Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-04-2014, 06:22 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(28-04-2014 06:16 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(28-04-2014 01:41 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  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?

Don't ask him to do that Robby, he can't even read the words properly in the first place! He'll end up confused and answer the iron when the phone rings Laugh out load

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Monster_Riffs's post
28-04-2014, 06:56 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(28-04-2014 06:07 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  
(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

LAWL

I *do* agree with his point that it's largely a waste of time going back and forth with theist trolls who show up here, and our time would be better spent working together against the religious political machine.

But spouting a bunch of bullshit like he is isn't going to convince anyone.

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, 07:03 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(28-04-2014 06:56 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(28-04-2014 06:07 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  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

LAWL

I *do* agree with his point that it's largely a waste of time going back and forth with theist trolls who show up here, and our time would be better spent working together against the religious political machine.

But spouting a bunch of bullshit like he is isn't going to convince anyone.

I know, but I think there's a time and place for it! Also mate, you and I both know bitch slapping idiots is recreational! Who is he to criticize our hobby 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
[+] 1 user Likes Monster_Riffs's post
29-04-2014, 10:26 AM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(28-04-2014 12:59 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(28-04-2014 12:32 PM)John Wrote:  There are these things called dictionaries, the compilers of which make their living by trying to come up with the appropriate answers (= the answer that most people would agree with). If the answers provided by them are not satisfactory, anybody is free to introduce their own definitions at the risk of being misunderstood, and this is one reason why the meaning of words (how most people would perceive it) changes over time. Semantics is little more but a trade-off between intelligibility and laziness, so having a debate about it seems rather pointless.
I am preparing the thesis/book concerning this, and I am probably going to introduce the atheist opposition that you are so proud of. How you point to dictionary definitions with out addressing the ontological arguments is like Christians pointing to Bible verses with out addressing your ontological arguments.
Oh, noes! The secret atheist belief that words have commonly understood meanings which are standardized and documented in dictionaries is about to be exposed to the whole world! Gasp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like djhall's post
29-04-2014, 10:40 AM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
Since the OP keeps referring to his ontological definition of atheism, I figured I'd do a little more reading on ontology. Now I remember why I wasn't very excited about it:

Quote:Besides it not being so clear what it is to commit yourself to an answer to an ontological question, it also isn't so clear what an ontological question really is, and thus what it is that ontology is supposed to accomplish. To figure this out is the task of meta-ontology, which strictly speaking is not part of ontology construed narrowly, but the study of what ontology is. However, like most philosophical disciplines, ontology more broadly construed contains its own meta-study, and thus meta-ontology is part of ontology, more broadly construed. Nonetheless it is helpful to separate it out as a special part of ontology. Many of the philosophically most fundamental questions about ontology really are meta-ontological questions. Meta-ontology has not been too popular in the last couple of decades, partly because one meta-ontological view, the one often associated with Quine, has been accepted as the correct one, but this acceptance has been challenged in recent years in a variety of ways. One motivation for the study of meta-ontology is simply the question of what question ontology aims to answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like djhall's post
29-04-2014, 11:15 AM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(29-04-2014 10:40 AM)djhall Wrote:  Since the OP keeps referring to his ontological definition of atheism, I figured I'd do a little more reading on ontology. Now I remember why I wasn't very excited about it:

Quote:Besides it not being so clear what it is to commit yourself to an answer to an ontological question, it also isn't so clear what an ontological question really is, and thus what it is that ontology is supposed to accomplish. To figure this out is the task of meta-ontology, which strictly speaking is not part of ontology construed narrowly, but the study of what ontology is. However, like most philosophical disciplines, ontology more broadly construed contains its own meta-study, and thus meta-ontology is part of ontology, more broadly construed. Nonetheless it is helpful to separate it out as a special part of ontology. Many of the philosophically most fundamental questions about ontology really are meta-ontological questions. Meta-ontology has not been too popular in the last couple of decades, partly because one meta-ontological view, the one often associated with Quine, has been accepted as the correct one, but this acceptance has been challenged in recent years in a variety of ways. One motivation for the study of meta-ontology is simply the question of what question ontology aims to answer.


yep - *snore*

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
(28-04-2014 04:33 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(28-04-2014 04:07 PM)Impulse Wrote:  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


While reading through this thread today for the frist time, this was the first thing that entered my mind also.

Classic NPD.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 12:38 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
I was wondering about the manifestation of the name "TrainWreck" as it relates to this thread.
Einstein

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 12:29 PM
RE: Let's define atheism, and other misnomers
For the sake of justice - I was abusively attacked first. And as I usually do, I ignored the vulgarities, and focus on the pertinent argument to make my point - and you all have failed to counter the argument with anything other than the assumption that the editors of the dictionaries are the authority for defining words, although, they are subject to perpetuating misnomers; otherwise misnomers would never exist, and the term,"misnomer," would not exist.

(27-04-2014 12:22 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(26-04-2014 06:39 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  
(26-04-2014 04:56 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  ...the atheists are exercising contradictory doctrines/premises, as well; otherwise they would be working on developing a scientific political charter, instead of spending so much time and energy arguing with you about the existence of your imaginary being that is only the personification of allegorical concepts.
This right here makes no kind of fucking sense.

First of all, atheist, or atheism has no doctrines or premises to be contradictory, except for lack of belief in a "god" or "gods". The only doctrinaire or premise of atheism that could contradiction that is having a belief in a "god" or "gods". But belief in "god/s" is not a premise Mathis, so no contradiction there.
Atheism is the political doctrine determined to eliminate the legislation of law based on theist doctrines.

Humanism is the proper ontological doctrine "opposite' of theism. It is an error in reason to define an ontology based on the opposition of another ontology. Where as, a political doctrine designated the antithesis of an erroneous ontology is acceptable, because when the political doctrine succeeds in defeating the erroneous ontology the correct ontology, humanism, maintains meaning. Where as, "atheism," makes no sense if no theists exist.

In other words; in a couple of hundred years from now, when theism is eradicated, because of the overwhelming exercise of a scientific political charter, it will be absurd to refer to ourselves as "atheists," however, "humanists," will be acceptable.

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
01-05-2014, 12:36 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
Thank you very much. Too bad you cannot offer counters my argument that atheists are beholden to a misnomer.

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: