Classification Systems
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2011, 04:59 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2011 05:42 PM by TrainWreck.)
Classification Systems
We are all familiar with classification systems. Biology has a taxonomy system, restaurants have menus, books have table of contents, and libraries have the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress systems to organize books for locating and browsing.

Over the past few years, I have dedicated myself to devising a replacement for the DDC and LCC, and thus far a system that has reached a level that is beyond my ability to efficiently continue by myself, because of the amount of work that would be involved in studying the many topics left to be located into the system - it would probably take me ten more years.

The Secular Library Classification system (SLC) was inspired on the advanced concept of solving a problem that the DDC and LCC were not devised to fulfill, and that is a hierarchy list system that can be used for computer applications that use lists such as, directories, bookmarks, eLibraries, and tags. The problem with the Dewey and Library of Congress systems is that they are very cumbersome for anything other than systematizing the book shelves at the libraries; and more than likely, they are "not logical." If the DDC and LCC were "logical," we would probably be using them in computer applications, but we are not; and the SLC is designed to be used as such - so don't give up on trying to understand it, because eventually it will be imposed by the computer programmers.

The theory of the SLC is that knowledge can be efficiently organized into a recursive hierarchy system in accordance with a standardized collation. Understanding the collation system is necessary for learning how to classify information, or books. However, for most people, knowing how to classify information in accordance with a standardized system is not necessary - we usually just make up our own simple systems and do not worry if other people can understand it, or not. But for those who work in libraries, and academic researchers, a standardized system is essential to maintaining a consistent understanding of the information - tree of knowledge.

A "logical" standardized classification system of knowledge is probably necessary for the critical evaluation of arguments, but there is no system in existence that is used as a reference; and so, many, if not all, our arguments are plagued with category errors, and so nothing really gets settled. This is an obvious ailment of Internet discussion groups, and one that concerned me in the first place to argue that atheists have a serious problem with category error that confines them in a 'mirror reflection" of the erroneous reasoning of the theists when it comes to social-political discussions. Basically, religions are ideologies and should be understood as no different then a political ideologies, and that in turn will subject religions to the scrutiny, and laboratory setting (segregated communities), that atheists like to subject things to. But atheists have to understand that they have to organize community autonomously from theists, but atheists are no where near ready to do that; and besides that, when atheists set up the curriculum of their schools they will have to "eat crow," about teaching creationism, because the students are going to have to be informed about the theory in order to recognize when it is deployed.

Now, my objective at this time, is for atheists to cease their petty arguments about church and state, and move on to promoting a new classification system. I have tried in the past to encourage atheists to develop their own systems, but atheists do not seem to understand the necessity, and seemingly they are leaving it to the Christians to approve a new system, which will be mine because it is probably "scientifically logical.".

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
21-03-2011, 11:14 PM
RE: Classification Systems
Maybe the atheists aren't accepting the idea that we need a classification system because you haven't told us why we need one, and I for one still hardly understand it. The example in the link was of philosophy being broken down into 9 of 9 of 9, why do we need this? Should we really refer to geometry as 513 in any case?

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2011, 08:14 AM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2011 08:54 AM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Classification Systems
(21-03-2011 11:14 PM)daemonowner Wrote:  Maybe the atheists aren't accepting the idea that we need a classification system because you haven't told us why we need one, and I for one still hardly understand it.
A "logical" standardized classification system of knowledge is probably necessary for the critical evaluation of arguments, but there is no system in existence that is used as a reference; and so, many, if not all, our arguments are plagued with category errors, and so nothing really gets settled. This is an obvious ailment of Internet discussion groups, and one that concerned me in the first place to argue that atheists have a serious problem with category error that confines them in a 'mirror reflection" of the erroneous reasoning of the theists when it comes to social-political discussions.

(21-03-2011 11:14 PM)daemonowner Wrote:  The example in the link was of philosophy being broken down into 9 of 9 of 9, why do we need this? Should we really refer to geometry as 513 in any case?
i do not think my system subdivides Philosophy that way, that is the Dewey Decimal system, and that is why we do not use it - it is erroneous.

Maybe another way to understand what it is is to realize that every book, every painting, every music album, every movie, and just about every information composition is going to be in a digital format, and people will want to organize the massive compilation of files into a system that can be browsed rather than randomly accessed by titled, because browsing allows the browser to view the several titles that are in each subject and the subjects that are related. Kind of like browsing an actual library; you know, like when you go find the initial book you were looking for and then you kind of look at what is around it, well that is what my system allows you to do. You can do it with the Dewey and Library of Congress systems, but chances are they do not make sense for understanding how they are organized.
(21-03-2011 08:26 PM)cfhmagnet Wrote:  
(21-03-2011 04:02 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  This is not my first atheist forum, probably the fourth; and the mindset of the membership does not appear to be any different than the others.

Christians are stupid, and atheism is not something that can be organized; and if atheists continue to whine about how stupid the Christians are, then eventually they will change, and everything will get better, because the theists won't be causing stupidity anymore, because they will then be critical thinking atheists.
Honestly I'm not here to change the world, man. I'm just here to talk to some like-minded people for a change. I don't think people are necessarily stupid for believing in their god. Many of the brightest people I've known have been theists, they just...don't like to question when it comes to some of the big scary questions.
This is typical of atheists - trying to avoid seeming intolerant by trying to explain that they are relatively tolerant compared to the theists.

(21-03-2011 08:26 PM)cfhmagnet Wrote:  I don't like it when this holds up progress or when groups of the more deranged theists gum up the works, but there isn't much I can do about it. American politics is pay-to-play at this moment in time, . . .
Well, the problem here is that atheists are not organizing on the attempt to persuade politics in a positive manner of demonstrating how well they could do community compared to how the theist do community - atheists just want to whine that they are being oppressed by the theists.

(21-03-2011 08:26 PM)cfhmagnet Wrote:  . . . and honestly, I don't think a classification system change is going to do anything about that soon enough.
You cannot decide if it's the end of the world, or not - can you?

That is the beauty of proposing a revision of the classification systems deployed in society, and why I decided to pursue developing a system rather than continue my development of revising the political constitutions. The deployment of a better classification system will, as you noted, not seem to cause much change, and so it will make the theists less guarded as to what it will do - the problem is that atheists, like you, are "mirroring" the theists reasoning to the point where you only see it as worthless to your ultimate cause of ridding society of theism.

(21-03-2011 08:26 PM)cfhmagnet Wrote:  Especially when you have people getting elected who can just shut their earholes and sing "lalala, Earth is 6000 years old, no amount of supposedly factual evidence will change that." No amount of classification change or much of any change is going to get through to people that resist change like it's an allergy. And what's even sadder about it is that many of these people teach this avoidance to their children.
The most efficient solution is to segregate into an autonomous community of atheists, and prove that you can do community better then them.

(21-03-2011 08:26 PM)cfhmagnet Wrote:  I wish you luck with your project, I'll check out your new thread when I get a chance.
Eventually, my project will be deployed in society - the question is what side of history will atheists be on? And my analysis is that atheists, like you, are going to be on the dependent side - dependent on the Christians' guardianship to decide what is for the betterment.

(21-03-2011 08:26 PM)cfhmagnet Wrote:  I'm the type who attempts to see problems from more perspectives than my own. But keep in mind that some people just don't want to see things any way other than their own.
Don't fool yourself. You sound like the typical atheists who thinks he is more intelligent then everyone else, but has nothing but complaints about everyone else - nothing to offer the world to the betterment of mankind.

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
23-03-2011, 01:15 AM
RE: Classification Systems

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2011, 04:44 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2011 04:55 PM by TrainWreck.)
You need to start thinking beyond your petty arguments against theism
(23-03-2011 01:15 AM)No J. Wrote:  
(22-03-2011 08:14 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Eventually, my project will be deployed in society - the question is what side of history will atheists be on? And my analysis is that atheists, like you, are going to be on the dependent side - dependent on the Christians' guardianship to decide what is for the betterment.
What do you mean by "What side of history will atheists be on?"
If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that I stated that atheists are going to be dependent on the Christians' guardianship to decide what is for the betterment.

(23-03-2011 01:15 AM)No J. Wrote:  If you are paying attention, atheism is a fast growing part of society. More and more people world-wide are understanding science and reality. . .
And I assure you understanding science and reality is directly related to classification of knowledge, but atheists are not in the forefront of promoting classification. I have devised the next step in classification, but atheists are rejecting it in favor of the Christians' Dewey Decimal system. There is no doubt that when I present this system to the general population, which is still dominated by Christians, they will accept it and impose it on society - they will not reject it like your classic legends of the 16th century Christian Church and science.

So, again, what I am saying, is that atheists need to get out ahead of this and reject the Dewey and Library of Congress, as being faulty, and promote the revision of classification; and I am giving you a system, at the very least, to begin the promotion - and I suggest you make it a political issue. If atheists do not have a record of having been at the forefront of promoting, but rather are on record as rejecting what I am proposing, atheists are going to look like idiots, because anything is better than the DDC and LCC. And giving me negative "reputations" is the proof of your rejection, here at TheThinkingAtheist.

(23-03-2011 01:15 AM)No J. Wrote:  . . . and if this trend keeps up then all countries who don't take on atheistic qualities will lose the race for power. The United Stated is in danger of losing its position as the most powerful country in the world and the reason is that religion is having a detrimental affect on the American political and educational systems.
Yeah, you, and the rest of the atheists, are proof of that - I am the only exception.
(23-03-2011 01:15 AM)No J. Wrote:  That makes you sound like a serious megalomaniac. Step aside Hitler, Trainwreck is here to take control.
You have no idea how true that is. Be thankful that I am a humble Cynic in search of making this a better world.

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
23-03-2011, 07:12 PM
RE: You need to start thinking beyond your petty arguments against theism
(23-03-2011 04:44 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(23-03-2011 01:15 AM)No J. Wrote:  That makes you sound like a serious megalomaniac. Step aside Hitler, Trainwreck is here to take control.
You have no idea how true that is. Be thankful that I am a humble Cynic in search of making this a better world.

Allow me to have the honor of being the first to say, you sir, are a wingnut.

And for the record, the three (so far) negatives you've gotten are indicative of how three (yes, three) people feel about you. Once the majority of people here give you those negatives you can start calling that evidence of our rejection of your system. Until then, it's hilarious that someone who professes to be so intelligent can say that three people is proof that all members of this forum reject your system.

I will now steady myself for the impending barrage of insults to my intelligence.

No, wait......ok, now I'm ready.

Just visiting.

-SR
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2011, 10:23 PM
RE: Classification Systems
(22-03-2011 08:14 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(21-03-2011 08:26 PM)cfhmagnet Wrote:  
(21-03-2011 04:02 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  This is not my first atheist forum, probably the fourth; and the mindset of the membership does not appear to be any different than the others.

Christians are stupid, and atheism is not something that can be organized; and if atheists continue to whine about how stupid the Christians are, then eventually they will change, and everything will get better, because the theists won't be causing stupidity anymore, because they will then be critical thinking atheists.
Honestly I'm not here to change the world, man. I'm just here to talk to some like-minded people for a change. I don't think people are necessarily stupid for believing in their god. Many of the brightest people I've known have been theists, they just...don't like to question when it comes to some of the big scary questions.
This is typical of atheists - trying to avoid seeming intolerant by trying to explain that they are relatively tolerant compared to the theists.
I don't call it tolerance mostly. I accept the difference's between me and the average individual. And unless personally provoked, I tolerate the difference's between myself and more extreme individuals because there is nothing I can do about people 99.99% of the time.
(22-03-2011 08:14 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(21-03-2011 08:26 PM)cfhmagnet Wrote:  I don't like it when this holds up progress or when groups of the more deranged theists gum up the works, but there isn't much I can do about it. American politics is pay-to-play at this moment in time, . . .
Well, the problem here is that atheists are not organizing on the attempt to persuade politics in a positive manner of demonstrating how well they could do community compared to how the theist do community - atheists just want to whine that they are being oppressed by the theists.
If you want to participate in an organized community of atheists, why don't you save your money again and join the Freedom From Religion Foundation? That's exactly what they are doing. They even have a legal branch set up to pursue change via the courtroom. Why join a loose, online based community that doesn't currently have "change our government one way or another" in our scope or on our agenda? Perhaps that is within the ideals of individuals on here, but again, that's not the intent of this forum.
(22-03-2011 08:14 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(21-03-2011 08:26 PM)cfhmagnet Wrote:  . . . and honestly, I don't think a classification system change is going to do anything about that soon enough.
You cannot decide if it's the end of the world, or not - can you?

That is the beauty of proposing a revision of the classification systems deployed in society, and why I decided to pursue developing a system rather than continue my development of revising the political constitutions. The deployment of a better classification system will, as you noted, not seem to cause much change, and so it will make the theists less guarded as to what it will do - the problem is that atheists, like you, are "mirroring" the theists reasoning to the point where you only see it as worthless to your ultimate cause of ridding society of theism.
Who do you think I am? Do you think I'm the type of guy that would line up those who believe in higher power and march them into a gas chamber? Ridding the world of theism is not in my list of goals, and I would appreciate it if you would take the time to get to know me before making such insinuations.
And what in the world does a change in classification systems have to do with the "end of the world"?
(22-03-2011 08:14 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(21-03-2011 08:26 PM)cfhmagnet Wrote:  Especially when you have people getting elected who can just shut their earholes and sing "lalala, Earth is 6000 years old, no amount of supposedly factual evidence will change that." No amount of classification change or much of any change is going to get through to people that resist change like it's an allergy. And what's even sadder about it is that many of these people teach this avoidance to their children.
The most efficient solution is to segregate into an autonomous community of atheists, and prove that you can do community better then them.
I would honestly be interested in pursuing this experimentally, but then again I would be interested in experimenting with a socialism based community as well. But in no way do I want to declare independence from...well the rest of the world. Seems to me you would meet an awful lot of resistance, especially in the department of just where you and your merry band of secessionists are going to live.
(22-03-2011 08:14 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(21-03-2011 08:26 PM)cfhmagnet Wrote:  I wish you luck with your project, I'll check out your new thread when I get a chance.
Eventually, my project will be deployed in society - the question is what side of history will atheists be on? And my analysis is that atheists, like you, are going to be on the dependent side - dependent on the Christians' guardianship to decide what is for the betterment.
Seems to me that's what America is. A society made of mostly christians, therefore they have had the most say for the last umpteen decades on what is for the betterment. The only way to change that is indeed to step forward and be counted, revolt, or leave for safer harbor. I don't intend on doing these things. I'm still in a formative, student stage, as I have already mentioned. Didn't you have a stage where you weren't ready to "change the world" as you think you're going to do? Or did you wake up one morning and say "Oh shit, revelation! Now that I'm ready, EVERYBODY must be ready to follow me, like it or not!"
(22-03-2011 08:14 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(21-03-2011 08:26 PM)cfhmagnet Wrote:  I'm the type who attempts to see problems from more perspectives than my own. But keep in mind that some people just don't want to see things any way other than their own.
Don't fool yourself. You sound like the typical atheists who thinks he is more intelligent then everyone else, but has nothing but complaints about everyone else - nothing to offer the world to the betterment of mankind.
ERRRR! Wrong again chief. Again my prescription is, get to know somebody before bringing on the hate. I plead ignorance. I will never be the one to say I'm smarter than anyone else. People have been telling me how smart I am for years and you know what I started asking them? If I'm so smart, why don't you listen to what I have to say? That shut a lot of people up. Since nobody is telling me anymore and people are still not listening to me, I take it as evidence that I'm just not that smart. And I'm not afraid to admit it. I would like to be though. As far as offering betterment for mankind, I don't think it will come of my brain. I think it will come, in time, from my actions.

And to turn things the other way, you don't seem to be any kind of good upstanding atheist or cynic either. As per this
(23-03-2011 04:16 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Now, where am I today: My problem right now is that I need to recover my identification, which I lost several years ago, so I can begin the marketing of my classification system - I need an address to begin the process of recover my identification. I am very confident that the Christians will be willing to help me with this process, and they will not hassle me about being an atheist, and I will be obliged to credit them for their help - do you think it is possible that atheists, like you, might be able to help?

My classification system is sure to garner me a fortune, every library, and eLibrary, will have to pay a fee; and thus far, the best you may see of that is a $10.00 donation (consolation prize) to TheThinkingAtheist - otherwise, I see no reason why I would be obligated to contribute any further to any atheist organization - they do not represent the way I think, or how I wish to guide society.
You sound more like a cheap hooker, peddling your wares to the highest bidder, and scorning those who aren't interested. You sir, are a bad salesman.

Something something something Dark Side
Something something something complete
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2011, 12:35 AM
RE: You need to start thinking beyond your petty arguments against theism
(23-03-2011 04:44 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(23-03-2011 01:15 AM)No J. Wrote:  That makes you sound like a serious megalomaniac. Step aside Hitler, Trainwreck is here to take control.
You have no idea how true that is. Be thankful that I am a humble Cynic in search of making this a better world.

Interesting counter statement.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2011, 10:28 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2011 10:35 AM by TrainWreck.)
RE: You need to start thinking beyond your petty arguments against theism
(23-03-2011 07:12 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Allow me to have the honor of being the first to say, you sir, are a wingnut. . .

I will now steady myself for the impending barrage of insults to my intelligence.
Please, you cannot possibly believe you are the first to call me such.

What is "nutty," is how atheists are going about their cause; they are like five-year-old children whining about how their parents are denying them their right to happiness. Instead of pursuing the development of autonomous community and insuring that atheists have their arguments straight, they sit around and complain about the errors of the theists arguments.

Atheists need to be sure their own house is clean before they go around telling others to clean their house.

This continued hypocrisy will eventually result in the deterioration of how atheists are regarded by the non-atheists. As it is right now, atheists, enjoy the freedoms that they believe they have a right to, but the problem is atheists are not demonstrating any contribution to the betterment of society that such freedoms should allow (myself being the only exception) ; and just like the theists, atheists make the claim that society is deteriorating - either side blaming the other. Because of my exceptional critical thinking, when I publish my treatise on how to fix society, the theists are going to realize that they have every right to reject the incursion of the atheists' unjust grievances. The first thing atheists will notice is that public schools will return to organized school prayer, teach Creationism, as they deem fit, and atheists will not be allowed to hold public office in certain states - atheists will retain the right to hold office in some states, but they will have to form a constituency in order to gain representation and maintain the control of such petty issues.

I would suggest that atheists figure out how to form a consolidated constituency prior to this, most probable, eventuality. At this time, atheists are not being persecuted, they are victims of their own inability to organize. Atheists are victims of their absurd mantra, "we only have one thing in common." Atheists cannot be expected to be accepted as constituents of any representation based on such a concept - a representative can only represent organized ideology.

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
24-03-2011, 12:27 PM
RE: You need to start thinking beyond your petty arguments against theism
Shoot...
How would you do it?

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: