@Hastrman
Hi again, happy Friday!
“Okay. But none of your examples is an ism, is it?”
The same trend holds true for 'ism’s as well. You seem to be fine with a-pathy, and a-symmetry simply being a lack of emotion and a lack of symmetry, why the double-standard with 'ism’s?
How about feminism? Afeminism (though not a word I have personally heard) wouldn’t be synonymous with masculism, it would just be a lack of the feminist philosophy.
The ‘a’ prefix isn’t the same as the ‘anti’ prefix, which you seem to have equated it to. Even the way you have portrayed it as having “no-god” is consistent with the definition I have put forth. Having “no-god” is not the same as the position “there is no god”.
If you choose to mean ‘people who assert an active disbelief in gods’ when you discuss atheism, go ahead, but as long as you fail to understand that modern, “self-identified athiests” usually mean ‘having no active assertion of a god-belief’, then you’re going to run into trouble, misunderstanding, and needless complications. I am clear in my atheism, as broadcast in every post by my signature, and my definition is philisophically and etymologically justified. You are far from alone in your assertion that “many self-described atheists … are] using the word wrong” but that does not make it so.
“On the other hand, a non-Theist is a person who is, pure and simple, not a Theist, not in the system of God-ism. No ambiguity–no tying yourself up with jerks like Richard Dawkins. Nobody has much dislike for non-Theists, other than a vague dislike that always goes with staying neutral, but what you call “strong” Atheists…almost nobody doesn’t dislike them.”
I could not care less what anybody thinks of other atheists. I am an individual, I am responsible for myself. Creationist morons are largely responsible for the outspoken reaction of Richard Dawkins as far as I can see. They really stepped on his toes as an evolutionary biologist when they tried to spread their irrationality.
As far as I am concerned, he has certainly stepped outside his speciality on matters of physics and philosophy, etc. However, he is a highly qualified, articulate, brilliant, renowned evolutionary biologist. I read him when I want to hear about evolution and biology, not when I want to hear about physics and philosophy. That said, his experience of meticulous proven methodology is obviously immense, so he is likely to do a better job on these other areas than I could, but that won’t stop me from reading widely and pushing the boundaries of my own knowledge from many different sources.
I care about the truth, I don’t care if the truth is ‘disliked’. If the truth is equivalent to ‘strong atheism’ then so be it as far as I am concerned. If the truth is theism, then also so be it as far as I am concerned. No matter what is the truth, I will only arrive at that conclusion through rational means, and I don’t care who dislikes the position.
“You hadn’t heard Richard Dawkins is sort of atheism’s equivalent of the Scarboro Baptist Church? They’re ashamed to be associated with him, because he’s, well, a jerk.”
Did you mean the Westboro Baptist Church? The Phelps family etc? Regardless, between atheists there is such a tenuous link, all they must have in common is that lack of belief in a god. Atheists can span an intensely wide range of philosophies outside of that. There is nothing for atheists to be ashamed of for a couple of reasons. All they have to admit to having in common with Richard Dawkins is a lack of belief in God for one. And secondly, by ‘jerk’ I am guessing (yes guessing) you simply mean ‘disagrees with me’ which all atheists do anyway!
"He says things like, “teaching children a religion ought to be classed as child abuse.”
Yet, in most interviews or book reading Q&As that I have seen (of course I have not seen them all) he adds the disclaimer that he has no intention of putting this ‘abuse’ on the same level of physical, sexual or emotional abuse currently associated with the word.
Do you think it would be abusive to bring up a baby as a homosexual, or as a communist, or as a cargo cultist before they are old enough to decide things for themselves? If you do then, this is the level of of abuse that Dawkins means. If you don’t… then well I don’t know what to say to you, except that you sound more intelligent than that.
“One of the other major atheism boosters, I forget which, has said that Dawkins gave atheists a bad name when he decided they should call themselves “Brights”–he made them look like egomaniacs.”
I don’t think this was his idea. I’d have to do some digging, but I think he merely supported the idea, much like how homosexuals hijacked the word ‘gay’ way back in the day. (I’m a poet and I didn’t even know it)
“This is why I think you need to call yourself a non-theist: so people won’t lump you in with the wholly unjustified sneering of A and Richard Dawkins, especially since the latter doesn’t seem able to hold his fascistical impulses in check. “Atheist” means “jerk” to most non-atheists, or in other words at least 80% of mankind.”
As I said, I think these terms are pretty much synonymous. Non-symmetrical, asymmetrical. As long as I’m clear and able to justify what I mean by atheist or atheism I will stick with it. It is well understood within atheism, and easiliy justifiable to those who are theists. I’d suggest you take the same approach, lest you give up the terms theist, or christian because many people consider these terms to mean “hijacking, terrorist, violent, abortion-clinic-bombing, cartoonophobes” etc.
Dare I ask your opinion regarding the advancements vs the regression in metaphysics?..
By the way I’m not so sure that asneerful is a word. Are you suggesting that you can place the prefix a- in front of any word?