Ontology of belief
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-05-2014, 12:31 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
Anybody else notice that trainwreck effectively hijacked this thread?

I don't have an opinion on the guy one way or another. He does have at least a dozen other threads where he talks about the exact same stuff though Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
03-05-2014, 12:47 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 12:31 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Anybody else notice that trainwreck effectively hijacked this thread?

I don't have an opinion on the guy one way or another. He does have at least a dozen other threads where he talks about the exact same stuff though Drinking Beverage

I did not hijack, and 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.

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, 12:49 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 10:59 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 10:46 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  This is cool. You tell atheists what they are despite the fact that absolutely none of them agree with you.

Christianity is also a political doctrine and it is an extreme form of fascism. Not just ordinary vanilla fascism but extreme fascism. It is opposed to ... errmmm ... Utilitarianism.
Christianity is only a political doctrine in a secular republic, where any organization is welcome to participate in the negotiation of public policy.
Excellent. Now I can reply that Atheism is only a political doctine in a religious state.

I like this game.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 12:49 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 12:47 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 12:31 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Anybody else notice that trainwreck effectively hijacked this thread?

I don't have an opinion on the guy one way or another. He does have at least a dozen other threads where he talks about the exact same stuff though Drinking Beverage

I did not hijack, and 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.


I'd say it's time for the ban hammer. Rule 5 and all that. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-05-2014, 12:51 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 12:49 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 10:59 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Christianity is only a political doctrine in a secular republic, where any organization is welcome to participate in the negotiation of public policy.
Excellent. Now I can reply that Atheism is only a political doctine in a religious state.

I like this game.
FAIL

(03-05-2014 10:59 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  . . . in a secular republic, where any organization is welcome to participate in the negotiation of public policy.

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, 12:56 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 12:51 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 12:49 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Excellent. Now I can reply that Atheism is only a political doctine in a religious state.

I like this game.
FAIL

(03-05-2014 10:59 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  . . . in a secular republic, where any organization is welcome to participate in the negotiation of public policy.

I feel like I am playing Fizzbin here with Trainwreck making up the rules as we go along.

So we have here a poster who tells people what they believe, who does not offer any explanations but just state things as fact, and whose arguments only apply to atheism and are dismissed out of hand if applied equally to theism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
03-05-2014, 12:57 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 12:51 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  FAIL

(03-05-2014 10:59 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  . . . in a secular republic, where any organization is welcome to participate in the negotiation of public policy.

FAIL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 01:04 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 12:56 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  I feel like I am playing Fizzbin here with Trainwreck making up the rules as we go along.

So we have here a poster who tells people what they believe, who does not offer any explanations but just state things as fact, and whose arguments only apply to atheism and are dismissed out of hand if applied equally to theism.
What the fuck are talking about - "not offer any explanation?"

Several times have have explained that there is an ontological error in describing a state of being as opposed to an ontology - that is what you are doing when referring to atheism as a state instead of a humanism.

Obviously, you have this cognitive dissonance stuff - you are unable to hold my argument in your consciousness, because it opposes your argument.

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, 01:19 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 01:04 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 12:56 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  I feel like I am playing Fizzbin here with Trainwreck making up the rules as we go along.

So we have here a poster who tells people what they believe, who does not offer any explanations but just state things as fact, and whose arguments only apply to atheism and are dismissed out of hand if applied equally to theism.
What the fuck are talking about - "not offer any explanation?"

Several times have have explained that there is an ontological error in describing a state of being as opposed to an ontology - that is what you are doing when referring to atheism as a state instead of a humanism.

Obviously, you have this cognitive dissonance stuff - you are unable to hold my argument in your consciousness, because it opposes your argument.

The ontological error is yours, not ours. This has been explained to you. Time for you to just shut the fuck up, you're boring. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
03-05-2014, 01:19 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 01:04 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  What the fuck are talking about - "not offer any explanation?"

Well maybe your mind you've explained yourself but no one can understand what you're saying. All they see are random quotes and words like "Fail".

Let me try something here:

If you really want to know why you are wrong then it is because by systemising the system of ontological error you are attributing ontological fallacies to the antithesis of the ontologies. Contrary to this is the presupposition of ontological utilitarianism regarding humanism and its orthogonal component of atheistic conductance. In order to further define the "scientific" classification of systemization we must have a concurrence of the array of knowledge that is our definition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: