# Atheism is Wrong Too

Relations can be composed of subjects, objects or units. Relations of
units is mathematics. Relations of objects is engineering. Relations
of subjects is worldview or philosophy.

It is common to define a subject as an object of study. Thus the
reason we say we change subjects if a topic is changed. In this system
however, a subject is a cross-utilized unit of a relation. This new
definition is not much different than being an object of study but it
includes the reason that elements of a topic are relevant or related.
By defining a subject as a cross-utilized unit of a relation instead
of as an object of study the concept of dimensionality comes into
play. Objects of study are one dimensional just as the units of a
graph are of the first dimension along the x-axis of a Cartesian
coordinate system. When we include the concept of relations into the
definition of a subject, the event of creating a relation is much like
a function. Functions are, after all, relations. Therefore, a relation
is nothing more than being in the second dimension or in the y-axis.
The y-axis in mathematics is the functional mapping of the x-axis, y = f(x).
The next dimension, the z-axis, contains multiple relations. But that
is it, there are no more dimensions. The first dimension are subjects,
the second dimension are relations and the third is multiple
relations. No more dimensions are possible. In this way, if one says
that a subject is an object of study, then this person has a one-
dimensional mind. To say that a subject is a cross-utilized unit of a
relation is a sign of a three-dimensional mind.

Subject - a cross-utilized unit of a relation
Relation - more than one subject combined together
Extrinsic Subject - subject given to a relation
Intrinsic Subject - subject contained in a relation
Right - if a subject is within an extrinsic subject
Wrong - if a subject is not within an extrinsic subject
Possession - if an intrinsic subject is within a subject
Good - what increases a relation
Bad - what hinders or decreases a relation
Serious - being within an extrinsic subject, also known as relevant
Silly - happiness that is not within an extrinsic subject
Crazy - if an extrinsic subject is ambiguous
Confusion - if the choice of an extrinsic subject is ambiguous
Value - direction of a relation
Like - to share Values

Happiness - occurs if subjects combine and form a relation. There are
five different types of happiness. In order to include non-social
relations in these definitions, the generic term combination is used
symbolized with the letter ‘C’.

1stC - occurs when subjects combine and a relation is formed. Here the
extrinsic subject is created. The terms ‘more’ and ‘less’ do not apply
with 1stC. It is very important to clarify that with 1stC one does not
say, “Happiness is the combination of subjects,” but, “Happiness
occurs if subjects combine and form a relation.”

2ndC - occurs when subjects are combined to an existing relation. Here
the extrinsic subject already exists. The terms ‘more’ and ‘less’
apply with 2ndC. Leverage and contentment exist because of 2ndC.

3rdC - occurs as the back and forth dynamics between relations. Here
more than one extrinsic subject is involved.

Leverage - resembles a lever, the relative lowering of a subject in a
relation causes the relative increase of the other related subjects.
This also is known as antipathetic happiness. Subjects on opposite
sides of the lever are antipathetic to each other. An examples of this
is kidding.

Contentment - is a relative position a subject has in a relationship.
This position is what we mean when we say we are “happy”. Another term
that applies here is “fashion”. Fashion is the active form of
contentment. This type of happiness is personal and can be stronger
than 1stC. Some sub-emotions of contentment are:
Enjoyment - having what you want (having what gives you contentment) *
Grief - not having what you want *
Frustration - not getting what you want
Anger - excessive Frustration
Distress - having what you don’t want*
Relief - not having what you don’t want*

Unhappiness is, of course, the converse but with separation instead of
combination.

Sorry - empathetic Unhappiness
Regret - the action toward Sorry
Gratitude - the action toward antipathetic Happiness
Forgive - declaring Unhappiness to be irrelevant
Blame - declaring Unhappiness to be relevant
Nervous - anticipation of a combination
Shy - excessive Nervousness
Worry - anticipation of a separation
Concern - mild Worry
Fear - excessive Worry
Terror - extreme Fear
Anxiety - general term for Nervous, Shy, Worry, Concern, Fear or Terror

Pride - above Contentment
Shame - below Contentment
Dignity - empathetic Pride
Arrogance, Conceit - excessive Dignity
Honor - the action toward Dignity
Jealousy - antipathetic Pride
Envy - the action toward Jealousy
Respect - antipathetic Pride related to Fashion
Admiration - the action toward Respect
Modesty - empathetic Shame
Humility - the action toward Modesty
Pity - antipathetic Shame
Pathetic, Pitiful, Contempt - excessive Pity
Disgust - the action toward Pity
Expectation - future Contentment
Hope - the action toward Expectation (to want a future Contentment)
Standard - past Contentment
Surprise - empathetically or antipathetically above Standard or
Expectation
Embarrassment - empathetically below Standard or Expectation
Disappointment - antipathetically below Standard or Expectation
Ecstatic - excessive Surprise
Sadness - excessive Disappointment or Embarrassment
Hate - excessive antipathy
Love - excessive empathy
Miss - absent empathy

Axiom: Extrinsic subjects can never be related intrinsic subjects.
Such an event would instantly cause a new extrinsic subject to exist.
This is called “The League Rule” or “The Authority Rule.”

Axiom: Related subjects do not combine for the same reason that
unrelated subjects do not separate. This is called “The Base Rule”. It
is a significant factor in morality.

*The definitions for Enjoyment, Grief, Distress and Relief are from I.
Roseman 1984. Cognitive determinants of emotion: a structured theory.
In P. Shaver (ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol.
5: Emotions, relationships, and health). Beverly-Hills: Sage, 11-36.

Although much has been said about emotion theory in this system, it is
all based on subjects and relations which qualifies as a worldview. To
help understand what this means, here is what one would say concerning
Darwin’s theory of evolution from the point of view of these
worldviews.

A Theist would say, “God created man and all living things. Evolution
theory is wrong.”

An Atheist or a secular person would say, “The evidence presented in
anthropology probably confirms that evolution theory is correct.
Darwin is one of the most influential scientists of all time.”

A Subjationist, one who believes in the subject of subjects and
relations, would say, “Evolution theory is redundant to my worldview.
I already know this. I should have never heard of Darwin.”

Please read the posting guidelines before responding to OP’s in this forum. Those who post in prohibited ways will face the consequences. And I don’t care who it pisses off.

Thank you.

i like how nothing in the post is about how atheism is wrong.
pretty cool.

Perhaps I should have been more explicit.
Given the three worldviews:

W1: A Theist would say, “God created man and all living things. Evolution
theory is wrong.”

W2: An Atheist or a secular person would say, “The evidence presented in
anthropology probably confirms that evolution theory is correct.
Darwin is one of the most influential scientists of all time.”

W3: A Subjationist, one who believes in the subject of subjects and
relations, would say, “Evolution theory is redundant to my worldview.
I already know this. I should have never heard of Darwin.”

There is of course deism which is a combination of W1 and W2 but that is just a blend.

I propose that W3 is the correct worldview of the three for the simple fact that it is based on subjects and relations which exist. Your parents are subjects, they combined, and the result was a relation. That is the pattern of all things both physical and non-physical. It is the reason why family members are called relatives. Furthermore, the subject of subjects and relations contains the generic definitions of right and wrong. This, along with the two axioms, give non-culturally relative reasons for morality. It’s that simple. It is also quite important as the war against terror is ultimately about worldviews.

how is W3 Deism?
Deism implies belief in some sort of deity.
W3 doesn’t say anything about a deity…

What I said was, "There is of course deism which is a combination of W1 and W2 but that is just a blend. "

Deism is the belief that God created the universe and then left it alone for evolution to take over from there. As W3 doesn’t say anything about a deity, Deism is not W3.

oh i see, i misunderstood.

i still don’t see anything about how atheism is wrong…

To put it more succinctly, as subjects and relations doesn’t include the concept of a deity then theism is wrong. Therefore, subjects and relations should be atheistic. However, atheism doesn’t promote subjects and relations and it never will. Atheism doesn’t promote anything, it is akin to nihilism. Atheism does however commend the theory of evolution as evidence opposed to intelligent design. The theory of evolution is given credit to Darwin. (BTW, tomorrow is Darwin day and is being loosely celebrated by the local atheists where I live.) The problem with subjects and relations being atheistic, besides my assumption that atheism wouldn’t promote it, is that subjects and relations doesn’t commend the theory of evolution. With subjects and relations, the theory of evolution is a redundancy. Therefore, as subjects and relations finds the theory of evolution as redundant and atheism is connected with the theory of evolution then atheism is wrong. In short, I am saying that the belief in a redundant theory is wrong.

I’d like to add that atheism technically means “don’t care about theism.” I make this claim as in the example with empathy, apathy and antipathy. Empathy means to care, apathy is don’t care and antipathy is against this care. In this respect, the position of subjects and relations would be more in line with antitheism than it would be with atheism. Antitheism however, typically means violence against theism such as blowing up a church. Subjects and relations is simply a worldview and is not an action about blowing up anything. Therefore, it is difficult to say that subjects and relations is antitheistic either.

So it’s true…but it’s wrong? I’m not getting this, sorry.

I’d like to add a few things: I don’t think I’m the only person having a hard time comprehending your posts. Imo, you’re trying too hard, and I’m also inclined to believe that for all of your effort, you’re not really saying much at all. I also don’t see where it is that your point of view makes the idea of evolution “redundant”.

I also think it’s EXTRA-EXTRA weird that you’d make the title of the thread about how the redundantly correct paradigm is “wrong,” shouldn’t you be more concerned about the paradigm that’s actually incorrect? You’re shooting at the wrong goal man, making points for the other team. Turn the fuck around and shoot at the right goal you silly goose.

For example, in a court of law if there are two testimonies and one is redundant to the other, the redundant testimony is objectionable and will be stricken from the record. It is wrong to include redundant testimony.

I believe the original post of this thread to be quite large and it contains much fundamental information. The core of it centers around combination and separation being between subjects and relations. When subjects combine they form a relation; alternatively, separation is the opposite. The leap one needs to make with this worldview is that happiness can be aligned with combination and unhappiness can be aligned with separation. Doing so enables emotion theory, a system that we are in. Applying this to reproduction is not much of a stretch as male and female are not sexually related. This is all very basic of course, but the question is why doesn’t this emotion theory exist in academic philosophy? If it did, there wouldn’t be a theory of evolution. Everyone would say, “I know that already.” There wouldn’t be a creationism/evolution debate. Furthermore, as you can see in the original post, the subjects and relations point of view to the debate is far richer than either creationism or evolution could ever hope to be. Far, far richer.

I’d like to but, like I said yesterday, atheism will never accept subjects and relations theory. I can’t fight for them if they won’t accept this. So, I fight them both.

but ur focusing ur efforts on teh one that’s more correct?

Yes, the one that is more correct (as you put it) is the one that is less apparent to be incorrect.

Outside of the theory of evolution, Atheism as a worldview is shallow. It doesn’t contain anything else which is a main criticism against it.

What would you think would be a good salespitch for Atheism without being negative towards Theism?

That’s not a criticism at all. That’s like saying 2+2=4 is wrong because it doesn’t say anything else…
Why does it have to say more? That’s ridiculous. Individual facts can stand alone, I don’t see why you have to discount them because they don’t say anything more.

2+2=4 is a relation. That is saying something. Atheism is not a relation, it is just a rant against theism. It has no facts. I didn’t invent this criticism. It is has been common among theists against atheism for centuries.

k, i don’t care about this shit about relations. saying something is wrong because it doesn’t say more than what it says…like…wtf? seriously?

Whether or not God exists, atheists equate “God” with “delusion”. Surely, lack of delusion is a positive state of affairs? I’m not sure what this “has no facts” thing is about, but it seems like lack of delusion also “has no facts”?

You might find this thread interesting. This one too and, to a lesser extent (the OP is a real pill but the long discussion hits the topics from a variety of angles.) this one.

The second one is probably the best. Something I said that might be relevant to the current discussion:

From the point of view of subjects and relations theory, atheism is wrong because atheism doesn’t accept it. Subjects and relations theory is not only right, it contains the generic definitions of right and wrong:

Right - if a subject is within an extrinsic subject
Wrong - if a subject is not within an extrinsic subject
Possession - if an intrinsic subject is within a subject

I claim that subjects and relations theory is right on account that all of the elements within it is non-fiction. The extrinsic subject in this example is the world we live in.

Atheism is right on account that a supernatural deity doesn’t exist, but besides that it is opinionless about the world we live in.
With subjects and relations theory there is no need for atheism.