Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-05-2014, 04:42 PM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2014 04:46 PM by rampant.a.i..)
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
Sounds like TrainWreck is still walking on sunshine.

[Image: UmwHw.gif]

[Image: l.gif]

[Image: tumblr_lselm28Fjp1qb9pa3o1_500.gif]

“It 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
03-05-2014, 05:05 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 07:37 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(02-05-2014 07:21 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  ...
That seems aligned with what I am trying to convey.

But is that not... anti-theocracy?

People have been working hard to claim atheism as the default position... and with some success.




Why undermine that?
Personally, I agree with you and pretty much everything in that answer. However, I wasn't trying to promulgate a position of my own but trying to understand and paraphrase TrainWreck's position.

From the tiny bit of common understanding I managed to find, I think his arguments stem from a combination of accepting ontology as an accurate criteria for determining what exists and what the nature of that existence is. From ontology we learn that our definition of the nature of atheism and theism does not match what they actually are, regardless of what we might think (it, their nature has a universal ontological definition that exists independently of our definition or usage).

By adopting the ontologically accurate definitions we construct a more logically and philosophically coherent agenda that identifies atheism as a political movement which exists only to defeat the propagation of the belief in theism. Atheism is the default and theism only exists because institutions propagate the belief to new generations. Atheism blocks that propagation and once belief is eliminated in mankind both atheism, theism, and all concepts related to them will disappear as well. If our primary identity is a-theist, our ideas and relevance dies along with theism. Therefore, atheists who want to offer an alternative positive vision for society without theism need to re-identify as humanists. If theism dies and atheism dies with it, the humanist label, not atheism, emerges as the standard bearer for the direction of society. We should get ahead of that and formulate a positive vision of society without god to promote to the world as the new future of social organization rather than holding on to self identity as not-theist and becoming as irrelevant as theism if we win.

Of course, I may be completely wrong in understanding what he is trying to say. Unfortunately, TW is so abrasive in his approach that whatever insights he has to offer aren't worth having to discuss them with him. If he doesn't have any insights to offer, nothing is lost. If he does, eventually someone else will have them too, and as long as they have a more welcoming approach to spreading those ideas we can learn from them and let that person lead us out of the darkness instead of TW.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like djhall's post
03-05-2014, 05:13 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
It's rather presumptive to define terms that far in advance, and argue that in some sort of pluperfect tense they make sense now.

And good luck removing superstition from society entirely.

“It 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
03-05-2014, 05:45 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 05:05 PM)djhall Wrote:  Of course, I may be completely wrong in understanding what he is trying to say. Unfortunately, TW is so abrasive in his approach that whatever insights he has to offer aren't worth having to discuss them with him. If he doesn't have any insights to offer, nothing is lost. If he does, eventually someone else will have them too, and as long as they have a more welcoming approach to spreading those ideas we can learn from them and let that person lead us out of the darkness instead of TW.

x 1000

Great post!

A person very dear to me was badly hurt through a misunderstanding and miscommunication. For this, I am sorry, and he knows it. That said, any blaming me for malicious intent is for the birds. I will not wear some scarlet letter, I will not be anybody's whipping girl, and I will not lurk in silence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Charis's post
04-05-2014, 03:26 AM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2014 03:51 AM by Artie.)
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 05:05 PM)djhall Wrote:  By adopting the ontologically accurate definitions we construct a more logically and philosophically coherent agenda that identifies atheism as a political movement which exists only to defeat the propagation of the belief in theism.
That would mean that all atheist Buddhist monks sitting in some secluded monastery in Tibet trying to reach Nirvana have joined a political movement only existing to defeat the propagation of the belief in theism. A political movement started by Buddha himself 2500 years ago. Interesting theory. I guess Buddha would have been very happy with the fact that his political movement still exists after 2500 years but terribly unhappy with the spectacular lack of success in defeating the propagation of the belief in theism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Artie's post
04-05-2014, 07:25 AM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2014 07:58 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 04:42 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Sounds like TrainWreck is still walking on sunshine.

[Image: UmwHw.gif]

[Image: l.gif]

[Image: tumblr_lselm28Fjp1qb9pa3o1_500.gif]





It's kinda like where dude walks. ... or rather, sits. ... still like the fool. He's walking on sunshine.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2014, 08:59 AM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 05:05 PM)djhall Wrote:  By adopting the ontologically accurate definitions we construct a more logically and philosophically coherent agenda that identifies atheism as a political movement which exists only to defeat the propagation of the belief in theism.
I find that agreeable.

(04-05-2014 03:26 AM)Artie Wrote:  That would mean that all atheist Buddhist monks sitting in some secluded monastery in Tibet trying to reach Nirvana have joined a political movement only existing to defeat the propagation of the belief in theism. A political movement started by Buddha himself 2500 years ago. Interesting theory. I guess Buddha would have been very happy with the fact that his political movement still exists after 2500 years but terribly unhappy with the spectacular lack of success in defeating the propagation of the belief in theism.
No. You are making a couple of errors in transference of inference over different eras and cultures, straw man argument - you're just being pretentious ass instead of trying to understand the ontological error that I am describing.

First of all, it is doubtful that Buddha described himself as an atheist - I do not know, because I do not study religions like the average atheist. Atheists in the modern world are probably the authority assigning the "Atheism" classification to the religion, and that is because they want to communicate with people who associate with the designation; where as the proper classification for the religion would fall under humanism.

If you did not want to come across as a pretentious ass-bitch, you would have posed the question like so: if Buddhism is an atheist religion then was it a political movement?

But no, you had to go through all the stupid shit of composing the narrative of the solitary and peaceful monk sitting in the monastery, and then the narrative about defeating theism - all straw man arguments - you lame pretentious ass-butch.

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
04-05-2014, 09:11 AM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2014 09:15 AM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(03-05-2014 05:05 PM)djhall Wrote:  Atheism is the default and theism only exists because institutions propagate the belief to new generations.
Humanism is the default. Atheism only exists, because theism is perpetuated, because it was a necessary evil in the organization of community of very naive peoples - education of the degree of valid information describing reality is a very recent upgrade in human evolution. Leading stupid people is a very difficult task. The main objective is to get people to cooperate and perpetuate the community - very very difficult.

(03-05-2014 05:05 PM)djhall Wrote:  Atheism blocks that propagation and once belief is eliminated in mankind both atheism, theism, and all concepts related to them will disappear as well.
Atheism debates the doctrines of theism.

(03-05-2014 05:05 PM)djhall Wrote:  If our primary identity is a-theist, our ideas and relevance dies along with theism. Therefore, atheists who want to offer an alternative positive vision for society without theism need to re-identify as humanists. If theism dies and atheism dies with it, the humanist label, not atheism, emerges as the standard bearer for the direction of society.
That is correct.

(03-05-2014 05:05 PM)djhall Wrote:  We should get ahead of that and formulate a positive vision of society without god to promote to the world as the new future of social organization rather than holding on to self identity as not-theist and becoming as irrelevant as theism if we win.
That is correct. The "positive vision of society without god to promote to the world as the new future of social organization," is a modern political charter system.

(03-05-2014 05:05 PM)djhall Wrote:  Of course, I may be completely wrong in understanding what he is trying to say. Unfortunately, TW is so abrasive in his approach that whatever insights he has to offer aren't worth having to discuss them with him.
You got it - you figured it out - it's not that difficult.

I can through the discussion and prove to you that I was attacked first - do you want me to do that?

The reason I was attacked was because atheists have a dogma of misnomers that they behold as truths to their state of being - very similar to the dogma of falsehood that theists behold themselves to. This phenomenon I am identifying is how atheists are able to cope in a Theist-Christian dominated society.

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
04-05-2014, 09:26 AM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(04-05-2014 08:59 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  First of all, it is doubtful that Buddha described himself as an atheist - I do not know, because I do not study religions like the average atheist.

Atheists in the modern world are probably the authority assigning the "Atheism" classification to the religion,

and that is because they want to communicate with people who associate with the designation; where as the proper classification for the religion would fall under humanism.

Hello again. Smile

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. Different time zones and shift work tends to screw with communication.

Thank you for the reply. Smile

Um...I've highlighted the above because again, I am unclear as to your meaning. Could you expand upon the sentence, perhaps a little? Also...mayhap, the follow on sentence? Should you have the time.

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2014, 09:42 AM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2014 09:48 AM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(04-05-2014 09:26 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. Different time zones and shift work tends to screw with communication.

Um...I've highlighted the above because again, I am unclear as to your meaning. Could you expand upon the sentence, perhaps a little? Also...mayhap, the follow on sentence? Should you have the time.
Yes, you're right. I made a mistake - do you feel better? Did you argue a correction or are you just going to be a pretentious ass, as well.

I probably made the mistake because of the context of the discussion focusing on the errors of atheists, instead of recognizing the errors in the general. However, are you willing to recognize that the assignment of the "Atheism" classification is incorrect and not corrected by atheists?

Is that all you have to offer - the opportunity to clearly denote an error on my part???

Do you feel better - you going to make hay, or contribute to reason?

Good fucking thing I used the modifier "probably" - wouldn't you agree?

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: