Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-04-2014, 03:18 PM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2014 03:29 PM by WitchSabrina.)
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(28-04-2014 01:39 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(28-04-2014 01:26 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Nope.
I never ONCE asked YOU to define God Nor did I ever call YOU a theist.

methinks you're not reading too well today.

Thus my suggestion that your reading comprehension might be off. I can answer you back all day long and we can all continue to watch you pee around the bushes here at our house.
But that won't make you ANY more correct in your assumptions. No matter how many times you arrogantly type how RIGHT you think yourself to be. That won't make it real.


You can, however, continue to stroke your own ego. Sure............ that'll turn back time and put you in a rational discussion. You know........the discussion you blew past in your bubble of self-satisfaction and denial. I hope for your sake you at least decorated your bubble with pretty colors and maybe piped in some music.

My brilliant descriptions are just so so very lost on you. Aren't they?
LMAO
Yuk... you need mental help.There were three posts about Christians definition of god that made no sense to this discussion, along with the others. The only one that made sense was the reality one, and I responded.



Sure - I need help. LOL Ok. I was the ONLY person who actually agreed with you that semantics (1) was part of the issue in discussing a christian god.
But that's wise - make ME your problem instead of opting for a valid, sensible conversation.
You always do this well in forums or is just here where you choose to show your ass instead of your intelligence?? A good conversation would have worked in your favor instead of this mess.


Maybe next time this discussion-thang will work better for us all. I can hope so anyway.


(1) Sorry if I also took the time to explain WHY. Sometimes I find it helpful to offer further explanation to get to the meaning of what I say.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
28-04-2014, 04:07 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(28-04-2014 11:02 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I'm right, and you are wrong.
(28-04-2014 11:02 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I am years ahead of all of you
(28-04-2014 11:09 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I have it straight - you and everyone else, except Sam Harris, have it wrong.
(28-04-2014 11:34 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Yeah, what are you going to do - prove me wrong???
(28-04-2014 11:57 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I'm not wrong about this semantics problem that I am describing. I have years of research and I put a lot of effort into the reasoning of my arguments.
(28-04-2014 12:17 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I clearly stated that I was not defining "god" for theists - I was way ahead of you - genius.
(28-04-2014 12:33 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I'm right, and you are all - wrong.
(28-04-2014 01:12 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You are not being rude - you're being pretentiously stupid.
(28-04-2014 01:12 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Do you know who edits the dictionaries - have you checked their credentials?

All I can say is "Wow..." Blink

And...

1. Arrogant: check
2. Ignores established definitions: check
3. Ignores points raised by others: check
4. Arrogant: check
5. Insists he's right because... well just because: check
6. Arrogant: check
7. Rude: check
8. Arrogant: check
9. Thinks he is God: check
10. I'm outta here: check

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Impulse's post
28-04-2014, 04:33 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(28-04-2014 04:07 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(28-04-2014 11:02 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I'm right, and you are wrong.
(28-04-2014 11:02 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I am years ahead of all of you
(28-04-2014 11:09 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I have it straight - you and everyone else, except Sam Harris, have it wrong.
(28-04-2014 11:34 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Yeah, what are you going to do - prove me wrong???
(28-04-2014 11:57 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I'm not wrong about this semantics problem that I am describing. I have years of research and I put a lot of effort into the reasoning of my arguments.
(28-04-2014 12:17 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I clearly stated that I was not defining "god" for theists - I was way ahead of you - genius.
(28-04-2014 12:33 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I'm right, and you are all - wrong.
(28-04-2014 01:12 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You are not being rude - you're being pretentiously stupid.
(28-04-2014 01:12 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Do you know who edits the dictionaries - have you checked their credentials?

All I can say is "Wow..." Blink

And...

1. Arrogant: check
2. Ignores established definitions: check
3. Ignores points raised by others: check
4. Arrogant: check
5. Insists he's right because... well just because: check
6. Arrogant: check
7. Rude: check
8. Arrogant: check
9. Thinks he is God: check
10. I'm outta here: check

Sounds like textbook NPD:

Quote:Some people diagnosed with a narcissistic personality disorder are characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance. They have a sense of entitlement and demonstrate grandiosity in their beliefs and behavior. They have a strong need for admiration, but lack feelings of empathy.[5]

Symptoms of this disorder, as defined by the DSM-IV-TR, include:[1]

Expects to be recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments
Expects constant attention, admiration and positive reinforcement from others
Envies others and believes others envy him/her
Is preoccupied with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence
Lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others
Is arrogant in attitudes and behavior
Has expectations of special treatment that are unrealistic

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissis...y_disorder

“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
28-04-2014, 04:43 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
Let's not

[Image: 20cad83ad8d757191e2878b0f4bf05a9.png]
"Don't answer that. A rhetorical question."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ELK12695's post
28-04-2014, 05:03 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
I know you guys are just having fun with TW and I'm enjoying reading your responses while silmultaneously seeing this:

TrainWreck Show this PostThe contents of this message are hidden because TrainWreck is on your ignore list.
TrainWreck Show this PostThe contents of this message are hidden because TrainWreck is on your ignore list.
TrainWreck Show this PostThe contents of this message are hidden because TrainWreck is on your ignore list.

Big Grin

Everyone gets an A but A+ goes to Witch Sabrina, rampant.a.i. and Taq.
I went through the TW experience early on when I came to the forum and really struggled NOT to place anyone on ignore, but my bullshit stamina-meter broke somewhere along the tracks Laughat

Carry on.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
28-04-2014, 05:18 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...sh/atheism
This is the Oxford dictionary definition of atheism.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
The wiki definition is pretty good, it explains how broad the term is and that it can but not necessarily be from a social, philosophical or political view. Whilst these are not essential, people who define themselves as atheist hold in common a rejection of the supernatural and the burden of proof.

My atheism is not a starting point for my political stance. Just as my not playing basketball or the fact that I don't have green eyes. It is not in direct opposition to only the ontological argument, that is only one theist argument, it is the rejection of all theism.

If I had theism as part of my life then yes, this would be a starting point for my politics but that doesn't mean it follows that no theism is a religious/theistic/politics stance. That is like saying because I am European everything I do and think is anti rest of the world. Or because I am not an American, I am automatically anti American. This is essentially your claim, that we are instantly politically opposed to theism by default of the atheist position. My definition, which I have provided supporting links for which line up with my understanding show very clearly that I am correct and considerably cleverer than you. (I have stopped being polite now because you didn't even start to be, when I asked you nicely).

I will continue my intellectually challenged friend ...

You repeatedly asserting your own definition of atheism as a political stance is dismissed and invalid until you provide credible links, such as I have, the dictionary and Wikipedia are standard surface definitions ...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
So here is a definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it has descriptions of 'family terms' in it too and well worth a read, it is comprised of many articles from top of their field philospers, academics and public intellectuals, I bet even your idol Sam Harris even rates it! Note; there are some big words in it and you may need to check their accepted definitions, your usual approach of simply making up your own meanings and repeating them over and over again will cause you to become unstuck, this will expose your willful ignorance further. If your 'lofty intellect' *cough* is struggling, feel free to ask.... I am nearly 40 and have been at this since my mid teens, judging by your profile picture, I have been at this for almost as long as you have been alive, therefore I am years ahead of you, and your superior in intellect, wisdom, class, eloquence, charisma and coherent delivery.

As a gift, I offer this free tip and to be charitable to my academic lesser, I will even do it for you this one time ...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_En...Dictionary
If you challenge someone to check credentials do it yourself first. Note in the Wiki article, it clearly gives the name Michael Proffitt as the editor...
Next, put his name in to a Google search and use intellectual discretion (which is why I'm doing it for you this time) and find an appropriate link which lays out his credentials, qualifications and experience. You can even add those words to your search for expedience. (Great word, look it up)
Anyway ...
http://public.oed.com/oed-editor-retirem...ouncement/
This article has a brief overview of Michael, including where he was at university. That's really easy to check, you can do that yourself as homework. Also the OED website has his email address, so any questions you may have about him, you can go straight to the source, more advice though, I have been dealing with professional academics for years, I still do from time to time when I get work in colleges and universities, you may want to take the huge fucking chip off your shoulder when you speak to them and take your time with your emails, use sentences not word salad and be polite or they will ignore you. (Which is what I will be doing if your next post is yet more incoherent psychobabble without supporting references and clarifying links)

I digress.
Back on topic.
Anti-theism
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
Note that the definition encompasses a knowledge claim. That of religion is wrong and destructive. Not the same as atheism. The active knowledge claim is a basis for political opinion and activism. ... if that is not enough ...
http://www.skepdic.com/antitheism.html
Here are some anti-theists defining themselves, with supporting information.

Don't stop there though. http://www.amazon.com sell books. Type your chosen search words in to the box provided and you're away! You may need to ask permission from a responsible adult to help you put your bank details in, for a cretin like you, it might be taxing (I have just realised how much I miss Chippy)
I won't do all of your leg work for you.

I know you will claim you have done everything and read everything ever but your breath is wasted on me. You will no doubt repeat your claims, not support them and declare we are all stupid. This is the behaviour of a cretinous imbecile or petulant child, you have the debating style of a spoilt toddler deprived of sweets with an inferior grasp of simple coherency. Your proclamations of superior intelligence without even the most simple concept of referencing, citations and supporting evidence demonstrates that you are laughably deluded and your unacceptance of an offer for a civil discussion shows that you can only 'debate' in one style, you are not even a one trick pony, as your 'intellectual trick' is a non starter, you are the turd of a one trick pony.

So, let's sling insults pony turd. It's all you've got.

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Monster_Riffs's post
28-04-2014, 05:55 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
MR, I'm not even sure that this assclown is referring to the "ontological gawd-argument". Looks to me that, just like everything else, he is using a big word he doesn't understand in an odd context trying to pretend he knows what he's talking about.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
28-04-2014, 06:05 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(28-04-2014 05:18 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...sh/atheism
This is the Oxford dictionary definition of atheism.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
The wiki definition is pretty good, it explains how broad the term is and that it can but not necessarily be from a social, philosophical or political view. Whilst these are not essential, people who define themselves as atheist hold in common a rejection of the supernatural and the burden of proof.

My atheism is not a starting point for my political stance. Just as my not playing basketball or the fact that I don't have green eyes. It is not in direct opposition to only the ontological argument, that is only one theist argument, it is the rejection of all theism.

If I had theism as part of my life then yes, this would be a starting point for my politics but that doesn't mean it follows that no theism is a religious/theistic/politics stance. That is like saying because I am European everything I do and think is anti rest of the world. Or because I am not an American, I am automatically anti American. This is essentially your claim, that we are instantly politically opposed to theism by default of the atheist position. My definition, which I have provided supporting links for which line up with my understanding show very clearly that I am correct and considerably cleverer than you. (I have stopped being polite now because you didn't even start to be, when I asked you nicely).

I will continue my intellectually challenged friend ...

You repeatedly asserting your own definition of atheism as a political stance is dismissed and invalid until you provide credible links, such as I have, the dictionary and Wikipedia are standard surface definitions ...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
So here is a definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it has descriptions of 'family terms' in it too and well worth a read, it is comprised of many articles from top of their field philospers, academics and public intellectuals, I bet even your idol Sam Harris even rates it! Note; there are some big words in it and you may need to check their accepted definitions, your usual approach of simply making up your own meanings and repeating them over and over again will cause you to become unstuck, this will expose your willful ignorance further. If your 'lofty intellect' *cough* is struggling, feel free to ask.... I am nearly 40 and have been at this since my mid teens, judging by your profile picture, I have been at this for almost as long as you have been alive, therefore I am years ahead of you, and your superior in intellect, wisdom, class, eloquence, charisma and coherent delivery.

As a gift, I offer this free tip and to be charitable to my academic lesser, I will even do it for you this one time ...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_En...Dictionary
If you challenge someone to check credentials do it yourself first. Note in the Wiki article, it clearly gives the name Michael Proffitt as the editor...
Next, put his name in to a Google search and use intellectual discretion (which is why I'm doing it for you this time) and find an appropriate link which lays out his credentials, qualifications and experience. You can even add those words to your search for expedience. (Great word, look it up)
Anyway ...
http://public.oed.com/oed-editor-retirem...ouncement/
This article has a brief overview of Michael, including where he was at university. That's really easy to check, you can do that yourself as homework. Also the OED website has his email address, so any questions you may have about him, you can go straight to the source, more advice though, I have been dealing with professional academics for years, I still do from time to time when I get work in colleges and universities, you may want to take the huge fucking chip off your shoulder when you speak to them and take your time with your emails, use sentences not word salad and be polite or they will ignore you. (Which is what I will be doing if your next post is yet more incoherent psychobabble without supporting references and clarifying links)

I digress.
Back on topic.
Anti-theism
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
Note that the definition encompasses a knowledge claim. That of religion is wrong and destructive. Not the same as atheism. The active knowledge claim is a basis for political opinion and activism. ... if that is not enough ...
http://www.skepdic.com/antitheism.html
Here are some anti-theists defining themselves, with supporting information.

Don't stop there though. http://www.amazon.com sell books. Type your chosen search words in to the box provided and you're away! You may need to ask permission from a responsible adult to help you put your bank details in, for a cretin like you, it might be taxing (I have just realised how much I miss Chippy)
I won't do all of your leg work for you.

I know you will claim you have done everything and read everything ever but your breath is wasted on me. You will no doubt repeat your claims, not support them and declare we are all stupid. This is the behaviour of a cretinous imbecile or petulant child, you have the debating style of a spoilt toddler deprived of sweets with an inferior grasp of simple coherency. Your proclamations of superior intelligence without even the most simple concept of referencing, citations and supporting evidence demonstrates that you are laughably deluded and your unacceptance of an offer for a civil discussion shows that you can only 'debate' in one style, you are not even a one trick pony, as your 'intellectual trick' is a non starter, you are the turd of a one trick pony.

So, let's sling insults pony turd. It's all you've got.

Bowing

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
28-04-2014, 06:07 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(28-04-2014 05:55 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  MR, I'm not even sure that this assclown is referring to the "ontological gawd-argument". Looks to me that, just like everything else, he is using a big word he doesn't understand in an odd context trying to pretend he knows what he's talking about.

I agree completely bro. He uses ontoligal argument in place of theism/deism without reference. He's a fucking idiot. I'd genuinely have liked a sincere conversation with him, believe it or not, I got a lot out of the back and forth with brownshirt, which I know you'll remember, I still don't agree with him either but at least he constructed an argument!

Pony Turd is completely different, I bet he suffers cognitive dissonance so badly, he wipes his arse then his face with the same bit of paper!

... We'll show this cunt what ad homenim attacks are! Hahaha Big Grin

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2014, 06:16 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(28-04-2014 01:41 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(28-04-2014 01:39 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Wait. You're saying atheists proclaim the importance of science and reason, and then you complain that we are the ones who have to define "god"? How exactly is "god" under the umbrella of science and reason?

If you are going to assert a god exists, then it's up to you to define it. If you don't define it, I don't need to take the things you say about it seriously. The rest of the world will go on just fine without wasting effort defining "god" for you and it certainly doesn't owe your half-formed ideas any time or attention.
What the fuck are you talking about? I do not assert that there is a god.

Whatever. Replace "you" with "the Christians" and my post still stands. You're mocking atheists for not defining someone else's god and doing so saying that they like science and reason. What the hell does the god of religion X have to do with science and reason?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: