Poll: is atheist organization politically oriented?
Yes - as organizations, atheists have a political agenda
No - as organizations, atheists are educators of truth
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Atheism is a political movement
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-06-2011, 12:03 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2011 01:49 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Atheism is a political movement
(13-06-2011 01:05 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  So there needs to be some big plan... because the theists think there is a plan?
Not really. The reason there needs to be a well reasoned agenda is so atheists will understand what the plan is, and what reasonings they have had in the past that are erroneous to the better approach to the goal of dismantling theism in society.

The theists are wondering why atheists, with all their insistence about how critical thinking and just that they are to all people compared to how prejudice Christians are; why atheists cannot devise a political agenda that would serve all people justly. They don't think atheists have a plan - they know atheists don't have a plan. But because our political system is so ingrained with compounded errors from "fixes" in the past - nobody can see the trees because of the forest. Except me, and a few Republicans.

(13-06-2011 01:05 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  
(13-06-2011 10:34 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  The devising of a political agenda designated, "atheism," is appropriate, because it signifies the ambition and people involved. You are probably having difficulty understanding that the agenda does not have to accommodate atheists exclusively. As with any political organization, the ambition is to treat all people justly, with the claim that those who subscribe to the political agenda are more apt to be able to serve all people more justly.

So its a political group for atheists... thats actually for everyone... why does it have to be atheism then? By that reasoning you could choose a name out of a hat and brand it as a political group for everyone.
The goal is to dismantle theism, but to make it fair to all, we have to realize that there has to be some amount of segregation, and foremost, atheists want sovereign control of at least one state. The ambition is to demonstrate to the theists that an "atheist" state is more appealing to people, and thus realizing that there is no gods is more accurate thinking that leads to better legislation. To this end, it is essential to construct, at least, a political agenda segregated from theist interference which is legal and possible in the secular-plural society that we all endure.

(13-06-2011 01:05 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  
(13-06-2011 10:34 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Republicans are not inclined to submit to Democrats, just as Democrats are not inclined to submit to Republicans, because the principles of thought for serving all people justly must be protected by defeating the opposing ideology because it is relatively erroneous.

Why does the opposing ideology need to be defeated? Seems to me societies can work well with many different ideologies, so long as people are educated enough to think things through first. Whites are also not inclined to submit to blacks, and blacks aren't inclined to submit to whites, that's the constitution for you.
That is not the constitution - that is some of the erroneous interpretations and application, there of. The problem we endure is the failure to understand the reason for uniting sovereign states, and realizing that the approval of state constitutions has been plagued by faulty reasoning in the past. The major problem has been that nobody really knows how democratic-republic constitutions are to be - we are still at the beginnings, and for the most part they have seemingly worked well in America, because for the most part, everyone was fairly aligned in their thinking (Christian capitalism). If you will notice all the state constitutions are different, nobody knows what they contain, and people are not too different in their thinking from one state to the next - no state has a monopoly on any social development, capitalism dominates because that is what most people are familiar with, and yet, atheists all claim that there are some other countries that are better developed, but nobody wants to go there. Sam Harris is a good example; he claims other countries are better, yet he conducts his godless research on humans here in America - don't figure!! Why, because it is not true, the USA is secular - more secular than any other country. The problem atheist don't want to understand is that the problem with secular-pluralism is that you have to endure all the fucked-up bullshit that comes out of all the different snow flakes' mouths.

ROTFLMAO

Opposing ideologies do not need to be defeated - they needs to be segregated, so as to allow them to flourish, or die, because of its own faults. In secular-plural non-segregated societies the ideological organizations have no other choice but to seek the end of the opposing ideology, because if there is a common negotiable happy medium between the two, why don't we just adopt that and start being happy???

Once you set up an atheist state then the factions will organize, because then atheists will recognize that atheists are not all a bunch of different snow flakes, but a group of several factions that have to be concentrated and the ideologies "purified" - tighten-up the logic.

It is easy to recognize the contradictions of the Republican and Democrat parties, because they are somewhat based on gathering voting blocs by exploiting the deficiencies of the party in power, most notably, the Repubs were the party that championed emancipation, but because Blacks were disenfranchised by Whites in general, when the Democrats had the chance they gathered the Black vote. And this is a fault of popular elections compared to proportional elections.

As for Black activists-types, I would like to give them a state too. I would like to see what ideas they have for doing community that they understand to justify claiming that ". . . Whites fuck everything up." Maybe, they do have some ideas Whites could adopt, but we cannot tell what those ideas are until Blacks are allowed to try them autonomously. So long, as we endure an unsegregated secular-pluralism society we lack some insights of possible thinking, and endure mistakes of improper application of ideas, because of the errors associated with non-discrimination.


Here is a sample of Sam Harris' reasoning - The Problem with Atheism

Quote:Given the absence of evidence for God, and the stupidity and suffering that still thrives under the mantle of religion, declaring oneself an “atheist” would seem the only appropriate response. And it is the stance that many of us have proudly and publicly adopted. Tonight, I’d like to try to make the case, that our use of this label is a mistake—and a mistake of some consequence.

My concern with the use of the term “atheism” is both philosophical and strategic. I’m speaking from a somewhat unusual and perhaps paradoxical position because, while I am now one of the public voices of atheism, I never thought of myself as an atheist before being inducted to speak as one. I didn’t even use the term in The End of Faith, which remains my most substantial criticism of religion. And, as I argued briefly in Letter to a Christian Nation, I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “bullshit” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2011, 01:06 PM
RE: Atheism is a political movement
Here's what I'm getting from this.
You think all atheist groups should pull together and make a plan, then say "ah yes this is what atheism was about all along". You think we need to segregated people(because it worked so well in the past) and that we should dominate the people segregated.

Once you set up a non-cheese eating state then the factions will organize, because we will recognize that non-cheese eaters are not all a bunch of different snow flakes, but a group of several factions that have to be concentrated and the ideologies "purified" - tighten-up the logic.

As shown above, you can use that argument for almost any group.
Fundamentalists do not look at countries with more rights and better social programs and think "gee, maybe we were wrong." in a lot of countries they spit and curse the name of the better country(in olden days they just mounted for war) sure fundamentalists aren't the majority in a lot of places, but they are usually the loudest, and since they are claiming to represent their group most moderates either won't say anything against them or agree.

And how exactly does a more convenient library system change the government so radically?
Seems to me Harris is saying calling someone an atheist is just putting an unnecessary label on them. How does what you say connect to that?

Hey brother christian, with your high and mighty errand, your actions speak so loud, I can't hear a word you're saying.

"This machine kills fascists..."

"Well this machine kills commies!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2011, 02:19 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2011 03:33 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Atheism is a political movement
(14-06-2011 01:06 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  Here's what I'm getting from this.
Yeah, it looks like you might want to consider learning how to open your mind to understanding that what you learned in school, and from others, has been a distortion of what really is true, and you need to really read and understand constitutions and the theory behind them, and in regards to the USA constitution you need to realize that the fixes have not always been for the better, and that a mis-correction gets very compounded as people do not realize that a mis-correction was committed. And I suggest that you not assume what specifically I am talking about, and just go try and figure out what has happened over the past two hundred years, and why you believe that changes to the government can be made without changes to the constitution(s).
(14-06-2011 01:06 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  You think all atheist groups should pull together and make a plan, then say "ah yes this is what atheism was about all along".
More, or less. I would suggest that atheist groups figure out what they envision for society and put it into a political agenda, because that is what mature organizations that are concerned about social issues do. "Pull together" is possible, but I doubt if anyone, other than me, is anywhere near devising an agenda - it is extremely difficult and time consuming (requires a lot of organization of ideas). What you will probably see is atheist groups will bite off what I present.

(14-06-2011 01:06 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  You think we need to segregated people (because it worked so well in the past) and that we should dominate the people segregated.
Where did I say that? You are imposing past social problems of intra-segregation to those of sovereign state segregation - it is a very different social accommodation. The segregation you understand was by involuntary discrimination. In a sovereign state segregation scheme the discrimination is voluntary, and it is well regulated by comprehensive legislation so people are not lynched for being in opposition, but rather are compelled to seek asylum in a state more accommodating. Don't like gambling - don't live in Nevada, unless you are prepared to live in a completely different frame of mind. Don't like Mormonism - don't live in Utah, unless you are prepared to live in a completely different frame of mind.

I am saying that political organizations would be better served if they had their own autonomous sovereign states, and people would be compelled to seek residency in the state that appeases their political aspirations to the fullest. That is what one of the purpose was for uniting states, way back then. The idea wasn't that all the states need to be the same. And if your ideas lead you to believe that all the states should be the same then why the fuck haven't you devised a template state constitution that would serve all states to be the same?

What are you thinking?

(14-06-2011 01:06 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  Once you set up a non-cheese eating state then the factions will organize, because we will recognize that non-cheese eaters are not all a bunch of different snow flakes, but a group of several factions that have to be concentrated and the ideologies "purified" - tighten-up the logic.

As shown above, you can use that argument for almost any group.
That is true. And that is why I would like for Blacks to have their state, and for Christians to have their state, and for Republicans to have their state, and for Democrats to have their state, and of course there will remain some states, like New York, that will remain secular-plural - then I can, by informed observation of how they are different, can determine which state I would rather live.

If you want to set-up a secular-plural state, you need to devise a constitution decidedly devised to be so,and you need to be aware of the problems that are incurred by infinitely secular-plural community, such as how are all the ideologies going to be fairly represented in the administration of government. Obviously, you must recognize that there are problems with the current set-up for a secular-plural society, because obviously, for all the where-for-all of so many atheists why aren't there any atheist politicians? And how about the Blacks and Hispanics, are they fairly represented in the government - do you have any ideas on how to fix it? Or are you satisfied with just bitching and a moaning that the old white guys are fucked-up and that somehow fixes the legislation to accommodate all of those minorities???

Really, how do you sleep at night - don't really understand it all, do you? That is how you get through the day. Because if you were as frustrated as I was, you would have done what I did, and figured it all out, and figure out a solution. And believe me, it has to be a very comprehensive POLITICAL plan.

(14-06-2011 01:06 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  Fundamentalists do not look at countries with more rights and better social programs and think "gee, maybe we were wrong." in a lot of countries they spit and curse the name of the better country(in olden days they just mounted for war) sure fundamentalists aren't the majority in a lot of places, but they are usually the loudest, and since they are claiming to represent their group most moderates either won't say anything against them or agree.
Things are different here in America - it is to be a union of sovereign states. And the problem has been that that idea has been subjugated, because of a naive citizenry in the past. Most people are looking to understand why things are messed up right now, and ho are they to be corrected. And your ideas of forcing people to see things your just and fair way are faulty - people appreciate the ability to fail of their own volition.

(14-06-2011 01:06 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  And how exactly does a more convenient library system change the government so radically?
Where did I say that? And you better answer that question, or I am going to fuck your stupid bitch-ass up. How fucking stupid you must be to put together that argument - obviously, you are emotionally attached to the sanctity of "Atheism." But don't worry there are plenty of other atheists just as fucked-up with "atheism" and "religion," and "secularism," and "democracy," and "republic," and . . .

My claim has always been that a more accurate classification system will lead to smartening people. The only way to change government is to change the constitutions - didn't you learn that from Obama?

(14-06-2011 01:06 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  Seems to me Harris is saying calling someone an atheist is just putting an unnecessary label on them. How does what you say connect to that?
Because, he is probably going to agree that calling a political agenda "Atheism," is the correction. Furthermore, he is probably disappointed, in the fact, that atheists have not complied with his suggestion of disregarding it, influencing him to realize how the correction will work to eventually satisfy his reasoning; because once theism is dismantled, "atheism," will be disregarded, as the factions will be more prominent - beautiful.

It has been several years, and there was a video that he sent to an atheist convention where all he did was hold a sign reading, "Stop calling yourselves atheists," and the convention goers just laughed.

It is pretty obvious that you are very adamant about the sanctity of atheism. You do realize that, as far as you know, I have no influence - so what drives you to argue so irrationally - my reasoning abilities??

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2011, 03:32 PM
RE: Atheism is a political movement
(14-06-2011 02:19 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  More, or less. I would suggest that atheist groups figure out what they envision for society and put it into a political agenda, because that is what mature organizations that are concerned about social issues do. "Pull together" is possible, but I doubt if anyone, other than me, is anywhere near devising an agenda - it is extremely difficult and time consuming (requires a lot of organization of ideas). What you will probably see is atheist groups will bite off what I present.

Once again, why is atheism the apex of this whole idea? Define "mature organizations for me, is it based on age or what it does? and if its based on what the group does than what is the transitional phase from internet forum to national political party?
LOL, so they'll take bits of your ideas just like how we have? I don't think you believe that if you are being sincere.

(14-06-2011 02:19 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Where did I say that? You are imposing past social problems of intra-segregation to those of sovereign state segregation - it is a very different social accommodation. The segregation you understand was by involuntary discrimination. In a sovereign state segregation scheme the discrimination is voluntary, and it is well regulated by comprehensive legislation so people are not lynched for being in opposition, but rather are compelled to seek asylum in a state more accommodating.

So what is stopping people from looking at another "pure" state and being full of hate and bigotry? and what if people want to stay in the state they are in, how does the government convince them to go to their groups state?

(14-06-2011 02:19 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I am saying that political organizations would be better served if they had their own autonomous sovereign states, and people would be compelled to seek residency in the state that appeases their political aspirations to the fullest. That is what one of the purpose was for uniting states, way back then. The idea wasn't that all the states need to be the same. And if your ideas lead you to believe that all the states should be the same then why the fuck haven't you devised a template state constitution that would serve all states to be the same?

rofl I never said states had to all be the same, but having similar laws does help national cohesion.

(14-06-2011 02:19 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  That is true. And that is why I would like for Blacks to have their state, and for Christians to have their state, and for Republicans to have their state, and for Democrats to have their state, and of course there will remain some states, like New York, that will remain secular-plural - then I can, by informed observation of how they are different, can determine which state I would rather live.

So what is to stop these "pure" states from either trying to massacre each other, or separate off? A constitution? Funny because that's never worked in the past. What is to stop every single group of people demanding their own state, like vegetarians or people who only wear a certain type of clothes?

(14-06-2011 02:19 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Things are different here in America - it is to be a union of sovereign states. And the problem has been that that idea has been subjugated, because of a naive citizenry in the past. Most people are looking to understand why things are messed up right now, and ho are they to be corrected. And your ideas of forcing people to see things your just and fair way are faulty - people appreciate the ability to fail of their own volition.

Different how? So you think we shouldn't be looking for ways to solve problems? and when did I say anything about forcing my ideas on other people?

(14-06-2011 02:19 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Where did I say that? And you better answer that question, or I am going to fuck your stupid bitch-ass up.

Rofl threats over the internet, I'm hardly impressed, or intimidated. Is your classification system not intended for libraries? because that's what you've claimed. in a short amount of time or in the long run it doesn't matter, if the end result is changing the government than that's what you are claiming your system will do.

(14-06-2011 02:19 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  didn't you learn that from Obama?

I'm Canadian.

(14-06-2011 02:19 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Because, he is probably going to agree that calling a political agenda "Atheism," is the correction. Furthermore, he is probably disappointed, in the fact, that atheists have not complied with his suggestion of disregarding it, influencing him to realize how the correction will work to eventually satisfy his reasoning; because once theism is dismantled, "atheism," will be disregarded, as the factions will be more prominent - beautiful.

Or, he just thinks its an unnecessary label, there's so many labels that separate people.

(14-06-2011 02:19 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  It is pretty obvious that you are very adamant about the sanctity of atheism. You do realize that, as far as you know, I have no influence - so what drives you to argue so irrationally - my reasoning abilities??

ROFL! Yes TrollWreck I'm quavering in fear of your awesome cognitive abilities.
Define "sanctity of atheism", I use the word out of convenience in specific situations(such as being asked what religion I adhere to). Irrationally? I've asked you questions.

Just a sidenote, but if I was Prime Minister of Canada I would give you one of our provinces, just to see how long till it crashed. As Cave Johnson would say "I'll be honest here, we don't know exactly what will happen here... We're throwing science at the wall to see what sticks!"

Hey brother christian, with your high and mighty errand, your actions speak so loud, I can't hear a word you're saying.

"This machine kills fascists..."

"Well this machine kills commies!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2011, 03:41 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2011 03:49 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Atheism is a political movement
(14-06-2011 03:32 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  Rofl threats over the internet, I'm hardly impressed, or intimidated. Is your classification system not intended for libraries? because that's what you've claimed. in a short amount of time or in the long run it doesn't matter, if the end result is changing the government than that's what you are claiming your system will do.
That would be a long train of inferences.

The end result, as far as I have inferred in my contemplations, is to ready humanity to colonize other planets. All of human knowledge has to be stored very carefully in consistent classification patterns for easy teaching by the robots at the interplanetary transplantation of human being "eggs," or whatever. And then there are the possibilities for the "Ark" when the Earth begins to loose its orbit.

So pick yourself off the floor.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2011, 03:44 PM
RE: Atheism is a political movement
(14-06-2011 03:41 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(14-06-2011 03:32 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  Rofl threats over the internet, I'm hardly impressed, or intimidated. Is your classification system not intended for libraries? because that's what you've claimed. in a short amount of time or in the long run it doesn't matter, if the end result is changing the government than that's what you are claiming your system will do.
That would be a long train of inferences.

The end result, as far as I have inferred in my contemplations is to ready humanity to colonize other planets. So pick yourself off the floor.

ROFL now its about space travel!
Alright I think I'm done here. I hope everyone reading this got a good laugh, I have.

Hey brother christian, with your high and mighty errand, your actions speak so loud, I can't hear a word you're saying.

"This machine kills fascists..."

"Well this machine kills commies!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2011, 03:50 PM
RE: Atheism is a political movement
(14-06-2011 03:32 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  As Cave Johnson would say "I'll be honest here, we don't know exactly what will happen here... We're throwing science at the wall to see what sticks!"
Not a bad idea.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2011, 12:30 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2011 04:03 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Atheism is a political movement
(14-06-2011 03:32 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  
(14-06-2011 02:19 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  More, or less. I would suggest that atheist groups figure out what they envision for society and put it into a political agenda, because that is what mature organizations that are concerned about social issues do.
Once again, why is atheism the apex of this whole idea?
Because atheists claim to have a superior grasp of critical thinking skills, and it is easily concluded that such skills would be beneficial to constructing better community which is done through political legislation. In todays modern world, communities do not just develop without careful deliberation of ideological purpose - that is the primary concern of The Enlightenment.
Quote:The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals in 18th century Europe to mobilize the power of reason to reform society and advance knowledge. It promoted intellectual interchange and opposed intolerance and abuses in Church and state.
It was not about gunfire and bullying people.
(14-06-2011 03:32 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  Define "mature organizations for me, is it based on age or what it does?
In todays modern world of better education, freedoms, and liberties, people expect organizations to do more than just whine about being oppressed, people expect concrete solutions from the whiners. People in free Western Societies do not wish to oppress other, but the majority of people do not want to be oppressed by the whining of minorities. Minorities are expected to utilize the freedom of expression and their keen insights to deliver reasonable solution - telling people to forgo their value systems is not a valid solution. Atheists are not oppressed and they have the freedom to form organization, and the freedom to do more.
(14-06-2011 03:32 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  and if its based on what the group does than what is the transitional phase from internet forum to national political party?
The Internet serves the media for collaborating ideas, because actual meetings for atheists is very difficult to do, and actual meetings of atheists who have the intellectual ability to construct political ideas is even more difficult. The transitional phase would be a mass agreement with the agenda causing atheists to designate their local organizations as political and then complying with local laws to get the party recognized and a local representative of the agenda listed on the ballot. This in turn, creates the national party and compels people to review the agenda which will clearly be more understandable than the Republican and Democrat agendas.

(14-06-2011 03:32 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  LOL, so they'll take bits of your ideas just like how we have? I don't think you believe that if you are being sincere.
More than likely, yes, because the construction of social agreements is a very complex ordeal of balancing ideas that fulfill an overall assumption of what such a system should be.

The US federal constitution is a good example; for the most part it is assumed, and it is probably true, that the first rendition was the sole responsibility of James Madison, who is said to have done the note taking during the convention. After he completed a draft then a couple of other guys helped to tighten it up. And then there was the Federalist Papers published in the newspapers to promote the system.

(14-06-2011 03:32 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  So what is stopping people from looking at another "pure" state and being full of hate and bigotry? and what if people want to stay in the state they are in, how does the government convince them to go to their groups state?
Essentially, such people will be disenfranchised - they will be able to vote, but the candidates are required to adhere to the state's ideology: An atheist state is only going to have atheist politicians, a Black state is only going to have black politicians, a Christian state is only going to have Christian politicians.

Now, if an atheist lives in a Christian state, and if he continues his goble-de-guk about there not being any god, after a few warnings, he is going to be considered mentally ill, and will be given the option to leave the state for an atheist state where he should be more comfortable. If he does not heed to voluntarily migrate, he is not going to be killed, because the atheist state should take responsibility to asylum him - or something along that.

(14-06-2011 03:32 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  rofl I never said states had to all be the same, but having similar laws does help national cohesion.
Well, there are some issues that need to be explored.

(14-06-2011 03:32 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  So what is to stop these "pure" states from either trying to massacre each other, or separate off? A constitution? Funny because that's never worked in the past. What is to stop every single group of people demanding their own state, like vegetarians or people who only wear a certain type of clothes?
The social environment is much more evolved, now in Western Society, along with a much more intrusive communications network.

(14-06-2011 03:32 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  Different how?
People are much more appreciative of harmonious organization, and that means other people have to take care of their own - nobody should be forced to take care of people they do not have a vested interest in.

(14-06-2011 03:32 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  So you think we shouldn't be looking for ways to solve problems?
No, I believe atheists should be looking for ways to solve problems, but just telling other people to be tolerant is not a viable solution.
(14-06-2011 03:32 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  and when did I say anything about forcing my ideas on other people?
Being a typical atheist you imply it by claiming to have a more tolerant and just social attitude, but the problem is atheists do not have a concrete ideology to refer to as the standard of infinite tolerance, nor do they exercise infinite tolerance, which is evident by their continued bashing of Christians, and not developing a political agenda to guide society.

(14-06-2011 03:32 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  
(14-06-2011 02:19 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  didn't you learn that from Obama?
I'm Canadian.
So??? Don't you understand that the world revolves around what happens in the USA? You need to pay attention to the USA, because this is where anything of importance emanates from

(14-06-2011 03:32 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  Or, he just thinks its an unnecessary label, there's so many labels that separate people.
And, all of those labels refer to ideological systems that need to be sorted, and the only way to sort them is to force them to be tried in political districts.

(14-06-2011 03:32 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  Define "sanctity of atheism", I use the word out of convenience in specific situations (such as being asked what religion I adhere to). Irrationally? I've asked you questions.
Atheists cannot understand, and abhor it when Christians explain that they understand atheism as a religion. Atheists insist it is not a religion, and that they do not have a religion, and claim that they know what a religion is - and that Christians do not???
(14-06-2011 03:44 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  ROFL now its about space travel!

Nope, it is not about space travel, and it is not about constitutional reform; classification is about ordering knowledge, and a scientific ordering is for the better understanding of knowledge that may lead people to construct better constitutions. You want to claim that I devised the system to bring about constitutional reform makes no sense, because I explicitly explain that I am constructing a political agenda that includes classification reform, and I encourage atheists to construct a political reform agenda themselves. If I was confident that classification would ultimately lead people to construct better constitutions, I would not bother constructing them myself, and just concentrate on promoting the classification system

Now, if you want to play the inference game of end game, I am not afraid to explain my contemplations; and your attempt at disparagement is futile.

I forgot a contemplation that concludes that a scientific classification system uniquely contributes to the development "artificial" language and intelligence; and basically we have to "meet the robots halfway," in order to have a sense of "artificial sentience." We are not going to understand the robots if we do not understand a common classification that the robots rely upon. Something like your computer application interface - you have to understand it to work with it.



(13-06-2011 12:58 PM)lucradis Wrote:  
TrainWreck Wrote:Devising a political agenda is a step in maturation of "atheism."

You see, one of the problems with the designation, "atheism," is that it is relative to the existence of theism; and Sam Harris has made the argument, as well. I argue that it is faulty because in several centuries from now, when theism is dismantled, the designation for the ontological category of thinking will probably be humanism - so why don't we get their now? Now, if the term atheism is relative to the existence of theism, then understanding atheism as a political agenda is less abstruse, because theists see atheists as having an overall agenda to dismantle theism no matter how hard you try to convince them that atheists want to live in some kind of harmony with theists - the theists are not going to believe it.

The devising of a political agenda designated, "atheism," is appropriate, because it signifies the ambition and people involved. You are probably having difficulty understanding that the agenda does not have to accommodate atheists exclusively. As with any political organization, the ambition is to treat all people justly, with the claim that those who subscribe to the political agenda are more apt to be able to serve all people more justly.

Republicans are not inclined to submit to Democrats, just as Democrats are not inclined to submit to Republicans, because the principles of thought for serving all people justly must be protected by defeating the opposing ideology because it is relatively erroneous.
Hey I get it now too! very nice explanation Trainwreck. Really sums up your reasoning I think. Hey look at that I actually sort of agree with you too, who would have thought. I don't know how important it is that the two groups actually separate but I can see why one would want that. I can see why you are creating a new classification system as well. Good luck with that. But a point on that... if you try to sell it elsewhere start with the last post you made and go from there lol.
I am not sure what you got of it. The argument that atheism is relative to the existence of theism is not supportive of the original argument that atheist organizations are more political than educational. It is an argument to support the idea that atheist organizations should make better use of their resources to assert themselves as primarily political.

The devising of a scientific classification system is not for the purposes of serving atheists exclusively - it is a scientific ordering, which is much more applicable for more people than the contemporary systems. I bring the system I devised to the attention of atheists so as to offer them a solution to the problem of the Dewey system being biased to Christianity - but atheists seem to be too obtuse to recognize that Dewey is bias, and that another system should be devised. Which seems very contradictory to how atheists seek grievance for such religious biases.


(13-06-2011 12:09 PM)Zach Wrote:  I think you've explained your position very well with this post, and when you put it that way a lot of my objections don't really apply. I'm still not sure I agree with you, but you definitely do have a good point.
Well, thanks. I'll work on it some more, and see where it fits in to the treatise that I am constructing.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: