Do Atheists "Proselytize"?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"doctrine - A doctrine is a set of principles or beliefs, especially religious ones. "google dictionary lookup.
"Atheism is the belief that there is no God. "ibid.

A set can have one item in it.
Therefore Atheism is a doctrine.

A set can have no items in it. It's called a null set. We (as well as everyone) have this null set of beliefs in common. Do we share a doctrine?

 

[Storm]

A set can have no items in it. It's called a null set. We (as well as everyone) have this null set of beliefs in common. Do we share a doctrine?

Wait, what null set? Lack of God-belief? How does everyone have that in common?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wait, what null set?

The set that includes no beliefs at all. We each have other beliefs as well.

Lack of God-belief? How does everyone have that in common?

We each have our own full set of beliefs. Your set can be expressed as the union of two subsets:

- one subset that's made up of all beliefs that are common to everyone
- one subset that includes all the other beliefs you have

Even if there are no beliefs that are common to anyone, the first subset still exists; it just has no elements. In that case, it's an empty set.

(BTW - I got my terminology wrong before - instead of null set, I should've said empty set).

Edit: basically, if we all have nothing in common, then we do have something in common: "nothing" is the something we have in common.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Well, no, that's not quite what you said. You said "there is no group called atheists," which is clearly false.

Yes, I said there is no group called atheists, and there isn't. There is no atheist dogma, there are no shared beliefs, or philosophies. There is no shared ideology. The word describes nothing. Only the lack of one particular superstition among an infinite pool of potential superstitions.

You replied,

You're denying the word exists? Really?

Which shows you either didn't read or didn't understand what I said when you replied. Then I corrected you and you reply with this,

If that's not what you meant, fine. But it IS what you SAID.

claiming again I said something I did not. please do not lie about my words, it isn't like it isn't right there for everyone to read.

 

[Storm]

Yes, I said there is no group called atheists, and there isn't. There is no atheist dogma, there are no shared beliefs, or philosophies. There is no shared ideology. The word describes nothing. Only the lack of one particular superstition among an infinite pool of potential superstitions.

You replied,

Which shows you either didn't read or didn't understand what I said when you replied. Then I corrected you and you reply with this,

claiming again I said something I did not. please do not lie about my words, it isn't like it isn't right there for everyone to read.

I didn't lie about anything, you confirmed the quote yourself. And, as you say, it's right there for everyone to read.

There is a BIG difference between finding a classification useless and denying that it's made. You did the latter. Like it or not, there is a group called "atheists."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There is a BIG difference between finding a classification useless and denying that it's made. You did the latter. Like it or not, there is a group called "atheists."

I think the distinction is how one is defining a group.

There is a group of people who are "redheads," yet beyond the incidental attribute they share of having red hair, there is nothing defining them as a group, nor do they arrange or define themselves as a meaningful group based on the fact that they all have red hair. Same as atheists.

 

[Storm]

I think the distinction is how one is defining a group.

There is a group of people who are "redheads," yet beyond the incidental attribute they share of having red hair, there is nothing defining them as a group, nor do they arrange or define themselves as a meaningful group based on the fact that they all have red hair. Same as atheists.

And yet, as you say, they're a group.

I never claimed atheism was an organized group.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is a BIG difference between finding a classification useless and denying that it's made. You did the latter. Like it or not, there is a group called "atheists."

Just because you can categorize people as "atheist" or "not atheist" doesn't mean that the atheists constitute an actual group. Speaking for myself, I probably have more in common with fundamentalist Christianity than I do with some extreme views that happen to be atheistic.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And yet, as you say, they're a group.

I never claimed atheism was an organized group.

I'm just trying to bridge the gap in how I'm understanding the difference between what you and SSE are communicating. Sorry.

 

[Storm]

I'm just trying to bridge the gap in how I'm understanding the difference between what you and SSE are communicating. Sorry.

No, I'm sorry. He got my hackles up, didn't mean to snap at you.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Holy crap

One more time...

You posted that I said there is no such WORD as atheist. As if the word doesn't exist. Look, here, once again, are your own words

You're denying the word exists? Really?

Here, I'll make it bigger and add some colour since you seem to have trouble reading it or remembering that you wrote it.

You're denying the word exists? Really?

That is a claim I never made. That is not the same thing as saying there is no such group as 'atheists', or that 'atheist' isn't a meaningful classification. What is your problem? Hard of reading?

 

[Storm]

Holy crap

One more time...

You posted that I said there is no such WORD as atheist. As if the word doesn't exist. Look, here, once again, are your own words
Here, I'll make it bigger and add some colour since you seem to have trouble reading it or remembering that you wrote it.
That is a claim I never made. That is not the same thing as saying there is no such group as 'atheists', or that 'atheist' isn't a meaningful classification. What is your problem? Hard of reading?

This is getting stupid.

Fine, I could have phrased it better. "Demographic" instead of "word." You could have phrased your post better, too. "There is no group called 'atheists'" remains a patently false statement.

But to answer your question, my problem has nothing to do with reading and everything to do with your attitude. If you hadn't prefaced your clarification with a snide remark about my reading, I wouldn't have objected.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

...

There is no group called atheists..unless you are willing to extend the word 'group' to mean any person or persons with trivial similarities to each other. I'm just sick of people asking what 'atheists' believe or how an 'atheist' would deal with this or that situation. You might as well ask if people that prefer vanilla ice cream share an ideology based on that. It's ridiculous.

And if you don't like snide remarks, try to be less obtuse. Just some free advice. It isn't my policy to suffer foolishness.

And with that, I hope to avoid dialoguing with you for at least another few months or so. It gives me a headache.

 

[Storm]

...

There is no group called atheists..

Yeah, there is. Cope.

unless you are willing to extend the word 'group' to mean any person or persons with trivial similarities to each other.

Group
1. any collection or assemblage of persons or things; cluster; aggregation: a group of protesters; a remarkable group of paintings.
2. a number of persons or things ranged or considered together as being related in some way.

Atheists qualify.

I'm just sick of people asking what 'atheists' believe or how an 'atheist' would deal with this or that situation. You might as well ask if people that prefer vanilla ice cream share an ideology based on that. It's ridiculous.

Well, seeing as I've done no such thing, that's irrelevant.

And if you don't like snide remarks, try to be less obtuse. Just some free advice. It isn't my policy to suffer foolishness.

Sure, blame me for your own idiotic phrasing.

And with that, I hope to avoid dialoguing with you for at least another few months or so. It gives me a headache.

If that means you're going to shut up and go away, I'm delighted to hear it.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Sure, blame me for your own idiotic phrasing.

Right..because saying there is no such grouping as 'atheist' OBVIOUSLY means the same thing as not believing the word 'atheist' exists.



English language comprehension...it's what's for dinner.

 

[Storm]

Right..because saying there is no such grouping as 'atheist' OBVIOUSLY means the same thing as not believing the word 'atheist' exists.



English language comprehension...it's what's for dinner.

Is that the best you can do? Ignore everything I've said in a lame attempt at another insult? How pathetic.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Hello, wall.

I'm done.

 

[Storm]

Yeah, you've said that before. This is getting weirdly adorable.

 

[ChristineES]

Seriously, do they?

I would call it "anti-proselytize" And yes, some of them do that.

 

[Evandr]

Seriously, do they?

I believe that atheists have a national organization bent on removing all references to God from our public establishments. So, yes, they do prosilitize, only they do it almost exclusively by ramrodding the concept of "seperation of church and state" into our political arena's to a point that far exceeds the limits that our fopunding father's had in mind. It's a shamful twisting of a great and wise intention because the concept of God has been woven into nearly every fabric of our national public establishment. Seeking to do do so extreamly presumptious because, in effect, they are attempting to redefine what the founding fathers did a fine job of defining in the first place.