JWeinCom said:
and our current understanding of the word is the same one that you originally rejected lol No, your current understanding is the one that I originally rejected, and still do. so tell me who determines what the catholic ideology is about? individual catholics or the catholic church? lol Unlike you, I am not arrogant enough to define an ideology that I have no part in. I know that there are catholics who claim to be catholic yet do not adhere to every view of the church. That's all I can say as someone who is not a catholic and has not done extensive research on catholicism.
are christian humanists the same as humanists? no the definitions show that they are two distinct groups They are subsets of the same group. "so I guess those Aryan Japanese were left alive because they looked so similar to Hitler?"
the japanese were considered to be "honorary aryans" You said he left people alive because they looked like him. Come on now, if you can't keep up with your arguments, how can you expect me to? no they are not they both reject god No. The only definition you provided says they reject religion, which is not the same thing. All of the other definitions (which curiously you chose to omit) do not involve an inherent rejection of god or gods. " Even if atheism came from paganism, that does not make pagans atheists."
and that point was never made That is my best interpreation of what you are saying. You claimed Hitler was an atheist, then start talking about his supposed pagan beliefs. So, that seems to be what you're saying as far as I can tell. I've repeatedly asked you to clarify this position, and you haven't.
Saying "I suppose" does not excuse you from backing up your BS. If you suppose I think something, and you have no reason to back that up, then you are misrepresenting me. So back up the BS or apologize please. tell that to the people who assign meanings for words in dictionaries; they obviously disagree with you
So, the editor of Webster decides to decide what atheism is. Instead of the atheist community? so you are more of an authority on what words mean than official dictionaries apparently lol What is an official dictionary exactly? I keep trying to drag this back to the original point of your claim that Hitler was an atheist and Naziism was an atheistic regime, but you seem incredibly reluctant to address that. You've pretty much abandoned all of your points (quite wisely I might add because they were terrible points) and you're down to arguing semantics, which is an utterly uninteresting topic. The last refuge for one who has been spouting nonsense. Humanism is not a "group". It is a philosophy that has a wide group of adherents. It's a broad category like for instance Christianity. Catholics and Protestants are both Christians, and Christian Humanists and Secular Humanists are both humanists. There is a reason secular humanists use the term secular to distinguish themselves from theistic humanists. Look back on the dictionary pages you referenced, because besides the one definition you cherry picked, the others all would be able to include secular, atheistic, or religious humanists. And if you think that Christian humanists are not humanists, take it up with them. You seem to be quite willing to define movements and groups you are not a part of and have no knowledge about, and I can't figure out why you feel qualified to do so. If you actually want to learn about humanism, http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/What_is_Humanism That's a good way to start. I'll give you this passage Secular and Religious Humanists both share the same worldview and the same basic principles. This is made evident by the fact that both Secular and Religious Humanists were among the signers of Humanist Manifesto I in 1933, Humanist Manifesto II in 1973, and Humanist Manifesto III in 2003. From the standpoint of philosophy alone, there is no difference between the two. It is only in the definition of religion and in the practice of the philosophy that Religious and Secular Humanists effectively disagree. Since you are interested in the origins of things, you should probably find it important to note that the originators of humanism were both secular (close to atheism but not quite) and religious. Speaking of definitions, yes the dictionary definition of atheism is wrong, and no I have not once changed my definition. Dictionaries are not absolute authorities, and I don't know why you think Webster, who writes a sentence about atheism, should be trusted organizations whose sole occupation is atheism. (although again, one of the definitions of atheism perfectly fits). There is a well defined lexicon regarding atheism and theism that is used to discuss these. Webster's dictionary is not a book specializing in the discussion of religion, so their definitions may not be appropriate. If you are not aware of the proper terminology that is used in these discussions, you should either have the humility to accept definitions from people who are more knowledgeable, or to at least go beyond a basic dictionary definition. The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."
Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves. American Atheists (Atheist.org) What is an Atheist?
An atheist is a person who does not believe that any gods exist. Infidels.org The definition for atheism that we use, put simply, says that atheism is the lack of a god-belief, the absence of theism, to whatever degree and for whatever reason. The one thing that all atheists have in common, according to this definition, is that they are not theists. One either believes one or more of the various claims for the existence of a god or gods (is a theist) or one does not believe any of those claims (is an atheist). Though we do not recognize any “middle ground,” we do acknowledge the agnostic position, which spans both theism and atheism: a theistic agnostic thinks one or more gods exist but can say no more on the subject than this (is a theist); an atheistic agnostic doesn’t know if any gods exist (lacks a god belief, and is thus an atheist). Noncognitivists think all god-talk is meaningless, and thus lack any god beliefs (are atheists). PositiveAtheism.org You can also read, The God Delusion, watch any debate with prominent atheists, or generally do some research so you'll have some clue what you're talking about. This is how atheists define atheism. And just like humanists should define humanism, atheists should define themselves. So no, I'm not rebranding atheism. This is how atheists define it, and have for quite some time.
Now that I have provided you with several sources explaining the views of atheism are, written by atheists themselves, and have given you a clear definition several times, I expect that you will no longer have any confusion about what atheism is.
Now please please please answer this question that I'm repeatedly asking and you are repeatedly ducking.
Do you believe Hitler was an atheist and that Naziism was an atheistic movement? Do you have any evidence? Do you have anything to dispute my evidence that Hitler was most likely a Chrstian? This is what we were talking about, and you seem to be doing everything in your power to avoid it. This is about the fourth time I've tried to get this conversation back on track, and you have doggedly refused to discuss the actual matter we were discussing. So please, provide some evidence to back up your assertion that Hitler (and/or Nazi Germany as a whole) did not believe in a higher power. If you cannot, then kindly admit your statement was wrong, and make more of an effort in the future to actually know about something before speaking about it. |
"You said he left people alive because they looked like him. "
yes that was a stupid claim i can admit that
"Humanism is not a "group". It is a philosophy that has a wide group of adherents. "
so tell buddy if we take the adherents collectively what word could we use to identify them... group perhaps?
" because besides the one definition you cherry picked, the others all would be able to include secular, atheistic, or religious humanists. And if you think that Christian humanists are not humanists, take it up with them."
humanists are generally atheistic which is why the definitions only make reference towards those who fit that description
have you ever heard of generalisations before?
"Now, please find one instance of me giving any definition of atheism besides "not believing in a god" "a lack of belief in gods or deities" or another way of saying the same thing. If you're accusing me of something I didn't say"
oh stop that bullshit this came about because you accused me of presenting the wrong definition which i then disproved by presenting definitions from various dictionaries
which amuses me since as i said previously how can you expect to carry on a discussion about atheism when you have demonstrated repeatedly that you do not even understand the meaning of the word yourself
"No, your current understanding is the one that I originally rejected, and still do."
" If you are not aware of the proper terminology that is used in these discussions, you should either have the humility to accept definitions from people who are more knowledgeable, or to at least go beyond a basic dictionary definition. "
lol so therefore you are more qualified to give the definitions of words than dictionaries?
"Unlike you, I am not arrogant enough to define an ideology that I have no part in. "
but you are arrogant enough to claim that you are more of an athourity on defining words than dictionaries usurping their primary role
"This is how atheists define atheism. And just like humanists should define humanism, atheists should define themselves. So no, I'm not rebranding atheism. This is how atheists define it, and have for quite some time. "
and what about white supremacists? should we perhaps not call them racists or bigots or whatever because they choose to place themselves under the umbrella of white nationalism? do you have an inkling now as to how ridiculously stupid that argument is now? do you perhaps understand now why we use unbiased sources for definitions?
lol anyway i'm done here... with regards to the main issue of hitler being an atheist i posted various articles that deal with where his ideology developed from
if you are interested then you can look into what i posted and if you are not then continue attacking theists for being blind followers without considering perhaps that we all have been mislead by varying degrees even the high and mighty atheists of the world
