this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
259 points (96.4% liked)
Religious Cringe
835 readers
1 users here now
About
This is the official Lemmy for the r/ReligiousCringe***** subreddit. This is a community about poking fun at the religious fundamentalist's who take their religion a little bit too far. Here you will find religious content that is so outrageous and so cringeworthy that even someone who is mildly religious will cringe.
Rules
-
All posts must contain religious cringe. All posts must be made from a religious person or must be showcasing some kind of religious bigotry. The only exception to this is rule 2
-
Material about religious bigots made by non-bigots is only allowed from Friday-Sunday EST. In an effort to keep this community on the topic of religious cringe and bigotry we have decide to limit stuff like atheist memes to only the weekends.
-
No direct links to religious cringe. To prevent religious bigots from getting our clicks and views directs links to religious cringe are not allowed. If you must a post a screenshot of the site or use archive.ph. If it is a YouTube video please use a YouTube frontend like Piped or Invidious
-
No Proselytizing. Proselytizing is defined as trying to convert someone to a particular religion or certain world view. Doing so will get you banned.
-
Spammers and Trolls will be instantly banned. No exceptions.
Resources
International Suicide Hotlines
Non Religious Organizations
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ex-theist Communities
Other Similar Communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, I replied to the right comment. Which definition of atheism do you go by that requires "the concept of theos" existing? I've seen you repeatedly stating your position, but no formal definition or actual argument.
Would you then say that all animals before humans can't be described as non-human?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism
I don't know what to say. We haven't changed the language, the construction of Greek morphemes within Greek etymology, made a recent exception, or changed the meaning of Atheism to suit a collective of people recently misunderstanding fundamentals of philosophical and/or psychological stances on topics.
I don't want to sound patronising, but I really did not think this needed sources.
If you can think of any other word—just one of the thousands—ending with ism that breaks any of these common understandings, where ism isn't a suffix to the thing that precedes it, rather is attached to an existing ism and the prefix morpheme is actually the defining stance of the word, please, share. To my understanding, it simply doesn't exist and one ism has never been nor suddenly is an exception.
Could you please cite the part of the Wikipedia article that supports your point? I looked through it and couldn't identify it.
It seems to me that you're arguing from a linguistic point of view, and missing the forest for the trees. Again I pose my question - are animals that existed before humans non-human?
What you're asking has no relevance to positions of belief. It has relevance to physical things. These aren't isms.
Did humanism exist before humans? No.
Did non-human things exist before humans? Yes.
If you're saying atheism is a lack of theism, that's fine—loosely. But it will be confusing to other people if you don't clarify that stance. people with English as secondary language, other atheists or theists, people that delve into atheism, or people that are curious about how their stance fits in etc.
Deism is without theism, that doesn't make it atheism. The article is quite clear. Being a position of belief is indicated by the ism. The part before it defines the position of belief. Whether disbelief/lack of belief of the gods, or belief in no gods. It is not being without the belief of the belief in gods. That's just anything that's without theism which is soooo many things.
Now please clearly explain the difference between the position "no belief in gods" and "no belief in gods because the concept doesn't yet exist". That's what your entire position hinges on, and you haven't given any arguments for it.
Also, the article is quite clear in not supporting your position. It says:
No mention of requirements regarding pre-existing concepts or anything similar.
You can't form a position of belief on something you don't know exists. You must first know what something is in order to establish a position of how much you believe it to be so or not so.
I'm just repeating myself more and more now. Refer back to Tinklipism.
As for what you've somehow understood of isms from that article—genuinely mindblown. You literally just quoted the whole job and point of the ism suffix and...whoosh. It's staring you in the face; I'm not somehow simplifying it further. I don't even know what else to give you if your brain glazed over that very efficient, simple, and clear, explanation then landed here...
Yes, I understood your point the first time you made it. Do you finally have any arguments for this position? Supporting evidence? Anything? Because I can trivially say "no", and I've thus made just as strong an argument as you've made.
Since you appear to literally be incapable of describing your position beyond "it is this way because I understand it to be this way", I won't waste more time on you. Have a good day.