Ontology of belief
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-05-2014, 03:32 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(02-05-2014 03:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-05-2014 02:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  ... the justification for these beliefs is our belief that they are true.
Sorry, this is circular logic, this statement cannot hold to be true. Try again.

That's kind of the idea.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 03:33 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(02-05-2014 03:19 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(02-05-2014 02:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  ... the justification for these beliefs is our belief that they are true.
Sorry, this is circular logic, this statement cannot hold to be true. Try again.

I am trying to get clarity from Michael about this. This is his view, not mine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 03:40 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(02-05-2014 02:45 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  especially, in consideration of atheists claim to be the guardians of better reasoning.
You keep referring to "atheists" as if that group having properties other than "non-theist" was already established and widely accepted. The whole objection to your argument is essentially that no consensus on the meaning of the term "atheist" has ever been widely established beyond that point, and general acceptance of meaning by the target audience is the common standard by which the definitions of words are judged (and by extension, dictionaries generally fulfill the role in our society of surveying the actual usage of words and acting as a third party reference for resolving disagreements about meaning and definitions).

Are you claiming that there is an already established consensus among the english speaking population that your definition of the word is what we assume the speaker to mean, or are you claiming that the word has an inherent meaning that exists independently from what the general consensus gives it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(02-05-2014 03:18 PM)djhall Wrote:  Perhaps I'm just dense, but let us say for the sake of argument that you and everyone who agrees with you abandons the term atheist as hopelessly flawed and instead promotes themselves as "political secularists" (or whatever you like) rather than atheists.
You are dense - clearly, I have not issued a proclamation to abandoned the term - I want to correct the definition of it. The definition is in my signature.

(02-05-2014 03:18 PM)djhall Wrote:  What changes other than the political debate being between theists and "political secularists" instead of between theists and "atheists". Why do your beliefs have a better future if called atheist rather than something else?
There is no change in the debate of contention that you describe - do you know what the debate of contention is between atheists and theists?

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
02-05-2014, 03:50 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(02-05-2014 03:45 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(02-05-2014 03:18 PM)djhall Wrote:  Perhaps I'm just dense, but let us say for the sake of argument that you and everyone who agrees with you abandons the term atheist as hopelessly flawed and instead promotes themselves as "political secularists" (or whatever you like) rather than atheists.
You are dense - clearly, I have not issued a proclamation to abandoned the term - I want to correct the definition of it. The definition is in my signature.

No, you want to change it, not correct it. It isn't wrong.

Quote:
(02-05-2014 03:18 PM)djhall Wrote:  What changes other than the political debate being between theists and "political secularists" instead of between theists and "atheists". Why do your beliefs have a better future if called atheist rather than something else?
There is no change in the debate of contention that you describe - do you know what the debate of contention is between atheists and theists?

There are non-political debates between atheists and theists so you are over-reaching.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 03:55 PM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2014 04:20 PM by djhall.)
RE: Ontology of belief
(02-05-2014 03:45 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(02-05-2014 03:18 PM)djhall Wrote:  Perhaps I'm just dense, but let us say for the sake of argument that you and everyone who agrees with you abandons the term atheist as hopelessly flawed and instead promotes themselves as "political secularists" (or whatever you like) rather than atheists.
You are dense - clearly, I have not issued a proclamation to abandoned the term - I want to correct the definition of it. The definition is in my signature.
I didn't claim you issued a proclamation to abandon the term. _I_ proposed that adopting a different term was a more viable alternative.

What do you propose is the criteria for determining the "correct" definition of a word (other than your claim that it is the correct definition)? I am NOT asking about what determines the "best" or "optimal" definition of what a word could or should be. I am only asking what determines the currently "correct" definition of a word as it exists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 04:02 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(02-05-2014 03:45 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You are dense - clearly
There is no call for being insulting. Note that I have gone out of my way to avoid any possibility of insulting or demeaning language toward you in any of my posts and been nothing but courteous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 04:13 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
I've just read the entire thread. I don't know why, I think I was just amazed at the intensity of the word salad here.

I'm in awe of Bucky's post earlier. It was like poetry. What is the verb for producing word salad? It's probably a useful skill in apologetic circles.

Anyway, don't mind me, carry on with the linguistic discombobulation!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
02-05-2014, 04:22 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
Just realised my last post was ambiguous and it looked like I was accusing everyone here of talking nonsense as opposed to just Trainwreck.

I'll quote Bucky's brilliant post here just in case you forgot about it.


(01-05-2014 10:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I get it. Totally. But TW, don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the log from the turnstile and cry prevalently.

So there brown stare. Feed your inner walnut and resolve. Subject your lemon to the ingenious door in the presence of snow and animals. Aisle 7 is for the monetary cheese whiz. Faced with the kitchen, you may wish to prolong the sailboat in the cliff. Otherwise, rabbits may descend on your left nostril. Think about how you can stripe the sea.

Regale the storm to those who (6) would thump the parrot with the armband. Corner the market on vestiges of the apparent closure but seek not the evidential circumstance. Therein you can find indignant mountains of pigs and apples. Descend eloquently as you debate the ceiling of your warning fulcrum. Vacate the corncob profusely and and don’t dote on the pancreas.

Next up, control your wood. Have at the cat with your watch on the fore. Aft! Smarties (12)! Rome wasn’t kevetched in an autumn nightie. (42) See yourself for the turntable on the escalator. Really peruse the garage spider definitely again again with brown. Now we have an apparent congestion, so be it here. Just a moment is not a pod of beef for the ink well nor can it be (4) said that Karen was there in the millpond.

Garbage out just like the candle in the kitty so. Go, go, go until the vacuum meets the upward vacation. Sell the yellow. Then trim the bus before the ten cheese please Louise. Segregate from the koan and stew the ship vigorously.

And remember, never pass up an opportunity to watch an elephant paint Mozart.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2014, 04:31 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(02-05-2014 03:55 PM)djhall Wrote:  What do you propose is the criteria for determining the "correct" definition of a word (other than your claim that it is the correct definition)? I am NOT asking about what determines the "best" or "optimal" definition of what a word could or should be. I am only asking what determines the currently "correct" definition of a word as it exists.
I do not know how they determine the correct definitions of words - there seems to be different approaches by different editors of dictionaries.

A "scientific" classification system to organize the concepts, and then a "scientific" sentence structure is what I am proposing. And what this will do is align concepts and be easier to comprehend the array of knowledge.

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: