Ontology of atheism

+ dolphino  15:43:13
All religious people are atheists.
You can't not be atheist.
BS_Lewis  15:43:23
i avoid the topic
+ Euphony_  15:43:29
ummm wut?
BS_Lewis  15:43:30
i'll give a vague answer
+ Euphony_  15:43:39
religious people are atheists?
+ dolphino  15:43:42
Yes.
+ Euphony_  15:43:48
how so?
+ dolphino  15:44:03
Atheism is true. People who aren't aware they're atheists are atheists having a subset of different mental experiences.
Those experiences are also available to aware atheists.
I'm giving no value to history, just psychology and semantics.
The multi-thousand year history of theism has no value in this context.
BS_Lewis  15:45:05
People who believe god exists but aren't aware that they don't believe god exists.
+ Banquo  15:45:08
christianity is a force of evil
+ dolphino  15:45:09
It's just a kind of psychological exploration by human apes.
BS_Lewis  15:45:11
Gotcha
+ Euphony_  15:45:12
this sounds very pedantic and the sort of thing that makes idiots feel clever
anyway walking the dog brb
 ⓘ Euphony_ is now known as euphaway
+ dolphino  15:45:36
euphaway: Perhaps you dislike philosophy, then.
+ euphaway  15:45:45
totes
+ dolphino  15:45:50
Because the heart of philosophy is precise use of language in well-articulated ontologies.
@ THERetroGamerNY  15:45:58
Philosophy makes idiots sound clever?
+ Banquo  15:46:31
THERetroGamerNY do you drink?
+ dolphino  15:46:46
My ontology doesn't leverage historical knowledge very much. It's rooted in contemporary psychology and science.
CaveGuy  15:47:21
^_^
BS_Lewis  15:47:42
<+dolphino> Because the heart of philosophy is precise use of language in well-articulated ontologies. <--- I agree with that 100%. Not sure you're effective at it though
+ dolphino  15:47:49
Euphony, you have announced you dislike debate. I believed you the first time you expressed this about yourself. I will not debate you again.
BS_Lewis, why do you believe that
 ⓘ tzipsaway is now known as tzip
+ Banquo  15:49:55
i dont ever want to imagine what fucking lania might sound like
lol
BS_Lewis  15:50:36
dolphino: sometimes you dabble in the word salad. You can dismiss this by claiming I'm just an idiot, but I require much less effort understanding the writings of philosophers than what you write.
+ dolphino  15:51:27
Most philosophical works feature sentence structure much more complex than what I write here
I disagree with your claim
BS_Lewis  15:51:47
That's fine.
+ dolphino  15:51:52
Everything I've said in the present context has been very clear
We wished to know what it means to be an atheist. This is a question of ontology.
+ Banquo  15:52:09
this is the ep of tng where Wesley tries to get laid
+ dolphino  15:52:16
What is the class of atheism which things can be classified into that group
Most of us have the standard Western ontology, codified in our English language, that has theism as the root and atheism the response
With the growth of atheism, it has acquired a semi-independent existence for some of us
I asserted a very different ontology -- standard practice in philosophy that you've read
BS_Lewis  15:53:23
dolphino: Maybe you should write the new introduction to JL Mackie's The Miracle of Theism if it ever goes into reprint
+ dolphino  15:53:52
I was explicit in how my ontology defined atheism, specifically devaluing history and putting an emphasis on human psychology and science, e.g. physics.
Humans generally value history a lot, and that makes sense. You also see history of code as being relevant in what it means today and what changes we make to it
This, as you know, comes with various problems, too
Another approach is to start afresh with a focus on contemporary goals
We know the claims of theism are false. Atheism is reality. Therefore, all humans are atheists. In their internal state, however, they can believe things unbounded to reality, as that's part of the point of the brain
To be a simulation-prediction engine by making a mini-universe in 1500cc
BS_Lewis  15:56:02
ok
+ dolphino  15:56:13
Those beliefs are just psychological variation. You can call that psychological variation theism/atheism. I don't, because I am emphasizing reality over human perception of it
 ⓘ tzip is now known as tzipsaway
+ dolphino  15:56:30
The atheism class got promoted from human psychology to physics
This is all quite clear
+ dolphino  15:58:02
I think by continuing to allow atheism to be just a psychological category in its primary definition, we fail to confront the historical limitations of one of our primary cognitive modes: socially-reinforced magical thinking
aka theism