Happy Atheist forum

Community => Life As An Atheist => Topic started by: SidewalkCynic on January 25, 2019, 01:15:44 PM

Title: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 25, 2019, 01:15:44 PM
The Thinking Atheist forum that I was a member of shutdown.

Since 2003, I have been a member of several other atheists forums that have shut down for reasons unknown to me. It's not me, I do not post very often, but I do like to engage when the discussion of unresolved atheist issues arises; which is what prompted me to register - I noticed a recurring issue was recently discussed here.

I believe the over-all reason that atheist forums fail is because of the failure to reach binding resolution of unresolved issues, because of the lack of a reliable system for the review of the arguments. Eventually, members tire of the recurring discussions not resolving the issue, and they rationalize that there is no reason to continue paying their membership dues.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Tank on January 25, 2019, 01:28:08 PM
The Thinking Atheist forum that I was a member of shutdown.

Since 2003, I have been a member of several other atheists forums that have shut down for reasons unknown to me. It's not me, I do not post very often, but I do like to engage when the discussion of unresolved atheist issues arises; which is what prompted me to register - I noticed a recurring issue was recently discussed here.

I believe the over-all reason that atheist forums fail is because of the failure to reach binding resolution of unresolved issues, because of the lack of a reliable system for the review of the arguments. Eventually, members tire of the recurring discussions not resolving the issue, and they rationalize that there is no reason to continue paying their membership dues.

Hi and welcome aboard. I too have been involved in a few atheist forums over the years. It is my impression that they wither due to lack of contribution, implode due to personality clashes or because the owner gets bored/fed up with breaking up fights :D

As you say the issue of dealing with all the same old issues can lead to a forum withering. I came here originally because this was one of the oldest established forums. I am now the official owner of the site. It's quite cheap to host as the database is small due to the fact we don't allow the uploading of images or files. This has the added benefit of preventing us becoming an unwitting conduit for the transfer of illegal material!

Regards
Chris
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Bad Penny II on January 25, 2019, 01:33:14 PM
I believe the over-all reason that atheist forums fail is because of the failure to reach binding resolution of unresolved issues, because of the lack of a reliable system for the review of the arguments.

Welcome, you have heard of the herding cats thing?


. Eventually, members tire of the recurring discussions not resolving the issue, and they rationalize that there is no reason to continue paying their membership dues.

I am the forum fool, banana, octopus, squid.
Only I can ask, what is this unresolved issue?
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 25, 2019, 02:55:38 PM
Welcome, you have heard of the herding cats thing?
Yes, I have; and the problem is that atheists believe that there is an infinite number of differing opinions - that is not true. Although, it appears that there are a tremendous amount of distinguishable opinions, it is not that many - there are only a few rational and reasonable opinions. Atheists are just too lazy to sort it out, and recognize that they behold incorrect concepts (dogma) that were generated by faulty dictionary editors of a bygone era of sophistication, and that they are maintaining the faulty approach to valid reasoning.

Only I can ask, what is this unresolved issue?
The overall issue is addressed in my reply to the "herding cats" anecdote. To get specific, the definitions of two words in the atheists' toolbox is the starting point to deliberate:

Religion: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=16081.0
Atheism: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=15889.0
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 25, 2019, 02:58:21 PM
It's quite cheap to host as the database is small due to the fact we don't allow the uploading of images or files.
Well, that is cool. That solves a lot of problems, as well - helps keep focus on the discussion.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 25, 2019, 05:45:14 PM
Welcome!
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Dark Lightning on January 25, 2019, 05:54:25 PM
Welcome!
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Tank on January 25, 2019, 06:12:29 PM
Moved thread as it's heading down the discussion route.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Icarus on January 26, 2019, 02:08:36 AM
Welcome SC. 

The HAF forum distinguishes itself by not becoming hung up on atheistic aggravations of Christian, Muslim, Scientology, Mormanism, or other kookery.. There is little profit in bashing the other element of society. (we can do so when appropriate but that is not our main line of thought)  We have other interests that are pleasing to us.....see the photography sections, the one for foodies, the music section,  the science sections, The humor sections, and most of all the human interest commentary wherein we commiserate with each other.  So alright already we are almost all insufferable liberals who sometimes discuss political developments both here in the US and abroad.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Tank on January 26, 2019, 08:30:33 AM
Welcome SC. 

The HAF forum distinguishes itself by not becoming hung up on atheistic aggravations of Christian, Muslim, Scientology, Mormanism, or other kookery.. There is little profit in bashing the other element of society. (we can do so when appropriate but that is not our main line of thought)  We have other interests that are pleasing to us.....see the photography sections, the one for foodies, the music section,  the science sections, The humor sections, and most of all the human interest commentary wherein we commiserate with each other.  So alright already we are almost all insufferable liberals who sometimes discuss political developments both here in the US and abroad.

Well said.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 26, 2019, 03:10:34 PM
Welcome SC.
Thank you - nice to meet you. And everyone. . .

The HAF forum distinguishes itself by not becoming hung up on atheistic aggravations of Christian, Muslim, Scientology, Mormanism, or other kookery.. There is little profit in bashing the other element of society. (we can do so when appropriate but that is not our main line of thought)
When you do, I probably will not - I usually do not care what they do in their irrational campaigns to justify their actions, except when it actually causes harm to the rational approach of humanism.

  We have other interests that are pleasing to us.....see the photography sections, the one for foodies, the music section,  the science sections, The humor sections, and most of all the human interest commentary wherein we commiserate with each other.  So alright already we are almost all insufferable liberals who sometimes discuss political developments both here in the US and abroad.
Politics is the best thing for atheists to concentrate on - Atheism is a political doctrine, humanism is the ontological doctrine that is the proper retort to theism. It is in the best interest of atheists to begin sorting the rational and reasonable from the irrational and unreasonable.

Liberals will see me as conservative, and theist conservatives will see me as liberal. I believe conservative commentators have a much better exercise of reason than liberals; but being an atheist and campaigning for a new government chartering system seemingly lands me in the liberal pile.

I believe that eventually, conservatives will be much more inclined to accept the idea of a new charter system before liberals will. Liberals are more inclined to believe that corruption is inevitable, and the more corrupt, the better the politician; and so, a new system is detrimental to their ability to exploit the inadequacies of the subsisting system.

The solution to the immigration problem is to provide a reliable government charter for the developing nations to eliminate the corruption and educate the population. No system is convertible for use in developing communities. The US system "works," because it is a product of its own soft corruption, but it is deteriorating now, because its optimum aspects cannot handle the inadequacies that are exploited by the tremendous increase of diversity.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Bluenose on January 27, 2019, 11:34:35 AM
The solution to the immigration problem is to provide a reliable government charter for the developing nations to eliminate the corruption and educate the population. No system is convertible for use in developing communities. The US system "works," because it is a product of its own soft corruption, but it is deteriorating now, because its optimum aspects cannot handle the inadequacies that are exploited by the tremendous increase of diversity.

No, the US system does not work.
Exhibit 1: the election of Trump despite overwhelmingly losing the popular vote. 
Exhibit 2: the electoral college, a major cluster fuck if ever there was one
Exhibit 3: ridiculously gerrymandered electoral districts
Exhibit 4: voter suppression
Exhibit 5: the government could not secure supply, but did not fall?  Seriously?

I could go on, but you get the point.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 27, 2019, 03:19:08 PM
I put the word, "works," in quotes, because I understand that it is flawed, and I described how it overcomes its flaws to appear to "work." (I am an excellent reasoner) Although, you have a fair collection of grievances, you have not generated a solution. Who do you want to generate a solution - the overwhelming population of Christian lawyers???

How about the point of the paragraph that you erroneously cherry-picked a specific sentence to contest - how do We fix the corrupt governments of the countries that the people are abandoning for the fucked-up racist Amerikkka? My agenda is to fix it!!! Your agenda is to just contest me! You missed the point, because you are jealous that you could not generate a solution.  It would seem that brilliant liberals would have a plan, other than to just welcome them to the racist country to somehow overwhelm the racist population and redistribute the wealth - eventually the wealth runs out.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Tom62 on January 27, 2019, 03:45:46 PM
Welcome to HAF, SidewalkCynic.
Don't worry, not all HAF members are liberals  ;).
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Tank on January 27, 2019, 03:53:19 PM
"(I am an excellent reasoner)"

In my experience people who say this sort of thing are trying to convince themselves. This adds neither to you case nor your credibility. It means less than nothing to me, nor I suspect anybody else here. Bring your arguments and then walk away and let them do your work for you. If your arguments are that good they don't need your help or force of assertion to convince us.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 27, 2019, 04:01:45 PM
In my experience people who say this sort of thing are trying to convince themselves. This adds neither to you case nor your credibility. It means less than nothing to me, nor I suspect anybody else here.
I doubt that you are encountering such confidence. I did it because BlueNose had such a poor argument.

Bring your arguments and then walk away and let them do your work for you. If your arguments are that good they don't need your help or force of assertion to convince us.
I don't see you, or anyone, presenting reasoned arguments to contest my arguments. You are encountering the dilemma of being proven wrong, not unlike when you confront Christians with arguments refuting the existence of gods. And you are doing just like the Christians, reverting to your dogma of incorrect descriptions and definitions, and just describe my arguments as false in various ways rather than parsing the arguments, and presenting it all to a jury for a review.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 27, 2019, 04:17:37 PM
Welcome to HAF, SidewalkCynic.
Don't worry, not all HAF members are liberals  ;).

That's interesting.

If atheists can identify their subsequent ideological preferences, then a jury system can begin to be organized for the review of arguments, and perhaps we can deliberate binding resolutions to the recurring issues.

Seem possible???
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Recusant on January 27, 2019, 04:46:16 PM
Hello, SidewalkCynic. You assert that "atheism is a political doctrine." I'm unfamiliar with this political doctrine known as atheism. Perhaps you will be so kind as to enlighten me.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 27, 2019, 08:16:57 PM
The definition of atheism has been a recurring discussion/debate on atheist forums for the past fifteen years that I have been monitoring the forums and atheist organizations.

Although, the definitions that describe atheism somewhere along the lines that it is a personal lack of belief in a supernatural dimension of human existence, are not incorrect, they are somewhat unsophisticated, because they were composed by theists, if not atheists under the stress of oppression or compulsion to be as compliant as possible. Ultimately, the nuanced definitions continue to be recurring discussions at atheist forums.

I contend that it is best to define atheism to be a political doctrine, because I agree that it is a conscious decision to reject the notion of a supernatural dimension, it is not the "default position," and ultimately, anyone who does not believe in divine providence is probably going to oppose theist based doctrine for the bases of public policy.

Upon casual review of atheist organizations it is not that difficult to recognize that their agenda is political activism. Their agenda is not merely to just get the word out that atheism is a lack of belief in gods - make no mistake about it, they oppose theist based doctrine for the reasoning of public policy.

Ultimately, I believe atheists need to go over everything with scrutiny and scientific method to eradicate the errors in the definitions of all words. The definitions of words are doctrine - the definitions are determined by some authority, and we accept their authority understanding that their methods for determining the definitions are not scientific.

Humanism is the proper ontological doctrine that suggests that humans define reality.

Theism is an ontological doctrine that suggests that the supernatural deity defines reality.

It is absurd to define an ontological doctrine in opposition to a defined ontological doctrine, which is what you are doing when you define atheism as a "default position," or anything other than a political doctrine.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on January 28, 2019, 12:43:02 AM
The solution to the immigration problem is to provide a reliable government charter for the developing nations to eliminate the corruption and educate the population. No system is convertible for use in developing communities. The US system "works," because it is a product of its own soft corruption, but it is deteriorating now, because its optimum aspects cannot handle the inadequacies that are exploited by the tremendous increase of diversity.

No, the US system does not work.
Exhibit 1: the election of Trump despite overwhelmingly losing the popular vote. 
Exhibit 2: the electoral college, a major cluster fuck if ever there was one
Exhibit 3: ridiculously gerrymandered electoral districts
Exhibit 4: voter suppression
Exhibit 5: the government could not secure supply, but did not fall?  Seriously?

Probably a derail, but I agree.  This election more than any other has pointed out the inherent weaknesses in our particular form of democracy.  The Electoral College was a compromise entered into 250 years ago, but its time has come. It needs to go.  Straight-on democratic voting is what we need.  The Presidency is the one office that we all vote for.  Let it be government of the people, by the people, and for the people, like it's supposed to be.  Eliminate the EC and have a straight majority vote.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Recusant on January 28, 2019, 01:12:20 AM
In your post, SidewalkCynic, I don't see a succinct definition of the political doctrine that is atheism.

There is no need for a "sophisticated" definition of the word atheism. Atheism in and of itself is not complicated. Nor does it inherently involve any political position.

In some households atheism is indeed the default position. That isn't the defining aspect of atheism though, even in those households. In some societies (a large part of European society, for example) there will be very little if any oppression or compulsion to conform to religion. It seems to me you're trying to define atheism from an American point of view, but that's not a useful perspective from which to define something that is much older than the US and which doesn't exist only in the US.

Atheist organizations are not the defining characteristic of atheism. Atheism would exist regardless of whether they existed, and regardless of any political activity they engage in.

Your assertion regarding definitions of words being "determined by some authority" fails to describe that authority. If you believe that the "authority" is lexicographers, you're mistaken. Words had meanings that were understood by people long before anybody even considered writing a dictionary. As I've pointed out elsewhere, dictionaries are generally descriptive, not prescriptive. Even if some misguided person attempts to write a prescriptive dictionary, the language will continue to evolve regardless; it's futile to attempt to fix language like an insect in amber unless it's already basically dead, as in the case of Latin, for example.

The authority that dictionaries possess only exists to the extent that they present an accurate description of what people generally mean when they use a word. The only real authority is the people who speak and write the language. When new words are coined, they enter the dictionary if enough people use them--lexicographers don't invent the words themselves. They follow the language rather than leading it.

Your project of atheists going "over everything with scrutiny and scientific method to eradicate the errors in the definitions of all words" is based on the same misunderstanding of how language and dictionaries generally work. A group of atheists could waste years writing up their prescriptive dictionary using "scrutiny and scientific method" but they can't force anybody to agree with their definitions.

It seems to me you're bringing an argument here from elsewhere when you talk about defining atheism as the "default position." As far as I'm aware nobody here has claimed that that is the definition of atheism, and if they did I for one would dispute it.

You haven't presented an effective argument for redefining atheism as a political doctrine. Nor have you argued effectively in support of the idea that atheism is a doctrine in the first place. I think that's because it simply is not. Not a political doctrine, nor a doctrine of any sort. If it were otherwise you'd have given clear and indisputable reasoning to support your assertions rather than leaning entirely on what you claim is a lack of sophistication and rather vague handwaving toward "scientific method."

Certainly some atheists engage in political activity based partly or entirely on their atheism, but that political activity is a result of atheism informing their political focus, rather than atheism itself being inherently political.

ETA: I found your proposed definition in another thread.

Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist based doctrine for public policy.

From this we must conclude that apolitical atheists or atheists whose atheism doesn't inform their political position aren't "true" atheists. That is patent rubbish.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Recusant on January 28, 2019, 01:34:14 AM
Probably a derail, but I agree.  This election more than any other has pointed out the inherent weaknesses in our particular form of democracy.  The Electoral College was a compromise entered into 250 years ago, but its time has come. It needs to go.  Straight-on democratic voting is what we need.  The Presidency is the one office that we all vote for.  Let it be government of the people, by the people, and for the people, like it's supposed to be.  Eliminate the EC and have a straight majority vote.

I think you'd agree though that the Electoral College is very unlikely to be eliminated any time in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on January 28, 2019, 02:42:21 AM
Probably a derail, but I agree.  This election more than any other has pointed out the inherent weaknesses in our particular form of democracy.  The Electoral College was a compromise entered into 250 years ago, but its time has come. It needs to go.  Straight-on democratic voting is what we need.  The Presidency is the one office that we all vote for.  Let it be government of the people, by the people, and for the people, like it's supposed to be.  Eliminate the EC and have a straight majority vote.

I think you'd agree though that the Electoral College is very unlikely to be eliminated any time in the foreseeable future.

One can hope and dream.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Bluenose on January 28, 2019, 03:06:01 AM
I put the word, "works," in quotes, because I understand that it is flawed, and I described how it overcomes its flaws to appear to "work." (I am an excellent reasoner) Although, you have a fair collection of grievances, you have not generated a solution. Who do you want to generate a solution - the overwhelming population of Christian lawyers???

How about the point of the paragraph that you erroneously cherry-picked a specific sentence to contest - how do We fix the corrupt governments of the countries that the people are abandoning for the fucked-up racist Amerikkka? My agenda is to fix it!!! Your agenda is to just contest me! You missed the point, because you are jealous that you could not generate a solution.  It would seem that brilliant liberals would have a plan, other than to just welcome them to the racist country to somehow overwhelm the racist population and redistribute the wealth - eventually the wealth runs out.

Actually I think there is a solution, but I doubt you'll pay any mind to it.  You claimed my argument was poor.  I did not make an argument, I just took issue with a ridiculous claim you made.

However the solution to the American political malaise would be to multi faceted.  Abolish the electoral college for a start.  Institute an independent electoral commission to determine electoral boundaries and run elections.  Separate the head of state from the business of running the government, his or her job would be to represent the State in a ceremonial manner, to give assent to legislation passed in both houses, to be the titular head of the military and to swear in ministers (or whatever you want to call them).  Finally, institute an office separate from the president to be the head of government who is the person who commands a majority in the lower house.

I'm not holding my breath expecting any of this to happen.  The US seems enamoured of their current system in much the same way as they are of their guns.  Everybody else in the world can see that it's crazy, but American exceptionalism make most US citizens bling to the obvious
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: jumbojak on January 28, 2019, 04:29:48 AM
Before we institute a parliamentary system we'd have to take a long, hard look at the shitshow Theresa May is running right now. Nothing is perfect, or even seems even very good.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 28, 2019, 02:49:36 PM
From this we must conclude that apolitical atheists or atheists whose atheism doesn't inform their political position aren't "true" atheists. That is patent rubbish.

They are humanists - they would be referring to themselves in error, if they called themselves, "atheists," if they were apolitical. It seems absurd to believe that they would not be offended by theist doctrine for the basis of public policy - the classic example of a law mandating church attendance.

Humanism is the ontological doctrine that humans define reality. Theism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that the supernatural deities create and define reality. It is absurd to define an ontological doctrine opposed to a defined ontological doctrine, which is what is being committed when assigning "atheism," as anything other than a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine for the bases of public policy. When atheists claim that atheism is a decision, or unbelief, or whatever along those lines, they are assigning it to be an ontological doctrine/principle for understanding the rest of reality - absent of supernatural intervention.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 28, 2019, 03:09:59 PM
Actually I think there is a solution, but I doubt you'll pay any mind to it.  You claimed my argument was poor.  I did not make an argument, I just took issue with a ridiculous claim you made.
If the USA does not "work" by way of soft corruption, then what explains the past 250 years - divine intervention???

However the solution to the American political malaise would be to multi faceted. . .
I'm not holding my breath expecting any of this to happen.  The US seems enamoured of their current system in much the same way as they are of their guns.  Everybody else in the world can see that it's crazy, but American exceptionalism make most US citizens bling to the obvious
This leads me to understand that you are not a US citizen.

I believe that the United States needs to reorder the entire government charter system. The state and municipalities are all a mess - they just keep quiet, so nobody notices them, because the national media focuses in on the national politics, because the national politicians have to appear to be necessary, otherwise the people will realize that they are not necessary.

The whole system needs to be reordered using the technology that we have, now, that they did not have in the past to structure a three-level government that graduates the arguments and appointment processes. The anticipated system would then be interpret-able for all of the sophisticated languages and convertible for the three sizes of municipal governments dependent on the population of the municipalities. And this will lead to world peace.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Tank on January 29, 2019, 08:47:53 AM
Roger aka SidewalkCynic. You're a dickhead. But we like dickheads here! Your introduction was shit. No two ways about it, it was shit.

What you should have done is not walked into our 'bar' like you fucking owned it. You don't. Simple.

Found this about you online Why Do I Give Money To Funny Homeless People? (https://amyeverafter.com/why-do-i-give-money-to-funny-homeless-people/)

You need better PR and a better attitude when you walk off the street into a 'bar'.

Now I have a face and a bit of background you are much more human and approachable. And then people may at least listen to your ideas.

Your posts are very arrogant and uninviting, they are presumptuous, dictatorial and in no way invite interest.

So welcome aboard Richard.

 
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: jumbojak on January 29, 2019, 03:41:13 PM
^That's incredible!
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Tank on January 29, 2019, 03:49:45 PM
^That's incredible!

I know! He comes over as such a D******* until one sees he has a sense of humour!
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on January 29, 2019, 04:11:04 PM
https://sites.google.com/site/sidewalkcynic/home

https://get.google.com/albumarchive/113230016497754964752/album/AF1QipOlzH2DYt7OPlYwrxXnF3bHWS6blqxXt9L-AY3u
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Unsapien on March 10, 2019, 09:00:12 AM
Well I read it.

 Even though my bullshit detector started beeping as soon as I read "atheist dogma" in my intro thread.

Nothing here worth responding to, though before Tank found your picture Sidewalkcynic, I thought you were a new incarnation Atheistech from the old TTA forum.

I have no unresolved issues with my atheism.

BTW I also don't collect stamps, but since that doesn't seem to bother anyone I don't identify as an aphilatelist.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Dark Lightning on March 11, 2019, 02:44:41 AM
I've tried getting back onto AF.org from time to time, but the last time I tried it wouldn't accept my password and the reset didn't work. I might try again down the road.

So, what gets you banned?

I get banned for claiming that atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy. Care to join in the argument against me, or are you truly an independent and critical thinker, and not bound by atheist dogma?
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=16080.msg384569#msg384569

Bolding mine. Where have you been banned for posting what is obviously nonsense? You haven't been banned for posting this nonsense here. Your second sentence is an obvious stab at trying to make atheists seem dogmatic and not using critical thinking. It makes me think that you aren't really an atheist, but a closet theist looking to ruffle feathers. I'm not going to argue with you about it, as I consider it nonsense. It's in the same category as claiming First Amendment free speech rights, when we aren't on a government website. I'll be ignoring your posts from here on, as I personally consider them to be what is called in boxing, "Leading with one's chin", and the argument is just going to go down a rabbit hole. Cheers.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Bluenose on March 11, 2019, 04:47:14 AM
Roger aka SidewalkCynic. You're a dickhead. But we like dickheads here! Your introduction was shit. No two ways about it, it was shit.

What you should have done is not walked into our 'bar' like you fucking owned it. You don't. Simple.

Found this about you online Why Do I Give Money To Funny Homeless People? (https://amyeverafter.com/why-do-i-give-money-to-funny-homeless-people/)

You need better PR and a better attitude when you walk off the street into a 'bar'.

Now I have a face and a bit of background you are much more human and approachable. And then people may at least listen to your ideas.

Your posts are very arrogant and uninviting, they are presumptuous, dictatorial and in no way invite interest.

So welcome aboard Richard.

Well, I've just put him in my mental "ignore" list.  I am not interested in having "debate" with someone who thinks he knows better than everybody else and dogmatically insists his idiosyncratic definition of words somehow trumps the dictionary definitions.
Title: Re: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on March 11, 2019, 11:39:14 PM
Where have you been banned for posting what is obviously nonsense?
I was banned from Atheist Network way back in 2003 - the forum has been down for years. Then I was banned from FRDB, and the other incarnation they had; and they have shut down as well.

You haven't been banned for posting this nonsense here. Your second sentence is an obvious stab at trying to make atheists seem dogmatic and not using critical thinking. It makes me think that you aren't really an atheist, but a closet theist looking to ruffle feathers. I'm not going to argue with you about it, as I consider it nonsense. It's in the same category as claiming First Amendment free speech rights, when we aren't on a government website. I'll be ignoring your posts from here on, as I personally consider them to be what is called in boxing, "Leading with one's chin", and the argument is just going to go down a rabbit hole. Cheers.
Well, you, like every other atheist, are wrong. The problem stems from using the layman's definition of theism - belief in supernatural entities.

Theism is a doctrine - theists believe the doctrine. The definition that atheism is a non-belief, or whatever, is a convoluted definition based on the erroneous layman's definition.

-isms are always doctrines, except for the magical theism and atheism terms.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on March 11, 2019, 11:49:20 PM
Well, I've just put him in my mental "ignore" list.  I am not interested in having "debate" with someone who thinks he knows better than everybody else and dogmatically insists his idiosyncratic definition of words somehow trumps the dictionary definitions.

And that is the same dogmatic rationalization of the conventional wisdom that rejected Galileo's theory of the world being a sphere, Einstein's theory that light bends around the planets, and Flemming's discovery of penicillin.

The dictionaries lack a reliable classification system for stabilizing the definitions of words - I am delivering the reliable classification system.
Title: Re: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Recusant on March 12, 2019, 12:21:28 AM
Astigmatism, alcoholism, cretinism . . .

Criticism, colloquialism, barbarianism . . .
Title: Re: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Tank on March 12, 2019, 07:56:39 AM
Astigmatism, alcoholism, cretinism . . .

Criticism, colloquialism, barbarianism . . .

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Tank on March 12, 2019, 07:58:09 AM
Where have you been banned for posting what is obviously nonsense?
I was banned from Atheist Network way back in 2003 - the forum has been down for years. Then I was banned from FRDB, and the other incarnation they had; and they have shut down as well.

You haven't been banned for posting this nonsense here. Your second sentence is an obvious stab at trying to make atheists seem dogmatic and not using critical thinking. It makes me think that you aren't really an atheist, but a closet theist looking to ruffle feathers. I'm not going to argue with you about it, as I consider it nonsense. It's in the same category as claiming First Amendment free speech rights, when we aren't on a government website. I'll be ignoring your posts from here on, as I personally consider them to be what is called in boxing, "Leading with one's chin", and the argument is just going to go down a rabbit hole. Cheers.
Well, you, like every other atheist, are wrong. The problem stems from using the layman's definition of theism - belief in supernatural entities.

Theism is a doctrine - theists believe the doctrine. The definition that atheism is a non-belief, or whatever, is a convoluted definition based on the erroneous layman's definition.

-isms are always doctrines, except for the magical theism and atheism terms.

I think after a blanket statement like that your personal credibility is non-existent.  :snicker1:
Title: Re: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Unsapien on March 12, 2019, 01:04:43 PM

You haven't been banned for posting this nonsense here. Your second sentence is an obvious stab at trying to make atheists seem dogmatic and not using critical thinking. It makes me think that you aren't really an atheist, but a closet theist looking to ruffle feathers. I'm not going to argue with you about it, as I consider it nonsense. It's in the same category as claiming First Amendment free speech rights, when we aren't on a government website. I'll be ignoring your posts from here on, as I personally consider them to be what is called in boxing, "Leading with one's chin", and the argument is just going to go down a rabbit hole. Cheers.
Well, you, like every other atheist, are wrong. The problem stems from using the layman's definition of theism - belief in supernatural entities.

Theism is a doctrine - theists believe the doctrine. The definition that atheism is a non-belief, or whatever, is a convoluted definition based on the erroneous layman's definition.

-isms are always doctrines, except for the magical theism and atheism terms.

Clearly you don't understand how language works. The word means whatever the common usage understands it to mean, therefore you are in fact not using the word in a way that is commonly understood. You want it to mean a type of doctrine, it is not, you can -ism all you like, it won't change a thing.

Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Unsapien on March 12, 2019, 03:32:12 PM
Well, I've just put him in my mental "ignore" list.  I am not interested in having "debate" with someone who thinks he knows better than everybody else and dogmatically insists his idiosyncratic definition of words somehow trumps the dictionary definitions.

And that is the same dogmatic rationalization of the conventional wisdom that rejected Galileo's theory of the world being a sphere, Einstein's theory that light bends around the planets, and Flemming's discovery of penicillin.

The dictionaries lack a reliable classification system for stabilizing the definitions of words - I am delivering the reliable classification system.

Stabilizing the definition of words  :???: , why would anybody want to do that?... even if the was possible, which it's isn't. A language that does not change as society changes would eventually become useless.
Title: Re: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on March 12, 2019, 05:31:25 PM
Clearly you don't understand how language works. The word means whatever the common usage understands it to mean, therefore you are in fact not using the word in a way that is commonly understood. You want it to mean a type of doctrine, it is not, you can -ism all you like, it won't change a thing.
Theism is a doctrine - all of the dictionary definitions are publishing it as so, because the psychological condition that the definition with "belief" prescribes is faulty - you do not need a doctor to evaluate the condition - you identify yourself as compliant with the doctrine.

You are describing the lack of scientific stabilization of language. Eventually, as society approaches the more "scientific" order, the need for a more stabilized language becomes more apparent.
Title: Re: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on March 12, 2019, 05:33:38 PM
-isms are always doctrines, except for the magical theism and atheism terms.
I think after a blanket statement like that your personal credibility is non-existent.  :snicker1:
Gee whiz - I am so embarrassed. You guys are so smart.

Why do you not transfer your posts to the appropriate thread?
Title: Re: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Unsapien on March 12, 2019, 05:44:33 PM
Clearly you don't understand how language works. The word means whatever the common usage understands it to mean, therefore you are in fact not using the word in a way that is commonly understood. You want it to mean a type of doctrine, it is not, you can -ism all you like, it won't change a thing.
Theism is a doctrine - all of the dictionary definitions are publishing it as so, because the psychological condition that the definition with "belief" prescribes is faulty - you do not need a doctor to evaluate the condition - you identify yourself as compliant with the doctrine.

You are describing the lack of scientific stabilization of language. Eventually, as society approaches the more "scientific" order, the need for a more stabilized language becomes more apparent.

Theism is a doctrine, atheism is an absence of a doctrine not an "anti-doctrine" that would be antitheism. I can be both at the same time, but they have different meanings.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on March 12, 2019, 06:19:11 PM
You haven't been banned for posting this nonsense here. Your second sentence is an obvious stab at trying to make atheists seem dogmatic and not using critical thinking. It makes me think that you aren't really an atheist, but a closet theist looking to ruffle feathers. I'm not going to argue with you about it, as I consider it nonsense. It's in the same category as claiming First Amendment free speech rights, when we aren't on a government website. I'll be ignoring your posts from here on, as I personally consider them to be what is called in boxing, "Leading with one's chin", and the argument is just going to go down a rabbit hole. Cheers.
Well, you, like every other atheist, are wrong. The problem stems from using the layman's definition of theism - belief in supernatural entities.

Theism is a doctrine - theists believe the doctrine. The definition that atheism is a non-belief, or whatever, is a convoluted definition based on the erroneous layman's definition.

-isms are always doctrines, except for the magical theism and atheism terms.
Astigmatism, alcoholism, cretinism . . .

Criticism, colloquialism, barbarianism . . .
Good argument. The medical maladies are diagnosis based on comparisons to documented (stabilized/doctrine) conditions.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Isms

Colloquialism and barbarianism, are social descriptions based on comparisons to doctrine by outside observers, as well.

Criticism is an interesting argument. Clearly, a reference to outside observation making comparisons.
Title: Re: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on March 12, 2019, 06:20:52 PM
Astigmatism, alcoholism, cretinism . . .

Criticism, colloquialism, barbarianism . . .

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=16080.msg385587#msg385587
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on March 12, 2019, 06:27:45 PM
Theism is a doctrine, atheism is an absence of a doctrine not an "anti-doctrine" that would be antitheism. I can be both at the same time, but they have different meanings.
Theism is an ontological doctrine that suggests that a "supernatural" entity defines reality.

Humanism is the ontological doctrine that suggests that humans define reality.

Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine as the basis for public policy.

When you do not recognize atheism as a political doctrine, then you are unwittingly assigning it to the psycho-ontological category that you understand theism to be when you define it as belief in gods, or whatever.
Title: Re: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on March 12, 2019, 06:28:31 PM
Theism is a doctrine, atheism is an absence of a doctrine not an "anti-doctrine" that would be antitheism. I can be both at the same time, but they have different meanings.
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=16080.msg385589#msg385589
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on March 12, 2019, 06:49:48 PM
It makes me think that you aren't really an atheist, but a closet theist looking to ruffle feathers.
Of course, it could not possibly be because I am an independent and critical thinker. No, that would require me to comply with your ideas of how things are supposed to be.

Word salads like this do not offend your sensibilities because it complies with the psycho-ontological condition that you want atheism to be.
Atheism is the realisation that there is no substantive, reasonable, rational and repetitive evidence for the existence of a sentient intelligence that created and controls the Universe we exist in.

The mere fact that atheists perpetually continue to better define atheism proves that you are not in the agreement that you believe it to be.

But for some reason atheists get all upset when I correctly identify it as a political doctrine!!!

And when you review the objectives of the organized atheist activities you find that they are political organizations campaigning against theist doctrine as the basis of public policy - exclusively!
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Recusant on March 12, 2019, 08:13:24 PM
-isms are always doctrines, except for the magical theism and atheism terms.
Astigmatism, alcoholism, cretinism . . .

Criticism, colloquialism, barbarianism . . .
Good argument. The medical maladies are diagnosis based on comparisons to documented (stabilized/doctrine) conditions.

https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Isms

Colloquialism and barbarianism, are social descriptions based on comparisons to doctrine by outside observers, as well.

Criticism is an interesting argument. Clearly, a reference to outside observation making comparisons.

So, you feel justified in citing a dictionary when you think it supports your position* but if you don't like the definition you find there, it lacks "a reliable classification system for stabilizing the definitions of words." Do you find an inkling of inconsistency there?

*It doesn't, by the way. In the entry you cite, the primary meaning is "condition." Medical conditions are not dependent on doctrine; they exist and have been given a name. Doctrines may attempt to describe the etiology of a condition, but generally they're irrelevant to its existence. For example the doctrine of humorism will explain the existence of a condition by referring to an imbalance of "vital fluids" in the body, while the doctrine of homeopathy will explain it by referring to some type of "miasm." Again, the condition exists regardless of the doctrine.

It's blatantly obvious that your sweeping claim that "-isms are always doctrines" is incorrect. The suffix ism (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/-ism) is "a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc." In the instance of atheism it denotes the state or characteristic of not believing in the existence of gods, and all your double-talk and sneering will not change that.

Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on March 13, 2019, 12:03:50 AM
So, you feel justified in citing a dictionary when you think it supports your position* but if you don't like the definition you find there, it lacks "a reliable classification system for stabilizing the definitions of words." Do you find an inkling of inconsistency there?*

Exactly. We argue within an inconsistent system that was, more than likely, corrupted by the theists who had control of it. It should not be impossible to correct the system - these Latin suffix and prefixes should be consistent.

It doesn't, by the way. In the entry you cite, the primary meaning is "condition." Medical conditions are not dependent on doctrine; they exist and have been given a name. Doctrines may attempt to describe the etiology of a condition, but generally they're irrelevant to its existence. For example the doctrine of humorism will explain the existence of a condition by referring to an imbalance of "vital fluids" in the body, while the doctrine of homeopathy will explain it by referring to some type of "miasm." Again, the condition exists regardless of the doctrine.

It's blatantly obvious that your sweeping claim that "-isms are always doctrines" is incorrect. The suffix ism (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/-ism) is "a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc."

But the Wikipedia page did not discuss the these exceptions that I thought were out there, but I could not think of them - I have encountered the argument before, but not as well, as was presented here.

I am going to have to do more research on such, and try to better understand the exceptional instances.

In the instance of atheism it denotes the state or characteristic of not believing in the existence of gods, and all your double-talk and sneering will not change that.
I see this as a problem - it only serves to bolster the theists argument for a supernatural dimension that causes people to believe.

Furthermore, it is an inconsistency on the part of atheists, when they argue that belief is an indoctrinated condition - right??? Atheists will argue that the child is born without belief in gods. Some will claim that atheism is the default. Either way, theism has to be taught, because there is no god to magically cause belief.

The same goes for atheism - a person has no reason to claim to be an atheist until they are taught that there is a culture that campaigns the doctrine that there is a god, . . . and that there is a culture that campaigns that there is not god.

Atheism is not a psychological condition any different than choosing a political doctrine to support, because ultimately humanists are opposed to theist doctrine as the basis for public policy. It would be irrational for a humanist to support policy based on theist religious doctrine.

Humanism is the ontological doctrine that claims that humans define reality.

Theism is the doctrine that claims that a supernatural entity creates and defines reality. Theists believe the doctrine, because they were taught to believe it; they do not believe because the supernatural caused them to believe. Which is what atheists/humanists are allowing for when they define theism as a psycho(somatic) belief, and not a doctrine.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Recusant on March 13, 2019, 04:12:28 AM
Exactly. We argue within an inconsistent system that was, more than likely, corrupted by the theists who had control of it. It should not be impossible to correct the system - these Latin suffix and prefixes should be consistent.

As I've previously noted, the working of a language is determined by those who speak it, not by an official body like the Académie française (which has failed to effectively police/ossify the French language despite nearly 400 years of effort) nor by a self-appointed language reformer. You seem determined to ignore this, as evidenced not only by your fantasy of reform but also by your theory of a theist effort to "corrupt" language.

You're free to ignore or disbelieve the above, but unless you present evidence showing that my understanding is incorrect, there's no reason I would give any credence to proclamations about your grand project to correct language via a "scientific enforcement to stabilize semantics."

I am going to have to do more research on such, and try to better understand the exceptional instances.

How do you propose to carry out this research? It seems to me that you can't rely on dictionaries, because you don't consider them useful unless you think they agree with your ideas. Why would any other works on language be more trustworthy than dictionaries? They're almost certainly subject to the same theist "corruption" that you believe infests dictionaries and language in general.

In the instance of atheism it denotes the state or characteristic of not believing in the existence of gods, and all your double-talk and sneering will not change that.

I see this as a problem - it only serves to bolster the theists argument for a supernatural dimension that causes people to believe.

How does a straight-forward definition bolster theist argument?

Atheism is not a psychological condition any different than choosing a political doctrine to support, because ultimately humanists are opposed to theist doctrine as the basis for public policy.

Atheism ≠ humanism, of course. Humanism as I understand it holds the good of human beings as its ideal. Atheists on the other hand may have ideals contrary to the good of human beings. I've encountered more than one atheist who would prefer that humanity die off entirely. In any case, if a theist doctrine aligns with the ideals of humanism there is no reason why a humanist would oppose it, just because it happens to be theist.

It would be irrational for a humanist to support policy based on theist religious doctrine.

Not necessarily--see above.

Humanism is the ontological doctrine that claims that humans define reality.

I wouldn't consider humanism to be an ontological position let alone an ontological doctrine, but perhaps you can direct me to a source that will illuminate the ontology of humanism. It's just that when I look at a source like this (https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_humanism.html), I find hardly any mention of ontology in regards to humanism. The closest is "Nature [is] the totality of being . . . a constantly changing system of matter and energy which exists independently of any mind or consciousness. . . . it is up to humans to find the truth, as opposed to seeking it through revelation, mysticism, tradition or anything else that is incompatible with the application of logic to the observable evidence."

It seems that humanists don't believe that humans define reality, rather they believe that reality exists independent of humanity, and is discoverable through rational inquiry. If you believe that source is mistaken, I'd appreciate it if you provided a source that supports your assertion.

Theism is the doctrine that claims that a supernatural entity creates and defines reality. Theists believe the doctrine, because they were taught to believe it; they do not believe because the supernatural caused them to believe. Which is what atheists/humanists are allowing for when they define theism as a psycho(somatic) belief, and not a doctrine.

The term atheism actually predates theism. Atheism came into English from French around the middle of the 16th century (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism), while theism arrived about a century later (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/theism) as a counterpoint to atheism, according to the Oxford English Dictionary as well as this source (https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_theism.html). (Unfortunately I cannot link to the OED because it's behind a paywall. If you have a library membership, perhaps you can gain access to the OED online through your library.) The French borrowed athéisme from the ancient Greeks, who had no equivalent to theism because belief in the gods was the norm and needed no name as such.

You'll note that the philosophical source cited above states that theism is a belief rather than a doctrine. There are theistic doctrines of course, but theism itself is not a doctrine. I expect you'll tell me that this is all wrong, and merely another manifestation of language being "corrupted" by those insidious theists.  :eyebrow:
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Bad Penny II on March 13, 2019, 08:51:01 AM
I do bemoan some directions that language is taking.
Literally becoming a contronym, the use of decimate to mean devastating. I don't feel too confident taking the high ground but those developments seem rooted in ignorance.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Bluenose on March 13, 2019, 10:24:00 AM
I do bemoan some directions that language is taking.
Literally becoming an contronym, the use of decimate to mean devastating. I don't feel too confident taking the high ground but those developments seems rooted in ignorance.

Yes, it always amuses me to hear someone say that something or other decimated something else.  Like, what?  It killed one in every ten?  Really?  And how is it even possible if the something else is not animate?
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Recusant on March 13, 2019, 02:42:41 PM
It's better if they say that "X was literally decimated . . ."  ;D

In another post I noted the devolution of the word "incredulous," which I find disappointing, somewhat. It seems to me that the internet has sped up the process of people, including professional writers, adopting what had previously been considered solecisms and malapropisms (oh my, more doctrines!!!) and propagating them through the language. Grammar and diction nazis are fighting a losing battle.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Bad Penny II on March 13, 2019, 02:51:02 PM
It's better if they say that "X was literally decimated . . ."  ;D

Ye, so he's IX now.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: SidewalkCynic on March 13, 2019, 07:55:28 PM
The term atheism actually predates theism. Atheism came into English from French around the middle of the 16th century (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism), while theism arrived about a century later (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/theism) as a counterpoint to atheism, according to the Oxford English Dictionary as well as this source (https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_theism.html). (Unfortunately I cannot link to the OED because it's behind a paywall. If you have a library membership, perhaps you can gain access to the OED online through your library.) The French borrowed athéisme from the ancient Greeks, who had no equivalent to theism because belief in the gods was the norm and needed no name as such.
And when theism is eradicated there will be no need to refer to humanists as "atheists," because it will be silly to refer to oneself as the opposed to something that does not exist!

You'll note that the philosophical source cited above states that theism is a belief rather than a doctrine. There are theistic doctrines of course, but theism itself is not a doctrine. I expect you'll tell me that this is all wrong, and merely another manifestation of language being "corrupted" by those insidious theists.  :eyebrow:

Yes! Exactly. Does it not seem odd to you that "atheism" predates "theism?" How is it that a compound term predates its base word??? They may not have published anything designating theism, but they understood it.

How do you propose to carry out this research? It seems to me that you can't rely on dictionaries, because you don't consider them useful unless you think they agree with your ideas. Why would any other works on language be more trustworthy than dictionaries?
I will try to review the inconsistencies compared to the consistencies in an effort to understand what has happened to cause the inconsistencies.

I believe there is some effort to generate a "synthetic language," or something, and I am pretty sure my efforts in knowledge classification will enhance their efforts.
Title: Re: The Unresolved Issues of Atheism
Post by: Recusant on March 14, 2019, 07:26:34 PM
And when theism is eradicated there will be no need to refer to humanists as "atheists," because it will be silly to refer to oneself as the opposed to something that does not exist!

What I see in such statements and in your insistence that atheism is a political doctrine is an attempt to create a mirror image of the fundamentalist Christian right in the US. They have dreams of an eschatological triumph of their belief, and openly pursue political power to enforce their ideals. Their contemptible hypocrisy and pious viciousness have earned them the moniker "Christofascists." An atheist version of that will never get my support.