From: Brooks A.
Subject: Nothing
I'm not so sophomoric as to point out that the suffix "ism" by definition entails "indicating a belief or principal" (or am I?). I will instead point to the fact that it's true neither in practice nor in the abstract, and that I don't think atheists agree with you. Atheism, ... is the active belief that there is no God. In fact, atheism is such a fervent belief system that it is predicated on the existence of beliefs systems that holds that there is/are gods/ a God, and subsequently that it is wrong.
In order to stake this claim, atheists attempt to presuppose that a lack of existence in God is man's default condition, and, for that matter, that not holding a belief is man's default condition, both of which are, of course, simply not true.
Starting out with such a significant error about such basic English does not bode well... but I provided Brooks with a link to an explanation I already have on this site about how and why the English suffix "ism" does not always entail a beliefs or principals. I also provided links showing that atheist writers today do indeed define atheism much the same way I do as well as explanations for how atheism is defined. In other words, I provided information refuting all of Brooks' false assertions.
I did not, however, bother with the rest of his email. Someone who can't handle basic English isn't going to be able to handle anything more substantive, so it would be a waste of my time.
Brilliant. You told me my English is wrong, then proceeded to forward me to a bunch of other meaningless drivel you've produced. I can't believe you have the courage to put such profoundly mind-numbing material on the internet for everyone to see with your name attached to it. Ignorance truly is bliss...
The funny part is that I made a slew of typos in an effort to hurry up and dissect your Swiss cheese of an argument, but you pointed out sentences where there actually isn't anything wrong with my English. I must admit that it is a little comforting to know that you didn't just write down something stupid, but that you were actually were an idiot in the end.
No, I pasted in links to material which provides Brooks with correct information on matters where his English is wrong. Like, for example, his ignorance about what "ism" means in English. It's pretty basic English, really, and not something that's a matter of debate. Brooks either didn't read what I provided or he lacks the character necessary to admit that he made an error about how "ism" is defined.
Either way, it's a demonstration that I was right to regard going any further as a waste of time.
And it's such a simple, tiny matter too. A person who can't comprehend what "ism" means, doesn't care what "ism" means, and/or lacks the character to admit what "ism" means is a person who won't be able to comprehend more complex issues, won't care about the truth on more complex issues, and/or won't have the character to ever admit error or ignorance on more complex issues.
When someone is so dismissive about simple, basic, undisputed facts like the definition of an English suffix, it's easy to regard all the insults as just a further expression of their real character. Such insults say far, far more about Brooks than they do about me, much less about anything I've written.
After coming back with quotes from Wikitionary and Diciontary.com about how "ism" is "really" defined as referring to "belief, principle, doctrine, theory, system, practice," Brooks wrote:
Shall I continue? Would you like to offer your own definition for ism? Just a general rule about debating - don't reference "material" that you've written when trying to show that someone is wrong. I don't care that you wrote a few crappy articles on the matter and that 7 or 8 "modern atheist scholars" think you believe - my point is that you are incorrect. What you've written has nothing to do with my character, as it is crap in the most objective of senses.
Another arrogant atheist with no real grip on what he believes - what a surprise!
Yes, he does need to continue - but with a comprehensive, unabridged dictionary. That he starts and stops with the most superficial and basic of resources speaks volumes about the sort of "research" he is capable of. That, in turn, effectively undermines whatever credibility he thought the rest of his conclusions might have.
Let's try the Oxford English Dictionary, shall we? I just provided an overview, so as not to tax him too much...
1. Forming a simple noun of action (usually accompanying a vb. in -ize), naming the process, or the completed action, or its result (rarely concrete); as in agonism, aphorism, baptism, criticism, embolism...
1.b Applied to these, though with affinities to 2, are words in which -ism expresses the action or conduct of a class of persons, as heroism, patriotism, despotism...
2. Forming the name of a system of theory or practice, religious, ecclesiastical, philosophical, political, social, etc., sometimes founded on the name of its subject or object, sometimes on that of its founder. ... Arianism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Calvinism...
2.b More of the nature of class-names or descriptive terms, for doctrines or principles, are agnosticism, altruism, animism...
3. Forming a term denoting a peculiarity or characteristic, esp. of language, e.g. , colloquialism, modernism, newspaperism...
In English, the suffix "ism" is not used solely to denote a philosophy, doctrine, or system. That is indeed one of it's uses but it's not the only one. What's more, the OED doesn't even list that as the first and primary use.
This is a fact and it is indisputable. Brooks would know that if he had done more than the most superficial of research. In fact, he'd know that if he had simply bothered to follow the first link I gave him - no one faced with words like "astigmatism" and "metabolism" could honestly continue to maintain that "ism" only ever denotes philosophies and doctrines.
So, once again, Brooks either didn't follow the link or he did but immediately refused to admit error. Either way, there was no point continuing. A person with good character and respectable intellect is one who will consider what others say, who will take time to do serious research, and who is able to admit to error. Brooks has not only demonstrated none of those qualities, but he has managed to demonstrate the exact opposite - and all of them around the otherwise simple question of what "ism" means.
If you think atheism falls within the same category of usage as metabolism or astigmatism, then we really aren't going to get anywhere with this. They end with the suffix "ism" because they contain the same set of characteristics that are endemic to all uses of "metabolism", or diagnoses of "astigmatism". Regardless, atheism IS used in the since that it is both doctrinal and that it is shared amongst a thread of all people who actively believe that God does not exist.
Ah, so now when faced with direct citations from the OED, Brooks is forced to reveal the truth that he has been avoiding: he lacks the character to admit error. What he should have done is simply admit to being wrong about how "ism" is defined then try to argue that "atheism" still falls within a particular category of "ism".
And so I didn't bother reading past the above. He doesn't do research. He doesn't pay attention to what others have to say. He doesn't allow that he might not know everything already and so might still have something to learn from others. Thus no conversation he starts is started honestly and cannot proceed in anything like a serious, substantive manner.
Haha this still hasn't addressed any of my emails. I didn't ignore the facts - you said that my definition of the suffix ism was a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of English and I merely showed you some examples of where ism can be defined as referring to a system of beliefs or practices. I can write a lengthy email on "ism" if you'd like and explain how your use of it in likening "atheism" to "astigmatism" is a bastardization of the suffix, but I thought it was obvious and I'm more interested in you addressing my points.
I thought you might ignore my points but I didn't realize you'd take time to write me emails to divert the topic. It's clear that you're just a coward - you'll make a great professor at a community college someday.
Now Brooks is lying. Allow me to quote him:
...the suffix "ism" by definition entails "indicating a belief or principal"
Brooks is not saying that "ism" can refer to beliefs or practices. Brooks' assertion is much simpler and very straightforward: "ism" entails beliefs or principals. This means that "ism" always denotes beliefs or practices (entail: transmit, as an inalienable inheritance, of qualities or conditions).
I pointed Brooks to an explanation of why that was a mistake on his part, with examples that made the mistake clear. Brooks proceeded to describe that explanation as "meaningless drivel". When confronted with the fact that the OED says the same thing, Brooks pretends that he believed all along that "ism" can refer to many different things with "belief or principle" being just one of them.
It's both amazing and sad all at once.
Regardless, it's why it's pointless for me or anyone to ever waste time engaging someone like Brooks on anything more substantive. If he can't get "ism" correct and/or can't admit that he was mistaken in limiting "ism" to just "belief or principal," it's not possible for him to contribute substantive or honestly on any more weighty matter.
As to my sharing his ridiculous twisting and dodging on this simple matter with all the site's readers....
And knock yourself, as long you you keep my name private. ...I'm going to assume that I've completely shattered your ridiculous conception of the term "atheism" and everything that goes along with it. The fact that you've evoked words like "moral character" and "privilege" is hilarious, and if you want to run a website spreading idiotic ideas, I suppose that is your right, but it makes you an idiot publicly rather than just privately - the latter being more preferable in your case, I would think.
So you see, I was only trying to help you.
Boy, do I feel "shattered." It's so nice of Brooks to want to "help" me, but to be honest we could all do with a lot less such "help".
Austin, aren’t you sort of beating a dead horse here? The conversation is so long and painful, it almost falls into the TL;DR category. This person reminds me of an expression my dad used to use to comment on obtuseness: “Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind’s made up.”
Austin,
It strikes me as odd that so many of your theist critics want to argue over definitions of atheism and the like. In addition to the fact that you use a correct definition of atheism (which you have repeatedly demonstrated), you also make it clear what your definition is and where you stand. Even if someone disagrees with your definition of atheism, for example, it is quite clear what you mean and how you are using the term.
I am an academic (social scientist) and folks in my area are used to defining their terms very specifically. When you have done a bit of research and you want to say that social connectedness has certain effects or that something is related to social class, you generally say exactly what you mean by these terms (and how you’ve measured them, etc.) even if you use the terms in ways that are a little different than how others might use them. Generally, unless your usage is really bizarre, others in your discipline are happy to argue, question or critique using those terms as you’ve defined them. Of course, they are often interested in the merits of an argument or bit of research.
If I didn’t know better, these potshots (often not very accurate ones) over definitions and semantics might seem like a way to criticize without having to deal with your reasoning or position. Of course, I wouldn’t want to appear anti-semantic.
Dirty Semants!
Theism is the condition of believing at least one supernatural deity is real. Atheism is the condition of not believing so. Full stop. Neither is an ‘ism’ in the sense of a doctrine or ideology.
I note Brooks claims most atheists don’t agree with Cline’s definition of atheism. No doubt one of them will be along any minute to agree with Brooks.
Good grief! If Brooks is not an atheist, why does he give a damn what an atheist thinks?! Get a grip guy. Go hassle someone who cares to hear your drivel!
It’s very tiring trying to engage such people on an intellectual level, although I’d never give it up because I think it does help to whittle down their resistance to accepting facts and logic. At the very least theists who read such arguments and have a somewhat open mind might take the argument to heart and begin to question their own belief system. These efforts are not in vain. I think these discussions coupled with efforts to demonstrate that atheists are not heartless savages (charity work, activism, etc.) will eventually bear fruit in that theists will no longer be able to claim the moral high ground (not that they have it now, but the general public doesn’t know it yet). Once that happens organized religion will be marginalized or topple completely and we can refocus our energies towards other humanitarian causes.