I am pretty sure the only inquisition atheists are going to exercise is the one upon my burden to prove that atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist doctrine for the basis of public policy.
If that were true, you would not bother with the rest of the drivel you, so well, composed.
It is such a minor aspect of Western Philosophy - why bother with it??? It only leads to the organization of human knowledge classification systems that are not used as references in the editing of dictionaries, because the linguists and lawyers have not established a stable system, because the guardians of Philosophy do not want to explain that it is needed for dialectics in the post-modern world of sophistication.
Thank you for the general etymology description. There is a recurring dispute concerning the definition as I proved in the previous reply to HonestJoe. Atheism is a political doctrine
It is not asinine - it is truly brilliant critical analysis and dissemination of the correct information - science. you are immersed in dogma, and refuse to accept that the previous generations of people did not have the need for a more accurate definitions, because the state of reasoning was generally corrupted by theist dogma - as most atheists would agree.
:lamo That's word salad for, "humanism is an ontological doctrine."
:lamo That is a good description of the process of generating an ontological list - knowledge classification system. Knowledge organization - Wikipedia
Wrong. The problem with the semantic relationship that you want to maintain is that it provides for the magical qualities of "belief," rather than the necessity for indoctrination that atheists would rather for their reasoning contesting theism.
Right - you are going to generate a "scientific" classification system to contest the theists' inadequate and unreliable system(s) that have been proven to be unreliable by the introduction of reliable evidence from "science."
I am pretty sure I am asking the right questions - do we need a reliable knowledge classification system? Yes, the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classification systems are not derived from scientific methods, and are not reliable for understanding the demarcation of technology, especially in the areas from social organization to culture.
No. Secularism is the unbiased (government, social) systems.
Well, you see, I'm arguing there is an error in the dictionary definitions - you couldn't figure that out??? I clearly stated it with large bold letters!!!
And then, I provide a reasoning list:
I am not changing the definitions of words randomly. I recognized the error, because of its adverse effects on atheists ability to reason. I am correcting the error by providing the more appropriate definition. It is not my fault that you have been indoctrinated into believing that the dictionary editors are something they are not - there is no rigorous governing body.
That is an incorrect definition. You cannot have an absence of belief, and assign it a designation with respect to belief - it does not make sense, except if you are under the influence of "instilled beliefs" that it does make sense - dogma.
I composed the most eloquent reasoned arguments, and I am to be commended for leading atheists beyond their pretentious twaddling, pseudo-learning, and absurd definitions.
In 2001, I recognized that there was a problem in society concerning reasoning; and I decided that I was going to figure out what the problem is and then try to fix the problem.
Either, atheists adjust their analysis to the corrections that I am proposing, or consider the consequences of Christians recognizing the sound reasoning and imposing the corrections.
You are silly - that is a replicated response to the attack that was made against me.
You intended to cause argument, distinct from respectful discussion? And the confusion isn’t about “atheists”, it’s about anyone. You present your definitive and largely negative definition of atheism, anyone who identifies (or is identified as) atheist is automatically tarred with that negativity. You’re trying to slander millions of people and that is dangerous. It’s historically the first step on that path to genocide.
Not “atheist circles”, just circles. I doubt there are many exclusively “atheist circles” and I’ve certainly no interest in going around in circles with them. We’re a whole mixture of different people discussing different things here. There is no restriction based on our individual beliefs and worldviews (individually plural by the way) and in this kind of context, they should be largely irrelevant. The definitions of words have nothing to do with what you personally believe (or want to believe).
As much as there can be a “correct” definition for any word, it is how that word is commonly used. That’s why the meanings of words shift over time and place. You’re specifically challenging the commonly used definition(s) of the word “atheism” for your very specific and socio-politically motivated one. That isn’t how semantics work, otherwise we could all make up our own meanings for words and the whole thing becomes fishing-boat green aardvark.
That depends on how reasonable the religious people are. The reasonableness of people is the only defined factor here. Atheist, theism or religion doesn’t automatically determine anything.
This is the core of the issue and an all too common error. Atheist organisations don’t represent all atheists (even most atheists) and they don’t define atheism by their actions just as theist organisations don’t represent all theists and don’t define theism by their actions. Again, it is fundamentally wrong to stick a label on millions of people and then define them all on the action of a tiny sub-set of that group. A definition of atheism should not define a person, it should define a concept and it should only be attributed to people who actually fit that defined concept. And if lots of people are consistently given that label but they don’t fit your defined concept, your definition that should be reconsidered.
