with a fairly clear and unambiguous meaning, both individually and when combined.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You are mistaking etymology for meaning.
I'm not sure it's even etymology, just phrase construction. "Unidentified Flying Object" seems to be a set of three words with a fairly clear and unambiguous meaning, both individually and when combined.
Once something is coined, it is released into the linguistic community, and its meaning floats on the waves. It doesn't matter what the constituent parts mean separately. The phrase as a whole has its own definition, and it has evolved since its coining. English has no Academie. Usage is meaning.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Once something is coined, it is released into the linguistic community, and its meaning floats on the waves. It doesn't matter what the constituent parts mean separately. The phrase as a whole has its own definition, and it has evolved since its coining. English has no Academie. Usage is meaning.
True, but I don't think the usage of "UFO" has changed as unequivocally as you seem to think it has. Consider the following hypothetical news item:
quote:
A UFO was seen over a soybean field near Lafayette, Indiana for about two minutes, before disappearing into a cloud bank.
If we accept your premise, almost everyone who hears that report will think "Wow, alien spacecraft have been seen in Indiana" and virtually no one will think "Wow, people saw something flying near Lafayette and no one* knows what it is". I remain convinced that more people will think the latter than the former.
--------------------
*In this case "no one" is shorthand for "no one who spoke to local reporters".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Once something is coined, it is released into the linguistic community, and its meaning floats on the waves. It doesn't matter what the constituent parts mean separately. The phrase as a whole has its own definition, and it has evolved since its coining. English has no Academie. Usage is meaning.
True, but I don't think the usage of "UFO" has changed as unequivocally as you seem to think it has. Consider the following hypothetical news item:
quote:
A UFO was seen over a soybean field near Lafayette, Indiana for about two minutes, before disappearing into a cloud bank.
If we accept your premise, almost everyone who hears that report will think "Wow, alien spacecraft have been seen in Indiana" and virtually no one will think "Wow, people saw something flying near Lafayette and no one* knows what it is". I remain convinced that more people will think the latter than the former.
--------------------
*In this case "no one" is shorthand for "no one who spoke to local reporters".
You are aware that words can have more than one meaning, right? Right? RIGHT?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
Edited for crosspost:
quote:
quote:
A UFO was seen over a soybean field near Lafayette, Indiana for about two minutes, before disappearing into a cloud bank.
If we accept your premise, almost everyone who hears that report will think "Wow, alien spacecraft have been seen in Indiana" and virtually no one will think "Wow, people saw something flying near Lafayette and no one* knows what it is". I remain convinced that more people will think the latter than the former.
I'd say most people will take that as a claim that alien spacecraft were seen there, but then will wisely choose to suspect it was really a balloon or whatnot.
[ 21. June 2013, 18:35: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You are aware that words can have more than one meaning, right? Right? RIGHT?
I certainly am. I was wondering about you, though, since you seem to have trouble with the idea that the phrase "Unidentified Flying Object" might refer to a flying object that could not be identified.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You are aware that words can have more than one meaning, right? Right? RIGHT?
I certainly am. I was wondering about you, though, since you seem to have trouble with the idea that the phrase "Unidentified Flying Object" might refer to a flying object that could not be identified.
No, I merely think it NEEDN'T mean that exclusively, as you appear to.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
