Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-05-2014, 12:27 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 12:08 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(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!?!?!?

I am opposed to public policy based on religious doctrine but I don't really consider myself an atheist, I am areligion.
And there is a problem there because religion does not necessarily prescribe theism.

(03-05-2014 12:08 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  The term atheism is premature and tacitly gives undeserved credibility to theism.
I applaud that.

(03-05-2014 12:08 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Like the Science Guy debating the Creationist Idiot. Bad idea Science Guy. I applaud your efforts to encourage Girly to be more politically active and move from areligion to anti-religion but you won't accomplish that by redefining atheism.
I am not redefining it, I am correcting the ontological error in the definition. This error in definition and in the definitions of other words significant to the lexicon of atheists is what causes a problem in your reasoning that aids in your ability to cope with the Christian dominated society, yet not progress the community that you want to progress.

(03-05-2014 12:08 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  And I live in Maryland which is one of the most racially, ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse places on the planet. We are necessarily tolerant. No political activism necessary.
All of the United States are equally diverse except maybe, Hawaii and Alaska. Don't go thinking any state has a better degree of tolerance.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TrainWreck's post
03-05-2014, 12:53 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 12:27 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I am not redefining it, I am correcting the ontological error in the definition.
Ontology keeps reappearing as a supporting argument for your claims. It seems an understanding of ontology and an acceptance of its validity is required to follow much of your thought processes and logic. I'd speculate that most of the people reading these threads haven't accepted the validity of ontology as "proof".

To have any meaningful discussion of your proposals, I suspect most of us would first need to establish the validity of ontology before using it to establish the validity of anything else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 01:04 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 10:30 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I am very confident that I have identified a valid scientific theory/law, and that I am diligently generating the practical applications
I'm new here, so there may be a whole history of stuff I've missed. However, going only from what you have posted in this thread and the "ontology of belief" one, it seems you have this fundamental theory/law and a grand system built from it that you offer conclusions from, and which you refer to as justification for your claims, and which you occasionally offer teaser reveals of bits and pieces of it, but I don't see where you lay out the whole thing and its justification starting from a common point of agreement.

Is it assumed we've seen this somewhere else? Do you consider it self-evident enough that we should already know and accept it on its face? Are you intentionally trying to keep the big insights secret until you are ready to reveal the finished product? I don't quite understand if we are supposed to understand your whole system yet or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djhall's post
03-05-2014, 01:26 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 12:53 PM)djhall Wrote:  Ontology keeps reappearing as a supporting argument for your claims. It seems an understanding of ontology and an acceptance of its validity is required to follow much of your thought processes and logic. I'd speculate that most of the people reading these threads haven't accepted the validity of ontology as "proof".

To have any meaningful discussion of your proposals, I suspect most of us would first need to establish the validity of ontology before using it to establish the validity of anything else.
That is probably true. I have offered the minimum explanation of what ontology is, the study of existence and the ordering of reality. I don't think I should have to direct you to review the Wikipedia article - I expect you to do that on your own.


(03-05-2014 01:04 PM)djhall Wrote:  . . . it seems you have this fundamental theory/law and a grand system built from it that you offer conclusions from, . . .
True.

(03-05-2014 01:04 PM)djhall Wrote:  . . . and which you refer to as justification for your claims, . . .
No. I have not referred to it as justification for the arguments that I am presenting. I have probably been exclusively reliant on the understanding of ontology for justification of my brilliant arguments.

(03-05-2014 01:04 PM)djhall Wrote:  . . . and which you occasionally offer teaser reveals of bits and pieces of it, but I don't see where you lay out the whole thing and its justification starting from a common point of agreement.
That is probably because I do not use it to justify my arguments. You are welcome to review the notes at the website I set up, and have only seldom offered in these threads, because it is not my intention to promote my site here http://www.secularlibrary.info You should be able to find enough information to keep you occupied.

(03-05-2014 01:04 PM)djhall Wrote:  Is it assumed we've seen this somewhere else? Do you consider it self-evident enough that we should already know and accept it on its face? Are you intentionally trying to keep the big insights secret until you are ready to reveal the finished product? I don't quite understand if we are supposed to understand your whole system yet or not.
No I have no problems with people reviewing the information.

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, 01:35 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 12:17 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 12:08 PM)Artie Wrote:  "Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism Atheism is an absence of belief in gods. Do you really not see any difference between the two?
So, is atheism a subset of humanism?
No it isn't. Humanity is divided into theists and atheists. Theists and those who are not theists. Some of those who are not theists are humanists, some are Buddhists, some are Raelians, some are secular Jews, some have no interest in any belief system whatsoever.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 01:38 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 12:27 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  ... causes a problem in your reasoning that aids in your ability to cope with the Christian dominated society,
...

I don't live in a christian dominated society.

End of discussion, I guess.

Fun while it lasted.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
03-05-2014, 02:13 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(28-04-2014 11:02 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You want to make a difference in this world you better get this straight before the Christians define it correctly for you.
Quote:Don't let the Christians beat you to it. And keep ion mind there is at least one Christian monitoring this discussion.


Wait a minute....you think that Christians, as a unit, are inclined to disentangle semantics for the purpose of clarity?

What planet are you living on again? I'm not familiar with the Christians you are describing.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
03-05-2014, 02:21 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 02:13 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(28-04-2014 11:02 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You want to make a difference in this world you better get this straight before the Christians define it correctly for you.
Quote:Don't let the Christians beat you to it. And keep ion mind there is at least one Christian monitoring this discussion.


Wait a minute....you think that Christians, as a unit, are inclined to disentangle semantics for the purpose of clarity?

What planet are you living on again? I'm not familiar with the Christians you are describing.

The same planet where the dictionary definitions of words don't matter, and everyone defines them to mean whatever suits them.

β€œIt is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
03-05-2014, 04:07 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
TrainWreck, I wish you well, but I think it is time for me to bow out of this conversation.

You may well have valuable insights to offer. However, I fear the manner in which you present them largely eliminates the chances of many people being willing to continue engaging with you long enough for those ideas to be adequately conveyed. In the event that your motivation for posting is to have your ideas heard and considered by others, you may or may not be interested in this feedback. If your motivation is otherwise, this is all probably irrelevant so there isn't any point and my comments past here are pointless.

Communication is very difficult and confusing when the meaning of words isn't consistent among all parties to the conversation. Presenting your "corrected" definitions of words and expecting others to adopt them right away is impractical. People will continue to use the old / standard / dictionary definitions of the words until your arguments have been fully presented, discussed, comprehended, widely accepted, and assimilated. The actual usage of the "correct" definitions is the end result of the discussion rather than the beginning of it. When you begin using multiple words as if the "corrected" definition is already what they mean, and others don't, it becomes impossible to tell what anyone is saying. When multiple terms like theist, atheist, humanist, correct, and definition are being used to define each other, and each has multiple potential definitions depending on whether you are using the words or someone else is, communication itself and the exchange of ideas grinds to a halt. At some point people simply tire of the conversation and lose interest.

For most people, discussion is a give and take endeavor, where each side presents ideas for the other side to consider, and each provides positive feedback to the other party. The feedback is considered and then both sides exchange counter arguments. This is a two-way presentation and consideration of ideas. A conversation where one side presents information and tells the other side why they are wrong isn't a discussion, its a lecture. While many thinkers are quite happy to exchange in a discussion style mutual exchange and consideration of ideas, very few have any tolerance or interest in being lectured to. You don't appear to be engaged in discussion as much as you appear to be lecturing, as it doesn't seen that you feel those who disagree with you have anything worthy of your serious consideration or respect.

On that note, respect brings me to my final topic. The mutual exchange of ideas is facilitated by courtesy and respect and hindered by rudeness, insults, dismissiveness, and arrogance. As another poster observed:
(03-05-2014 09:13 AM)DLJ Wrote:  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.

No matter what valuable insights you may have to offer, the regular use of rude, arrogant, dismissive, and insulting language in the presentation of your ideas negates any further consideration of them, regardless of their merits, for me and a fair number of other members. In just the two most recent threads you have directed all of this arrogance and vitriol toward fellow forum members:
Quote:I have it straight - you and everyone else, except Sam Harris, have it wrong.
You do not want the Christians to straighten this shit out for you - fuck nut.
You want to quit the dumb shit and get to work on this
I'm right, and you are all - wrong. How do you want to solve this disagreement?
You are not being rude - you're being pretentiously stupid.
Yuk... you need mental help.
Fucking moron.
those are some unfinished arguments - try harder in the future.
Insults are all you have to put forth - you drunk punk bitch!
You, and all the other atheists, don't know what it means.
I want you to tell me what the universal accepted definition are, and I will explain to you why they are wrong. I'm way, way, way ahead of you - years ahead of you.
Oh look at your sorry ass signature - you're fucking playing the semantics organization plan that I am doing. Bitch, I'm years ahead of you - take a fucking walk of the pier.
Why the fuck are you doing that if people are not getting it incorrect???
Get lost you lame piece of shit.
You think you're the only one who can figure out what is fucked up - go fuck yourself.
Don't tell me what I can and cannot do. Every fucking book at the entrance of the fucking bookstore in your sorry-ass town, is dedicated to changing peoples minds about what they believe; otherwise they wouldn't fucking bother to write them, because why the fuck would anybody read them???
Smarten-up.
You guys like talk your stupid shit about how atheism is not a political doctrine
If you had the ability to reason, you wouldn't be arguing with me with the dictionary definitions as your weapons
Are you stupid or something?
Listen bitch. You and your fucked-up comrades here, have not provided the definitions for the five words that I have requested.
It won't hurt for you to realize that I am right - you fucking retard moron bitch.
I have made the effort to direct the discussion to the appropriate thread, but the degenerate sub-human species can't seem to do it on their own.
Let's quit the dumb shit, bitch - what is your solution to the problems of the world?

I can't understand why you would speak to people in this manner if you wanted them to listen to you and your ideas. Insults, arrogance, and rudeness hinders the consideration of your message rather than fostering it. If you believe it lends you or your messages credibility to defend them this way you are badly mistaken.

Hopefully you take these words in the constructive manner in which I offer them. Regardless, I wish you well in your endeavors.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like djhall's post
03-05-2014, 04:16 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 04:07 PM)djhall Wrote:  Hopefully you take these words in the constructive manner in which I offer them. Regardless, I wish you well in your endeavors.
Oh, geez. I just realized how impatient I was in trying to have a conversation with the argument that, "the dictionary says that atheism is the belief that there are no gods." I guess, I should be more patient and present better arguments. No

Geewhiz, I bet iff I would have been nicer you would help me to realize my dreams and aspirations to change the definition of "atheism." Oh please, please, please, come back - I am so-so sorry. Please - Please.Weeping

Did you visit my website? Was there anything good there? You know I wasn't mad at you brilliant ass-wipes when I was righting the tomes over there.Laugh out load

I love you - please come back Heart

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: