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

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

More Orwellian Atheist Lanaguge

I have noted the Orwellian nature of atheist language. For atheists reading this, Orwell (George Orwell) was a great writer who specialized political language. One of his greatest achievements was to write an essay which one of the best ever written on the use of language in political ideology: "Politics and the English Language," written in 146. In that great work he reminds us that:

Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

Never was this so true than in dealing with atheists. In the way atheist are beginning to use speech we can see all tricks Orwell talked about. Of course most of these internet atheists have not read Animal Farm or 1984 so they have no idea. But in their use of certain words they disguise totalitarian leanings one would never suspect. The totalitarian regimes of the Soviet Union refereed to their political dissidents as "mentally ill" and kept putting in mental institutions becuase they felt rejecting the worker's paradise must surely be a form of mental illness.

I've already written about how the atheists use term "delusion." They actually don't use it to mean mental illness. They use the term to merely mean "a wrong idea." But in using a term that everyone knows means a false construct which results from mental illness they are actually calling religious people mentally ill without having to admit that they are doing it. It's like if they said religious people are stupid. The religious person objects but they said "it's a special form of the word that doesn't mean really not bright," bu then they keep saying it. We would get the idea. It's like insulting people who plausible deniable. why use a special term such as this just to mean "this is idea is wrong?" obviously it's mean Otto carry a connotation. Now consider the dangers of labeling as mentally ill any hone who happens to disagree with your point of view. Atheism as a whole is become more totalitarian all the time and they can't see it because they are so addicted to the charge they get from feeling superior.

Here's the latest example of the Orwellian tendencies. They Dawkies use the term "cult" in relation to all religious belief and groups. Of course they have no knowledge of the true sociological meaning of the term. They think all cults are imposing their will upon brain washed lackies whose live they take over and ruin. An example is the posting by a CARM Dawkie named "Toast"



The title of the therad:" a few questions about cults" so he's just equating religion with cults.

If no one ever told you about your god you would still believe?

if so, would your belief mirror the one you have been indoctrinated into?

if you still would believe even if know one told you these things to
believe would you not just be making things up?

He's trying to say that because you can't come to the same conclusions you do as a Christain on your own with no Bible and no church to guide you then it must be a cult because it's others imposing their will.


another post by Toast:

sorry but everything...a religion is a cult

This is also the same tendency. Everything the other guys value we disvalue so every term they use we must re-think impose our own terms. We can't allow them to name their own things, such as "chruch" we must name them and stick them whit the connotations of our own interpretation. So thus Churches become cults. The irony meter is gong to blaring in a moment.

The really alarming tendency is the almost blatant admittion that ideas which don't stack up the atheist ideology are "dangerous" and must be controlled. This statement was made on CARM sept 21 2009 by "Mountaineer Elf.

Because some ideas can be dangerous. Not all ideas deserve to be heard if they are dangerous.

Trying to usurp science and reality to stick in your deity is dangerous.

The context he's speaking of is an argument for the existence of God. The idea that a new concept or some concept that he doesn't agree with is "usurping scinece" is quite alarming. What's worse is he's not content for scinece to stay in its own domain it must conquer all and control all reality. Science when is arguemnts for God usurping scinece? That can only be the case if he thinks that science proper domain is dictating to use that we can't believe in God. It's even worse that equates science with reality. His view is so totalizing that it must control all, there can be nothing in existence that is not controlled by his view point.

In defending this other atheoids literally said "O he didn't mean it that way and you know it." How do we know it? How could he mean it in any other way? In what way could God arguments userp scinece and reality without the idea that science is all reality?

Here's the Orwellian rub. In animal farm the Pigs control the farm. There's a revolution the animals have overthrown the farmer and changed the name of the Farm to "animal farm" they are in charge. The pigs are the leaders, they keep putting up posters with slogans telling the other animals what it's all about. But they keep changing the messages until they come around to mean the exact opposite of what they did at first This is the way totalitarians use language, according to Orwell.

(for a synopsis of the book go here)

Atheist used to call themselves "free thinkers." They wanted us to believe that they were just sticking for the rights of us all to think anything we think and believe anything we believe. Now they begin to define believing things that contradict their ideology ad "delusion" and "usurping reality." When I pointed this out Mountaineer Elf redefined the nature of free thinking:


then:

True free thinkers are those that can speak and think with accuracy and honesty. As a scientist, I pride myself on being able to read and understand the natural world and everything it has to offer. Not all of it is 100% right, but I consider the 95% to be good enough.

This is so Orwellian everyone need to see this. He's narrowed the definitive of free thinking to the point where it includes his ideology and nothing more. So free thinkers are people who agree with me. Scientists. The true free thinkers agree with me and nothing more.

But wait he's not done. It get's worse. he goes one better:

The rest of your anti-free thought rant snipped - not worth responding to insults. If you want a discussion, I'm more than willing to discuss. If you want to hurl insults, I can just go back to the Evolution/ID forum and have Creationists assume that I'm stupid for not buying into talking snakes, magic trees, and global floods.

now he defines opposing his form of totalitarianism is "anti-free thinking." This is just like the communists. If you are dissident you are mentally ill and sanity is defined as obeying the state. If you point out that he's against free thought hen you are anti-free thought because free thought has now been reduced to nothing more than agreement with him. To disagree with him is opposes free thought. So the person who thinks we should all have the right to think for ourselves is now anti-free thought and one who thinks we have to control everything that is not in agreement with the ideology is now the free thinker! Black and just become white, as Orwell said. That is exactly what Orwell said political language does. read it again:



"Political Language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.."

Then his cohorts carry it a step further and if you dissent from this truth regeime of the atheists then you are a danger to humanity:


May brick

So Metacrock would be happy for children to be taught that HIV is spread through vaccines and that condoms offer no protection?

You can't get more Orwellian than this. This is exactly right out of 1984 where the state has the right to imposes that dissents must must accept their view of reality even by forcing them to admit something such as 2 + 2 = 5. In forcing them to accept something categorically and fundamentally believe to be totally wrong they are eliminating their ability to ever think independently. That is exactly what's happened to many of these atheists and what they are trying to do to religious people.

In brow beating, intimidating, by mocking and ridiculing people they force them to de-convert and in so doing they force them to alter their most based and cherished beliefs and the fundamental understanding they have of who they are and what reality is. there is nothing more hinus one can do to another person. that is on a par with murder and If thought like they do I should start calling them murderers.

I'm sure they will come back and say they can't force anyone to deconvert against their will, that doesn't stop them from trying and it means they are shutting down reason and thought in discourse, they shut down reasoned discussion and reduce the whole situation to a political escapade. Perhaps this means they are not quite as bad as I think, but only becuase they aren't successful enough in what they are trying to do.