Ontology of belief
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-05-2014, 03:23 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 03:20 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(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.

Yes, that may be the ultimate solution - but we need to dismantle religion to make that possible.

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
03-05-2014, 03:43 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 03:20 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(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.

That's not what you're arguing. You're arguing for an alternate definition of a commonly used word found nowhere other than your imagination.

Religion isn't the only problem. Totalitarian idiots who proclaim they know everything and seek to dictate the lifes of everyone else around them are the larger problem, and their use of religion as a mesure of control over the larger population via indoctrination.

Your argument is that everyone should blindly accept your definition for atheism, and then what? Blindly follow your lead into defining a dogmatic ideology that states blindly following dogmatic ideologies is problematic?

“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
[+] 7 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
03-05-2014, 03:52 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 03:43 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  That's not what you're arguing. You're arguing for an alternate definition of a commonly used word found nowhere other than your imagination.

That is apart of the standardization of knowledge classification - misnomers have to be corrected. Don't worry, you'll live.

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, 04:04 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 03:52 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 03:43 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  That's not what you're arguing. You're arguing for an alternate definition of a commonly used word found nowhere other than your imagination.

That is apart of the standardization of knowledge classification - misnomers have to be corrected. Don't worry, you'll live.

The only misnomer here is your unilateral misappropriation of English vocabulary... Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
03-05-2014, 04:18 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 02:35 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(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.

Hardcore, e-thug. Do your parents know you use language like that online, or would they restrict your Mountain Dew and Cheetos intake to control your mood swings?

1. Knowledge classification system =/= whatever you say knowledge is.

Not a good knowledge classification system. Religion tries and fails repeatedly to define knowledge as "whatever we believe in, and not anything that contradicts our beliefs." You don't seem to have a better method, or understand the scientific method is already in place to classify what counts is knowledge, independent of politics and dogmatic beliefs: Like the dogmatic belief that atheism is a specific political ideology.

2. Standardize the political charter system.

That's the first I've seen of this. Redefining the word "atheism" will accomplish this how?

“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
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
03-05-2014, 04:22 PM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2014 04:29 PM by rampant.a.i..)
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 03:52 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 03:43 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  That's not what you're arguing. You're arguing for an alternate definition of a commonly used word found nowhere other than your imagination.

That is apart of the standardization of knowledge classification - misnomers have to be corrected. Don't worry, you'll live.

But your parents, apparently, had no children who lived. You've failed across the board to show how atheism is not a disbelief in the supernatural, but instead a political doctrine dogmatically opposed to theism.

You know who your arguments make you sound like? An AiG reading, Ray Comfort listening realty revisionist, claiming atheism is a sociopolitical religious cult, with all the misguided self-congratulating condescension of Ken Ham.

What's more, you use similar tactics, like selectively quoting the above to "respond" to, ignoring the rest of the post:

rampant.a.i. Wrote:Religion isn't the only problem. Totalitarian idiots who proclaim they know everything and seek to dictate the lifes of everyone else around them are the larger problem, and their use of religion as a mesure of control over the larger population via indoctrination.

Your argument is that everyone should blindly accept your definition for atheism, and then what? Blindly follow your lead into defining a dogmatic ideology that states blindly following dogmatic ideologies is problematic?

“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
03-05-2014, 04:29 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 03:00 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  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.

He isn't making a semantic argument, he is just talking about his political ideology. Which is fine. Just be clear about it. This semantic argument is a pretense, that seems largely irrelevant, and is very confusing.

For my own part, I wish he would confine his argument to one thread at a time. I feel bad for Jeremy, because I don't think he intended to spark another "what does trainwreck believe" discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
03-05-2014, 04:34 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
You are the ones who are insisting on posting in this thread - I'm just answering your stupid shit. I moved one guy's post, and returned the link - I'm not going to do that for all you stupid fucks who can't figure to do it; but insist that you're smarter than me.

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, 04:54 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 04:34 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You are the ones who are insisting on posting in this thread - I'm just answering your stupid shit. I moved one guy's post, and returned the link - I'm not going to do that for all you stupid fucks who can't figure to do it; but insist that you're smarter than me.

No one thinks they're smarter than you, they just wish you would stop huffing your sinuses full of Toluine, because it causes you to make ignorant, idiotic statements no one is going to let you get away with throwing out as if they are fact, and then claim anyone who disagrees is "too dumb to understand what you said"

“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
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
03-05-2014, 09:27 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(03-05-2014 04:34 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You are the ones who are insisting on posting in this thread - I'm just answering your stupid shit. I moved one guy's post, and returned the link - I'm not going to do that for all you stupid fucks who can't figure to do it; but insist that you're smarter than me.

We don't need to insist, you prove it with your each and every post... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: