Ontology of belief
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-05-2014, 05:50 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 04:58 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 03:13 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  So to answer your question people owe their beliefs to naivety.
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.

When it comes to the definitions of some words, atheist, are confused, because they have not figured out that they need to sort the semantics that are unwittingly systematized to favor the inconsistencies of theism. And if they do not smarten-up in the immediate, the Christians are going to take the credit for straightening it out. And atheists are going to find themselves in the same position as the blacks claiming that they know social justice, but evidence reveals that they cannot organize community, because they do not trust each other.
(28-04-2014 11:03 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(28-04-2014 09:09 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  My reputation precedes me, how may I be of service?
I need to know the definitions of the following words that atheists agree are correct:
  1. atheism
  2. humanism
  3. secularism
  4. religion
  5. belief
  6. worship

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, 05:53 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2014 08:19 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 05:22 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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?

Nope. Your five senses can provide you with a very very small amount of information concerning the physical world which we all inhabit.
You need to define "accurate". I see just as in your debates before you are completely unable to support, or even come up with definitions for your pathetic presuppositionalist nonsense. You can "big boy" me 'till the cows come home. I KNOW you were taught to force the argument onto your field of battle. "Our discussion" ? How can anyone have a discussion with someone who refuses or is unable to define one's own terms. You STILL have not defined even one.
So you post your thread, then AFTER, demand everyone accept YOUR definitions ? Intellectually dishonest much ?

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-05-2014, 06:45 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 06:12 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 03:07 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Why is is that when asking a question here, I am frequently countered with requests to define my terms, most of which are terms found in common usage and are relatively unambiguous?

Most of the requests were obvious humor; however, the request to define "belief" was likely not.

Mine is not humor. Who is this "we"?

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
01-05-2014, 06:48 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 11:56 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 03:46 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I want to see Jeremy and TrainWreck go at it! ... Best fight EVER! Smile
(30-04-2014 02:54 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  To what do we owe our beliefs?
Authority - the guardians of the areas of information.

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.

I am right, and they are wrong.

Yet another broad-brush generalization like you claimed we wouldn't be able to find in your posts.

Fucking moron.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
01-05-2014, 06:52 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 04:58 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 03:13 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  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.

Equivocate much, asshole?

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
01-05-2014, 06:56 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2014 07:57 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 05:22 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Now, for those who are wearing big boy pants and not diapers, let us continue our discussion.

That would exclude you, moron.


Quote: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?

No.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
01-05-2014, 06:57 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 05:50 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 04:58 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

When it comes to the definitions of some words, atheist, are confused, because they have not figured out that they need to sort the semantics that are unwittingly systematized to favor the inconsistencies of theism. And if they do not smarten-up in the immediate, the Christians are going to take the credit for straightening it out. And atheists are going to find themselves in the same position as the blacks claiming that they know social justice, but evidence reveals that they cannot organize community, because they do not trust each other.
(28-04-2014 11:03 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  I need to know the definitions of the following words that atheists agree are correct:
  1. atheism
  2. humanism
  3. secularism
  4. religion
  5. belief
  6. worship

This belongs in the thread you started. There's a forum rule against deliberately causing disruption, and what you're doing across multiple threads qualifies.

“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
01-05-2014, 07:04 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 05:18 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

Consider

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/div...TEXT01.pdf

Dodgy

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
01-05-2014, 10:22 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
(01-05-2014 05:50 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  When it comes to the definitions of some words, atheist, are confused, because they have not figured out that they need to sort the semantics that are unwittingly systematized to favor the inconsistencies of theism. And if they do not smarten-up in the immediate, the Christians are going to take the credit for straightening it out.
You keep making this claim, but I don't recall seeing an explanation of what you believe the problem is, why you think it needs straightening out, or why you think anyone will care or give credit to anyone over it. Did I just miss that or are you playing hide and go seek with us on your premises?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like djhall's post
01-05-2014, 10:24 PM
RE: Ontology of belief
Because he's using Frodo logic.

“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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: