My name is Ron, and Long Story, Short . .

In early 2001, I recognized the perpetual social dysfunction we endure. My analysis was not based on the then-recent tumultuous presidential election recount that year, but rather it was just my general observation and personal hardships with society. I vowed that I would find the problem and solve it. I never doubted my ability, but I did not realize how long it would take to find the root of the problem, construct a solution, and then describe it for the public.

Almost immediately upon my newfound meaning for my life, I encountered an episode of the Tonight Show, and Arseno Hall insisted that there was still a racial problem in America. So, he was recognizing a problem that was relative to my analysis, but I was not convinced that the racial stratification problem was the pathway to the general problem. And so, I continued my serendipitous search.
A couple of years later I encountered the atheists’ internet discussion forums. I thought that I had found the proving ground that I was looking for, but instead, I noticed errors in their arguments related to the definitions of the words significant to their unwitting doctrinaire. My arguments at the forums prompted my banishment. I was described to be a Christian troll, and not the brilliant independent critical thinker that I truly am.

Similar to the racial stratification grievance, I did not believe the atheists’ errors in their arguments were the path to the root of the more general problem. After a few more years of not encountering anything significant, I decided to begin research and development of my arguments concerning the atheists’ semantic errors, anyway.

In January of 2007, I was armed with a used laptop computer, plenty of time, and I began research in the Charlottesville public library. I began downloading articles written by atheists, probably some dictionary pages of the words that I was confident were erroneously defined, and then I found myself downloading articles that I found interesting, but unrelated to the subject of my thesis. That prompted me to begin constructing a folder system to organize those articles according to their subject matter. It did not take long until I realized that there should be a system available for scholarly academic researchers. Upon search queries on the subject, I found nothing. At some point, I realized the library classification system for the bookshelves was what I was looking for.

After a couple of days of constructing a folder system using the Dewey Decimal System, I realized it was too cumbersome, and did not lead me towards the subject areas as I thought that they should be organized. I reviewed the Library of Congress classification system and realized that I had found the root of the problem that I was looking for.

It was a eureka moment that no one else will ever experience.

The problem in the world is the lack of a reliable information classification system. It is the ultimate tool of the social agreement theory - if we do not agree to the definitions of the words we use to describe reality, then we encounter problems relative to the margin of error in those disagreements. A reliable classification system has many other uses, but an unreliable classification system, like the Dewey and Library of Congress systems, are limited in their application.

More specifically, a derivative of a reliable classification system provides reliable formatting for corporate and government charters.

Reading what you wrote here, I better understand your questions.

I admire your dedication.

You are right when you say that, in fact, people use words but disagree about what they mean. You are right about the fact that society and government dysfunction.

I think that you are making one or two big mistake.

First mistake is that you think that classifying things will allow to clarify meanings and allow peoples to understand the problems.

Second mistake is to think that an absolute truth can be found in the fields of social science. Epistemological obstacles are too much numerous and ideological bias too strong.

Third mistake is that the card is not the territory. Even if your words are precise and your tools for classifying effective, you will have a view of reality, but this view will be partial.

Fourth mistake is that you think that a perfect form of government can be found, especially using a classification system.

Good luck in your search

I don’t see where you actually define any specifics.
What errors in atheist arguments are you referring to?

Ain’t that how it goes with Eureka events, very personal things for the eye of the beholder.

I would counter that the fundamental problems in our world is lack of empathy, disregard for the consequences of our actions, gluttony, greed, fabricated hatred for others, disregard for honesty and standards of behavior.

How’s classifications going to help sort out such emotional stuff?

Nothing get’s past you - very keen. I probably will not bother discussing the subject, here. I doubt if you and the other members can handle it any better than what I have encountered elsewhere. I am very confident that you are going to insist that the people who made the definitions of the words atheists/(humanists) use to differentiate themselves from theists cannot be in error and that I am in error for trying to parse the definitions. In essence, atheists will claim the same thing as theists - that of the long-standing legend makes it true, or fact.

My intention here is to update my survey of (atheists) humanists, the guardians of critical thinking, as to why such people balk at the idea of developing a better form of government. I am writing the article on the subject, now. And basically, it is going to describe atheists/humanists as being, “dogmatic.”

Those who have responded seem to be consistently claiming that a better government would have been devised already, and implying that the person who does figure out a system is probably not going to discuss/campaign it on an internet forum.

Probably. Have you ever had a “eureka event”?

Are you working on a practical solution, or are you just campaigning in the hopes that someone else will do the work?

I am not sure if I can describe it correctly for you. I think those aspects are subsequent to the exercise of a more reliable government charter system; which is subsequent to the collation of a reliable classification system.

No kidding - you are a smart critical thinker.

THAT IS THE GOAL!!!

You are stuck in the box of a lack of a reliable information classification system - dogma. You cannot step out of the erroneous box.

You’re probably not old enough to remember when they said man will never be able to …

Dogma is very strong, even among those who claim to be free of dogma.

Wow, that is some serious dogma - you do not know. You are basing that on the fact that there is no reliable classification system.

Wow, you are really taking a big leap of faith there. You are not even trying to find a better formulation of government - you are like the members of Galelieo’s inquisition council.

Thanks, but your posting of all the negativity (don’t do it - it won’t work) leads me to believe that you are insincere.

Well, so there, and I thought I was a huffy guy.

Come on, relax and try being serious, I’m just trying to figure out what you are calling “errors.”

Isn’t the first step to critical thinking, defining your thoughts, and listening to the thoughts of your ‘opponents’ so that you can constructively comment on their ideas, rather than simply repeat the loop going on in our own heads?

Oh yeah babe. I’ve touched the center of the universe, even felt gods’ breath against my back and I’ve communed with infants, I’ve even given an inspired full moon midnight sermon from a rock in a mountain meadow, to huge herd of amazed and stunned cows who gather around to listen, and so much more.

Do a little homework, Confronting Science Contrarians: Case For Reality


I’ll admit I don’t think much about governments because I think we’ve been blessed with about as good of one as is humanly possible. However a healthy democracy requires an informed and engaged electorate, and unfortunately our electorate is turning into a bunch of consumer-zombies. All of the problems with our government can be traced back to the people in it and the money that has replaced the vote and made it a rich man’s sport.
Any new government would need to address base human tendencies. I think it would have been easier to fix ours.

Side comment if you don’t mine.
You’re too quick to assume and put thoughts and actions into others, whom you don’t even know. Why can’t we stick to the words we put on the screen.

You know what they say about assumptions? Make’s an ass out of me and an ass out of you. :wink:

Wow. That is some really good work - I like what you are saying. Is there anything I can do to help the cause?

1 Like

Thanks for the kind words.

Offer some hard hitting tough love critique. * (particular in a couple days when I post an introduction to my Hoffman playing basketball in zero-gravity critique project, which I want to send to the various scientists who’s work I shared - I’m on final polish and I’ll post a link.)

Help me figure out how to get this to a larger audience.

Thanks for asking.