Talk:antimetaphysical

problems

1. Christians hate the antimetaphysicals because they are atheists, so Christians switch the definition order and say that an antimetaphysical is a person not able or willing to follow the Aristotelian epistemic method of metaphysics, (they do not mention the generic spiritual metaphysics) thus this atheist is dull and not a deep causal thinker - of course this is a distortion of the term antimetaphysical, both atheist and anti-Aristotelian as separate entries are accepted, but political comments like some of low quality dictionaries are politically motivated
2. some hard core atheists try to hide under the rug the metaphysical atheists (paradise atheists, soul atheists, UFO atheists, new age atheists, fake field atheists, conspiracy atheists, homeopathic atheists etc.) thus claim that there is no issue at all. They hate antimetaphysicals because they (atheists that support the one-atheism dogma) claim they are separatists and dogmatic.

• An antimetaphysical denies god, but also any metaphysical view. Ok philosophically we know that also a second sense exists, the anti-Aristotelians, but trying to merge the senses or trying to claim that anti-Aristotelians are dull, I don't believe has anything to do with lexicography, but it's a politically motivated distortion. On Google-visible dictionaries some Christians in the past tried to distort and blend in a negative manner (by including nonsense) the senses of the word antimetaphysical.

Here in Wiktionary we use the path of "avoiding conflict" by being generic. This is anti-lexicographic also. Avoiding a definition by claiming that an anti metaphysical is against metaphysics doesn't make you a lexicographer. This is a joke, not a definition.— This unsigned comment was added by 2a02:587:4100:6900:21fc:e03a:7f55:72fb (talk).

Well how would you define it in one sentence? DTLHS (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

1. atheist and at the same time data-based thinker
2. Anti-Aristotelian; Opposed to Aristotelian Metaphysics.

---

I don't use the term dull or literally meaningless which some politically motivated amateur lexicographers upload to non-reliable dictionaries — This unsigned comment was added by 2a02:587:4100:6900:21fc:e03a:7f55:72fb (talk).

The real problem is that you make up stuff based on how you would like the language to be, and then try to pass it off as how it really is. That's dishonest, and that's a violation of Wiktionary's principles. If you don't like the way we do things here, go start your own dictionary- just leave this one alone. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)