More Orwellian Atheist Lanaguge: The Brave New WORLD of ATHEISM

CARM
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."
MFF

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.

MFF

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.

Meta:

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?

MFF

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..?

Meta

(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.

Meta:(before)

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

MFF

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

Meta

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."

MFF

No, I used the standard definition of knowledge.

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

Meta:

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.

Meta

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?

MFF

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..?

Meta

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?

MFF

Then what makes it certain..?

Meta

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."

MFF

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.

Meta

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?

MFF

How..?

Meta

global knowledge.

MFF

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?

Meta

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.

MFF

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.

Meta

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

1

obsolete : cognizance

2

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>

3

archaic : sexual intercourse

4

a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind b archaic : a branch of learning

See knowledge defined for English-language learners »

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
6. With their aid, he should be able to adapt himself selectively to his culture, rejecting its evils, stupidities and irrelevances, gratefully accepting all its treasures of accumulated knowledge … and practical wisdom. —Aldous Huxley, “Culture and the … ,” in Artificial Paradises,Mike Jay editor, 1999
7. The knowledge of the godawful way people act (their greed, their vicarious or direct violence), and of the youth and helplessness of those who died, leads to shame … —Harold Brodkey, New Yorker, 30 Jan. 1995
8. [+]more[-]hide

Origin of KNOWLEDGE

Middle English knowlege, from knowlechen to acknowledge, irregular from knowen

First Known Use: 14th century

Atheist Brain Washing: The Hard Sell

I've discussed and focused upon atheist brain washing tactics in the past. Here is one of the most blatant examples of attempting it I've ever seen. A new poster on CARM calling himself "Holmes" (so I of course call him "Sherlocke") is the most blatant example. He began very aggressively saying "you know there's no God, yes you do." When you try to answer the comes back "you know you are deceiving yourself, yes you do." then he began that the tact that Chieftains are lying to themselves and others we don't really bleieve in God. He goes to great lengths to cram everything he sees or encounters into this mold.

Sherlocke's brain washing tactics on forcing people to question that they believe in God.

Holmes post 15

You either do or do not believe that god sees all and knows all and reads your every thought. If you believe it, you are "constantly aware of" his presence. This admission of not constantly being aware of god's presence is an admission that you do not believe he is constantly present. Let's say I want to commit adultery but I believe my wife is in the room. Do I see it as an advantage for her to stand behind a screen so I cannot see her? This would only help if I did NOT believe she was still in the room. You Christians do not believe in god, and you know it.

Whatever "awareness" you hae of god is NOT enough to think he is really watching you. You are capable of ignoring this supposed fact you claim to know. This is not possible. You either know he is watching or you do not. Your actions, and now your words prove you do not know this. The only thing you do different from an atheist is that you claim to know.

and this:

post 17: If they are liars, they are liars. I have had people lie to me about having had an experience they did not have. We have to use our common sense in trying to know when people are lying. If someone tells me "I can fly" and I say "OK, jump off a cliff" and they refuse, I know they are lying. If someone says "I believe god will heal our diseases if we ask him" and then they go to the doctor, I know they are lying.

Originally Posted by bierce

Post 17: What makes you think your view of reality is the standard by which we all must judge ourselves and our experiences?

Holems

Reality should be our standard. I don't have a view "of" reality, I only view reality. Reality is what is real and it is just as real for you as for me. If god were real you and I and everyone would really believe in him. He is not real and you guys only pretend to believe.

His response to me when I point out that one can't be "on" every minute 24/7. the background here is he argues that since we believe God watches us every minute if we really believed in God we would never do anything wrong. I argue that we can't be focused on that fact all the time, we have to relax. Hyperventilate is exhausting can't be maintained. God doesn't expect that or would go mad.

Originally Posted by HowardHolmes

You missed the point entirely.

Meta:

NOooo you have. you don't undersatnd my answer.

Holmes

You have NOT claimed to believe that Obama is aware of your every thought. However, Christians do claim to believe that god is aware of every thought and deed. If they REALLY believed it they would be constantly aware that he is indeed aware of every thought and deed. They would not sin if they really believed god was watching, just like they would not shoplift if they believed the security guard was watching.

Meta:

I said we are aware of it intellectually but you have to shut it off every so often and focus on other things, that's human nature and we can't help doing it, we would go mad if we didn't. Like a true ideolgoical you don't listen you don't try to apply it you just look at the template and go "it's not on the template so I can't think about it, so I'll say he missed the point."

Homles

I don't have to convince Christians they don't believe. They already know that they don't believe.

"Don't confuse me with the facts. I know I'm right I don't need proof.

Meta:
I do bleieve. you saying I don't is a lie. you are pretending ot know things about people you can't know. you are refusing to listen to what they say about how the feel. you are trying to brain wash people and bully out of their faith. this is brain washing. this how it works.

Holmes

This is true of people. it is not true of what Xns claim about god. God can be aware of every thought and deed. He's like SC who "sees you when you're sleeping and knows when you're awake". Kids did were naughty because they did not believe the son. Christians sin because they do not believe in god.

Meta:

but we can't focus on it every minute. we know about it, but we can't always be cognizant of it. people who live together are not totally rapture about each others love ever second. ever had a relationship? You get to where you are comfortable with the other and you stop being goo goo eyed all the time.

Holmes

I'm not claiming god does not exist. I'm claiming you do not believe he exists. If you did, you would act differently than you do.

Meta:

but i do believe he exists. you don't have the right so I don't. you are telling an untruth. you are using bully tactics to brain wash people.

From the silly to ridiculous.

on a thread asking about the truth behind 9/11 I said this:

Meta:I know guys who think the government did it in order to give grounds for starting the war. they have amassed a huge case with gobs of evidence. the reason that strikes me as urban legend is becuase they said the same thing about FDR and Pearl Harbor.

Notice I did not say these guys are Christians and notice I didn't say I agree with them.

Holmes:

Typical of Christian mindset. Firstly, these guy do not have "gobs of evidence." In fact, they have zero evidence. They merely have claims. If they had evidence, they would disclose that evidence and everyone would believe it.

He sees the fallacy of Christians in everything. Even when he doesn't know they are atheist he stills sees the fallacy of Christians in what they say. Even when they don't agree with what he's calling "the typical Christian mind set." He's got it on the brain.

Why do I call it brain washing? It is bullying.It's an insistence that he knows our minds better than we do and it's creating self doubt and conflict and implying that 'You can't trust yourself, you need me to interpret reality for you." He set's up conflict and casts doubt upon one's ability to know one's on mind. Thus he seeks to break down the will and force reliance upon his judgement. He's about as subtle as a sledge hammer. He's like a guy trying to do brain surgery with a plat knife rather than a scalpel.

Atheists cling to Cherished myth of "science beatting religion"

 this post started with a childish little atheist named "wiseone's2cents" who claimed that all evidence supporting religion is faked and that the Catholics pay scientists to fake evidence. His original comment:

I will join in on the fight. I'm sure they are watching me and trying to silence me as we speak(I've already been threatened.lol).ROTFLOL!!!!!But the cats out of the bag, and more and more people are catching on to the mass brainwashing!

 I said:

that's a silly argument. scinece is not proof. this is nothing but the ideology of the fortress of facts. how many times have atheists denied they belief in it but here is again.

show me a single scientific fact that disproves anymore than particular ideas of God.

 Then Magritte says

This is a rather revealing statement. I've said in the past that the defining characteristic of theology over time is strategic retreat from knowledge. It seems the defining characteristic of God is - not having defining characteristics!

 Meta:

  But in other fields (remember religion not supposed to be scinece) you wold call that progress.

surgeons stop hacking off limbs when there's a wound they can't treat, and start opporating because they learn about germs, so you call that progress.

theolgoians say the earth wasn't' created in six days becuase science shows us it's older than it should be if that were true. and we have evidence that humanity evolved so it's not created in one day. you say "O see scinece is destroying religion."

the medicos had to change practice and develop methods of opporating becuase they discovered new info. that's progress.

theolgoians stop certain outdated beliefs and replace them with theology like process that incorporates evolution you say that's destroying religion.

the reason is because you assume fundie assumptions about revelation rather than seeking out historical assumptions about it.

you are a fundie. your assumptions are fundamentalist.

 Originally Posted by Magritte

That's a poor analogy. There's no such thing as apophatic science.

 Meta
 yes there is. Read Popper. that's all there is according to him.

atheists really do believe very deeply in the fortress of facts concept. Popper really does disprove it.



Originally Posted by Magritte

What utter foolishness.

Popper's principle is that scientific propositions should be falsifiable. Theology's (tacit) principle is that religious propositions must be UNfalsifiable. That's why the state of affairs has developed such that the borders of science and religion are complementary, not congruent. Science advances, religion withdraws; through negative reinforcement, religion learns to make "safe" nonspecific statements only(*). Hence, apophatic theology.

(* I suppose this only applies to liberal theology; "Bob" knows there are plenty of yahoos clinging to falsified religious beliefs)

 Meta:

(1) there's no difference in saying what I said and saying "that scientific propositions should be falsifiable" those are the same thing so you are not refutting what I said. My analysis that that means that science is not a fortress of facts, atheism is not being proved and so on is still the case.

(2) your assertion Theology's (tacit) principle is that religious propositions must be UNfalsifiable. that's a lie you made it up. I don't know of single theologian, council or creed that say that. you are incompetent, you are ignorant you have no training. its' just another atheist atheist know nothing lies to lecture theologian on something he's never studied

(3) you define the refinement of religoius ideas as "withdraw" and purposely refuse to use the same terminology of scinece when it becomes outdated and people move to some other theory. The truth is scinece is littered with disproved theories from scinece retreated.

(4) you admit that science and religion have different domains. that means you are contradicting yourself when you turn around nad say ignorant. y that "region is withdrawing." Withdrawn form what? form a Territory that was not it's won how bad is that?

you want it bot ways. you know better to claim that they have the same domain but then also you want to pretend that religion is losing some imaginary contest that it never undertook in the first place.

(5) "through negative reinforcement, religion learns to make "safe" nonspecific statements " That's just another way of saying we are becoming more exacting and accurate in what go into which domain. In ancient times people mixed the two and used religion to explain the physical world because they didn't have sickness. As science evolves then obviously you have to disentangle them. that's not matter of one beating up the other it's just a matter of taxonomy.

you want to use the terminology that privileges scinece give is some imaginary victory in a mythical struggle it's not evening just so you can feel special about being an atheist becuase you have been pelted with truths and you see thee utter stupidity of your childish ideology.

The more clearly you begin to see that the fortress of facts is a house of cards the more tightly you clinch the last cherished lies that buttress the illusion.

CARM lies and atheist lies

I got banned on carm because that shit hole "Blondie" aka Steve Smith aka MIv aka Deiest who has been hounding me for weeks goaded me into making insults and then turned me in after telig me that I did wrong to turn him in .

the message board thing is really stupid. I have been a fool to post on that toxic carm Math Slick is an idiot and the atheists who post there are stupid as dirt.

The last exchange I had one of them was saying something about no evidence God I reminded him that I had 200 studies that none of them will read. Then he asserted that they have read them, again. that is a lie that have told over and over again. Every time I've looked what they claim is a study it's not. They have to read one. those who claim have read either a summary article that talks about all the studies (but the author did a study so the name being the same they same they assume it's the study) or a study that is ot one of the 200 but it in fact a study. So then assert that they know all about it because they read 2 studies, weather they fit or not.


They are not intellectuals they are not thinkers. They are trying to be thinkers they are trying to get their rocks of by venting their hatred for God via bullying Christians.

More Orwellian Atheist Lanaguge: The Brave New WORLD of ATHEISM

CARM
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."

MFF

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.

MFF

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.

Meta:

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?

MFF

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..?

Meta

(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.

Meta:(before)

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

MFF

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

Meta

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."

MFF

No, I used the standard definition of knowledge.

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

Meta:

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.

Meta

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?

MFF

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..?

Meta

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?

MFF

Then what makes it certain..?

Meta

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."

MFF

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.

Meta

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?

MFF

How..?

Meta

global knowledge.

MFF

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?

Meta

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.

MFF

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.

Meta

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

1

obsolete : cognizance

2

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>

3

archaic : sexual intercourse

4

a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind b archaic : a branch of learning

See knowledge defined for English-language learners »

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
6. With their aid, he should be able to adapt himself selectively to his culture, rejecting its evils, stupidities and irrelevances, gratefully accepting all its treasures of accumulated knowledge … and practical wisdom. —Aldous Huxley, “Culture and the … ,” in Artificial Paradises,Mike Jay editor, 1999
7. The knowledge of the godawful way people act (their greed, their vicarious or direct violence), and of the youth and helplessness of those who died, leads to shame … —Harold Brodkey, New Yorker, 30 Jan. 1995
8. [+]more[-]hide

Origin of KNOWLEDGE

Middle English knowlege, from knowlechen to acknowledge, irregular from knowen

First Known Use: 14th century

Are Atheists Working on Crating Their Own Form of Logic?

I saw this happen on the sec web. They created their own form of Bible scholarship then it became established among them so to argue on that board meant one was in a wired world where the whole of Biblical scholarship was meaningless and you had to learn Bible scholarship form the ground up using their ideas.

Get them out of their board community and they were like uneducated morons compared to the real world Biblical scholarship. They had accepted certain things as facts so many times that they just became facts in the their minds and now how much proof one had to the contrary they were just stuck on those ideas. One such ideas was John Rylands Fragment was like dated to 200AD no scholars agree with.

I see atheist make up their own logical rules then imposing them as though they real rules of logic. These rules are designed to get around God arguments.

(1) you can prove a negative.

no logician anywhere agrees. In fact those who try to prove you can't don't deal with a true negative in the same way as the negative "lack of God." But they just about have it made into a hard and fast rule.

(2) lack of evdience is proof.

it's corollary

(3) Argument form silence is proof


this latter is especially liked by the Jesus mythers.Those guys are also making up their own rules of historiography.

(4) A necessity can only do necessary acts.

(5) contingencies can be independent of other things and could be eternal.

these are all things real logicians abhor.


One of the mjaor one's

(6) argument from analogy.

always a fallacy. can't prove anything with an analogy. I see atheists using them as proof all the time.