Conquer Club

Posted: **Sun Jun 17, 2012 6:29 pm**

http://www.facebook.com/fansoftyson

NDT's fan page uploaded this today, only to troll. I know it.

Posted: **Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:51 pm**

Juan_Bottom wrote:

http://www.facebook.com/fansoftyson

NDT's fan page uploaded this today, only to troll. I know it.

Is there a word for non-golf players? Yes...they're called "sane".

(Note: I play golf.)

Posted: **Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:54 pm**

Caddies, surely?

Posted: **Sun Jun 17, 2012 10:03 pm**

As an atheist, I'm pretty sure atheists popularized the word more than theists. We call non-golf players "non-golf players" but you almost never see non-golf players arguing with gol players about golf other than the occasional "it's boring".

I love NDT but I don't understand his point here.

Posted: **Sun Jun 17, 2012 10:12 pm**

Army of GOD wrote:As an atheist, I'm pretty sure atheists popularized the word more than theists. We call non-golf players "non-golf players" but you almost never see non-golf players arguing with gol players about golf other than the occasional "it's boring".

I love NDT but I don't understand his point here.

The term was popularised by Christians as a term of abuse against other Christian sects from my experience dealing with reformation and renaissance era literature. It's a standard term to come across in reference to Catholics in all kind of Protestant lit. It was kind of weird when I first saw it used- "the atheist Pope", I think was the term used, but it's basically a Christian term.

Posted: **Sun Jun 17, 2012 10:14 pm**

don't worry, well have no use for the word any-more after religion is pushed to the fringe of society.

Posted: **Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:06 pm**

Army of GOD wrote:I love NDT but I don't understand his point here.

I don't believe that he had a point. In the interview, he just kinda went on a tangent.

My response on the fan page:

Juan_Bottom wrote:WHY WOULD YOU SHARE THIS? How horrible of a fan are you?

NDT has been ridiculed for this since he said it, because it's obviously a dumb comment. He said it in a monologue; he was just saying whatever was coming to mind. This isn't something that he thought about much if at all. So you should have empathy for him for this gaff, and you shouldn't be repeating it. It was a flub moment.
The reason the word Atheist exists is because 80+% of the world believes in deities. If 80% of the world's population played golf, then we'd have a word for people who don't play golf.
This isn't rocket science, FAN PAGE!

Anyway, Mr. Tyson isn't a theologian or philosopher or anyone who looks deeply at the religious question. He's like Einstein in this way. He may be a wiz with the stars, but that's no reason to be putting Theological questions to him and parroting the opinions that he gives as though they are invincible.

On the converse, this IS invincible:

Posted: **Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:49 pm**

i love NDT... but i'm gonna have to disagree with him as well

any competing scientific theories (which is what theism and atheism are) which reach a certain threshold of popular support will gain a label for the sake of convenience. it is easier, for example, to refer to someone in epistemology as an "idealist" rather than "someone who doesn't believe that reality is material", even though they reject the idea that something (tangible reality) exists.

and yes, atheists do gather and strategize, lol.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:49 am**

Actually, we mostly talk smack and play the occasional game of mafia. If we're feeling really enterprising we might even set up a private game of non-Risk.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:19 am**

john9blue wrote:i love NDT... but i'm gonna have to disagree with him as well

any competing scientific theories (which is what theism and atheism are)

Stop right there. You're going to have to begin again, because this may be the most wrong statement I've seen in a really long time.

john9blue wrote:and yes, atheists do gather and strategize, lol.

I've never even "gathered with atheists", never mind strategized with them. The whole idea of doing so seems...useless to me.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:07 am**

Woodruff wrote:
john9blue wrote:i love NDT... but i'm gonna have to disagree with him as well

any competing scientific theories (which is what theism and atheism are)

Stop right there. You're going to have to begin again, because this may be the most wrong statement I've seen in a really long time.

john9blue wrote:and yes, atheists do gather and strategize, lol.

I've never even "gathered with atheists", never mind strategized with them. The whole idea of doing so seems...useless to me.

yes, 'cos we know god is watching.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:07 am**

oops.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:01 am**

Symmetry wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:As an atheist, I'm pretty sure atheists popularized the word more than theists. We call non-golf players "non-golf players" but you almost never see non-golf players arguing with gol players about golf other than the occasional "it's boring".

I love NDT but I don't understand his point here.

The term was popularised by Christians as a term of abuse against other Christian sects from my experience dealing with reformation and renaissance era literature. It's a standard term to come across in reference to Catholics in all kind of Protestant lit. It was kind of weird when I first saw it used- "the atheist Pope", I think was the term used, but it's basically a Christian term.

Isn't it a Latin or Greek derivative word? If I recall, putting an "a" before something means the opposite of whatever the something is.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:47 am**

well, not the opposite - "a" or "an" means "no" on the snese of "not having".
So an-archy means "no rules", an- aerobic means "no oxygen", A-theist means "no gods".
I suspect the early christian meaning when one sect hurls it at another was simply "godless" as in "godless heathen".

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:44 am**

Woodruff wrote:
john9blue wrote:i love NDT... but i'm gonna have to disagree with him as well

any competing scientific theories (which is what theism and atheism are)

Stop right there. You're going to have to begin again, because this may be the most wrong statement I've seen in a really long time.

orly?

theism and atheism are in competition with one another, am i right? they are mutually exclusive.

they are also scientific theories, since they make claims about the world that have not been "proven" to any extent.

Woodruff wrote:I've never even "gathered with atheists", never mind strategized with them. The whole idea of doing so seems...useless to me.

i did not say that all atheists gather and strategize. not all theists gather and strategize either. poor refutation.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:11 am**

jonesthecurl wrote:well, not the opposite - "a" or "an" means "no" on the snese of "not having".
So an-archy means "no rules", an- aerobic means "no oxygen", A-theist means "no gods".
I suspect the early christian meaning when one sect hurls it at another was simply "godless" as in "godless heathen".

So maybe the nongolfer / golfer analogy is not really appropriate. Just saying.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:41 am**

Well, I think what's being pointed out is that "atheism" isn't "anti-theism". SO while you might need a word for someone who is vehemently opposed to a particular (or all) religions, you don't need a word for someone who simply has no gods. Similarly you might neeed a word for someone who actually opposes golf* but you don't need a word for someone who simply ignores it.

*The word would be "jonesey".

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:44 am**

jonesthecurl wrote:Well, I think what's being pointed out is that "atheism" isn't "anti-theism". SO while you might need a word for someone who is vehemently opposed to a particular (or all) religions, you don't need a word for someone who simply has no gods. Similarly you might neeed a word for someone who actually opposes golf* but you don't need a word for someone who simply ignores it.

*The word would be "jonesey".

True. I didn't think of that. The current usage of the word atheism is someone who doesn't believe in a higher power. That is probably not what the inventors of the word had in mind. I stand corrected.

I oppose watching golf, but not playing golf. What does that make me I wonder?

Unrelated - Every time someone makes me watch golf, I want to play golf... and if I have 8 hours of free time to watch golf, I might as well be playing golf.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:59 am**

thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:As an atheist, I'm pretty sure atheists popularized the word more than theists. We call non-golf players "non-golf players" but you almost never see non-golf players arguing with gol players about golf other than the occasional "it's boring".

I love NDT but I don't understand his point here.

The term was popularised by Christians as a term of abuse against other Christian sects from my experience dealing with reformation and renaissance era literature. It's a standard term to come across in reference to Catholics in all kind of Protestant lit. It was kind of weird when I first saw it used- "the atheist Pope", I think was the term used, but it's basically a Christian term.

Isn't it a Latin or Greek derivative word? If I recall, putting an "a" before something means the opposite of whatever the something is.

It is, sure, I was just pointing out that it was popularised by Christians with regard to other Christians.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:00 pm**

john9blue wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
john9blue wrote:i love NDT... but i'm gonna have to disagree with him as well

any competing scientific theories (which is what theism and atheism are)

Stop right there. You're going to have to begin again, because this may be the most wrong statement I've seen in a really long time.

orly?

theism and atheism are in competition with one another, am i right? they are mutually exclusive.

they are also scientific theories, since they make claims about the world that have not been "proven" to any extent.

They are absolutely not scientific theories.

john9blue wrote:
Woodruff wrote:I've never even "gathered with atheists", never mind strategized with them. The whole idea of doing so seems...useless to me.

i did not say that all atheists gather and strategize. not all theists gather and strategize either. poor refutation.

Your exception of those that "gather and strategize" does not prove the rule.

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:05 pm**

Woodruff wrote:They are absolutely not scientific theories.

if you knew anything about science, then you'd realize that i won't accept a statement like "they are absolutely not scientific theories" without evidence to back it up. so i'll be waiting.

Woodruff wrote:Your exception of those that "gather and strategize" does not prove the rule.

what rule? that some atheists gather and strategize? yes, in fact, it DOES prove that rule, lol

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:34 pm**

john9blue wrote:
Woodruff wrote:They are absolutely not scientific theories.

if you knew anything about science, then you'd realize that i won't accept a statement like "they are absolutely not scientific theories" without evidence to back it up. so i'll be waiting.

To go along with the rip-roaring evidence you provided that the two ideas are scientific theories, you mean? Hypocrite much?

john9blue wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Your exception of those that "gather and strategize" does not prove the rule.

what rule? that some atheists gather and strategize? yes, in fact, it DOES prove that rule, lol

"Atheists gather and strategize" is by far the exception, NOT AT ALL the rule. Good Lord. Were you homeschooled by that Conservapedia dude?

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:31 pm**

What do we strategize? And why was I left off the email list?

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:48 pm**

Posted: **Mon Jun 18, 2012 8:05 pm**

Woodruff wrote:
john9blue wrote:
Woodruff wrote:They are absolutely not scientific theories.

if you knew anything about science, then you'd realize that i won't accept a statement like "they are absolutely not scientific theories" without evidence to back it up. so i'll be waiting.

To go along with the rip-roaring evidence you provided that the two ideas are scientific theories, you mean? Hypocrite much?

fair enough lol... i have talked about it in other threads, but not here. i think we discussed this earlier in fact, during our discussion about monism and dualism.

Conquer Club

Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?

Re: Why does the word "Atheist" even exist?