Poll: Can Atheists form a political party?
no - the idea is preposterous
yes - but atheists do not have anything
yes - because atheists are smarter
[Show Results]
 
Internet Discussion Forums and Politics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2011, 10:20 AM
 
RE: Internet Discussion Forums and Politics
Okay TrainWreck:

You made a thread specifically to argue with me, and it would be a shame if I did not show up. I am going to respond to ypour original post, TrainWreck, and only to your original post on this thread. Please do not take my silence or absence from the board as proof that you "won" an internet message board argument. The truth of the matter is that I am a full time college student going through mid-term exams in Physics, Programming, Spatial Geography, Music Theory and Cartography. All over these past two weeks. So if I am not here to respond to you, it is because I am busy and my academic life takes priority over your opinion of me or my posts.

Now, with that caveat out of the way, here we go:

TrainWreck Wrote:I suggest you visit my site concerning knowledge classification. Basically, what I am arguing is that because of the erroneousness of the Dewey and Library of Congress classification systems, society suffers the compromises of believing that science cannot help us resolve society's ailments of disorder. I suggest that atheists suffer more than the theists, because atheists fail to recognize that every organization has the potential to guide society - which is the purpose of politics.

Internet forums have the greatest potential to handle the situation, but the forums do not settle anything - what are you talking about here?

I looked at your comment about Atheists and being poor and what ever your ridiculous conspiracy-theory tangent was, and there was nothing there about the dewey decimal system or the Library of Congress. Also, these classification systems have nothing to do with whether or not drugs can fight cancer (which is an ailment of disorder).

Now, you suggesting that Atheists suffer more than theists is subjective, and your own baseless opinion. You are lumping atheist beliefs together. I personally recognize that a group has the power to steer society, and so do many people here.

The difference here is that we don't put a religious ideology behind our belief systems (and yes, we do, as individuals, have belief systems, we simply don't subscribe to a group belief system the way that theists do)

On what do you base the claim that internet forums (which as you previously asserted have ALL devolved into something meaningless) have more power to handle the steering of society than, say, the Democratic Party, or the Green Party, or the Libertarians?

TrainWreck Wrote:your mind has been corrupted, and it is the fault of atheists perpetuating the compromised ideas about science in order to make friends with the theists, because they have more money then the atheists, and the atheists need money for their organizations, such as the Secular Humanists.


THIS is the completely basless claim to which I was referring. You state that Atheists are perpetuating compromised ideas about science, but provide no evidence. Then you claim that the reason behind that is to "make friends with theists", but that makes no sense. We as Atheists do not necessarily NEED money any more than theists, but we are not organized on the level that theists are.

Additionally, the secular humanists are not necesarily an organization. Secular humanism is a belief system. The NAACP is an organization, with equality as their belief system. Green Peace is an organization, with animal rights as their belief. TheThikningAtheist.com is an organization, with secular rights as our belief.

TrainWreck Wrote:- what are you talking about here?

what I am talking about here is your absolute inability to use assigned and understood definitions for terms (as demonstrated in your previous thread), and your implied demand that not only do we use your personal definitions, but your requirement that we understand them the way you do, when they go against conventional norms.

You have obviously misunderstood the definition and requirements of philosophy, mathematics and science. I've been wondering what the hell you were actually trying to say for a while.

TrainWreck Wrote:Show me where a forum discussion has satisfied you as "evolving" into something other than ridiculous?

As a member of the Kawasaki Vulcan 900 forum, I could send you links where a discussion forum has led to the solving of fuel gauge problems through variable ohm resistors, thus increasing reliability and dependability of our motorcycles. I could point you to the thread on these forums entitled "suggest an atheist book", that has resulted in me finding several books that I had not yet read.

I am a former member of Literotica, and there are thousands of threads on there, several of which taught me about paragraph structure on a backlit screen versus the printed page. I learned how to write effective dialogue in a crafted story, and I learned about poetry and verse. These things are not meaningless. On the Ultimate Guitar forum, I learned about the circle of fifths, tonic and median notes and how to define and create musical scales. These things are not meaningless.

neither are any of those threads ridiculous. Your threads get ridiculous because you force them into the unbelieveable and intentionally quarrel with other people. I am not sorry to have offended you, but I am a little surprised and flattered that you felt the need to start an entire thread because I called BULLSHIT on your meandering discussion full of misunderstandings and cherry-picked definitions. I may have been a jerk in calling you out so blatantly, but someone had to tell you just how full of shit you were being.

TrainWreck Wrote:After ten years of atheists discussions on the Internet there is nothing - it is all a waste of memory space. Show me something worth archiving? Something that is of benefit to mankind.

The existence of this forum and the ability to freely discuss beliefs IS a benefit to mankind. Is it worth archiving? That's a question that is philosophical, as everyone's values and ideas on the subject differ.

TrainWreck Wrote:I'll bet you resort to claiming that theists aren't doing anything either - be brave, make that comparison, see where it gets YOU.

I have never made that claim. I will say, however, that everything that a theist does that benefits mankind acn be done with or without religion. Occam's razor thus tells us that the religion is independant of the act, and not a requirement of the act itself. Theists have done plenty to better society. they have also done plenty to destroy it.

Should you choose to respond to this, please bear in mind that I am not coming back again to reply to you. If you want any more discusison out of me, send me a PM, and I will respond after my mid-terms are over.
Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2011, 01:03 PM
RE: Internet Discussion Forums and Politics
(14-03-2011 11:03 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Show me where a forum discussion has satisfied you as "evolving" into something other than ridiculous?

This thread should suffice

I see that you haven't been on this forum for very long. If you are going to make a habit on ripping on the futility of the discussions we here use to pass the time, I hope your stay is a short one.

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2011, 03:54 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2011 01:12 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Internet Discussion Forums and Politics
(15-03-2011 10:20 AM)Soldieringon Wrote:  You made a thread specifically to argue with me, and it would be a shame if I did not show up. I am going to respond to ypour original post, TrainWreck, and only to your original post on this thread. Please do not take my silence or absence from the board as proof that you "won" an internet message board argument. The truth of the matter is that I am a full time college student going through mid-term exams in Physics, Programming, Spatial Geography, Music Theory and Cartography. All over these past two weeks. So if I am not here to respond to you, it is because I am busy and my academic life takes priority over your opinion of me or my posts.
Okay Soldieringon:

I do not care what your academic schedule is, you will put forth your most attention to me, because what I have to offer is of the up-most importance to science and humanity.

Now, at this Internet session I got sidetracked to my site, and do not have time to respond to the rest of your post, but I suggest you get yourself ready, and realize that I am more important than that stuff you mention. If you want to learn how to do a thorough job of research, rather than that mere piddle, check out this - Classification 101.

Now, do as I say, Do you understand me, pal?

Give me the names of your classes and professors, and I will review the curriculum and decide what is worth any thing.

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
15-03-2011, 05:12 PM
RE: Internet Discussion Forums and Politics
My troll sense is tingling!

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2011, 05:53 PM
 
RE: Internet Discussion Forums and Politics
(15-03-2011 05:12 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  My troll sense is tingling!

They have medication for that you know. [Image: 22.gif] Oh sure, there are some side effects.
Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2011, 06:06 PM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2011 09:34 AM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Internet Discussion Forums and Politics
(15-03-2011 10:20 AM)Soldieringon Wrote:  
TrainWreck Wrote:I suggest you visit my site concerning knowledge classification. Basically, what I am arguing is that because of the erroneousness of the Dewey and Library of Congress classification systems, society suffers the compromises of believing that science cannot help us resolve society's ailments of disorder. I suggest that atheists suffer more than the theists, because atheists fail to recognize that every organization has the potential to guide society - which is the purpose of politics.

Internet forums have the greatest potential to handle the situation, but the forums do not settle anything - what are you talking about here?

I looked at your comment about Atheists and being poor and what ever your ridiculous conspiracy-theory tangent was, and there was nothing there about the dewey decimal system or the Library of Congress. Also, these classification systems have nothing to do with whether or not drugs can fight cancer (which is an ailment of disorder).
I meant,"grievance." It's a category error - I am subject to them, because they are persistent in society, and I cannot exist beyond that reality - can you?

The classification systems do not directly effect the innovation of technology, what they do is effect the margin of human error (thinking), which effects innovation. Because we are not in the habit of referencing a consistent classification system, we do not understand its effect on society. Obviously, you are impressed with how science has reduced the margin of human error and it's effect of innovation of technology; but what does science do - classifies information, by describing phenomenon. And what you, and everyone else, assumes is that all of knowledge cannot be consistently classified, because the Dewey and LCC are erroneous, and nobody knows any better to even try - except me, because I recognize knowledge as a phenomenon. Where as I don't know what you people think knowledge is - miracle, magic, whatever, I found a system to it. My system is friendly to computer interfaces, and eventually, people will adopt it to organize their directories, and such people will compel libraries to adopt it so as to be in "synch."

In the case of your question, what my system would do is better organize the information concerning the debate, and the consistency of the system would help lead people to finding the information. And hopefully, the adoption of the system in society will help the browser to formulate the appropriate questions - the theory being there are only so many possible questions that can ever be asked about any given topic, and the questions can be categorized - as was a topic of discussion that gained my attention to register with TTA forums.
(03-03-2011 04:20 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(03-03-2011 03:01 AM)Sacrieur Wrote:  Adding philosophically to the beginning of a question does not mean it warrants any type of special response, it just means you don't know what types of questions are philosophical or not.
So do you have a list of the classifications of questions?
All questions have a philosophical component - it's just that it may be reduced to the semantics, because science has accomplished the complete technical rendition of description. And for those who believe that they are smarter than me, the semantic answer is of no purpose, because they have no idea that questions can be organized into a classification scheme, because it has not been done for them, yet, and made apart of their education.

And, I can only hope that they are not waiting for the theists to approve of the curriculum.

(15-03-2011 10:20 AM)Soldieringon Wrote:  Now, you suggesting that Atheists suffer more than theists is subjective, and your own baseless opinion. You are lumping atheist beliefs together. I personally recognize that a group has the power to steer society, and so do many people here.
Yeah well, if you have not noticed, because of my beliefs concerning the political activism of atheists, I am considered a troll - that is a indication that although atheists claim there is nothing that binds us in common other than a disbelieve in god, that there are opinions and ideas that some atheists consider to be detrimental to the better evolution of the community, and trying to humiliate me into submission is their solution - it is the same hypocrisy they accuse the religious people - it's the same mind game crap that American whites used to oppress the Negroes.

And, atheists lump all theists together when it suits their needs, and then they will recognize that the theists are all a bunch of different snow flakes too when it suits their need. Atheists do nothing to keep themselves consistent. I am the only exception, and I have devised a classification system to enforce a consistency - I am the one and only truly brilliant critically thinking atheist.

(15-03-2011 10:20 AM)Soldieringon Wrote:  The difference here is that we don't put a religious ideology behind our belief systems (and yes, we do, as individuals, have belief systems, we simply don't subscribe to a group belief system the way that theists do)
There is a category problem here.

Your use of the word, "religious," has two meanings that are being manipulated:
  1. theism
  2. relative adherence to an ideological system (he's religious about athletics)

And, this causes communications problems with Christian communities. What happens is that the relative definition can get mixed up with the definition of philosophy, love of wisdom, or knowledge - which has a relative component, "love." And Philosophy is still reliant on ideological systems of logic, or reasoning, which is what the definition/description of the god personifies and enforces by ultimate judgement (how was the person thinking?). The problem for atheists is that they do not recognize factions (organized), and segregate them which would construct the enforcement, by peer review processes (government).

Any way, the subsequent problem is that theists recognize the atheists' strive for consistency of the theists' as "religious," when atheists question the "logic" of scripture - why would atheists give a hoot? What are atheists trying to do cause the theists to think consistently??? Why, because the atheists believe they are thinking consistently???

Because why else would atheists want theists to be consistent in their thinking if the atheists themselves are not consistent in their thinking??? Yet, atheists only question the consistency of the theists, but do not insist on the consistency of other atheists, except for the informal use of ridicule, as in the case of calling me a troll - ultimately insisting that I am not a true atheist, because I am not in alignment in with the majority.

Let's suppose that you are all in the right, and I am wrong, and I disband the community - you have established a threshold of your tolerance and it protects the integrity of the community, as far as you are concerned. But where are you going anyway, if you are just a bunch of people who only come here to discuss what ever and are not trying to establish truth, except of course the truth about the supernatural - why bother with the other discussions - you know they are contaminated and cannot be used as proof of anything except for an accounting of your time?

And so, although theists come in as many different "brands," as atheists come in, at least the theists are able to divide themselves up in a manner that will help them recognize who they would consider to be their leaders and represent them in official government positions. Where as, atheists have no sense of direction in choosing their leadership, because they have not devised a system of recognizing any consistent brands of ideologies and organizing them into communities, because atheist do not want to do the work.

Anyway, see where I am going? Atheists do not fair well in politics - and that is the fault of theists, or atheists??? Unless you can dispute the comment someone made about atheists need to step and enter the politics; because that indicates that atheists are not even attempting. The last two I can remember was a representative in Cali, who proclaimed atheism after being elected, and then some guy in the Illinois state legislature raised the concerns of another representative who did not appreciate the atheistic legislation being put forth - got national attention.

Don't bother with your inert solutions - I have it down pat. And your claim that atheists do not subscribe to any "group belief system," automatically disqualifies atheists to be politicians, because how do you expect anyone to represent anything other than organized thought???

The way things are, the most efficient solution for atheists is to migrate and overwhelm a political sub-system - but atheists would rather live with the theists, because atheists do not trust other atheists to do community, because atheists are inconsistent thinkers and only want to whine about being oppressed by the theists. The next efficient solution is to compel a constitutional amendment effecting the ratification of proportional representation, but I have never heard of such a brilliant instrument being put forth by any atheist group - have you?

No - and that is because the primary concern of atheists is to convince the Christians that they are not tolerant of atheists. It is as if atheists need to be coddled, because atheists want to be understood as being just as stupid, or whatever, as the Christians are, and deserve the respect of their agape love - absolutely, bizarre. Atheists believe they are the altruistic guardians of the federal constitution, and that their views about church and state are perfect, without fault of ideology because they are such free and critical thinkers, and that if theists would just see it their way everything would be straight, and proportional representation is not something that is of concern.

And, the most efficient solution for the individual to effect cultural change is to do what I did - devise a classification system to enforce consistency of expression.

(15-03-2011 10:20 AM)Soldieringon Wrote:  On what do you base the claim that internet forums (which as you previously asserted have ALL devolved into something meaningless) have more power to handle the steering of society than, say, the Democratic Party, or the Green Party, or the Libertarians?
I base my claim on the fact that atheists, as like me, should be able to devise better community and political representation because they are free of the burden of error that plague theists in their reasoning.

The problem I am encountering is that atheists replicate the errors of reasoning, because atheists can only recognize errors in reasoning when the words, "religion," or "God," are in the statements. It's a method for atheists to cope in a secular society, where as, a segregated community would compel the atheists to clean their own house of reasoning, instead of perpetuating their delusional whining about their guardians' "oppression of atheist ideas."

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
15-03-2011, 08:44 PM
RE: Internet Discussion Forums and Politics
I skimmed through this thread to try and get the gist. Then I came to this:

(15-03-2011 03:54 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I do not care what your academic schedule is, you will put forth your most attention to me, because what I have to offer is of the up-most importance to science and humanity.
Now, do as I say, Do you understand me, pal?

What a waste of time. Don't feed the (delusional) trolls, folks.

My reason for being is to serve as a cat cushion. That is good enough for me. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2011, 10:11 AM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2011 02:09 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Internet Discussion Forums and Politics
(15-03-2011 01:03 PM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  
(14-03-2011 11:03 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Show me where a forum discussion has satisfied you as "evolving" into something other than ridiculous?
This thread should suffice
I am trying to read through it. What I am looking for is something that causes wide spread enlightenment.

(15-03-2011 01:03 PM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  I see that you haven't been on this forum for very long. If you are going to make a habit on ripping on the futility of the discussions we here use to pass the time, I hope your stay is a short onae.
If it becomes necessary for me to dissolve the bands which have connected us with each other, that does not necessarily mean that I am a malicious troll. More than likely, it is because I have failed to find a community of like-minded people, and I am not all that interested in entertaining other discussions, because I sincerely believe that my system of reasoning is less erroneous than what ever you all are thinking, and I cannot trust the membership to determine the validity of arguments, and I do not want to compromise my skilled reasoning, just to pander fellowship, and friendships.

(15-03-2011 08:44 PM)trillium13 Wrote:  What a waste of time. Don't feed the (delusional) trolls, folks.
Well, I have it from the administration that that is the only manner by which you can protect your faulty reasoning - just like the religious, you just refuse to accept better reason.

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
16-03-2011, 06:17 PM
 
RE: Internet Discussion Forums and Politics
Wow, I've missed a lot.
Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2011, 07:24 PM
RE: Internet Discussion Forums and Politics
(16-03-2011 06:17 PM)TruthAddict Wrote:  Wow, I've missed a lot.

But by the same token, you've missed nothing.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: