Ontology of belief
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2014, 02:03 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 01:50 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 01:35 PM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  So that means if the dictionary says "STONE GAYS! THEY ARE A ABOMINATION! THE WORLD IS CREATED BY AN HATING, BUT LOVING GOD!!!!!"
we'll do it?
It's a fallacy and a strawman at the same time..
LOOK IT'S THE STRAWFALLACYMAN!

Nope. I used your logic exactly as you said.
Quote:And I make the point that atheists blindly give dictionary editors the same authority that they accuse theists of giving to the editors of their religious doctrinaires.

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
01-05-2014, 02:16 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2014 02:20 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 01:58 PM)Elcarch Wrote:  Let me put it this way; even if we did, stupidly, accept that atheism by definition means you absolutely have to be opposed to any sort of perceived authority,...
It really really hurts your brain - doesn't it? You can't even get the definition. There is no fucking way you are going to find anything that says that I said that atheism means "opposition to any perceived authority." Are you stupid or something?

The definition I have been putting forth is that atheism is a political doctrine opposed to law based on theist religious doctrine. Humanism is the correct antithesis to theism. Humanism is the ontology that humans define reality.

(01-05-2014 01:58 PM)Elcarch Wrote:  and therefore also did, idiotically, accept that we must reject the definitions found in all accepted dictionaries, why the flying fuck would we automatically accept YOUR definition instead?
Because you want to do so before the Christians do; otherwise atheists are going to be charged with having not recognized the problem and solution, where as, they will be credited with having done so.

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, 02:20 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 01:55 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  So, as someone who concentrates and huffs propellant (as admitted above) what now defines someone with a grade school education and potential brain damage more of an authority than those of us who do not partake, or people who are authorities because they are degreed in and study languages?
Reason - the generation and eventual confirmation of better reason.

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, 02:31 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2014 02:36 PM by rampant.a.i..)
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 02:16 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 01:58 PM)Elcarch Wrote:  Let me put it this way; even if we did, stupidly, accept that atheism by definition means you absolutely have to be opposed to any sort of perceived authority,...
It really really hurts your brain - doesn't it? You can't even get the definition. There is no fucking way you are going to find anything that says that I said that atheism means "opposition to any perceived authority." Are you stupid or something?

The definition I have been putting forth is that atheism is a political doctrine opposed to law based on theist religious doctrine. Humanism is the correct antithesis to theism. Humanism is the ontology that humans define reality.

(01-05-2014 01:58 PM)Elcarch Wrote:  and therefore also did, idiotically, accept that we must reject the definitions found in all accepted dictionaries, why the flying fuck would we automatically accept YOUR definition instead?
Because you want to do so before the Christians do; otherwise atheists are going to be charged with having not recognized the problem and solution, where as, they will be credited with having done so.

Ok, I'm becoming convinced you actually do have some sort of cognitive disability. You have been given the definition of the word "atheism" repeatedly, and yet continue to substitute your personal confabulated definition for "atheism" already defined by multiple authoritative sources as:

The lack of belief in a deity or deities.

It's a very simple definition, universally accepted -- except by those who want to replace the common definition of the word with their own made-up definition, to push an agenda or ham-handedly make a statement: Which I provided you an example of above.

So, if you still want to use your "special" definition, the definitions of "right" and "wrong" provided for you above will continue to be equally valid, and you will have effectively admitted you have a problem with habitual inhalant abuse.

Is this the case? It would at least explain why you can't understand how the word prefix "a-" works.

“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
01-05-2014, 02:57 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 02:31 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  ..., I'm becoming convinced you actually do have some sort of cognitive disability. You have been given the definition of the word "atheism" repeatedly, and yet continue to substitute your personal confabulated definition for "atheism" already defined by multiple authoritative sources as:

The lack of belief in a deity or deities.
I am presenting an argument that reasons that it is a misnomer - a phenomenon when words are incorrectly defined. Atheists know that there are symantic problems because they have plenty of arguments about what to call themselves, anyway: Brights, free-thinkers, rationalist, etc,.

(01-05-2014 02:31 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  It's a very simple definition, universally accepted -- except by those who want to replace the common definition of the word with their own made-up definition, to push an agenda or ham-handedly make a statement: Which I provided you an example of above.
I am presenting an argument that reasons that there is a misnomer, and you cannot ignore the argument - why is that? What is so special about this???

(01-05-2014 02:31 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  So, if you still want to use your "special" definition, the definitions of "right" and "wrong" provided for you above will continue to be equally valid, and you will have effectively admitted you have a problem with habitual inhalant abuse.

Is this the case? It would at least explain why you can't understand how the word prefix "a-" works.
And in this particular situation the "a" prefix in atheism means opposition to the claim/doctrine of the existence of god/supernatural; because a person should not have an opposing belief unless the claim that there is a god is made.

Humanism is the proper ontological antithesis to theism. Atheism is the political opposition to theist religiously based doctrine and law.

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, 04:58 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(30-04-2014 03:13 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 03:05 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  477 posts on a website called "The Thinking Atheist", and you ask me to define "belief".

Do you not know what the word means?

The point is I don't much care for the word. When I hear the words "I believe" I hear "I'm a credulous sucker."
I would much rather hear "I understand" or "I have an idea" or "I accept that idea based on the evidence."
So to answer your question people owe their beliefs to naivety.

So if your spouse told you that they believed in you when they saw you were in need of encouragement, or when your child(ren) said that they believed you could help them with their science homework because you were smart, you would interpret them all to be saying that they were incredulous suckers?

Whenever Stephen Hawking, or any other scientists uses the world believe, you actually think they are saying:

Well guys, I am actually an incredulous sucker, blah blah blah....


Shocking

Just because you are not a Christian that does not mean you cannot use the word "believe".

I hope you were just joking when you said what you said. You have beliefs. Admitting so does not make you any less of an atheist. Its ok to say you believe something. Saying so will not cause you to spontaneously combust or turn into a frog.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
01-05-2014, 05:18 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2014 05:55 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: Ontology of belief
To all those who think they have somehow shown my thread title to be a word salad, I refer you to the scholarly article by Professor Hacker of St. John's College, Oxford entitled: "Of the Ontology of Belief". http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/docs...belief.pdf

Professor Hacker is also cited in five other scholarly works related to the subject matter of the aforementioned paper.

Bucky Ball's logic is at best juvenile when he argues that one cannot discuss the ontology of belief. The nature of belief has been discussed by philosophers for centuries and only those who are ignorant of what ontology means would try to argue my thread title is a word salad or incoherent.

If you all want to really be seen as intellectuals, stop listening to and using Bucky Ball's horrible reasoning and arguments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 05:22 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
Now, for those who are wearing big boy pants and not diapers, let us continue our discussion.

Everyone here believes that their five senses are working properly in that they are providing our brain with accurate sensory information regarding the physical world which we all inhabit.

Can we all agree with this statement?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 05:44 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 12:08 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  There is a good chance that only beings can have beliefs. None the less, maybe you can direct us to the disciplined field that does study the existence of beliefs???

That may be. That's not the name of the thread. Maybe you can go figure that out for yourself, idiot. I'm not your fucking mother.

(01-05-2014 12:08 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  Jeremy, was probably not mistaken. Chances are you are mistaken, and just do not understand ontology beyond the discussion of god - the existence of god. None the less, maybe you can direct us to the disciplined field that does study the existence of beliefs???

Did you skip your ADD meds ? We are not discussing the gods. He apparently thought he wanted to discuss the origins of beliefs. We don't actually know what he wanted to discuss, as the thread title was meaningless.

(01-05-2014 12:08 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You see, dear sir, you do not understand that ontology covers the concept of existence.

The existence of BEINGS, not the existence of everything. Obviously have no clue what the word "ontology" means. It is never used synonymously with the words "existence" of, OR it would also apply to inanimate objects. I would never expect anyone as uneducated as you are to get the normal course of intelligent discourse, but, thems the facts. Too bad for you.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-...#DifConOnt

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 05:47 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 07:07 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 04:15 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Define 'best'.

Think ... Monty Pythonesquè. You know, surreal, hilarious Big Grin

With commentary from Taq?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: