Categorizing Non-Theists

I was gonna arrange for you to be in Category Z . . .
but now you don't get ANY. :-(

A higher number of smaller boxes comes closer and
closer to an estimation of what exists.
It's just an estimation anyways, you know, a model to help
explore things and turn up the resolution a little.

Like food for thought when all anyone can really do
is suck through a little tiny straw. The universe is pretty big,
you know? Can't swallow it all at once....

Jeeez.

I happen to like models. And boxes too.

They wouldn't have been made out of ticky-tacky, would they? Do they all look just the same?

That's the truly beautiful and wondrous thing...
the closer you look

every single one is different.

I can assure you Setanta, it is not a fear driven exercise, unless you include my "fear" of not being able to express to a theist what "atheists" believe.

You and I seem to share a sense of wonder at the universe at large, and even, to a certain degree, a contempt for theistic views.

What I still fail to understand is why you would rebel against an attempt to clarify and present non-theistic views of the world. Where is the "intellectual danger" here?

(and for the record, I want to re-iterate that I asked for input on page one : I asked if I had missed anything and you arrived with your input claiming that I had missed something...and were then offended to be expected to explain)

I kinda like the summation of all possible theistic views.
That way it doesn't get dull or locked in, and you never
stop imagining more possibilities.

Sorry gotta go now . . . time for a walk, and go watch the sunrise. The frost crystals are amazing!

You are absolutely incorrect, Eorl. I am not offended, nor have i been.

At this point, i would like to point out to you, Eorl, that you have consistently, in this thread and the evolution thread, made assumptions about my emotional engagement in these discussions. When people speak face-to-face, there are intonations, expressions, gestures, postures--a variety of cues which make it not unreasonable to assume that one's interlocutor is angry, sad, resentful, fearful, etc.

However, online, no such cues are available. So please stop wasting your time and mine with assumptions about what i resent, what offends me--you cannot possibly know, and the cues which are available in conversation are absent here.

What I was attempting to achieve was a broad categorization of non-theistic views similar to the Lineal System of Biological Classification.

In no way does the Kingdom Animalia reduce or belittle the vast variety of species within that category. All it achieves is a "reasonable" clarity of understanding of what one means when one uses the word "animal"

All of science relies on being able to deal with classes of things. Are you suggesting science should also be abandoned in favour of studying each thing individually?

I'm not sure I have made any assumptions about your emotional position. I use the word "offended by" with respect to your feeling of "contempt". Can one be contemptuous without feelings?

EDIT: Actually I take that back. I did imply you were offended at being asked to explain. Rather, you were dismissive.

No, and your assumption to that effect is arrogant. Do you actually consider yourself the Linnaeus of theistic and non-theistic views? What hubris. By the way, the term you want is linnean classification.

You have objected as soon as i have contended that your categorizations are not comprehensive, where as those who study phylology immediately revise linnean classification as soon as any exemplar is found which does not fit existing categories.

I find it hilarious that you equate your exercise here with the monumental work of Carl Linnaeus.

Certainly one can entertain contempt without either having taken offense, or resented anything.

Setanta, I am comparing with "Linnaeus" (thankyou, I am always happy to be corrected on such matters - and please for give my rusty memory) only for the sake of explaining the purpose of categorization in general which you claim to so be contemptuous of. I simply chose the most useful of systems of classification. You are being deliberately obtuse.

Yes, as soon as any exemplar is found WHICH DOES NOT FIT into existing categories. If you walked in to Carl's office and said "I don't fit into Homo Sapiens, and I'm contemptuous of your attempts to assume I do" I daresay they would not automatically assign you a new phylum. They would look to see why you didn't fit, which is exactly what I did with you.

You will find little arrogance in my opening statement on this forum. I asked for a collaborative effort. You have not been the least bit constructive in this regard, nor, in my opinion have you explained your contempt clearly.

I am not being obtuse in the least. Your system of classification is not internationally recognized, does not provide parameters which will assist those who would identify the heretofore unknown--in short, it is laughably absurd to compare your system here to linnean classification. It is rather like a boy putting a block of wood into a stream, with a stick standing up to which a rag of cloth is attached, and then contending his effort is comparable to McKay's designing and building Flying Cloud, the fastest ship in the world in her day.

You won't be walking into Carl's office any time soon, although you may have the opportunithy to visit his grave, if ever you are in Sweden. Your attempt at an analogy breaks down right away--linnean classification depends upon discreet, specified definitions with which one can test whether or not something belongs in a certain classification. You have simply offered your categories, without any such mechanism for determining if a theistic or athesitic belief set belongs in any particular category.

I have explained my contempt in clear, distinct language, for which i have carefully chosen the words. If you fail to understand, i certainly do not consider myself responsible.

I agree with all of this except your claim that you are not being obtuse. Again, I was demonstrating the usefulness of classification in general, which you had dismissed as contemptuous !!! I was not presenting as equable my petty attempt at collecting the variety of non-theistic views .....with the linnean classification ! It is only you who is suggesting such a thing, out of context with my point.



Then perhaps this is where you could have been constructive if you had wished to be. (oh, and I had a feeling you'd try to make it look as though I thought Carl was alive. I'm not that ignorant. I'll admit I don't know or care where he is buried)



Then perhaps you can supply the answer to the question that prompted my attempt to generate a communal answer, (NOTE: not MY answer)... "Do atheists simply reject faith?" You might want to start by getting everyone to agree on what an atheist is.

Judgin' by the interest accruin' to each, I'd say some folks in this discussion, despite their own protestations, individually have considerable capital investment in the topic ...

I'm fine with what goes on here, as long as it costs me nothing, and i don't get fired for doing this at work. I certainly am investing nothing in this, other than idle time.

huh? How do you mean timber?

<chuckle>

seriously guys...now I do feel dumb...what "goes on here" that I don't get? What capital investment?
PM me if I'm farting in church...

It seems to me considerable energy has been devoted here of late not to explorin' the topic, but rather to promotin' and defendin' individual manners of explorin' the topic, with an emphasis on the establishment of primacy for one or another presentation as opposed to any treatment of the topic.

"I said, you said", "I'm right, you're wrong", "No, I'm right, you're wrong" ...

'Course, I could be wrong.