Thursday, May 5, 2016

More Orwellian Atheist Lanaguge: The Brave New WORLD of ATHEISM


no 9 4/28/11

with MFFJM2

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
your assertion here is "there's only one kind of understanding and anything that doesn't allow me to control is not real because I exclude it."

Using quotation marks for a quote that you made up is disingenuous.
I've argued that before against atheist who did that. I should have thought to use italics.
Truth is I think that's a petty issue, it depends upon the context, but i don't want to argue about it.

I made no such assertion. I asked what this other realm of knowledge might be, and for all your asserted education and experience you have yet to actually answer that questions.
Here he is responding to my statment above in yellow and basically admitts he believes the only form of knowledge is scitnfiic knowledge.

By "other realm" of knowledge we are talking about as opposed to scientific knowledge. So he's basically agreeing that there is only one from of knowledge and that's the kind of knowledge his ideology claims to control.

Do you have a problem seeing words on the screen? What part of "phenomenology" do you not get? why do you think I put up three links if I didn't answer it?

What might constitute another form of knowledge which can provide facts, include testable hypotheses, and which is also falsifiable. So how about answering that question instead of one you made up..?

(1) tell me why it has to be testable in the same way? If it's a question that doesn't' lend itself to that kind of testing wouldn't it better to find another way to get answers answers rather than just saying "If I can't control it I don't want it?"

(2) the reason you are willing to think there's only one kind of knowledge is because you only allow knowing to be something you control. That's why you have to have i testable so you can absolutely be sure about it, and be in control. Not all questions lends themselves to that kind of answer.

(3) Textual criticism is testable and can be falsified and verified.

(4) Phenomenology can falsified and verified.

(5) formal logic can be falsified and verified. Not empirical because it's not empirical but it can be controlled because we know the rules of logic.


that's what ideology is! that's not scinece it's ideology.

I bow to your superior knowledge of what constitutes ideology, because you seem to have nothing to offer but ideology.

that's a silly come back. I just demonstrated that your view is ideology, you have no reason to think mine is. Mine is the opposite of ideology because I'm not arguign one idea fits all questions.
That's like the charge of reverse racism, if it weer made by the Klan against MLK. Not that I'm on a par with him. Yet what is really tells us is that he's not following the issues.

Meta (before)

Look at what you said. you essentially said this: If there's another way to achieve exactly the same results in the same way and validate my world view then tell me."

No, I used the standard definition of knowledge.

The standard? "what I'm good at is knowledge, you are good at is not."

No, you used one standard that is designed to make sure that only the knowledge want to exist can fit the bill. If you were willing to accept global knowledge you would change the criteria for what constitutes valid knowledge. You keep the criteria such that only one thing can fit it becasue that allows control. that's what ideology is about, controlling minds and dominating people.

scientism is actually fascism.

Are you now asserting that knowledge is something other than facts which provide testable hypotheses, are confirmable, provide predictive power, and are falsifiable..?

there's what he thinks is his standard of knowledge, testable, predictive, in other words. science. science is the only form of knowledge because atheists think they have a "scientific" view point which they don't. He just associates the word "knowledge" with science. If you gave him a sensence like "you have no knowledge of French" would he say "French is not scinece so there's no knowledge connected to knowing French? I'll think I'll ask him that and report back.

of course! use your head for minute. Are all questions the kind of question? can't you ask questions about things that can't be tested empirically? what if you just accidentally happen to think about "gee I wonder if there's a meaning to life?" you test can't test that in the way you would a air bag. Are you really willing to write off the possibility of meaning just because you can't control the answers th way you would with a scientific test?

You seem to have a strange concept of knowledge, so maybe you can define it for us. In philosophy, knowledge is certain understanding, as opposed to opinion. So what makes your different realm of knowledge different from your opinion..?
because my knowledge is open to truth whatever it may be, I'm not willing to write off trusts just because I control their outcome they way scientific testing allows one to do.
why would you ever think that Plato's concept of the one is not knowledge? what ni the hell would keep it from being knowledge? If you read Plato don't you then have knowledge of what he said? is not knowledge? only what you like can be knowledge because it supports your view. don't you get it? you are selfish, you trying to control what people believe so you can rationalize getting what you want. don't you see that? you cut off all reality that doesn't fit in with your little system becuase it doesn't give you what you want.

I don't mean to say that you personally are selfish of course, but it's a system. It's an ideology that's the way they work. One thought fits all questions and all other outlooks are banned.

what if there is a form of knowledge that doesn't' employ the same kind of tests?

Then what makes it certain..?

why does it have to be certain? ever look up the word knowledge in the dictionary? w Nothing about certainty.the reason is so that your ideology can claim it has truth. that' the only reason you have self deceiving ridiculous criterion that can't really be met. that's like saying it has to be "objective."

How can it be understood as certain if there is no way to verify it, to test it, or to falsify it..? What makes it knowledge...? Because you assert it is..?
He's clearly not thinking of knowledge as a body of ideas that you know about, but as certainty, knowledge is only that which is certain. That's part of the Orwellian nature of his scientific atheist ideology because certainty is about control.

It's knowledge if you know it. Knowing something makes it knowledge. If you don't have certainty you can know about it as an idea. you don't have know only facts. facts are misleading because they are usually facts, they are usually political stances disguised as facts.

but you can still come to a reasonable understanding of it's reality?


global knowledge.


If you can't verify it, validate it, certify it, use it to predict, or falsify it, then how can it be knowledge, which is certain understanding..? How do you arrive at certainty, without the tests mentioned..? Try answering the above questions, and thrill me with your acumen.
are you actually admitting to thinking that scinece is the only kneed of knowledge? then why are did not you read the stuff I linked to on phenomenology?

how do you know there aren't other ways to validate and verify things? you have accept the idea that only one kind of certainty matters. and the reason for it is to control your mind.

you are not thinknig about what I said. you don't want truth you want preteens. atheism is brain washing. you are brain washed. you are brain washed into thinkg there' one kind of truth. this is the most sick and disgusting thing Anaheim has done to people. that is fascism.

you would still exclude it becasue you can't control it. that's ideology.


I don't care in the slightest about control. I do care about someone trying to pass off their opinion as knowledge, based solely on their say so. Ideology is claiming there is another form of knowledge and then insisting it can't be tested for accuracy.


O come off it! you made that up. you just sat right and made a definition no one else uses merely to say "No no my deal isn't that yours is." that's so dishonest!

He says he doesn't care about control but what is ruled out a prori if you limit knowledge on to "certainty?" God of course. They cant' disprove god, they can't beat God arguments by logic so they have to cheat by eliminating the concept through narrowing the focus of scinece to only "established certain knowledge." That also eliminates further work in scinece. Not only would that take out a bunch of things like string theory but it also means no new work could be done because just speculating would mean allowing unestablished ideas in as knowledge.

That's the Orwellian aspect. Change the meaning of words to fit only our project.

Just for grins here's how Webster defines Knowledge:

Definition of KNOWLEDGE

obsolete : cognizance
a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding knowledge> c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned knowledge>
a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind b archaic : a branch of learning

Examples of KNOWLEDGE

  1. She has little knowledge of fashion.
  2. He has devoted himself to the pursuit of knowledge.
  3. She gained a thorough knowledge of local customs.
  4. Did you have any knowledge of her intentions?
  5. At that time the word science had not been narrowed down to one kind of knowledge; it meant whatever was known, and men of learning were still able to possess most of it. —Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence, 2000


Middle English knowlege, from knowlechen to acknowledge, irregular from knowen
First Known Use: 14th century

No comments: