Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-11-2013, 05:49   #541
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
Why doesn't med school teach you that some diseases may be caused by evil spirits? Just point out what medicine does not know. Wouldn't take long to include it. What harm would it do? Is medicine biased against the supernatural?

Randy
Steve, it's not working. I do not believe in the supernatural, as has been explained repeatedly. Your mix between straw man, Argumentum ad absurdum and just plain ignorance of how the practice of medicine works is frankly embarrasing, for you. The point you have been trying to make is not a point.

Your opinion is that all opinions other than yours, even if there are more than one possible truth, should be excluded. I'm not a fan of biased indoctrination in education But I do thank you for pointing out. An aspect of atheist doctrine, juggy's been looking for it, and feeding you enough rope has allowed you to illustrated that quite well. Thanks for the assist.

The first amendment precludes the nation from establishing a State religion, that includes yours.

BTW, do you think that schools should teach that abortion is wrong, drug use is bad and should be illegal, a strong proactive military is necessary for the nations survival and common sense gun control includes banning magazines that hold more that 4 rounds WHILE excluding all other sides of the debate?

What other opinions should be excluded from school?
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 08:08   #542
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast View Post
Religious Issues



doc·trine noun \ˈdäk-trən\

Definition of DOCTRINE

1
archaic : teaching, instruction
2
a : something that is taught
b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma
c : a principle of law established through past decisions
d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations
e : a military principle or set of strategies
I like how you didn't highlight Archaic or Dogma... both of those apply to religion.
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 08:12   #543
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
I like how you didn't highlight Archaic or Dogma... both of those apply to religion.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 08:25   #544
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
See post 504.
Again, you are trapped within your own misunderstanding of the debate. We aren't dealing with opinions... we are dealing with what is known.

What is known about the process of Abiogenesis is a great deal. What is known about creationism is nothing.

Now anyone that says Abiogenesis is, as a matter of fact, how life began on this planet is giving their opinion. Is there someone on this board that is making that claim?

Along those lines anyone saying Creationsim is, as a matter of fact, how life began on this planet is also giving their opinion. Is there someone on this board making that claim?

My statement has been simply one is more probable than the other given the amount of evidence to support it and the lack thereof for the other. I have asked you how you can give 50/50 credence to both when one has so much evidence supporting it and the other doesn't and you're answer has been that you aren't convinced by either. Which wasn't the question. 50/50 credence to both would seem to be a stance of ignorance of the evidence. Perhaps you don't understand the question. Let me rephrase it. Do you think Abiogenesis is just as probable as Creationism? If so why when there is much evidence to support that Abiogenesis can happen and there is nothing to support that there ever was or is a creator. Couple that with the fact that most of what has been attributed to a creator in nature we have learned for a fact happened without one. Why?

Let me ask you this also. If there were a creator... do you think that creator had a creator? Or was that creator without a beginning and just always was?
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 08:32   #545
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
Again, you are trapped within your own misunderstanding of the debate. We aren't dealing with opinions... we are dealing with what is known.

What is known about the process of Abiogenesis is a great deal. What is known about creationism is nothing.

Now anyone that says Abiogenesis is, as a matter of fact, how life began on this planet is giving their opinion. Is there someone on this board that is making that claim?

Along those lines anyone saying Creationsim is, as a matter of fact, how life began on this planet is also giving their opinion. Is there someone on this board making that claim?

My statement has been simply one is more probable than the other given the amount of evidence to support it and the lack thereof for the other. I have asked you how you can give 50/50 credence to both when one has so much evidence supporting it and the other doesn't and you're answer has been that you aren't convinced by either. Which wasn't the question. 50/50 credence to both would seem to be a stance of ignorance of the evidence. Perhaps you don't understand the question. Let me rephrase it. Do you think Abiogenesis is just as probable as Creationism? If so why when there is much evidence to support that Abiogenesis can happen and there is nothing to support that there ever was or is a creator. Couple that with the fact that most of what has been attributed to a creator in nature we have learned for a fact happened without one. Why?

Let me ask you this also. If there were a creator... do you think that creator had a creator? Or was that creator without a beginning and just always was?
I never intended to imply you weren't a true believer.

Have you not seen that I don't have any assumptions about a designer/creator that may or may not have existed, including whether or not he/she/it is omnipresent.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 09:48   #546
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,266


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Have you not seen that I don't have any assumptions about a designer/creator that may or may not have existed, including whether or not he/she/it is omnipresent.
All anyone ever sees is you avoiding anwering any and all direct questions.

However strong or weak you find it, there is empirical evidence in support of the theories of cosmic inflation, Lambda-CDM, abiogenesis and evolution. There is no evidence in support of creationism and intelligent design.

The current set of scientific theories has evidence supporting them. They may not be exactly right (yet), but they are supported by empirical observation. The opposing set of archaic religious myths has no evidence supporting it at all. None, zero, zip.

How can you possibly rationalize weighing these competing explanations as equally plausible? Certainly, you must be able to form an opinion based on the comparitive validitiy of available evidence. If not, how do you even manage to function in soceity on a daily basis as we all must do this on a daily basis.
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 09:51   #547
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast View Post
void, I am going by the definition I posted. Which is the official standard. I didn't make the definition up. It seems you are trying to define atheism the way you want it to be, not how it is actually defined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism ->

Quote:
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable. More specifically, agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Quote:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
As I said: atheism is whether or not you believe. Agnosticism is whether or not you hold you can prove (in the sense of a mathematical proof - if you can prove something, you know it. If it's not provable, it's unknowable).

The terms I used, as I used them, were used within the context of accepted and valid definitions of both the terms atheism and agnosticism.

If you don't want to recognize that, for whatever reason, or you want to hold people to other definitions that they have not claimed to use and have specifically disclaimed using, how do you expect to have a sane conversation about it?

I mean, from my perspective - I self identify as atheist - in the specific sense of, I do not believe. I am also an agnostic, in the specific sense of, I do not think it is a provable posit. Many other self-described atheists also frame it in those terms, they are commonly used that way, and it is *very* clear what is meant.

So why do you want to claim that I'm not using valid definitions when I am? It just gets in the way.

Or, it allows you to bucket people up and label them all one way in a manner that is not necessarily actually true, given that many self-identified atheists do not frame it in those terms. Perhaps the ability to do so is why you want to claim that you used an "official" (official how? Dictionaries document usage, they do not authoritatively mandate meaning) definition?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-11-2013 at 10:02..
void * is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 11:08   #548
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I never intended to imply you weren't a true believer.

Have you not seen that I don't have any assumptions about a designer/creator that may or may not have existed, including whether or not he/she/it is omnipresent.
That doesn't answer any of my questions and is an attempt to change the nature of what we are discussing.

I will ask again. When there is much evidence to support that Abiogenesis can happen and none whatsoever to support creationism. Why is it that you give both 50/50 credence? Does not one seem more probable?

No one is claiming to disprove a deity. No one seems to be claiming that abiogenesis is factually the beginnings of life on Earth only the theory with the most supporting evidence when compared to creationism. And no one is claiming to have it all figured out.

I hope this clears up your confusion so that perhaps you can address the questions.
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 11:12   #549
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
All anyone ever sees is you avoiding anwering any and all direct questions.

However strong or weak you find it, there is empirical evidence in support of the theories of cosmic inflation, Lambda-CDM, abiogenesis and evolution. There is no evidence in support of creationism and intelligent design.

The current set of scientific theories has evidence supporting them. They may not be exactly right (yet), but they are supported by empirical observation. The opposing set of archaic religious myths has no evidence supporting it at all. None, zero, zip.

How can you possibly rationalize weighing these competing explanations as equally plausible? Certainly, you must be able to form an opinion based on the comparitive validitiy of available evidence. If not, how do you even manage to function in soceity on a daily basis as we all must do this on a daily basis.
It was made or just occurred. Those are the two most likely scenarios. I'm just not so sure as to whether or not a deity has ever existed to bias my opinion one way or the other. Was life made? Theists answer yes, atheists answer no, I answer maybe.

Try not to confuse my not submitting to your beliefs as not answering directly what my opinion is. Whether or not life was made hundreds of millions of years ago has very little impact on decisions I make on a daily basis.

Do you make all of your decisions every day based on your belief in abiogenesis? Is that the only way you can function?

That wouldn't make a lot of sense.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 11:17   #550
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
That doesn't answer any of my questions and is an attempt to change the nature of what we are discussing.

I will ask again. When there is much evidence to support that Abiogenesis can happen and none whatsoever to support creationism. Why is it that you give both 50/50 credence? Does not one seem more probable?

No one is claiming to disprove a deity. No one seems to be claiming that abiogenesis is factually the beginnings of life on Earth only the theory with the most supporting evidence when compared to creationism. And no one is claiming to have it all figured out.

I hope this clears up your confusion so that perhaps you can address the questions.
Your devout atheism biases your opinion on the possibility that intelligent design is possible. I'm just not encumbered in that way with an inflexible bias.

I've looked at the evidence, heard arguments from both sides, neither was convincing. That's about all there is to it.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 11:18   #551
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It was made or just occurred. Those are the two most likely scenarios.
Incorrect again. The two most likely scenarios are that it occurred naturally, or it was introduced by a foreign body like a comet during the heavy bombardment.

A creator is the least likely or least probable because there simply is zero evidence of such a being.
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 11:25   #552
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Your devout atheism biases your opinion on the possibility that intelligent design is possible. I'm just not encumbered in that way with an inflexible bias.
I have no bias. Perhaps you've missed it but I don't identify with any group whatsoever. I'm not Atheist, Agnostic, Gnostic, or any of the above. I simply dismiss all religious claims as baseless and move on from there. I don't believe in anything with regards to a deity or creator. We aren't talking whether a creator is POSSIBLE... you are attempting to change the discussion again. Nearly anything can be argued as possible. we've been through this Cav. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is POSSIBLE.

I am asking you which you think is more likely or probable? I think you are perhaps unaware there is a difference between possible and probable.

Quote:
I've looked at the evidence, heard arguments from both sides, neither was convincing. That's about all there is to it.
So are you saying you dismiss factual knowledge in order to equate actual science with mythology? Or are you just unaware that Abiogenesis is supported by evidence and creationism is not. It is not possible to equate them as equally probable when one is factually more likely than the other. This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. You can have the opinion that a fact is not so. But that opinion would be based in willful ignorance.
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Glock36shooter; 02-11-2013 at 11:26..
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 11:39   #553
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,266


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Try not to confuse my not submitting to your beliefs as not answering directly what my opinion is.
Here, allow me to demostrate. I will pose to you three true/false questions. They will be legitimately phrased as such without any attempt to conceal a more complicated question as if it could be simply answered. I am proposing that you will be unwilling to respond and will instead attempt to reframe the debate to avoid answering. All you have to do to prove me wrong is answer each question with either true or false based on your own personal opinion. There is no right or wrong answer.

Proposition 1:

There is scientifically acquired empirical evidence (although it may be weak and ultimately not definitive) in support of the theories of Lambda-CDM (aka "Big Bang" theory), abiogenesis and evolution.

Is this statement true or false?

Proposition 2:

There is no scientifically acquired empirical evidence in support of the biblical account of creation and/or the associated proposition of intelligent design.

Is this statement true or false?

Proposition 3:

I (CavDoc) personally believe that the mutually exclusive possibilities of Lambda-CDM followed by abiogenisis and evolution and the competing proposals of biblical creationism / intelligent design are both equally likely (i.e. equally supported by the available evidence or lack thereof).

Is this statement true or false?

Again, in summary, I propose that you will be unwilling to answer these three questions with simple true or false responses. Rather, you will attempt to divert, distract and possibly even substitute entirely different questions that you find easier to answer. Perhaps you will include some personal aspersion about my "belief system" to aid in your obfuscation. Again, all you have to do to prove me wrong is put a true or false next to each question.
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Geko45; 02-11-2013 at 11:47..
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 11:42   #554
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
I have no bias. Perhaps you've missed it but I don't identify with any group whatsoever. I'm not Atheist, Agnostic, Gnostic, or any of the above. I simply dismiss all religious claims as baseless and move on from there. I don't believe in anything with regards to a deity or creator. We aren't talking whether a creator is POSSIBLE... you are attempting to change the discussion again. Nearly anything can be argued as possible. we've been through this Cav. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is POSSIBLE.

I am asking you which you think is more likely or probable? I think you are perhaps unaware there is a difference between possible and probable.



So are you saying you dismiss factual knowledge in order to equate actual science with mythology? Or are you just unaware that Abiogenesis is supported by evidence and creationism is not. It is not possible to equate them as equally probable when one is factually more likely than the other. This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. You can have the opinion that a fact is not so. But that opinion would be based in willful ignorance.


I believe you, you are convinced. I get that. I do not begrudge you your beliefs. We're different that way.

As we get closer and may someday actually create life in a lab, it opens the possibility that life was made here too. It was long ago enough for me to not get too worked up and emotional about someone having different opinion. You imply you don't care or bias, but the way you say it seems to suggest differently. Just another opinion.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 11:49   #555
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Here, allow me to demostrate. I will pose to you three true/false questions. They will be legitimately phrased as such without any attempt to conceal a more complicated question as if it could be simply answered. I am proposing that you will be unwilling to respond and will instead attempt to reframe the debate to avoid answering. All you have to do to prove me wrong is answer each question with either true or false based on your own personal opinion. There is no right or wrong answer.

Proposition 1:

There is scientifically acquired empirical evidence (although it may be weak and ultimately not definitive) in support of the theories of Lambda-CDM (aka "Big Bang" theory), abiogenesis and evolution.

Is this statement true or false?

Proposition 2:

There is no scientifically acquired empirical evidence in support of the biblical account of creation and/or the associated proposition of intelligent design.

Is this statement true or false?

Proposition 3:

I (CavDoc) personally believe that the mutually exclusive possibilities of Lambda-CDM followed by abiogenisis and evolution and the competing proposals of biblical creationism / intelligent design are both equally likely (i.e. equally supported by the available evidence or lack thereof).

Is this statement true or false?

Again, in summary, I propose that you will be unwilling to answer these three questions with simple true or false responses. Rather, you will attempt to divert, distract and possibly even substitute entirely different questions that you find easier to answer. Perhaps you will include some personal apersion about my "belief system" to aid in your obfuscation. Again, all you have to do to prove me wrong is put a true or false next to each question.

Not everything is answered appropriately by a true or false. On occasion, fill in the blank questions will give you better insight.

Hope you didn't work to long on that.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 11:51   #556
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,266


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Not everything is answered appropriately by a true or false. On occasion, fill in the blank questions will give you better insight.

Hope you didn't work to long on that.


That was quicker than I thought! You didn't even feign a legitimate response. But don't worry, it didn't take me very long at all. Some of us just work a bit faster than others I guess. It's ok, we're different that way.

Thanks for playing!

__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Geko45; 02-11-2013 at 11:52..
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 11:55   #557
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I believe you, you are convinced. I get that. I do not begrudge you your beliefs. We're different that way.
We're different in that I will honestly discuss a topic with people and not attempt to put words in their mouth, misrepresent their statements, or change the nature of the discussion. I have no beliefs when it comes to religion.

Quote:
As we get closer and may someday actually create life in a lab, it opens the possibility that life was made here too.
By a supernatural being?

Quote:
It was long ago enough for me to not get too worked up and emotional about someone having different opinion. You imply you don't care or bias, but the way you say it seems to suggest differently. Just another opinion.
If your answer was that you didn't care one way or the other then that would be just fine. But that's not what you're saying. You've said you give them both 50/50 equal credence. I'm asking how can an intelligent person do that when one is a work of fiction and the other backed by factual evidence.

understand I don't really care what your opinion is. But you need to understand that you are equating make believe with reality.
__________________
Pascal:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Theory:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Grace:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Big Bang:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 11:59   #558
Blast
'nuff said
 
Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NKY/Cincinnati area
Posts: 21,391


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism ->



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism



As I said: atheism is whether or not you believe. Agnosticism is whether or not you hold you can prove (in the sense of a mathematical proof - if you can prove something, you know it. If it's not provable, it's unknowable).

The terms I used, as I used them, were used within the context of accepted and valid definitions of both the terms atheism and agnosticism.

If you don't want to recognize that, for whatever reason, or you want to hold people to other definitions that they have not claimed to use and have specifically disclaimed using, how do you expect to have a sane conversation about it?

I mean, from my perspective - I self identify as atheist - in the specific sense of, I do not believe. I am also an agnostic, in the specific sense of, I do not think it is a provable posit. Many other self-described atheists also frame it in those terms, they are commonly used that way, and it is *very* clear what is meant.

So why do you want to claim that I'm not using valid definitions when I am? It just gets in the way.

Or, it allows you to bucket people up and label them all one way in a manner that is not necessarily actually true, given that many self-identified atheists do not frame it in those terms. Perhaps the ability to do so is why you want to claim that you used an "official" (official how? Dictionaries document usage, they do not authoritatively mandate meaning) definition?
You misused the word atheist. It should not have been used with the context indicated. Atheism is a positive denial in the existence of deities. You should simply say you are strongly agnostic. One cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic. One or the other. Or the third alternative... a believer.

The definitions in dictionaries are the standards of our language. How can a word be properly used if it's definition isn't definite and can be altered to fit the whim of the user?

As I said, if you have a problem with how our education system sets the standards for grammar, spelling, and learning, file a protest. Tell them the definitions in dictionaries and encyclopedias are flawed.
Hell we have Wikipedia, why not Wikitionary?

__________________
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be - Albert Einstein
Blast is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 12:07   #559
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post


That was quicker than I thought! You didn't even feign a legitimate response. But don't worry, it didn't take me very long at all. Some of us just work a bit faster than others I guess. It's ok, we're different that way.

Thanks for playing!


If it's a game, you lose. plurium interrogationum.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 13:10   #560
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
We're different in that I will honestly discuss a topic with people and not attempt to put words in their mouth, misrepresent their statements, or change the nature of the discussion. I have no beliefs when it comes to religion.
Really?
Quote:

By a supernatural being?
Nope. We've covered that. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

Quote:

If your answer was that you didn't care one way or the other then that would be just fine. But that's not what you're saying. You've said you give them both 50/50 equal credence. I'm asking how can an intelligent person do that when one is a work of fiction and the other backed by factual evidence.
Odd that you think it's mutually exclusive to believe something that happened hundreds of millions of years ago can't be equally possible and yet not all that important today.
Quote:

understand I don't really care what your opinion is. But you need to understand that you are equating make believe with reality.
You seem to be quite accusatory and apt to use ad Homs a lot for something you care so little about.

Both options might as well be make believe right now. Neither option has convincing proof. If there were irrefutable proof one way or the other, you could simply present it and the matter would be settled.
Cavalry Doc is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:23.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,036
303 Members
733 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31