My daily visits to the loo also help maintain my dignity.
^^ :query::wtf:...........please continueI'm pretty sure that the incorrect definition leads atheists to describe relative degrees of atheism - hard atheism, soft atheism, militant atheism. Very similar to describing people as, "not very religious," "very religious," and "not religious" it is a matter of counting how many of the rules that they comply with, and how they attempt to impose the rules on others.
Religion is the practice of exercises that maintains dignity.
The common description used by atheists, that religion is the belief and worship of deities, is a misnomer from the dictionaries, because the definitions of "belief," and "worship," are not distinguishable enough to justify the conjunction of the terms to distinguish religion from theism. Belief is a form of worship, and so there is a redundant category error being deployed by the definition.
This becomes more apparent when theists argue that atheists have a religion. The theists realize that atheists do not believe in the existence of a god, and they realize that religion is not "belief and worship." They realize that the definition of religion is something else. The theists realize that atheists are adherents to a doctrine - science and reason. The problem is that atheists do not realize that their doctrine includes the definitions of words, because the definitions of words are the basic tools of reasoning - we have to agree to the definitions of the words we use in our arguments.
The problem is that there are incorrect definitions that atheists use, because the editing of the dictionaries have been without the strict rigorous review that scientific method would impose. And these incorrect definitions that atheists use to test arguments, that distinguish the arguments that theists use from the arguments that atheists use, form the dogma that stalls the atheists' agenda to advance reason in society.
Religion is the practice of exercises that maintains dignity.
The common description used by atheists, that religion is the belief and worship of deities, is a misnomer from the dictionaries, because the definitions of "belief," and "worship," are not distinguishable enough to justify the conjunction of the terms to distinguish religion from theism. Belief is a form of worship, and so there is a redundant category error being deployed by the definition.
This becomes more apparent when theists argue that atheists have a religion. The theists realize that atheists do not believe in the existence of a god, and they realize that religion is not "belief and worship." They realize that the definition of religion is something else. The theists realize that atheists are adherents to a doctrine - science and reason. The problem is that atheists do not realize that their doctrine includes the definitions of words, because the definitions of words are the basic tools of reasoning - we have to agree to the definitions of the words we use in our arguments.
The problem is that there are incorrect definitions that atheists use, because the editing of the dictionaries have been without the strict rigorous review that scientific method would impose. And these incorrect definitions that atheists use to test arguments, that distinguish the arguments that theists use from the arguments that atheists use, form the dogma that stalls the atheists' agenda to advance reason in society.
This is just so much word salad. Not buying any of it.
It seems to me that your understanding of how dictionaries are edited is faulty. There is strict review, but that review is entirely in regard to how people use words. Accurate observation and recording of results are the only parts of the scientific method that are of any use to dictionary editors.They aren't in the business of enforcing particular usage, except in places like France, where the Académie française is fighting a losing battle as it attempts to stop people "degrading" the French language.I believe I have discovered the code for deliniating the order of technology, and that that is the scientific enforcement to stabilize semantics; which becomes more important as the evolution of society expects a more reliable semantic structure compared to the less sophisticated eras of the past.
We are enduring confusion - theists claim that atheists have a religion!
You believe that the current definition of religion used by atheists is "a misnomer." It isn't just atheists who use that definition though. I suppose if you get enough atheists to agree with you there will be at least some impetus to change the prevailing usage, but it's really the wider population that matters in regard to usage.
Your definition of religion dispenses with any reference to deities. OK as far as that goes, but the deities will not be so easily displaced; there will inevitably be confusion regarding the term should you succeed.
You insist that "belief is a form of worship." It might be argued that is the case in a religious context but absent that context, belief and worship are without question two distinct concepts.
Your attempt to justify your new definition by referring to rhetoric employed against atheists by religious people doesn't bode well if your intention is convince atheists that your definition is correct. Few atheists agree with the religious people's rhetoric in the first place.Except, of course, when the theists rhetoric supports the atheists arguments - then the theists are the good ones, or reasonable, or something...
In the second place, agreeing with those religious people that atheism is a doctrine requires a redefinition of either the word doctrine or the word atheism. Atheism, as noted above, pertains to a position on the existence of a single class of entities, whatever definition one chooses. On the other hand doctrine describes a body of instruction or teaching. While there may be atheistic doctrines, atheism itself doesn't qualify as a doctrine. Apparently you're proposing the redefinition of more than just religion, then.Yes, you missed it in the other thread, or someplace. But that's really good that you recognized that I do have, at least, one other word that needs to be adjusted.
I believe I have discovered the code for deliniating the order of technology, and that that is the scientific enforcement to stabilize semantics; which becomes more important as the evolution of society expects a more reliable semantic structure compared to the less sophisticated eras of the past.
It seems to me that your understanding of how dictionaries are edited is faulty. There is strict review, but that review is entirely in regard to how people use words. Accurate observation and recording of results are the only parts of the scientific method that are of any use to dictionary editors.They aren't in the business of enforcing particular usage, except in places like France, where the Académie française is fighting a losing battle as it attempts to stop people "degrading" the French language.
I believe I have discovered the code for deliniating the order of technology [. . .]
and that that is the scientific enforcement to stabilize semantics [. . .]
which becomes more important as the evolution of society expects a more reliable semantic structure compared to the less sophisticated eras of the past.
We are enduring confusion - theists claim that atheists have a religion!
You insist that "belief is a form of worship." It might be argued that is the case in a religious context but absent that context, belief and worship are without question two distinct concepts.
I believe it is just the opposite! What is worship without belief in the supposed doctrine?
Your attempt to justify your new definition by referring to rhetoric employed against atheists by religious people doesn't bode well if your intention is convince atheists that your definition is correct. Few atheists agree with the religious people's rhetoric in the first place.Except, of course, when the theists rhetoric supports the atheists arguments - then the theists are the good ones, or reasonable, or something...
Yes, you missed it in the other thread, or someplace. But that's really good that you recognized that I do have, at least, one other word that needs to be adjusted.
Your ability to present such arguments proves that BlueNose and Tank are somewhat in error in deciding that I merely composed a "word salad" that fails to argue anything.
So, what is the practice of exercises that we do to maintain or sense of dignity, if it is not religion?
QuoteI believe I have discovered the code for deliniating the order of technology, and that that is the scientific enforcement to stabilize semantics; which becomes more important as the evolution of society expects a more reliable semantic structure compared to the less sophisticated eras of the past.
I'll have mine with Blue Cheese sauce please.
So, what is the practice of exercises that we do to maintain or sense of dignity, if it is not religion?
So, what is the practice of exercises that we do to maintain or sense of dignity, if it is not religion?Life without mythology.
So, what is the practice of exercises that we do to maintain or sense of dignity, if it is not religion?
We're going to have to go through this bit by bit. When you say "code" what does it refer to? A well-defined system of thought? If not, then what?I am very confident that I have deliberated the valid collation for organizing technology. The primary application is a knowledge classification system, which is very similar to library classification systems. In the United States we have the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classification systems, the UK uses a system similar to the Dewey, and do not know if they have any other sysem. The collation is a list of semantic ques:
What is the process of "delineat[ing] the order of technology"?The collation formula is then interpolated to generate a category list for each of the realms, producing seven lists; and then the categories are interpolated with the collation to produce a longer list of more specific subjects. As the list becomes more detailed it becomes more difficult for me, the lone scientist, to deliberate the nuanced demarcation of the subjects - I have to study all of the possible subjects and calculate the interpolation relationships. I am trying to gain the interest of atheists to participate in the endeavor, before I present it to the general public, which is going to be predominately Christians.
Yeah, I am going to research that, and introduce my system to them.and that that is the scientific enforcement to stabilize semantics [. . .]Interesting that you're proposing enforcement of a prescriptive approach to language when I just pointed out that an existing attempt at just such an approach, fully supported by the government of the nation in question, is failing to achieve its aim.
There's an inescapable reason for this: Language simply doesn't work that way. It's almost completely a bottom-up phenomenon--the population uses it and changes it as it suits them, not as some body of officious do-gooders tells them to.And the French group and I believe that that is very much in violation of science and reason - language needs to be unchanging and reliable. The problem is very apparent in the United States Constitution - the terms are ambiguous and interpreted differently, which is a violation of what a constitution is supposed to be.
Scientific discoveries and subsequent applications guide the evolution.which becomes more important as the evolution of society expects a more reliable semantic structure compared to the less sophisticated eras of the past.
The evolution of society doesn't have any expectations. Evolution cannot be correctly understood as a teleological process. Societal changes take place almost entirely in reaction to events and demographic movements. The desires and efforts of those who may think that they're in charge of directing the way that societies evolve are of relatively little importance.
Wow! Now, you are getting close to arguing to the favor of stabilizing the semantics. There is an atheist, Austin Cline, he publishes at Thought.com, now; and he claims that there are religions that do not have any gods - I think Buddhism is the usual example. So, there is a problem there - the guardians of an organized effort retain the ability to classify their efforts. It would seem that the Buddhists would probably be accepting of my definition for religion, as would the Christians, and I would imagine the Jews would not be offended, either.We are enduring confusion - theists claim that atheists have a religion!That is their own construction, and it's usually nothing but a rhetorical cudgel. Those who actually believe it are the ones who are confused. In any case, some degree of confusion is a natural result of the way that humans think and communicate. Outside very strict academic venues this circumstance will continue to pertain.
(I was a bit rushed for time)You insist that "belief is a form of worship." It might be argued that is the case in a religious context but absent that context, belief and worship are without question two distinct concepts.
I believe it is just the opposite! What is worship without belief in the supposed doctrine?
It's fairly common, really. I attended church for several years and participated in many, many acts of worship, even though I didn't believe. I know I'm far from the only one who did so. Pro forma ritual is a big part of religion.
You neglected to consider the reverse of your question. Even in a religious context, there is a multitude of people who sincerely believe in a god, yet never perform a single act of worship. Even if they were to get dragged into a church service they'd only be in the presence of others who were worshipping, and likely resenting every minute of it. They'd be hard put to participate; wouldn't know the words to say, and would probably only be able to sing along on some of the songs. You may not acknowledge that belief can exist without worship, but you don't dictate what goes on in other people's heads.
It does not happen often, but every once in a while, the atheists will cite some no-name preacher who issues a statement in support of the atheists argument concerning separation of Church and State.Your attempt to justify your new definition by referring to rhetoric employed against atheists by religious people doesn't bode well if your intention is convince atheists that your definition is correct. Few atheists agree with the religious people's rhetoric in the first place.Except, of course, when the theists rhetoric supports the atheists arguments - then the theists are the good ones, or reasonable, or something...
Can you cite an example?
When I take a shower in the morning it's part of maintaining a sense of dignity. Are you telling me that an atheist taking a shower is participating in religion?Along with the other forms of etiquette, social contributions, and indoctrination of abstract information.
No.You insist that "belief is a form of worship." It might be argued that is the case in a religious context but absent that context, belief and worship are without question two distinct concepts.
I believe it is just the opposite! What is worship without belief in the supposed doctrine?
It's fairly common, really. I attended church for several years and participated in many, many acts of worship, even though I didn't believe. I know I'm far from the only one who did so. Pro forma ritual is a big part of religion.
Atheists do not believe or worship gods - can't have a religion
You neglected to consider the reverse of your question. Even in a religious context, there is a multitude of people who sincerely believe in a god, yet never perform a single act of worship. Even if they were to get dragged into a church service they'd only be in the presence of others who were worshipping, and likely resenting every minute of it. They'd be hard put to participate; wouldn't know the words to say, and would probably only be able to sing along on some of the songs. You may not acknowledge that belief can exist without worship, but you don't dictate what goes on in other people's heads.