|
Post by snow on Nov 12, 2014 16:29:43 GMT -5
I think in a lot of cases atheists and agnostics know more about what is in the bible than many Christians do. I know in talking with my birth family, they will be quoting things to me from the NT, verses that are quite commonly quoted in church. Then I will refer to something in the bible and they have never heard of it before. So I take them to where it says it and they don't know how to explain it. Many times they are surprised it's there, can't explain it, and say they will talk to their preacher about it to see what he thinks it means. If someone has been raised in a religion like we were, leaving wasn't done easily nor lightly. It was a hard move for me at least. I just knew I couldn't continue on. It was after that I started to research and try to make sense of things. The deeper you dig, the more it becomes evident, at least to me, that there could not be such a being. I know there is no choice in whether to believe in God or not anymore, not for me. It truly is the same as not believing in Santa Claus anymore and that isn't meant to be a slur, just an analogy. would even something like the rapture change your mind? would that be "proof" enough for you? Wally, do you mean if the rapture happened, would I believe in the Christian God? I imagine I would likely believe if all the Christians I once knew just up and disappeared into the sky while I was watching. But wouldn't that be too late for me at that point?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 12, 2014 16:30:13 GMT -5
Defining agnosticismThomas Henry Huxley said:[11][12]
"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ...
Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration.
And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in the strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist." wiki
No, I am not an agnostic, -I am an atheist. I DO believe human reason is capable of providing sufficient rational grounds to believe that a God or Gods does not exist.
Hmm...but the human reasoning (facts/knowledge/proof/science in general) provided is the same for both the atheist and the agnostic. And since neither is using faith or anything like that in making their claims...shouldn't there be no distinction? I guess the only distinction must be how much of this human reasoning one needs to feel confident in claiming dis-belief for his or her self. Since Huxley was the one that coined the term, agnostic, I will take his definition for agnostic.Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1869.
However, earlier thinkers have written works that promoted agnostic points of view.
These thinkers include Sanjaya Belatthaputta, a 5th-century BCE Indian philosopher who expressed agnosticism about any afterlife,[4][5][6]
Protagoras, a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher was agnostic about the gods.[7]
The Nasadiya Sukta in the Rigveda is agnostic about the origin of the universe.[8][9][10]
Since the time that Huxley coined the term, many other thinkers have extensively written about agnosticism.
wiki
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 16:48:06 GMT -5
would even something like the rapture change your mind? would that be "proof" enough for you? Wally, do you mean if the rapture happened, would I believe in the Christian God? I imagine I would likely believe if all the Christians I once knew just up and disappeared into the sky while I was watching. But wouldn't that be too late for me at that point? depends if the rapture is pre tribulation or post tribulation if post tribulation yes it would be too late if pre tribulation then you would have 7 more years...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 12, 2014 17:30:44 GMT -5
Wally, do you mean if the rapture happened, would I believe in the Christian God? I imagine I would likely believe if all the Christians I once knew just up and disappeared into the sky while I was watching. But wouldn't that be too late for me at that point? depends if the rapture is pre tribulation or post tribulation if post tribulation yes it would be too late if pre tribulation then you would have 7 more years... Oh boy! See this is why I don't bother with belief in stuff that can't be proven. How do you keep from going crazy trying to figure out what to believe and not believe? I failed when it comes to having faith in anything to do with God. Since I can't see how one God is any better than another, I would have to somehow decide which one was the right one to believe in. I don't see how anyone can be sure they have the right one. I see no evidence that there is a God of any kind in this universe. Everything that exists can be explained for the most part by science. Anything we don't know yet doesn't bother me. I see gains in knowledge all the time and I have no problem waiting for the next proven scientific finding. I am confident that humanity is capable of helping each other, loving each other etc without the guidance of a supernatural being. After all these descriptions of what it is to be an atheist or an agnostic, I really don't know how to describe myself. So I'm just going to say this. As far as there being a God that goes, I have yet to see evidence of one. When I see evidence of one I will believe in it. Until then, God does not exist. I'm like Matisse that way. I require proof. So far there is no proof. All the things people attribute to God can be explained in a natural way and don't require a supernatural explanation. If I'm wrong I'll take my punishment. So far I see no evidence that I am wrong and I'm not going to be a hypocrite saying I believe in something I don't.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Nov 12, 2014 18:09:10 GMT -5
DMG ~ I described legalism in religion in my statement above. I assure you, not all churches today are so taken up with outward appearances and a bunch of ridiculous requirements for membership as the 2x2's and others like them who over-invest themselves within people's lives and lay heavy burdens upon them in the form of rules for acceptance within the group. This article should give a good example of how they rob people of their freedom in worship and replace it with bondage.
www.christianpost.com/news/how-to-spot-a-legalist-92015/
Faune, the above link that you gave, The Christian Post, reads like a legalistic, fundamentalist concept in itself! This column tells one legalistic way they would control a person's life.Christian Post Guest Columnist One Life Lost, All Lives Diminished: Brittany Maynard and Assisted SuicideBy John Stonestreet , Brittany Maynard was the perfect story for the so-called "death with dignity" movement: Young, intelligent and facing a debilitating and extraordinarily painful death from brain cancer. And on November 1st, with the support of loved ones, she chose to end her life, as she said it, "on her own terms."
But her decision was misguided and it was wrong, for all of us. Let me explain.
First, let's clear up the euphemisms that are involved with the death with dignity movement. "Ending your own life" is called suicide. That's what it is.
And the phrase "on your own terms"? It's a concept signifying nothing—it's an illusion. If we were in control, we'd choose not to contract a fatal illness in the first place.
What a horrible thing to say! There is no way that we have any "choice" whether contracting such a disease!
DMG ~ You must have your articles mixed up here? There's no mention of Brittany Maynard and her assisted suicide recently in my posted link above? Just check it out to see for yourself above.
Perhaps this came from another place on this site than within the article itself? Were you really about the source of the posting perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Nov 12, 2014 18:10:21 GMT -5
Honestable ~ Actually there's such a person as an "agnostic atheist," along with numerous other descriptions connected to Atheism, as shown in this article below from an atheistic website.
commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487 17 Kinds of Atheism
I didn't know there were 17. Still it's much simpler being an atheist, only 17 varieties vs. 41,000 varieties of Christian. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations Xna ~ I figured somebody would find that article amusing?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Nov 12, 2014 18:21:26 GMT -5
Honestable ~ Actually there's such a person as an "agnostic atheist," along with numerous other descriptions connected to Atheism, as shown in this article below from an atheistic website.
commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487 17 Kinds of Atheism
I didn't know there were 17. Still it's much simpler being an atheist, only 17 varieties vs. 41,000 varieties of Christian. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominationsXna ~ All I can say is that the Christians surely has got the Atheists beat in their number of denominations or varieties!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Nov 12, 2014 18:27:55 GMT -5
Wally, do you mean if the rapture happened, would I believe in the Christian God? I imagine I would likely believe if all the Christians I once knew just up and disappeared into the sky while I was watching. But wouldn't that be too late for me at that point? depends if the rapture is pre tribulation or post tribulation if post tribulation yes it would be too late if pre tribulation then you would have 7 more years... Wally ~ Very insightful response!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 16, 2014 22:53:29 GMT -5
Honestable ~ Actually there's such a person as an "agnostic atheist," along with numerous other descriptions connected to Atheism, as shown in this article below from an atheistic website.
commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487 17 Kinds of Atheism
This is pretty much BS. From this URL: 3. Difference in Scope A broad atheist denies the existence of all gods: Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva, and so on. A narrow atheist denies the existence of the traditional Western omni-God who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful.Either you believe in a deity or deities or you don't. This would be like claiming you didn't eat meat because you didn't eat reindeer! Long and involved definitions like this are written by those who fear to simply admit they do not believe in any god.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 17, 2014 1:08:31 GMT -5
Honestable ~ Actually there's such a person as an "agnostic atheist," along with numerous other descriptions connected to Atheism, as shown in this article below from an atheistic website.
commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487 17 Kinds of Atheism
This is pretty much BS. From this URL: 3. Difference in Scope A broad atheist denies the existence of all gods: Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva, and so on. A narrow atheist denies the existence of the traditional Western omni-God who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful.Either you believe in a deity or deities or you don't. This would be like claiming you didn't eat meat because you didn't eat reindeer! Long and involved definitions like this are written by those who fear to simply admit they do not believe in any god. I agree. Sounds like the stuff that atheist often encounter.
All those comments sounds more like theists trying to put atheists into boxes in order to discredit them by some kind of divide & conquer method.
At the same time, theists simply not accepting the definition by which we define ourselves. They want to be the ones to define us instead.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Nov 17, 2014 4:36:07 GMT -5
This is pretty much BS. From this URL: 3. Difference in Scope A broad atheist denies the existence of all gods: Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva, and so on. A narrow atheist denies the existence of the traditional Western omni-God who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful.Either you believe in a deity or deities or you don't. This would be like claiming you didn't eat meat because you didn't eat reindeer! Long and involved definitions like this are written by those who fear to simply admit they do not believe in any god. I agree. Sounds like the stuff that atheist often encounter.
All those comments sounds more like theists trying to put atheists into boxes in order to discredit them by some kind of divide & conquer method.
At the same time, theists simply not accepting the definition by which we define ourselves. They want to be the ones to define us instead.
This makes sense to me: The Dawkins Formulation: In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know." 2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there." 3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God." 4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." 5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical." 6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." 7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate. ____________ I consider myself a "defacto atheist" by this formulation.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Nov 17, 2014 5:26:39 GMT -5
I agree. Sounds like the stuff that atheist often encounter.
All those comments sounds more like theists trying to put atheists into boxes in order to discredit them by some kind of divide & conquer method.
At the same time, theists simply not accepting the definition by which we define ourselves. They want to be the ones to define us instead.
This makes sense to me: The Dawkins Formulation: In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know." 2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there." 3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God." 4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." 5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical." 6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." 7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate. ____________ I consider myself a "defacto atheist" by this formulation. Matisse ~ That an interesting probability curve proposed by Dawkins. I guess I would place myself as #2 above, in all honesty?
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
|
|
|
Post by faune on Nov 17, 2014 5:36:24 GMT -5
Honestable ~ Actually there's such a person as an "agnostic atheist," along with numerous other descriptions connected to Atheism, as shown in this article below from an atheistic website.
commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487 17 Kinds of Atheism
This is pretty much BS. From this URL: 3. Difference in Scope A broad atheist denies the existence of all gods: Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva, and so on. A narrow atheist denies the existence of the traditional Western omni-God who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful.Either you believe in a deity or deities or you don't. This would be like claiming you didn't eat meat because you didn't eat reindeer! Long and involved definitions like this are written by those who fear to simply admit they do not believe in any god. Rational ~ I agree with you ~ "This is pretty much BS." I posted it in fun to get a reaction from you and others which I figured would be forthcoming. Since a comment was made about there being 41,000 varieties of Christian denominations due to beliefs, I just wanted it to be known that atheists have been described in the same light ~ i.e., agnostic atheist ~ to cover all their bases.
I believe Xna caught on to the "tongue-in-cheek" humor in my post due to his earlier response shown below? Also, this was found on an "atheist website," by the way, which made it all the more funnier to me.
Xna commented...
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 17, 2014 9:25:41 GMT -5
This makes sense to me: The Dawkins Formulation: In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know." 2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there." 3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God." 4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable." 5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical." 6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." 7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate. ____________ I consider myself a "defacto atheist" by this formulation. I think I would be comfortable with 6.793382 or 6.793462. I wonder if the new style is to make each post twice! If you post it twice is it more true? I tried to resist commenting but have little will power this morning!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Nov 17, 2014 11:02:38 GMT -5
I wonder if the new style is to make each post twice! If you post it twice is it more true? I tried to resist commenting but have little will power this morning! I was padding my post count.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 17, 2014 11:47:42 GMT -5
By this definition I would also be 6. But It would be 6.? For me the probability of a God is very near zero. But one thing I have noticed is everyone seems to have their own definition of what a God could be. That's obvious because of all the religions we see out there defining God in their own understanding of what that being might consist of. I think the one god religions have the most brutal definition of god with Judaism and Islam topping that list. Christianity comes in at a very close 3rd though. I would bet that there aren't 2 people on here that would have the exact same definition of who and what their definition of God is. That is one of the reasons it is so apparent that mankind has created God in their image and definitions are all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Nov 17, 2014 12:28:47 GMT -5
Honestable ~ Actually there's such a person as an "agnostic atheist," along with numerous other descriptions connected to Atheism, as shown in this article below from an atheistic website.
commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487 17 Kinds of Atheism
This is pretty much BS. From this URL: 3. Difference in Scope A broad atheist denies the existence of all gods: Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva, and so on. A narrow atheist denies the existence of the traditional Western omni-God who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful.Either you believe in a deity or deities or you don't. This would be like claiming you didn't eat meat because you didn't eat reindeer! Long and involved definitions like this are written by those who fear to simply admit they do not believe in any god. The word "atheist" was applied to Christians in antiquity for not worshipping the Roman pagan deities. That was probably before you were even a twinkle in eyes of your 75th great grandparents, rational! I do not believe in any god. (See, I am not afraid to simply admit it.) However, there are situations in which I might decide it appropriate and descriptive to refer to myself a "Christian atheist". I get to choose! And the reality is, no matter how much a person clings to the meanings of the words they grew up with (think 'happy' and 'awesome' for people over 40 in the U.S.), language and word meanings change. I would suggest that the terms "Obselete atheist" and "Archaic atheist" be added to the list of 17!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 17, 2014 15:34:49 GMT -5
Either you believe in a deity or deities or you don't. This would be like claiming you didn't eat meat because you didn't eat reindeer! Long and involved definitions like this are written by those who fear to simply admit they do not believe in any god. The word "atheist" was applied to Christians in antiquity for not worshipping the Roman pagan deities. That was probably before you were even a twinkle in eyes of your 75th great grandparents, rational![/quote]I have no doubt that people have been using their own alternative definition for words to meet their specific needs! That is what you think you are doing but it the harsh light of reality what you are doing is saying you are an atheist and then adding adjectives to modify yourself in greater detail. You are trying to make a big human into a different species than a little human when what you really have is humans of different sizes, but still humans. Yes, you can choose any modifier you wish to go along with atheist.I think you might be a bit off the mark regarding the word 'happy'. It is doubtful that there is anyone alive who can remember it meaning anything but what it means today. I could try to argue the colloquial meaning of awesome but I fear I would be treading on very thin ice! But, back to the original, you didn't change the meaning of the word atheist. You simply added a modifier. Why limit yourself at all? If the person is an atheist then after that is stated you can add any, and all, of the adjectives you wish. Try on "argumentative atheist"! Maybe "atavistic atheist"?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 17, 2014 17:17:53 GMT -5
DMG ~ You must have your articles mixed up here? There's no mention of Brittany Maynard and her assisted suicide recently in my posted link above? Just check it out to see for yourself above.
Perhaps this came from another place on this site than within the article itself? Were you really about the source of the posting perhaps?
It came from this site you posted about legalistic religion.
www.christianpost.com/news/how-to-spot-a-legalist-92015
My observation was that other articles in The Christian Post read like a legalistic, fundamentalist beliefs themselves.
This was such legalistic way they would control a person's life.
One Life Lost, All Lives Diminished: Brittany Maynard and Assisted Suicide By John Stonestreet
"Brittany Maynard was the perfect story for the so-called "death with dignity" movement: Young, intelligent and facing a debilitating and extraordinarily painful death from brain cancer. And on November 1st, with the support of loved ones, she chose to end her life, as she said it, "on her own terms."
But her decision was misguided and it was wrong, for all of us. Let me explain.
First, let's clear up the euphemisms that are involved with the death with dignity movement. "Ending your own life" is called suicide. That's what it is.
And the phrase "on your own terms"? It's a concept signifying nothing—it's an illusion. If we were in control, we'd choose not to contract a fatal illness in the first place."
What a horrible thing to say! There is no way that we have any "choice" whether contracting such a disease!I felt that the article against Legalism was ironic when they used the same tactic in judging Brittany Maynard.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 17, 2014 17:34:41 GMT -5
rational said:
"I think you might be a bit off the mark regarding the word 'happy'. It is doubtful that there is anyone alive who can remember it meaning anything but what it means today. "
Whoa, -there rational!
Regarding the word 'happy'.
I remember it very well when the word as different than what it means today.
And I'm still alive!
(At least I think I'm alive-let me take my pulse, Yep! still ticking away!)
|
|
|
Post by faune on Nov 17, 2014 17:52:40 GMT -5
DMG ~ You must have your articles mixed up here? There's no mention of Brittany Maynard and her assisted suicide recently in my posted link above? Just check it out to see for yourself above.
Perhaps this came from another place on this site than within the article itself? Were you really about the source of the posting perhaps?
It came from this site you posted about legalistic religion.
www.christianpost.com/news/how-to-spot-a-legalist-92015
My observation was that other articles in The Christian Post read like a legalistic, fundamentalist beliefs themselves.
This was such legalistic way they would control a person's life.
One Life Lost, All Lives Diminished: Brittany Maynard and Assisted Suicide By John Stonestreet
"Brittany Maynard was the perfect story for the so-called "death with dignity" movement: Young, intelligent and facing a debilitating and extraordinarily painful death from brain cancer. And on November 1st, with the support of loved ones, she chose to end her life, as she said it, "on her own terms."
But her decision was misguided and it was wrong, for all of us. Let me explain.
First, let's clear up the euphemisms that are involved with the death with dignity movement. "Ending your own life" is called suicide. That's what it is.
And the phrase "on your own terms"? It's a concept signifying nothing—it's an illusion. If we were in control, we'd choose not to contract a fatal illness in the first place."
What a horrible thing to say! There is no way that we have any "choice" whether contracting such a disease!I felt that the article against Legalism was ironic when they used the same tactic in judging Brittany Maynard.
DMG ~ OK, now I see where you were coming from here? Since I didn't review the other articles on the site, I missed that one. Honestly, that does seem pretty judgmental of a young woman who had about a month to live anyway due to her terminal brain cancer. I can understand why she might have wanted to opt out of life sooner under the circumstances and don't fault her for such a choice. Even if it might still be considered suicide, is it any different from turning off life support machines when a person is virtually brain dead? I'm sure nobody would really cares to exists in a hopeless vegetative state ~ I know I wouldn't either!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 17, 2014 19:03:07 GMT -5
rational said:
"I think you might be a bit off the mark regarding the word 'happy'. It is doubtful that there is anyone alive who can remember it meaning anything but what it means today. " Whoa, -there rational!
Regarding the word 'happy'.
I remember it very well when the word as different than what it means today.
And I'm still alive!
(At least I think I'm alive-let me take my pulse, Yep! still ticking away!)
From the Oxford English Dictionary: One noted recorded usage of the word referring to homosexual/effeminate males was in 1894.I believe the definitions that were being used at the turn of that century are much the same as the ones being used today.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 17, 2014 19:47:36 GMT -5
rational said:
"I think you might be a bit off the mark regarding the word 'happy'. It is doubtful that there is anyone alive who can remember it meaning anything but what it means today. " Whoa, -there rational!
Regarding the word 'happy'.
I remember it very well when the word as different than what it means today.
And I'm still alive!
(At least I think I'm alive-let me take my pulse, Yep! still ticking away!)
I remember, too. In fact, I don't think I really heard the "new" use until maybe 40 years ago? How old are YOU, rat? (Btw, I'm not nearly as old as DMG!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 17, 2014 21:04:34 GMT -5
I remember, too. In fact, I don't think I really heard the "new" use until maybe 40 years ago? How old are YOU, rat? (Btw, I'm not nearly as old as DMG! ;) As the OED noted, the use of the word 'happy', using the meaning relating to homosexual men, was first noted in writing before 1900. All I was saying was that for as long as anyone posting here has been alive the meaning associated with 'happy' has been constant. This does not mean that everyone here was aware of all of the meanings.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Nov 21, 2014 12:01:06 GMT -5
I remember, too. In fact, I don't think I really heard the "new" use until maybe 40 years ago? How old are YOU, rat? (Btw, I'm not nearly as old as DMG! ;) As the OED noted, the use of the word 'happy', using the meaning relating to homosexual men, was first noted in writing before 1900. All I was saying was that for as long as anyone posting here has been alive the meaning associated with 'happy' has been constant. This does not mean that everyone here was aware of all of the meanings. Word meanings and usage can change over time. Do you disagree with this?
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Nov 21, 2014 12:31:57 GMT -5
I advocate the use of more words in connection with the word "atheist" rather than fewer words. Presenting atheists as the multifaceted, diverse array of people they comprise is more likely to chip away at some of the harsh, narrow, stereotypes and prejudices about atheists that lots of people seem to hold (including here on TMB). If an unexpected combination of terms jolts the listener into reconsidering a narrowly-held POV, I think that is ok.
The English language, IMO is inadequate in this area. We have, for example, the words, "Theist" and "Deist", yet only the word "Atheist", and not a corresponding "Adeist". I think the person who has no belief in a theistic (interactive) God, should be able to call herself an atheist, and use appropriate modifiers to distinguish herself from the person who might more appropriately be called an Adeist.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 21, 2014 15:26:50 GMT -5
As the OED noted, the use of the word 'happy', using the meaning relating to homosexual men, was first noted in writing before 1900. All I was saying was that for as long as anyone posting here has been alive the meaning associated with 'happy' has been constant. This does not mean that everyone here was aware of all of the meanings. Word meanings and usage can change over time. Do you disagree with this? No. I was pointing out that the current use of the word 'happy' to mean a homosexual male has been in use longer than anyone posting here.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 21, 2014 15:35:25 GMT -5
I advocate the use of more words in connection with the word "atheist" rather than fewer words. Presenting atheists as the multifaceted, diverse array of people they comprise is more likely to chip away at some of the harsh, narrow, stereotypes and prejudices about atheists that lots of people seem to hold (including here on TMB). If an unexpected combination of terms jolts the listener into reconsidering a narrowly-held POV, I think that is ok. The English language, IMO is inadequate in this area. We have, for example, the words, "Theist" and "Deist", yet only the word "Atheist", and not a corresponding "Adeist". I think the person who has no belief in a theistic (interactive) God, should be able to call herself an atheist, and use appropriate modifiers to distinguish herself from the person who might more appropriately be called an Adeist. I agree wholeheartedly. I think we should start a movement for more words to describe all terms that are currently described with a single term. Instead of saying 'I have a unique coin' it would be more clearly stated as 'I have a very unique coin that is unlike any other coin'. "vnique" to mean very unique. "monique" to mean most unique. "alnique" to mean almost unique. I see what you mean - oh so useful!
|
|