Poll: Do you believe the atheist sex survey is legitimate, or a ploy?
it's legit
yea, this is a scheme
[Show Results]
 
Over ten thousand atheists surveyed???
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-05-2011, 08:08 PM
RE: Over ten thousand atheists surveyed???
A few things:

My post in this thread was quite obviously a joke to everyone here, including you Trainwreck.

No, I am not offended by BeardedDudes analogy. But, perhaps to your suprise, I also do not agree with it. Experience giving a needle (we'll ignore for a second that flu shots are intramuscular and most drugs are injected intraveinously) IS a qualification for giving a flu shot. Perhaps that experience alone does not qualify the person, but it is a valid part of qualification.

You (Trainwreck) are proposing a classification system for all of us. THAT is why you need more qualification than just writing a classification system. And the junkie changing his brake pads better know what he's doing. If his brakes fail it puts people besides him in danger. So you're damn right his car should be dis-qualified from being on the road if he does it wrong!!!!!! Just because he does it, doesn't make it ok.

So the question arises: what WOULD qualify you to provide a classification system for us? Well, for starters, a system that is better than what we have to a degree that makes changing things worthwhile would be great. I read your page and was unimpressed. What makes me qualified to give my opinion? You wrote it for me, that's what. If your system is not accepted by those you wrote it for (that would be everyone in this case) then it's simply not good enough. Sorry. You can collect your consolation prize on your way out the door. Better luck next time. Careful, that first step is a doozy.

One last thing. If Dewy is so biased towards Christianity, what makes you so sure that the Christians are going to toss it out in favor of your system?

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stark Raving's post
25-05-2011, 09:32 PM
RE: Over ten thousand atheists surveyed???
I bet you a tenner he would have said something along the lines of "See! atheists can't agree on ANYTHING! Thats why you need a system to organize your ideology into a legitimate political party!"
Of course he won't now simply because I said he would Wink

Hey brother christian, with your high and mighty errand, your actions speak so loud, I can't hear a word you're saying.

"This machine kills fascists..."

"Well this machine kills commies!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2011, 11:16 PM
RE: Over ten thousand atheists surveyed???
I was thinking of informing him that there is an atheist party in the US now. Just to kind of make him feel silly.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 05:01 AM
RE: Over ten thousand atheists surveyed???
I would like you all to know that he still has not sent me that pm. I guess he didn't expect to get called on his bluff.

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 11:56 AM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2011 01:20 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Over ten thousand atheists surveyed???
(25-05-2011 11:16 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I was thinking of informing him that there is an atheist party in the US now. Just to kind of make him feel silly.
Oh, I feel so silly???
How did you become aware of it?
Why is it nothing but a page of advertising that it is coming - it makes me feel so silly looking at something so silly???
And how about this image - I can only guess where this organization is going as far as serving people.
[Image: tn_earthEX100.gif]
Do you thing it is fair to say that they think that politics is lead by people who do not understand the solar system, and that the world is flat??? And would it be fair to say that they think they can devise better legislation because they are not adversely effected by such beliefs? Or are they just a bunch of disgruntled types who just want to bash the Christians with their parodies?


(25-05-2011 09:32 PM)UnderTheMicroscope Wrote:  I bet you a tenner he would have said something along the lines of "See! atheists can't agree on ANYTHING! Thats why you need a system to organize your ideology into a legitimate political party!"
Of course he won't now simply because I said he would Wink
Are you sure that I am reasoning that atheists cannot agree on anything??? I'm making the claim that atheists claim that they cannot agree on anything. It is bizarre how atheists make that claim that they're all a bunch of different snow flakes, but somehow accept that atheist fit nicely into the few political parties that are dominated by Christians and how Christians think!

The reason I am championing that atheists need to form a political party is so that they can bring about the better legislation to guide political districts. If atheists are going to be the champions of critical thinking and reason, with the charge that Christians lack critical thinking, why not demonstrate to the Christians how it works in developing better legislation?


(25-05-2011 08:08 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  You (Trainwreck) are proposing a classification system for all of us. THAT is why you need more qualification than just writing a classification system.
What are you thinking??? There is no qualification system, because there is no precedent that assumes that library classification systems have an effect on society. Find a library that has a law regulating what classification system it must adhere to. Assuming that an anything might have possible detrimental effects on society is the reasoning for government regulation, but there is no regulation for library classification. And it is obvious that the library science field is not producing any alternative systems for libraries because they, like you, assume there is no possibility, and why try when there is no assumption that the systems are erroneous to the detriment of the communities they serve.

(25-05-2011 08:08 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  So the question arises: what WOULD qualify you to provide a classification system for us? Well, for starters, a system that is better than what we have to a degree that makes changing things worthwhile would be great.
You do not know what makes a library classification system better, because there is no criterion by which to evaluate the ontological accuracy.

(25-05-2011 08:08 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  I read your page and was unimpressed. What makes me qualified to give my opinion? You wrote it for me, that's what.
You lack the qualification to opine a critical review, because you have no credible study in the field. When we have credible study in a field we demonstrate it by providing detailed descriptive analysis of item that other people can use to compare the to their personal understanding of the item in review.

If you were to review a dog's obedience, which would be a review of the trainer's ability, you are going to describe the dog's behavior in considerably more detail and specific terms then just claiming that you were "unimpressed," because you want to demonstrate to the trainer in question that you know what you are talking about.

Notice how I demonstrate my ability to describe the DDC and LCC.
from TrainWrecks site Wrote:Dewey is based on the elementary school curriculum - the ambition was that if subjects were arranged with respect to how they are taught it would facilitate learning, but in actuality it may only be applicable to facilitating elementary school teachers. The Library of Congress is based on legislative qualities, topics unaffected by law, followed by topics that are affected by law - probably good for law schools, and may explain why Jeopardy is dominated by lawyers, as college libraries use the system because it is a freebie from the US government.


(25-05-2011 08:08 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  If your system is not accepted by those you wrote it for (that would be everyone in this case) then it's simply not good enough.
That is correct, but the problem that you are not recognizing is that you are not developing your qualification to judge as I explained can be recognized by your opinion. I realize that understanding classification systems is very difficult, what I am doing is using you and atheists to demonstrate how irrational you are, and that you are not critical thinkers, and that you do not recognize science and reasoning that can be used to the betterment of society; because if you were, in this case the least you would do, is acknowledge that you are not qualified to understand what you are reviewing. But you and atheists in general should, at least, recognize that the Dewey is biased to Christianity, and tout that as a another atheist complaint against them.

(25-05-2011 08:08 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  One last thing. If Dewy is so biased towards Christianity, what makes you so sure that the Christians are going to toss it out in favor of your system?
Because obviously that bias has not worked, Christians see a deterioration of religion in America; and my system can be customized to accommodate any bias. I assure you the Christians, who control society, are not opposed to the advancements that science can provide.

(25-05-2011 08:08 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Sorry. You can collect your consolation prize on your way out the door. Better luck next time. Careful, that first step is a doozy.
I'll be getting the grand prize, eventually, including a scientific theory/law attributed to me.



(26-05-2011 05:01 AM)Norseman Wrote:  I would like you all to know that he still has not sent me that pm. I guess he didn't expect to get called on his bluff.
Please, didn't you get the joke?

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
26-05-2011, 09:41 PM
RE: Over ten thousand atheists surveyed???
All of what you said comes down to one simple point Trainwreck. You say I, as well as my fellow atheists are not qualified to judge your classification system. That it is complex and beyond my understanding. Basically, you are saying I just don't get it. Ok. Fair enough. But if that's the case, why the heck would you ever expect me to support it???? First you say we should be championing your system, then you tell us we can't judge it. If your system was as good as you say, we COULD understand it. And even if we couldn't, asking us to support it is pretty much the worst logic I've ever heard.

You are correct when you say I am not in a position to fully understand classification. For that very reason, for me to support it, I need you, or someone willing to vouch for you, that can SHOW ME WHY THEY ARE QUALIFIED TO ASSES THIS SYSTEM. Otherwise, you should neither expect, nor ask for, my support.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 09:51 PM
RE: Over ten thousand atheists surveyed???
(26-05-2011 09:41 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  QUALIFIED TO ASSES

I would like to take whatever courses would qualify me.

Please.


[Image: Grammar_Nazi_Logo.jpg]

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 09:54 PM
RE: Over ten thousand atheists surveyed???
Damn you Buddy Christ!!! Foiled again!

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2011, 03:09 PM
RE: Over ten thousand atheists surveyed???
I can't believe 6 pages into this and not once has anyone pointed out the humor in someone questioning whether people are "faking it" on a survey about sex!

Anyway ....

Hey Ronald,

First, I'm going to give you credit for posting, hands down, the funniest comment in this thread, as follows:

That is a straw man, category error, argument, because although bald is not a hair color, it is a hair style.

That made me shoot milk out of my nose. And, I wasn't even drinking milk when I read it.

Here's the problem ... no, that's not right. There are several problems so saying "the" isn't right. I've only time to list a few so work with me here. Anyway, listing the issues I see, in no particular order:

First, you keep complaining that no one is following you and pushing for your super terrific classification system and how can we not see the light of your brilliance? Well, I'm going to let you in on something and I hope you take this as a learning in self awareness and in the spirit in which it is meant. Anyway, here is the problem in a nutshell: you're a dick. And, people generally don't follow dicks. They don't listen to them and are not interested in what they have to say. Being right is only half the battle. the other half is you have to get people to actually listen to you. The problem you have is that people are not going to listen to you because, again, you're a dick. Until and unless you get past being a dick, I think you're just howling at the wind.

Second, focusing on form over substance and things like how to classify everything seems largely irrelevant to most of the world at large. Telling us we have to look at "atheist" dictionaries" is a ridiculous way to expect people to move forward. Words are basically defined terms where society agrees upon the meaning. If we can't all communicate in the same language, then it is impossible for us to have any discourse, political or otherwise. I actually do agree with you that being able to properly organize ones thoughts and arguments is important. However, the idea that all of mankind's problems and woes can be solved by properly classifying information seems rather ludicrous to me. Now, perhaps you're right on this and I'm wrong. The problem is I'm really not willing to find out because, as I mentioned above, you're a dick, and I'm really not the least bit interested in what you have to say.

Third, you're a Yankees fan. The Yankees represent all that is wrong and evil in the world. Had you been a fellow Mets fan we may have had something in common and a way to breach our differences. But, a Yankee fan? I don't see it happening.

Fourth, what is the point of a classification system that can solve world hunger and help me find my lost car keys if no one but you can understand it. And, has it occurred to you that maybe the reason no one else can understand it is because it is jibberish? Most likely not. I suppose it would help if you would take the time to actually explain the whole thing to us and help us understand its importance. Perhaps then we would flock to you as our atheist messiah and start playing pinball or something, maybe putting bar codes on the whole world so we knew what it was and how it was classified while chanting your name. I suppose that could happen if we were willing to only listen. However that seems unlikely to happen because ... well, probably no point in highlight the whole "dick" thing again as I think you get the point.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
27-05-2011, 05:41 PM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2011 06:24 PM by TrainWreck.)
Start a new discussion
(27-05-2011 03:09 PM)BnW Wrote:  I suppose it would help if you would take the time to actually explain the whole thing to us and help us understand its importance.
What ever you do, do not read my signature.

It would be nice if anybody were willing to admit that they do not understand the Dewey and Library of Congress systems. Because there is no way anybody understands them better than me, because there is nothing written about them, and that would subsequently lead to realizing that our education about them only concerned finding the call numbers - we were never taught to understand how they arranged subjects, which would be a logic system.

(27-05-2011 03:09 PM)BnW Wrote:  . . . has it occurred to you that maybe the reason no one else can understand it is because it is jibberish?
If anybody is going to make the claim that they understand the Dewey or Library of Congress systems, they are dishonest; because if anybody understood them they would be asking specific questions rather than general. There is no way anyone with an understanding of classification could review the website and ask for more information in general - they would be concerned about the main classes and collation. That being said, you should be mindful that there is no precedent for understanding library classification systems as they are imposed on society without scrutiny, or your skepticism; and that is why I have provided analysis of the Dewey and LCC, and you should put some effort into assuring that you either understand my analyses, or can at least provide a critique of my analyses, including a better description of the systems. Otherwise, you should accept my authority on the subject just as you accept the authority of dictionary definitions, because you do not know any better, and haven't the critical thinking skills to wage opposition.

Start a new thread if you want to go any further.

The reason it is important that communities understand library classification systems is because if they were ontologically accurate they would provide the structural logic for understanding knowledge, which subsequently leads to better critical thinking in social discourse, which subsequently leads to better political and social orderliness.
(27-05-2011 03:09 PM)BnW Wrote:  First, I'm going to give you credit for posting, hands down, the funniest comment in this thread, as follows: That is a straw man, category error, argument, because although bald is not a hair color, it is a hair style.
That made me shoot milk out of my nose. And, I wasn't even drinking milk when I read it. Here's the problem ... no, that's not right. There are several problems so saying "the" isn't right. I've only time to list a few so work with me here. Anyway, listing the issues I see, in no particular order:
Excellent reasoning - how about you explain this one for me?
(25-05-2011 08:47 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  If atheism is the antonym of religion then how are you going to justify the understanding of Buddhism as a religion without a god?
'Merriam-Webster Wrote:a religion of eastern and central Asia growing out of the teaching of Gautama Buddha that suffering is inherent in life and that one can be liberated from it by mental and moral self-purification
(24-05-2011 12:49 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  religion according to Merriam-Webster (I assume since this is classified information you will accept it):
1 [noncount] : the belief in a god or in a group of gods
Many people turn to religion for comfort in a time of crisis.
2 : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods [count]
There are many religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. Shinto is a religion that is unique to Japan. I think that children should be taught about different religions. [=faiths] It is against my religion [=my beliefs do not allow me] to drink alcohol. [noncount] They advocated for freedom of religion. [=the right to choose what religion to follow and to worship without interference] She no longer participates in organized religion. [=a belief system that has large numbers of followers and a set of rules that must be followed]
3 informal : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group [count]
Hockey is a religion in Canada. Politics are a religion to him. [noncount] Where I live, high school football is religion. Food is religion in this house.

Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back

Synonyms: credo, creed, cult, faith, persuasion
Antonyms: atheism, godlessness

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: