cognitive linguistics vs. predicate logic

	Duration: 166 seconds Upload Time: 07-04-03 04:31:16 User: pyrrho314 :::: Favorites
Description: philosophy of cognition is more important than formal logic in this question because you have pressed logic into conclusions beyond the scope of its applicability. Logic, formal, takes principles and combines them into conclusions according to a formal system with particular characteristics and relations between the principles and conclusions. It does not define what is or is not a belief. There can be a devout atheism which is a "belief"... akin to Satan Worship within Christianity... it adopts a belief system that it then opposes point for point. Real atheism cannot be that... a type of theism, and is the rejection of a cognitive frame, specifically, the theistical frame... and is instead a word for eliminitating that frame. When the frame is eliminated one is in need of a new worldview, "atheism" cannot be that worldview, because it is not a worldview, but the rejection of a worldview. Share with friends
Comments
marco054 ::: Favorites So if I say i'm not a racist. Than you would say: quit defining yourself to racism? Hm. We have to deal with the world we live in. logically your right, almost in a "kicking in an open door" kind of way. But reality features theism and religion, so if we want to have an opinion about it some of us say: We are non-believers / atheists. 07-05-07 12:13:53 _____________________________________________________
pyrrho314 ::: Favorites but it's true in this sense... take a higher level of dedication, lets say being "not a racist" is your life work... then yes, you would define your life in terms of racism. And if you win, what you have is not a replacement philosophy, but a clean slate. Clean slates are nice, but we shouldn't get confused, when "racism" is gone, dedicating yourself to fighting racism is also gone, and so with religion. 07-05-07 16:29:08 _____________________________________________________
marco054 ::: Favorites True, atheism is not a replacement philosophy, it's a negative reaction to theism. Theism forces people to have this reaction, because of it's dominance in our culture. The replacement philosophy is e.g. humanism or naturalism. Atheism is important non the less. 07-05-11 16:51:37 _____________________________________________________
pyrrho314 ::: Favorites agreed 07-05-11 17:16:17 _____________________________________________________
shtosuka ::: Favorites I agree. I think many atheists are simply labeled by believers.. and about taking the position of a negative.. I also think this isn't really a choice yet.. like you say, it's still important. To defend some things which people that are atheists do believe, they have to address "reason roadblocks" until they are no longer taken seriously. 07-05-15 02:54:16 _____________________________________________________
pyrrho314 ::: Favorites well put 07-05-15 14:25:51 _____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
Aarongamer ::: Favorites dont fucking label me im just a black man in this so so weird world lol 07-06-03 00:01:56 _____________________________________________________
jazzguitarman ::: Favorites what about existentialism? I mean, you aren't claiming that the rejection of theism is a theistic framework, are you? It is anti-theistic, and it would be necessary if we weren't indocrinated in that way from small children. This anti-theist framework is a deconversion process neccessary to those of us looking for better and more realistic frameworks. 07-06-30 17:13:15 _____________________________________________________
pyrrho314 ::: Favorites atheism can mean anti-theism or "without theism"... if it is an ideology, then it must be the former and it will share the ontology of theism but take a contrary view. If it is the latter than it is not an ideology, but merely a rejection of one, leaving a whole spectrum of non-theistic ideologies available. 07-07-04 00:45:55 _____________________________________________________
jazzguitarman ::: Favorites I actually agree with that totally, I guess I'm just trying to point out that it is the starting point of ontological belief for the "deconverting", and then it can go any direction. I just find the implications of not being able to separate oneself from that ideology difficult, perhaps if religion and philosophy were on equal terms for explaining your paradigm, it might be easier to except. 07-07-12 02:26:06 _____________________________________________________