Atheism and Agnosticism: Religions-In A Sense (virtual, experience, Earth, service)

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

You seem to be flailing and the last post was gladly grasping at Jainism as a disproof of what I was saying.

No, I'm not flailing at all, I'm still calmly pointing out the exacts same principles I have been from the beginning. I'm not grasping at Jainism at all, I'm just pointing out that you yourself are forced to acknowledge that your definition does not account for ideologies commonly understood as religions, and is therefore inadequate. I'm also pointing out that you obviously have no clue whatsoever how to engage concerns with theories of categorization, and instead of trying to learn about this, you're just attempting to rhetorically dismiss the concerns. In this post you're attempting to do so by asserting I'm "flailing," but nobody here is going to buy that, obviously.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

But if we don't use my definition then Jainism doesn't qualify, nor confucianism nor scientology nor Buddhism.

An asinine and arrogant bit of utter nonsense. Your definition is not what compels the world to view Jainism as a religion, nor are dictionary definitions what constitute and maintain categories in human thought and language. Good heavens, you are naive. Tell me, do you know what furniture is? Are you confident you could identify something that is furniture and something that is not furniture? Did you have to look it up in the dictionary every time the need to identify something as furniture comes up, or is it just a category you learned to distinguish through conventional usage? Obviously the latter. Now go look up furniture in the dictionary and tell me if it accurately delineates all that is furniture from all that is not. I'll save you the suspense: it doesn't. It commits the came fallacy that you do in assuming some conceptual substructure underlies the category that can be reduced to a small number of necessary and sufficient features, but that's demonstrably not the case, as there can be no definition that identifies those features in such a way as to include all entities commonly designated "furniture" and exclude all those not commonly designated "furniture." You don't know this, of course, because you're never bothered to think about whether or not dictionary semantics has a logical or empirical basis. You've just blithely forged ahead because you assume what your brain tells you must be true. Even know you won't care that it does not, since you're committed to a claim that you have no intention of abandoning now just because the facts require it. So pretend to speak knowledgeably about it and pretend to talk down to me and pretend to have a grasp on all of this as you fumble around quoting snippets of Wikipedia and grotesquely misunderstanding and misrepresenting my points as well as the notion of religion in general.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I'm merely recognizing that modern concepts (and what the hell else are we going to use to decide a modern definition?) definitely see those as religions and have a problem in saying why.

If you were informed, you wouldn't pretend to define it. As I've already stated, you cannot define nonnatural conceptual categories, you can only describe. Trying to distill them down to necessary and sufficient features is, as you've already discovered with the notion of deity, futile.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

We agree the Websters defs are inadequate. Circular, as you say. Though you were so busy trying to discredit me you went off half -cocked. Do you really think I don't know what a circular argument is?

I do, since you defended their usefulness.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Religion: the act of doing worship - worship: acts done as part of religion. Merely vaguely points to or indicates what we all know anyway, but is hopeless in explaining what a religion actually is.

No, not what we all know, but what many of us think.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

You still fail to understand that I am trying to propose a definition that will accommodate what is definitely regarded as religion (and don't compound your foolishness with dishonest wriggling about 'modern concept'.

And as I've explained multiple times, and as you've still failed to comprehend, it is hopelessly useless. You cannot produce such a definition. The entire endeavor is fallacious, but you're just not well enough informed anyway. You keep reducing and assuming and asserting in order to cram religions you don't understand into the definition you've presupposed.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Thus I am trying to suggest something better than the inadequate ones and you don't like that either.

And you still have apparently failed to grasp that I've repeatedly told you it is impossible to create an adequate definition.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

It is quite possible that Karma and thetans and Tien might not be considered the reason why Buddhism and Scientology and Confucianism are regarded as religions. It might be decided that they are religions because they have rites and ceremonies. I doubt you would find that adequate either.

So I try to find an encompassing definition based on WHY they doing the rites and ceremonies. Is it getting through now?

I understand what you're trying to do, I'm just pointing out that it's a non-starter and you aren't even close to well enough informed anyway. You cannot succeed because it is a physical impossibility. You've failed to grasp this and have instead just made up other objections and misunderstandings that you've attributed to me and at which you've clumsily tried to whack away with your naivety and dogmatism.

[Arach Angle]

She has a point and so do you. "atheism" is not a religion per say but many atheists actions make it look just like one.

baseless faith statement
proclaim a truth that others don't have
they have clarity logic reason and if you don't think like them you don't
meet with "sages" to listen about the baseless faith statement.
meet with like minded people to proclaim their real truth and try and recruit others.
side with these people no matter what observations may say otherwise. Even if it means hurting somebody.

basicly people don't understand it is about people. Peroid. You can side with understanding and compassion or not. I give a flying hoot what you believe in or not. I learnt that from the bible btw. "they claim to know me, but they do not!".

[TRANSPONDER]

Again you are misrepresenting me. Finding dictionary definitions handy as indicators does not mean that I am endorsing circular arguments.

You are again being dishonest in you opportunitic misrepresentation of what you call my 'reducing'. I haven't changed anything. I have just been correcting your ill -informed accusations of my supposed imposition of definitions and concepts on everyone.

The usual certificate -waving is not unfamiliar to us. It doesn't make your arguments any more valid or honest.

While I have based a proposed definition on ...well why should I explain it again? You have done nothing but reject it as invalid and ridiculous and nonsense without any support other than your disagreement. You haven't come up with any identifier of what you think makes a religion a religion, but just sneer at what I'm proposing.

And I notice that just as in the Exodus thread, you have ignored every time I proved that you were wrong - notably about confucianism and its relations with the Chinese pantheon. You should see that what you have to do this time is not just prove that I am wrong about religions (you haven't got off to a very good start here) but that Karma and thetans cannot stand in for gods, in what are regarded as religions by others - not just by me (and your reducing of a generally accepted religion with the flimsy 'many of us think' as though you and a postulated silent majority had determined that Scientology wasn't a religion, shows just how wrongheaded and dismissive your arguments are).

So far you have just dismissed them out of hand. You are going to have to do better than that.

[wolf39us]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

baseless faith statement

What faith statement? That God does NOT exist? This is a statement made by individuals, it is not inherent to Atheism.

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

proclaim a truth that others don't have

Also not inherent to Atheism

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

they have clarity logic reason and if you don't think like them you don't
meet with "sages" to listen about the baseless faith statement.

Nice strawman you're building

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

meet with like minded people to proclaim their real truth and try and recruit others.

Meet with who? I meet with no one, I'm an Atheist.

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

side with these people no matter what observations may say otherwise. Even if it means hurting somebody.

What are you even babbling about here?

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

basicly people don't understand it is about people. Peroid. You can side with understanding and compassion or not. I give a flying hoot what you believe in or not. I learnt that from the bible btw. "they claim to know me, but they do not!".

I'm not even sure that I can comprehend what you're saying here. Is it that you do give a flying hoot or that you don't? Also, who claimed to know you?

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Again you are misrepresenting me. Finding dictionary definitions handy as indicators does not mean that I am endorsing circular arguments.

No, but it does mean you are endorsing a demonstrably fallacious theory of categorization. Dictionary semantics is limited, and when you're talking about nonnatural conceptual categories like "religion" it is useless. I've tried to tell you this many times, and you've yet to grasp it: you cannot define religion. Period.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

You are again being dishonest in you opportunitic misrepresentation of what you call my 'reducing'. I haven't changed anything. I have just been correcting your ill -informed accusations of my supposed imposition of definitions and concepts on everyone.

The usual certificate -waving is not unfamiliar to us. It doesn't make your arguments any more valid or honest.

While I have based a proposed definition on ...well why should I explain it again? You have done nothing but reject it as invalid and ridiculous and nonsense without any support other than your disagreement. You haven't come up with any identifier of what you think makes a religion a religion, but just sneer at what I'm proposing.

And I notice that just as in the Exodus thread, you have ignored every time I proved that you were wrong - notably about confucianism and its relations with the Chinese pantheon. You should see that what you have to do this time is not just prove that I am wrong about religions (you haven't got off to a very good start here) but that Karma and thetans cannot stand in for gods, in what are regarded as religions by others - not just by me.

So far you have just dismissed them out of hand. You are going to have to do better than that.

This is a laughable attempt to sidestep the fact that you do not even understand my concerns. This is bush league. You can't even understand the terms, much less engage them in an informed way.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

No, but it does mean you are endorsing a demonstrably fallacious theory of categorization. Dictionary semantics is limited, and when you're talking about nonnatural conceptual categories like "religion" it is useless. I've tried to tell you this many times, and you've yet to grasp it: you cannot define religion. Period.



This is a laughable attempt to sidestep the fact that you do not even understand my concerns. This is bush league. You can't even understand the terms, much less engage them in an informed way.

'endorsing' a fallacious theory of categorization is so dishonest it is laughable. Saying it is handy does not alter that I also find the definitions inadequate and circular. By using equivocating terms you try to pretend that I am approving the Websters defintions. If I did, why would I need to propose my own?

Your resorting to academic snobbery when I have ..just edged you towards the spot, never mind put you on it, must surely mean that you have even less of a case than I thought you had.

This wasn't even necessary. We could have discussed this reasonably and you could have proposed you reservations (not understand your concerns? You haven't even hinted at them - your objections so far have been so much kneejerk dismissal - without any explanation) and I would have accepted them. We could have looked at what you thought was a better definition - not that you seem to have one. But again your ego got the better of you.

You have had it chum. You are struck out third time. Welcome to the select league of noted Forum asshats who have big egos, big heads, big mouths and tiny brains.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

'endorsing' a fallacious theory of categorization is so dishonest it is laughable. Saying it is handy does not alter that I also find the definitions inadequate and circular. By using equivocating terms you try to pretend that I am approving the Websters defintions. If I did, why would I need to propose my own?

You still don't understand. My criticisms of the specific definitions, which you obviously don't understand, were just leading to the larger point that religion is not something that can be defined. That's my main point.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Your resorting to academic snobbery when I have ..just edged you towards the spot, never mind put you on it, must surely mean that you have even less of a case than I thought you had.

This wasn't even necessary. We could have discussed this reasonably

I tried to point out the inadequacies of your definition, but then you said ludicrous things like, "This makes it a god for the purposes of my definition."

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

and you could have proposed you reservations (not understand your concerns? You haven't even hinted at them - your objections so far have been so much kneejerk dismissal - without any explanation) and I would have accepted them.

No you wouldn't have. You stubbornly refuse to listen to reason if it means abandoning your dogmas.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

We could have looked at what you thought was a better definition

And here again you manifest a complete lack of understanding of my main point: religion cannot be defined.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

not that you seem to have one. But again your ego got the better of you.

You have had it chum. You are struck out third time. Welcome to the select league of noted Forum asshats who have big egos, big heads, big mouths and tiny brains.

You just saying that I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong, especially when you've failed to understand, much less address, any of my points. You're just trying to salvage some kind of rhetorical points here and are using strawmen and false bravado as a way to attempt to force this.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

You just saying that I'm wrong doesn't make me wrong, especially when you've failed to understand, much less address, any of my points. You're just trying to salvage some kind of rhetorical points here and are using strawmen and false bravado as a way to attempt to force this.

I think his classifying you as homo asshattus is legitimate. Even though I have little doubt you are in certain contexts and compartments of your life a wonderful human being, and that, in absolute terms, "asshat" cannot be defined, still, it is a useful and justified term in the present context.

Before this degenerates any further, though, I would remind myself and all other parties that all appellations in use here, including "bush league" and "incredibly naive" put this thread in danger of being redacted or closed. I call you for initiating non-civil discourse, Daniel. If you want to remain welcome in these precincts, you are going to have to put the ivory tower Cloak of Expertise aside, along with your ego.

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by mordant

I think his classifying you as homo asshattus is legitimate. Even though I have little doubt you are in certain contexts and compartments of your life a wonderful human being, and that, in absolute terms, "asshat" cannot be defined, still, it is a useful and justified term in the present context.

I get that a lot on the internet: "I can't address your claims, but I don't like the way you think you're so right, so that's going to be the focus from now on."

Originally Posted by mordant

Before this degenerates any further, though, I would remind myself and all other parties that all appellations in use here, including "bush league" and "incredibly naive" put this thread in danger of being redacted or closed.

Since when are "incredibly naive" and "asshat" even in the same category? The incredible naivety is demonstrable and has been demonstrated over and over again. Am I not allowed to point out when one is belligerently speaking well above their knowledge? Can a single one of you show that my points are in any way mistaken? "Asshat" is just exclusively an insult. I really don't care about being insulted, though. When the day comes that I ignore the argument and instead whine about tone, you'll know I've lost the argument.

Originally Posted by mordant

I call you for initiating non-civil discourse, Daniel. If you want to remain welcome in these precincts, you are going to have to put the ivory tower Cloak of Expertise aside, along with your ego.

So I've got to pretend to be as uninformed as everyone else here? I'm not allowed to use my directly relevant expertise to assess the arguments being made? Is this forum exclusively for hobbyists, then? Professionals not welcome?

Also, I noticed I always get blamed for other people's rhetorical excesses. Nobody seems responsible for decorum here but me. Someone blows their stack on another thread and the closing of the thread is blamed on me, despite my points never once being directly engaged, much less challenged.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

So I've got to pretend to be as uninformed as everyone else here? I'm not allowed to use my directly relevant expertise to assess the arguments being made? Is this forum exclusively for hobbyists, then? Professionals not welcome?

Listen to yourself, Daniel. "As uninformed as everyone else here"? Where's the humility in that? How is that different from "you're all mad, I'm the only sane person in the world"?

Even if it's true, that's not how you approach people you're trying to win to a point of view. We atheists get accused of that all the time, for simply stating that we don't believe; unbelief itself is seen as equivalent to an insult. We don't even have to bother to tell theists how infantile and baseless their beliefs are, to be called "persecutors". So I understand where you are coming from with this. Truly I do. But I really do not see what on earth you expect to be the result, if you come into a forum and tell everyone they are terribly uninformed and that you, alone, are not.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

Also, I noticed I always get blamed for other people's rhetorical excesses. Nobody seems responsible for decorum here but me. Someone blows their stack on another thread and the closing of the thread is blamed on me, despite my points never once being directly engaged, much less challenged.

If you define "decorum" as telling other people they are laughably witless and naive, then I don't know how to help you understand the phenomenon you're talking about.

I have always been willing to admit you have a certain point, and that we can benefit from being reminded that religion (especially in its more liberal forms) is not solely responsible for the ills in the world. It's possible to forget that when we are hear to discuss (and at times to vent) about that specifically. But it seems that you would like to halt all critique of religion here and replace it with ... well, I'm not sure what. You've never really said.

It doesn't help that you are a theist, however liberal and scholarly; it seems you want to have a net chilling effect on any critique of religion -- invalidating it simply because religion is not a perfectly carved out atomic category.

What ARE you trying to accomplish here? Maybe that is the way out of this thicket.