PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Paleo Phil <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:45:19 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (8 lines)
Marilyn: If they resent it then this is what I meant by the term politically correct - in other words terms that are applied so as not of offend, but instead have a muddying effect in conversation/writing.  

I've already explained that I don't care whether it offends or not, but rather whether the intended meaning will be understood. I actually find atheist to have more of a muddying effect than nontheist and I thought by now the multiple conflicting interpretations of atheist in this thread would have demonstrated that. That's one of the main reasons I switched to using nontheist to begin with. You demonstrated that you understand the term nontheist in the way that I mean and I haven't seen any diagreement on its meaning yet, so there's no apparent muddying from it so far, and I already considered and rejected in the past the suggested alternatives of humanist and agnostic (humanist is somewhat appealing but seems to be associated with left wing views on everything, vegetarianism, utopian modernist progressivism and other things I don't support), so this thread has further confirmed for me that nontheist is right for me at this time and it seems like much ado about nothing. 

The only possible remaining criticism of my using nontheist I can think of is that it is not sufficiently militant, as atheist and antitheist are perceived. That's a fair criticism and at present I don't regard myself as militant on the subject except perhaps in regards to the worst excesses of religions/religious people. Perhaps I should be, but I tend to be more of a skeptic of all militancies than a militant. More Taoist than fundamentalist jihadist, as it were. Even if I were militant, the confusing disagreement over what atheist means would still eliminate that term and leave only antitheist, which is not an accurate descriptor and could also be misinterpreted as meaning someone who is "against God"--when the intended meaning is that the person believes that gods do not exist.

I have no interest in being "politically correct" and I also find the broader (implicit) sense of atheist to apply to me, so if someone wants to call me an atheist or implicit atheist, that's fine, just please don't try to use the term to tie me in with things I don't actually believe in like Communism, devil worship, total opposition to organized religion or religion in general, anti-spirituality, "opposition to God," value-lessness, hypermodernism, anti-traditionalism, radical progressivism or other associations, often strange or irrelevant, that some folks make with "atheism" (don't ask me why or how some people associate devil worship or opposition to God with it--I have no idea how someone is supposed to be opposed to a God they don't believe exists or support a devil they don't believe exists).

ATOM RSS1 RSS2