Frank Segro

Poultney, VT, United States

Someone is shy

Frank hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

134833
Frank Segro
Posted almost 3 years ago
Abolishing the use of the term Atheism.
Thats exactly the problem. Quote : "belief that there are no gods". Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief. I am not actively believing that their are no gods right now. I simply don't believe something else that someone else does. There are no beliefs associated with atheism. Not believing in a positive statement like there is a god doesn't count as a belief. Call it disbelief if you will. But it only brands itself as the antithesis to theology because people misunderstand what the word actually means. As I mentioned earlier, atheism does not at all imply any belief in anything. It simply states that you do not believe in this. Although I do not believe in God, that does not assert anything that I do believe in. Because I don't believe in fairies doesn't necessitate that I believe in something else. To me that space need not be filled and I think the same is true of atheism.
134833
Frank Segro
Posted almost 3 years ago
Abolishing the use of the term Atheism.
A little historical context on the roots of the words: Theos = Greek for God, Deity, A, an, anti, ag = not/no Atheos = no god Nostic , gnosis = knowing ag = not agnostic = not knowing Whats ironic is the attempts by many to unify atheists around this lack of belief. Being an atheist tells you nothing about me. I may believe in reptoids, or Santa Claus. You cannot form a base on a non-belief. English is a semantically closed language. The statement “This desk is flat” has dual content. We read a sentence and again we presuppose that there is an actual physical desk in the world and that it is flat. Tangible content. However, there also exits the semantic content “ The sentence this desk is flat is a true statement”. This is totally non-visceral and is referring to an abstract statement that doesn't exist anywhere. “Did you just say, this desk is flat?” What this means is that a negative term can be talked about as a positive one, a negative term (not god) not god can now be taken as a semantic object. Atheist refers to a lack of something, we can now talk about it as if it is a belief system. And I don't like that it lumps me in with one of the most hated groups of people on the planet.
134833
Frank Segro
Posted almost 3 years ago
Abolishing the use of the term Atheism.
Herein lies the problem, were assigning words to non-existent belief systems. Atheism is not a belief system. As I mentioned earlier it is simply a lack of something. That's why I don't think that we should use it as a term. We don't describe people by what they are not. Also, the term has such a negative connotation, part based in it's etymological roots, part in its anthropological, that it becomes difficult to discuss viewpoints when your automatically targeted as something negative. Would you go on a dating website and write "I don’t have blond hair, I'm not 5’ 8’’ nor 5’ 6’’, rather than I'm 5’ 7”?
134833
Frank Segro
Posted almost 3 years ago
Where are the poor in Occupy Wall Street?
When change threatens to rule, then the rules are changed. Rather than be bothered by the fact that the so called "bourgeois" (a term I'm not entirely comfortable throwing around) are standing alone in the face of adversity, I propose that we as individuals embrace their fortitude and determination. The term "bourgeois" leaves a sour taste in my mouth because I consider it a convenient designator that is marked by a concern for material interests, respectability and a tendency toward mediocrity. I myself would hardly assign that term to these people. In my eyes this is the classic example of standing up for the little man. Representing those who cannot represent themselves. Consider the OWS protesters freelance, pro-bono, activists. Those who lead a comfortable life as many of us in this conversation and many of those on streets claim to be, should galvanize us. Those people are willing to leave that comfort zone, if but only for a moment to stand up for something that they believe in. Many of them, like those aforementioned wall street suits don't need to go out there and protest, but they do it anyway. Instead of patronizing or over analyzing the socio-economic demographics that this movement is comprised of, let us support it. Regardless of race, creed, religion, class, sexual orientation etc... Let's be the first "bourgeois" that looks out for the "proletariat".