Pressing matters of the day and of all time, debated among thoughtful participants of all faiths


Reply to topic
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 1: Sun Mar 12, 2017 4:36 pm
Reply
Breaking the ice.

Like this post
Greetings;

This is a simple breaking of the ice; and hopefully the beginning of some good arguments.

I am defined as an atheist; but I reject the title atheist and prefer the title a-anything that hasn't been confirmed and demonstrated as true; or has demonstrable evidence leading to a valid theory.

I universally reject arguments based on the definition of words. I feel that anyone, atheist or theist alike that will argue the other is wrong based on the dictionary definition of a word is ignoring the arguments basis on the basis of 'that's not what that word means' which I believe is dodging the argument presented for an easier rebuttal.

I have a long history of reading Egyptian, Greek and Christian religious doctrine. And am fascinated by Egyptian and Greek mythology. And have come here purely to have conversational arguments with religious people to further my own understanding of what people believe.

Also just here to meet a few new people and hopefully get some good conversation going. Always happy to talk Egyptian or Greek mythology with anyone and can talk quite extensively on Christian dogma and beliefs within reason. Also happy to question but am not able to debate as extensively with other religious concepts.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 2: Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:38 pm
Reply

Like this post
Welcome to the forum!

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 3: Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:54 pm
Reply

Like this post
Glad to have you with us. I like what you are saying there.

Who wants to be a non-something? In New Zealand, when I did my degree we had to do a cultural identity class, which was pretty much something that was put on the course to make Maori people happy. It was kind of like shoving their culture down our throats.

The word "Pakeha" is used to describe any white non Maori. In fact our tutor said that "Pakeha" simply means "Non Maori". She also said that we should feel proud to be considered "Pakeha". This didn't sit right with me. My response was that "Why would I want to be a non-something?"

So yeah, maybe the same should apply to the word "Atheist". Having said that though, it is helpful on a site such as this to label ourselves in this manner. It helps others to know what side of the fence we sit on. The user groups are invaluable when it comes to debate.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 4: Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:37 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 2 by otseng]

Thank you. I hope to learn a lot while I am here.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 5: Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:45 pm
Reply

Like this post (2): OnceConvinced, JoeyKnothead
[Replying to post 3 by OnceConvinced]

A small world! I am from New Zealand also.

The problem I have with 'pakeha' especially is that by definition it means 'not us'. No foundation can begin with 'not' something. This assumes that by default it must be that thing; for instance 'pakeha' means by default it must be Maori; and if not it is classified as anything else.

I do not feel that anything that defines itself as the default purely as an abstract should be used as a basis to identify anything else as absent.

For instance; the Pakeha reference. Maori is a thing; there are Maori people. There for other people that are not Maori are their own defined racial identity. Two white people could be German and English respectively. To define these people as simply 'Pakeha' assumes Maori as the default.

Atheism and theism does the same; theism is the belief in something. Atheism presumes the absence of Theism. Theism is not the default norm; we take two people one is a Nihalist the other is Agnostic. These are by definition now Atheist; but they have nothing in common. There for it must be used as a broad term to define absence of theism and have no joining power of the people under it's umbrella. And by that has no explanatory power other than they just don't believe in a god.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 6: Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:36 pm
Reply

Like this post
Good points.

Where in NZ are you?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 7: Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:02 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 6 by OnceConvinced]

Hamilton matey; and yourself?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 8: Mon Mar 20, 2017 5:44 pm
Reply

Like this post
Same! Fairfield to be exact.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   


Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version