Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-05-2014, 08:54 AM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 08:33 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 07:37 AM)DLJ Wrote:  But is that not... anti-theocracy?
Atheism is the political opposition to theist based public policy - that will cover theocracies, Christian republics, etc.,.

(03-05-2014 07:37 AM)DLJ Wrote:  People have been working hard to claim atheism as the default position... and with some success.

Why undermine that?
Humanism is the default. Theists will claim that theism is the default and that atheism is opposition "subservient" to the theist majority.

(03-05-2014 07:37 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I'm equally incensed by the gradual slide towards Corporatocracy but opposing this, being anti-corporatocracy, does not automatically make me in favour of an alternative "-ism" or "-ocracy".
It probably does - democracy.

(03-05-2014 07:37 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I don't know if you have tried creating library systems or implementing Configuration Management for an organisation but it's a mammoth task.
I am working on organizing the entire world. I have already generated the better library/knowledge classification system - http://www.secularlibrary.info

And I am now on the my third generation of a political charter system that is designed using the same format as the classification system, and is designed to handle five levels of government: global, continental, economic union, state/regional, local/municipal.

The new world order.

(03-05-2014 07:37 AM)DLJ Wrote:  The hard part is not defining the words (that is time consuming and frustrating, but not hard)... the hard part is getting user-compliance (as the reactions in this thread testify) and harder still... maintenance!

You might as well try to "lash the wind".
I understand that the ultimate implementation of my system(s) may not occur in my life time, but I am very confident that I have identified a valid scientific theory/law, and that I am diligently generating the practical applications - classification and political charter systems.

I am preparing the thesis for submission to the library classification review authority, but there remain some specific areas that are not stable and I continue to deliberate. And as apart of my submission I am going to discuss the problems about atheism that I am going over in these discussions here - I am going to accuse atheists of being blinded by dogma that is the result of inadequate knowledge classification.

My work on the political charter system is taking precedence, because the United States is on the verge of a constitutional crisis, as is the entire world - maybe you noticed that President Obama did not live up to the expectations of his affirmative awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize.


[Image: open-uri20120519-1-1jsl83c?1337410914]



Did someone say, NPD....?

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 09:13 AM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 08:51 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 07:54 AM)Simon Moon Wrote:  You have to be aware of theist to understand the designation, true. But that doesn't change the fact that not believing in the existence of gods is still atheism, whether one is aware of theists (or the designations) or not.
Quote:That is correct, where am I saying otherwise? What I am saying is that atheism is the political opposition to theist doctrine as public policy - only a humanist without the belief in gods, is going to be constituent to the atheist doctrine.
So what you are actually saying is that if we remove every person on the planet who is a theist all we have left, who are by definition not theists (atheists), no matter how old they are or where they are, are all politically opposed to theist doctrine as public policy?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Artie's post
03-05-2014, 09:13 AM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2014 09:27 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 08:33 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  ...
The new world order.

Then may I recommend that you start with Poland and don't attempt a translation into Russian until springtime.

(03-05-2014 08:33 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 07:37 AM)DLJ Wrote:  The hard part is not defining the words (that is time consuming and frustrating, but not hard)... the hard part is getting user-compliance (as the reactions in this thread testify) and harder still... maintenance!

You might as well try to "lash the wind".

I understand that the ultimate implementation of my system(s) may not occur in my life time, but I am very confident that I have identified a valid scientific theory/law, and that I am diligently generating the practical applications - classification and political charter systems.

I am preparing the thesis for submission to the library classification review authority, but there remain some specific areas that are not stable and I continue to deliberate. And as apart of my submission I am going to discuss the problems about atheism that I am going over in these discussions here - I am going to accuse atheists of being blinded by dogma that is the result of inadequate knowledge classification.

My work on the political charter system is taking precedence, because the United States is on the verge of a constitutional crisis, as is the entire world - maybe you noticed that President Obama did not live up to the expectations of his affirmative awarding of a Nobel Peace Prize.

I commend the realism there. It's quite an undertaking.

If you don't mind some advice from someone who has tackled this kind of exercise 11 times with a high success rate and plenty of scars to show from it... the rightness or wrongness of your framework will be immaterial if you can not get it accepted and embedded.

Accusations are the quickest way to lose your audience.

Read up on John Kotter's 8 steps for organistional change and perhaps the COBIT5 Implementation Guide from ISACA might be useful:
[Image: cobit5-implementation1.jpg]

If you want to do an advanced training course on the latter, you may have to travel. There is only one person in the whole of AsiaPacific who is qualified to each that course.
I can't remember the guy's name but if I do, I'll add a link.

EDIT: I remember now. This guy

Big Grin Laugh out load

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
03-05-2014, 09:17 AM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 09:13 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 08:33 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  ...
The new world order.

The may I recommend that you start with Poland and don't attempt a translation into Russian until springtime.

[Image: 387618476_1390980739.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 09:52 AM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2014 09:57 AM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 09:13 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 08:51 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
Quote:That is correct, where am I saying otherwise? What I am saying is that atheism is the political opposition to theist doctrine as public policy - only a humanist without the belief in gods, is going to be constituent to the atheist doctrine.
So what you are actually saying is that if we remove every person on the planet who is a theist all we have left, who are by definition not theists (atheists), no matter how old they are or where they are, are all politically opposed to theist doctrine as public policy?
If theism is defeated then the term "Atheism," has no meaning; but yes, it would be silly of an atheist to not be opposed to theist doctrine as the bases for public policy - why is that so difficult to comprehend???

(02-05-2014 07:21 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(02-05-2014 06:54 PM)djhall Wrote:  Hmm... are you essentially arguing that atheism, as currently defined in terms of being not-theist, is too limited a vision to be effectively and actively promoted to a larger audience as a viable alternative to theism, as it contributes no positive vision or replacement for the theist based views, morals, ethics, and political movements that would need to be replaced if atheism were to win the battle of ideas over theism?
If atheism wins the battle of ideas and theism is eradicated, then there is no further need for the designation of, "Atheism."

try reading through some of the discussion - newbie.

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
03-05-2014, 09:56 AM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 09:52 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  If theism is defeated then the term "Atheism," has no meaning.
Please just answer the question. "So what you are actually saying is that if we remove every person on the planet who is a theist all we have left, who are by definition not theists (atheists), no matter how old they are or where they are, are all politically opposed to theist doctrine as public policy?" Is this what you are actually saying?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 10:10 AM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 09:56 AM)Artie Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 09:52 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  If theism is defeated then the term "Atheism," has no meaning.
Please just answer the question. "So what you are actually saying is that if we remove every person on the planet who is a theist all we have left, who are by definition not theists (atheists), no matter how old they are or where they are, are all politically opposed to theist doctrine as public policy?" Is this what you are actually saying?
Why call yourself an atheist if you are not opposed to public policy based on theist religious doctrine!?!?!?

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
03-05-2014, 10:30 AM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 09:13 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Then may I recommend that you start with Poland and don't attempt a translation into Russian until springtime.
I would be inclined to begin with the United States, if not Egypt.

(03-05-2014 09:13 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I commend the realism there. It's quite an undertaking.
Thank you, I consider it very seriously, and am determined to design the most replicate-able (cookie-cutter) system possible. I understand why the USA is such a strong economy and why other countreies cannot replicate the corruption that the USA exercised to become so powerful.

(03-05-2014 09:13 AM)DLJ Wrote:  If you don't mind some advice from someone who has tackled this kind of exercise 11 times with a high success rate and plenty of scars to show from it... the rightness or wrongness of your framework will be immaterial if you can not get it accepted and embedded.
I understand that the ultimate implementation of my system(s) may not occur in my life time, but I am very confident that I have identified a valid scientific theory/law, and that I am diligently generating the practical applications - classification and political charter systems.

If you have the experience - why don't you go for the big enchilada?

If you would like some advice - you should take your experience and review all the political charters for the political districts that you are constituent to and try to improve them so the system is more responsive to the people's needs of efficiency and sense of justice. If you have the experience that you claim you should be aptly able to recognize that the systems are completely inefficient for a modern sophisticated society with a communications network that they did not have when they generated the original systems.

(03-05-2014 09:13 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Accusations are the quickest way to lose your audience.
I am not concerned about being accepted by atheists - you do not have enough wealth, nor organizational fortitude. If you are so good at organizing people, I suggest you figure out how to organize atheists to do what it is they want for the world.

(03-05-2014 09:13 AM)DLJ Wrote:  If you want to do an advanced training course on the latter, ...
Right now, I am primarily interested in getting the system correct/perfect - learning how to explain it and turning people on to it cannot possibly be a cookie-cutter situation, I am designing that. If your guy was that we would know about him, just like we know about the cookie-cutter maker, Bill Gates.

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
03-05-2014, 11:05 AM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 10:10 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Why call yourself an atheist if you are not opposed to public policy based on theist religious doctrine!?!?!?
Still you don't answer my question. I call myself an atheist because I am not a theist. That is what the word means. Atheist literally means "not theist". Nothing to do with "opposed to public policy based on theist religious doctrine". The prefix a- means literally "not, without". The word atheist literally means "not theist", the word atheist does not mean "opposed to public policy based on theist religious doctrine". There is no need for an atheist to have any interest in "public policy" or "religious doctrine", all that is required to be an atheist is not to be a theist. Not to have a belief in any gods. An atheist is any person who is not a theist. I can't put it simpler for you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Artie's post
03-05-2014, 11:12 AM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 10:30 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  ...
If you would like some advice - you should take your experience and review all the political charters for the political districts that you are constituent to and try to improve them so the system is more responsive to the people's needs of efficiency and sense of justice. If you have the experience that you claim you should be aptly able to recognize that the systems are completely inefficient for a modern sophisticated society with a communications network that they did not have when they generated the original systems.
...

Nah! Too busy sleeping around.
But anyway, I'm in Singapore... Go to Wiki's definition of efficiency and it says: Singapore.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: