Ontology of belief
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-05-2014, 01:22 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
TrainWreck, your argument is framed in such a way that it not only makes you appear to be fully delusional, but you've gone so far as to say you want to change the definition of a word with zero political connotations for political reasons, before shifting back to arguing that is the definition of the word.

You are seemingly incapable of applying the same logic to the dictionary antonym of the same word, and unable to substantiate why.

In fact, the majority of your posts read like a YEC defending a literal belief in the Flood story, repeating the same debunked argument every time someone debunks it a 5th or 6th time, and explains why your reasoning is fallacious.

You are free to your own delusions of superiority and "knowledge," but no one wants your brand of door-to-door prosthelatyzing, or to hear our personal definition of the "Good Word."

Go home, you're drunk, and making a fool of yourself.

“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
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
03-05-2014, 01:40 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 01:19 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  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".
There is probably a good chance that you do not understand ontology, as was presented in the other thread. It is not my fault that you do not understand it - I have tried. You have offered coherent arguments, and that means my arguments are coherent, otherwise you would not bother.

Keep in mind; I am using you as research evidence of how atheists are out of sorts, because of the lack of standardized knowledge classification. In other words it is not your fault that you ability to reason is not as keen as you believe it to be, it is the fault of the library science guardians - dominated by Christians, I'm sure.

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, 01:57 PM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2014 02:05 PM by rampant.a.i..)
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 01:40 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 01:19 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  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".
There is probably a good chance that you do not understand ontology, as was presented in the other thread. It is not my fault that you do not understand it - I have tried.

Oh, that's right. You're a self-professed expert on everything, and anyone who disagrees is simply too dumb to understand your genius. This must be why you've taken your argument up in an online discussion forum, instead of at a universary, with a dictionary publisher, or The Modern Language Association.

(03-05-2014 01:40 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You have offered coherent arguments, and that means my arguments are coherent, otherwise you would not bother.

Anyone can offer a cogent argument to a street-preacher explaining why lizard people have not taken over the government and implanted mind control devices in their teeth. It does not give the street preacher's claims credibility. I'm surprised, as a self-professed genius, that you're unable to see this.

(03-05-2014 01:40 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Keep in mind; I am using you as research evidence of how atheists are out of sorts, because of the lack of standardized knowledge classification.

Oh, interesting. Falling back on the old "That was my plan all along, and you fell for it!" when your arguments have been thoroughly debunked, and claiming you are here for "research," so no one else's opinion matters.

(03-05-2014 01:40 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  In other words it is not your fault that you ability to reason is not as keen as you believe it to be, it is the fault of the library science guardians - dominated by Christians, I'm sure.

Yes, it's a global conspiracy, that only you, with your innate genus and keen understanding of illogic are able to see, and point out in Internet forums you've come to "research," knowing your theories were lightyears ahead of anything they'd be able to understand.

This is no longer funny or entertaining, it's just sad.

Seek professional help.

“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
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
03-05-2014, 02:17 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 11:48 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 11:34 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Right, so what was Christianity during the divine monarchies and theocracies of the European Dark Ages? A fucking chess club? Facepalm
Those were not secular republics - were they?

Any atheist organization of that time would have been political opposition to the authoritarian decree of Christianity.


Read it again (with emphasis added).

(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.


Right, except that Christianity can be a political doctrine outside of secular republics (i.e. theocracies), not only within secular republics. Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
03-05-2014, 02:35 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 01:57 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Yes, it's a global conspiracy, that only you, with your innate genus and keen understanding of illogic are able to see, and point out in Internet forums you've come to "research," knowing your theories were lightyears ahead of anything they'd be able to understand.

Let's quit the dumb shit, bitch - what is your solution to the problems of the world?

I'm laying mine out for you.

1. Standardize the knowledge classification system.

2. Standardize the political charter system.

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, 02:57 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 01:19 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  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.

So no response to this then?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2014, 03:00 PM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2014 03:04 PM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: Ontology of belief
What a strange man.

It's always struck me how a man so overly obsessed with efficiency in communication is so fundamentally incapable of having a civil discussion. Trainwreck focuses a disproportionate amount of effort on semantics, but he couldn't give less of a shit on presentation and tone. He's the type of person that thinks all that matters is the delivery of a message, and how a person reacts to the message is irrelevant.

He spends a lot of time challenging people about how to change the world for the better, but any type of change for the better will involve leaving him out of the process. If he had any type of influence on a movement, he would do everything in his power to undermine its potential and transform it into a vehicle that broadcasts his glory.

Maybe more people would listen to what he has to say if what he had to say didn't inevitably boil down to how distinguished and sublime he found himself to be. Maybe if he understood that the attitude one filters their message through is just as important as the message itself, his ideas might be given more consideration. However, a person so enamored with their own perceived excellence tends to have little reason to consider anything less than inserting their ego everywhere.

I'd feel sorry for him, but that would require him realizing he was flawed. Hence, since he uses his personal deficiencies as a outlet for his superiority complex, I will simply leave him to his delusions of grandeur.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
03-05-2014, 03:06 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 02:35 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Let's quit the dumb shit, bitch - what is your solution to the problems of the world?

Sounds like a great topic for a new thread.



.........but that would probably just turn into thread #3 about the same bs intriguing tap dance over definitions.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes John's post
03-05-2014, 03:20 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 03:06 PM)John Wrote:  Sounds like a great topic for a new thread.
.........but that would probably just turn into thread #3 about the same bs intriguing tap dance over definitions.

Chances are all you, and the rest of your brilliant atheist fiends, have is the argument that religion is the problem and the solution is to dismantle it.

You cannot see that the better application of social contract theory is the ultimate solution.

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, 03:22 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 03:20 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  ... is the ultimate solution.

I know, I know. All we need is one more of those.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: