Post Reply
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
2 years ago  ::  Jan 24, 2012 - 10:36PM #41
Fodaoson
Posts: 10,937

Jan 24, 2012 -- 9:39PM, JCarlin wrote:

Jan 24, 2012 -- 8:46PM, Fodaoson wrote:


The use of derogatory words an titles often reflect the ignorance and illiteracy of  a poster.   Words have a literary meaning that is used in meaningful communication. Posters who continually misuse words   cannot be taken seriously and their opinion is devalued to a state of uselessness to others. Therefore, the continued misuse of derogatory comments/words and the wrongful application of said words results in degradation  of the  poster not the subject/target the posts


Conservatism :1capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party


2a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage) 3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change


Liberalism


a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)


Etymology of  liberal Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free


First Known Use: 14th century


 


Etymology of conserve Servare is a Latin verb that means to make safe, save, preserve, guard, protect, etc.  There are four main principle parts to pretty much every verb in the Latin language, with the exception of a few.  However, for the sake of simplicity we will only look at the main principle part, servatus.  Servatus, is the perfect passive participle form of the verb and this form has served as a foundation for which the words we use today were created.  Some words that we use today with a derivative of the root servatus in them are observe (to not protect) and preserve (to make safe in advance).


Con-   Now that you understand the root, -servat-, we can begin reconstructing our original word, conservative.  First, let’s add on the prefix con-.  The prefix con- is derived from the Latin word cum, which meant “with” or “together”.  Most people use this word when graduating cum laude (with honors) or magna cum laude (with high honors).  Nevertheless, this word was commonly used in the Latin language and in text.  The idea of a prefix is not a new development for many Latin words already used con- as a prefix, such as consere, which meant to join together, as well as conservare, which of course meant to keep safe altogether.  Some of words that we use the prefix con- in are congregate (to come together) and converge (to meet up with).




Which wingnut think tank provided those definitions.  You are going to have to cite the source for any credibility at all. 




www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liber...


www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=conser...

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jan 24, 2012 - 11:22PM #42
mountain_man
Posts: 38,086

Jan 24, 2012 -- 8:46PM, Fodaoson wrote:

The use of derogatory words an titles often reflect the ignorance and illiteracy of  a poster. ..


Playing the Dictionary Game has the same effect. The game consists of posting several, often contradictory, cherrypicked definitions of a word. Then using different definitions to concoct an equivocation. It's a game that doesn't work and doesn't advance the conversation.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jan 25, 2012 - 12:45AM #43
steven_guy
Posts: 11,618

Jan 24, 2012 -- 10:44AM, Fodaoson wrote:


Some of the responses contain a subtle, and not so,  anti-Christian religion tone.  




What's wrong with that?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jan 25, 2012 - 10:43AM #44
Fodaoson
Posts: 10,937

Jan 25, 2012 -- 12:45AM, steven_guy wrote:


Jan 24, 2012 -- 10:44AM, Fodaoson wrote:


Some of the responses contain a subtle, and not so,  anti-Christian religion tone.  




What's wrong with that?




 


Nothing until the poster who has those posts makes a claim of not being anti-god, anti-Christian , or anti-religion.

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jan 25, 2012 - 11:07AM #45
JCarlin
Posts: 6,006

Jan 24, 2012 -- 10:44AM, Fodaoson wrote:

Some of the responses contain a subtle, and not so,  anti-Christian religion tone.


You will find that many atheists have suffered grievous mental and sometimes physical harm at the hands of Christians.  Even Christians have a hard time with the admonition to "love your enemy, do good to those who hate you." (Luke 6:27 for the Bible impaired.)  Why do you expect those who do not believe in such platitudes to do any better? Although in fact we do much better than most Christians not because we believe in Christian platitudes but because we have strong and compelling humanist moral standards. 


I remind you that you are on a predominantly American atheist board.  As recently as the George H. W. Bush Campaign a presidental candidate implied that atheists were not Americans.  Go to a Republican campaign debate and ask any of the candidates what they think of atheists.  Any bets on the tone of the answers? 


There is no question that I am anti-Christian except for the few Christians who speak out against the excesses of the vocal Christian hate-mongers and abusers of women and children. I am on record several times as saying "If you are a Christian and are not actively working against the Christian problems of hate and abuse you are part of the problem."  If you don't like it roll up your sleeves and get to work.  You can probably start right in your own church.

J'Carlin
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't cram your foot in it and complain.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jan 25, 2012 - 11:24AM #46
Ken
Posts: 33,860

Jan 25, 2012 -- 10:43AM, Fodaoson wrote:


Jan 25, 2012 -- 12:45AM, steven_guy wrote:


Jan 24, 2012 -- 10:44AM, Fodaoson wrote:


Some of the responses contain a subtle, and not so,  anti-Christian religion tone.  




What's wrong with that?



Nothing until the poster who has those posts makes a claim of not being anti-god, anti-Christian , or anti-religion.



One can be anti-Christian without being anti-god or anti-religion. Yours isn't the only god or the only religion, you know.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jan 25, 2012 - 11:41AM #47
Fodaoson
Posts: 10,937

Jan 25, 2012 -- 11:24AM, Ken wrote:


Jan 25, 2012 -- 10:43AM, Fodaoson wrote:


Jan 25, 2012 -- 12:45AM, steven_guy wrote:


Jan 24, 2012 -- 10:44AM, Fodaoson wrote:


Some of the responses contain a subtle, and not so,  anti-Christian religion tone.  




What's wrong with that?



Nothing until the poster who has those posts makes a claim of not being anti-god, anti-Christian , or anti-religion.



One can be anti-Christian without being anti-god or anti-religion. Yours isn't the only god or the only religion, you know.




 


I meant  any one or any combination of the three .  There is no "yours" when referring to me. The closest thing of being religious  I hold to is Taoist Philosophy   and there is  not deity in Tao (philosophy)

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jan 25, 2012 - 12:42PM #48
Ken
Posts: 33,860

Jan 25, 2012 -- 11:41AM, Fodaoson wrote:


Jan 25, 2012 -- 11:24AM, Ken wrote:


Jan 25, 2012 -- 10:43AM, Fodaoson wrote:


Jan 25, 2012 -- 12:45AM, steven_guy wrote:


Jan 24, 2012 -- 10:44AM, Fodaoson wrote:


Some of the responses contain a subtle, and not so,  anti-Christian religion tone.  




What's wrong with that?



Nothing until the poster who has those posts makes a claim of not being anti-god, anti-Christian , or anti-religion.



One can be anti-Christian without being anti-god or anti-religion. Yours isn't the only god or the only religion, you know.



I meant  any one or any combination of the three .  There is no "yours" when referring to me. The closest thing of being religious  I hold to is Taoist Philosophy   and there is  not deity in Tao (philosophy)



Then you should be anti-Christian. Christians think Taoists suck too.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jan 25, 2012 - 12:45PM #49
mountain_man
Posts: 38,086

Jan 25, 2012 -- 10:43AM, Fodaoson wrote:

Nothing until the poster who has those posts makes a claim of not being anti-god, anti-Christian , or anti-religion.


There is a difference between being against a religion and against the followers. If you can't figure that out, just ask for help. How can one be "anti god" when gods do not exist? Again, if you need help understanding these things, just ask.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 03, 2012 - 11:29PM #50
IDBC
Posts: 4,367

Howdy MM


Jan 22, 2012 -- 2:13PM, Eudaimonist wrote:

This TED talk (provocatively named Atheism 2.0) is about moving on from simply opposing religion.  The speaker basically says: "Of course there is no God. Let's move on. What now?"



 


Jan 22, 2012 -- 2:19PM, mountain_man wrote:

Gee... I never knew that Atheism was "simply opposing religion." All this time, I and most other Atheists, thought it was just a lack of belief in gods.




If a simple belief in just the existence of god or gods was all that there was to theism than I would agree.  


However there is more to theisim than just a simple belief in the existence of god or gods. 


If theists just had a simple belief in the existence of god/gods I would have no problem whatsover with them.   


And I think that if atheisim was simply a non-belief in the existence of god/gods I don't think that they would have a problem with atheists. 


It is all the doctrines and dogmas that are derived from and attached to belief in the existence of god or gods.   And these doctrines and dogmas derived from the belief in the existence of god and gods is what atheists oppose it is the doctrine and dogmas that make up religion. 


It is also the rejection by atheists of the authority of religous scripture like the Bible and the Quran dogma that it is of divine origin and that the ethics and morality that are derived from it are therefore also divine that are a big part of the conflict.  


There is more to the conflict between atheists and theists than just the "existence" or "non-existence" of god/gods.  It is the conflict between the doctrines and dogmas that theists derive from the existence of god expressed in religion that is at the heart of the conflict.  


However as Mr. De Bottom said it is time for atheists to "move on".  


 I do agree with Mr. De Bottom that there are some things that atheists can learn from theists.  


I agee that atheists should do more sermonizing instead of just lecturing.  


At the Atheists Convention I attended after the Rally For Reason there was an evanglist preacher who had come out of the closet and announced that he was an atheist and preached the gospel of atheism and gave a good sermon. 


His comment on who the religous use rituals and divide the year up into holidays is also something that atheists can learn from theists.  This is practiced to some degree in New York City by atheists-secular humanists.  We gather together to celebrate the summer and winter soltices.  On the National Day of Prayer we get togehter to celebarte a Day of Reason. 


We also celebrate Darwin Day.   There is an effort to have Darwin Day declared as an offical holiday in New York State.  I am a bit dubious as to wether it would succeed but miracles do happen.  




 

HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook