Atheism's Missionaries

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by bogomil

 

I was just trying to say science is but philosophy, then provided the dictionary evidence for it...

Except that it isn't a philosophy and providing dictionary definitions is the logical fallacy known as the 'argument from authority'. You're not actually proving that science is a philosophy.

Science relies on experimentation
Philosophy relies on application of reason.

Science has a concrete methodology.
There is nothing which is concrete in philosophy.

there are others claiming that it is not so I provided the definitions for them.

So there are definitions which contradict your definitions....but yours are right because they're in the dictionary?

methodology is observable and documented, judged upon by a majority consensus and either written into law or being held as true by this consensus of each time period.

Another sentence which makes no grammatical sense..

Methodology exists in science, not in philosophy.
Majority consensus isn't an establishment of fact in science, as the evidence alone establishes things as fact.
Majority consensus does not exist in philosophy.
There is nothing 'written into law' in either science or philosophy. Laws in sciences are merely things that have been observed about how the universe works. The "laws of motion" describe how things in motion operate.

.
there are just some basic things that have not changed since the dawn of this documenting imo...

Yes, like there will always be ignorant people who make claims that they cannot back up.

Atheism's adherents show an overwhelming lack of empathy as observed by me, and I am quite sure by the majority of onlookers also.

the evidence in this observation skill always presents itself...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Yay, more *SNIP* posting of single words from my posts rather than the entirety of the post which discredits the entirety of what you've said

I was responding to bogmil my friend.

The "What?" was due to your sentence not being grammatically correct. So apparently your statement:

yes I can read and apparently have atleast a 5th grade level of the understanding of definition of words in the English language...

Is a bit ironic.

teach me then, help a fellow human to understand.

Anyway, I made several points, please address them. Or am I going to have to revive the list of questions I've asked you and you've not answered?

I do not have to answer your questions, it is called freedom of choice, it is something we have here in America.

Atheism's Missionaries apparently do not make good teachers either...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Common use dictionaries aren't useful for defining terms like 'philosophy' or 'science'. I'm actually studying philosophy at a University level (it's a secondary area for my degree). I'm not learning anything about science beyond the philosophical questions of it. I'm not learning anything about medicine at all. I'm not learning about physics, engineering, etc.

so then you agree that science is but a philosophy ? especially when it comes to physics.

as stated further back in the history and even round-a-bouts in various posts of mine in other topics...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Common use dictionaries aren't useful for defining terms

common dictionaries, especially established ones like the links I have posted, which present the evidence that science is but a philosophy, are quite well established and useful to the majority for many of reasons.

If some people would like to try to redefine our knowledge of these definitions in this current time period, I suggest lexicography as a study course, or etymology.

Re Cosmic.Artifact

You wrote:

["Atheism's adherents show an overwhelming lack of empathy as observed by me, and I am quite sure by the majority of onlookers also."]

Apart from your claim of being an expression of social co-sensus; where's the christian counter-point of manifested empathy. Your posts? Intruding christian missionaries? In the 'we're all, or should be, repenting sinners' gloomy worldwiev?

RE Cosmic. Artifact

You wrote:

["I was responding to bogmil my friend."]

Madnessinmysoul is more than welcome to comment on any exchange of opinions, I'm a part of.

Concerning your 'definition' direction, it's ofcourse praiseworthy, that you try to keep language as precise as possible. Byt you're completely ruining this potential for creating a good impression of your methodology, when you then take 'similarities' and let them go through your word-mangling procedure, so they come out as 'identical'.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


No, science is not philosophy. Nothing in my post states that in any way.

Philosophy branches into several subjects:

Aesthetics: The study of beauty.
Epistemology: The study of the nature knowledge.
Ethics: The study of right action.
Logic: The study of argumentation.
Metaphysics: The study of the nature of being.
Social philosophy: The philosophical inquiry into society
Political philosophy: The philosophical inquiry into the running of the state.

The closest that philosophy touches to science is a bit into mathematics with logic.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


Wow, you're actually suggesting I take etymology when you're the one quote-mining me. I said that they're not useful for defining terms like 'science' or 'philosophy'. These are terms whose usage are primarily reserved for the people who actually do them. I don't know of a single philosopher who would consider biology part of philosophy. Or physics...chemistry...or anything else of that sort.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Atheism's adherents show an overwhelming lack of empathy as observed by me, and I am quite sure by the majority of onlookers also.

the evidence in this observation skill always presents itself...

I'm sorry, but please show where we lack empathy? Your observations seem entirely invalid, as I feel quite a bit of compassion for those who suffer.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Yay, more *SNIP* posting of single words from my posts rather than the entirety of the post which discredits the entirety of what you've said

I was responding to bogmil my friend.

Except that you were responding to me. You quoted only me in that post in a dishonest and immature manner.

Anyway, I made several points, please address them. Or am I going to have to revive the list of questions I've asked you and you've not answered?

I do not have to answer your questions, it is called freedom of choice, it is something we have here in America.

I don't think you have an obligation to answer my questions, but if you're going to participate in the discussion you're not going to skirt by with just ignoring the issue. If you're going to be open and honest rather than defamatory, answering of questions would be quite useful.

Atheism's Missionaries apparently do not make good teachers either...

It's a good thing that there are no missionaries of atheism then.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


I really want to correct something about this thread. Atheists are not a collective group. Statements about atheists as a collective will undoubtably fail because atheists have no collective agenda.

As an atheist, I somehow manage to live a compassionate life without god. Am I doing more harm than good? Am I as an atheist, doing more harm than good? Of course not, I am just a regular person. I can't remember the last time that I saw news report when someone did something bad in the name of atheism.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Except that you were responding to me. You quoted only me in that post in a dishonest and immature manner

sorry again my friend, I only hit "reply" to bogmil not quoting you... I was replying to his statement here... www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread645692/pg9#pid10399543

quote-mining ? that's a new word I learned today, thanks for teaching me something new...

Originally posted by mithrawept
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

I really want to correct something about this thread. Atheists are not a collective group. Statements about atheists as a collective will undoubtably fail because atheists have no collective agenda.

As an atheist, I somehow manage to live a compassionate life without god. Am I doing more harm than good? Am I as an atheist, doing more harm than good? Of course not, I am just a regular person. I can't remember the last time that I saw news report when someone did something bad in the name of atheism.

that's very cool, compassion is a desired trait in debates such as these and in practice too. I do not dislike all atheists really... just the ones with intentions I do not agree with.

btw I did a search for news reports with a mentioned keyword, I was surprised to find some interesting stuff I may need to read through. It was worth a check into anyway, no need to post any here... I had my answers by the first couple of pages of this topic. I have also researched the history of atheism on Wiki and one of the great proponents of it in my country, the story is not filled with much compassion... here you go: en.wikipedia.org...

Re Cosmic.Artifact

You wrote:

["that's very cool, compassion is a desired trait in debates such as these and in practice too. I do not dislike all atheists really... just the ones with intentions I do not agree with."]


If my memory serves me right, you're not extensively familiar with the bible.

And recently you've started to include 'compassion' into your argumentation (sometimes in a way, which to me seems rather unrelated to topic or the actual debate going on).

I'm making a guess now. Are your present attitudes an outcome of contact with some religionist or religionist group, which amongst other things include 'compassion' as a part of whatever they do or believe?

If that is the case, I suggest that while you acquaint yourself better with the bible, you also train somewhat on the practical application of 'compassion' instead of just using it as a verbal concept in your bad-tempered attacks on people with critical opinons of your ideology.

Originally posted by Phantom travellerNow my question:
Do you really believe that by insulting others for their point of view they will change their minds and start believing in your god(or any god)?

that's funny as all hell reading that, mine as well add (or no God) to the end of your question because that is exactly what atheists actively try to do relentlessly.

I am just a guy who lacks belief in deities.


Since people have such a hard time with some words I should just give them the definitions.

Some types never learn.