Hi

topic posted Wed, December 10, 2003 - 9:20 PM by  Gavin
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
Hi! My name's Gavin (obviously), and I'm a full-blown atheist/anarcho-capitalist. I'm currently in school to get my B.S. in economics and B.A. in philosophy.

In case anybody cares (which I doubt you do), I'm from Indiana, and 20. I'm an economics/philosophy geek, a politics nerd, and a fitness/nutrition dork.

Any questions that you may have about any subject, I can probably answer, so ask away, and relieve me of the sweet nectar of my life that is boredom.
posted by:
Gavin
SF Bay Area
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: Hi

    Fri, April 9, 2004 - 5:36 PM
    Definr conciousness in 50 words or less.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Hi

      Tue, April 13, 2004 - 8:54 AM
      the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself (-www.webster.com)

      Redefinition of words is a tool used only by those who wish to control the way people think.
      • Re: Hi

        Tue, April 13, 2004 - 3:23 PM
        That's a terribly general statement to make. "Terrific" got redefined by mistake, for instance- one hundred years ago, it meant "horrific" (like "terrifying" and "horrifying" are still almost identical in definition), but due to sarcastic use in pop culture, the word's original meaning was lost. It had nothing to do with anyone wanting to control how people thought, just sarcastic humor combined with ignorance.
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Hi

          Wed, April 14, 2004 - 8:02 AM
          for years, many anti-capitalists have misconstrued the word "rich" to mean something that its not. Many people now believe that just because someone can be described as rich, they are unrightfully wealthy. Rich is commonly associated with spoiled teenagers (mtv's
          "spoiled rich girls" series)

          There are plenty of other terms that have been redefined over the years by those who find their current meaning inconvenient.

          The use of language as propaganda is extreamly effective and poses a serious problem for those who don't use it. For instance the opposite of Anti- is Pro-, Pro-Life are people who wish to abolish abortion. Who then is the opposite (someone who wishes to retain the right to have an abortion)? Anti-Life? Try pushing that on someone. On the contrary, Pro-Choice fights with the same wordgame; the opposite is Anti-Choice.

          Recall that only a few years ago that in a resaraunt there was a smoking and non-smoking section. Now they are called smoking and smoke free.

          Notice that the term "human embryo" is rarely used by pro-lifers. Instead they use "unborn child" or "unborn baby".
          • Re: Hi

            Wed, April 14, 2004 - 11:07 AM
            Liam, I didn't say it never happens. I just noted that word re-definition is not even close to *always* being an attempt to control thought.
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: Hi

              Wed, April 14, 2004 - 1:33 PM
              :) Never questioned it, just felt I owed an explanation due to my shortwindedness.
      • Re: Hi

        Thu, April 29, 2004 - 4:14 PM
        How do you think the word 'God' has been re-defined to control the way people think. Do you think there is a definition of God that could be used so that you would no longer call yourself an 'atheist'?

        And who's the 'they' that are doing the re-defining? Isn't attaching meaning a personal thing?
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Hi

          Sat, May 1, 2004 - 11:03 PM
          they = anyone who finds a benefit of redefinition.

          here is a somewhat obvious use of redefinition:

          There was a "study" done by an anti-smoking group that showed "3000 children a day". Here is how the results were determined: divide the current number of smokers aged 20 by 365.

          Now, how did the people in this situation define "children"?
          In this case, children are going off to jail for adult level crimes, they are eligable for the draft, they are not supposed to be written off on taxes anymore by their gaurdians, they can appear in pornography, and strangely enough they are of legal age to buy cigarettes.

          This case conveniently redefines the word "children" to mean someone below the age of 21. When in all actuallity the United States government (also redefinition in my books) has defined it as a person below the age of 18.
          • Re: Hi

            Sat, May 1, 2004 - 11:31 PM
            Well, especially in the case of tobacco. You can buy it when you're 18. If this was about alcohol, 21 might hold up better.
          • Re: Hi

            Sun, May 2, 2004 - 6:08 AM
            What about God? Is there a definition of that symbol that would make you a non-atheist?
            • Re: Hi

              Mon, May 3, 2004 - 8:39 AM
              well, see, I'm HONESTLY not an atheist, nor do I believe in God as most do. I'm an Orbisian, and the tenets of that place the divine as being another expression of already existing sentient minds. So, I believe the Deities exist, but not that they are beings exactly, separate from us, whose belief in them allows them to be.
              • Re: Hi

                Wed, May 12, 2004 - 1:39 PM
                That's kind of my view. My definition of God would be: The sum total of All That Is. Everything that has ever manifested in the physical, as well as the formlessness that the physical sits upon.

                God is not A being, but rather simply all that Is Being. We're an inseparable part of it. It's in us and around us. Like a fish that spends its entire life in an ocean, but has no idea what the ocean is or that it exists, we are in something we can't see that could be called God.

Recent topics in "* Individual Sovereignty *"