Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Truce, is it possible?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 451-475 of 476 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 11:21:57 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
JH:'OK, so could you explain it more clearly?'

OK, You're WRONG. Is that clear enough ?

'Again, in your world definitions aren't evidence of proper word usage.'

LIE. Just as the word -theory- does NOT mean IN SCIENCE what it means in 'common usage', so the word -dogma- does NOT mean when applied to RELIGION what it might be wrongly used for on other topics.

You are trying to play DECEITFUL creationist word games and in EXACTLY the SAME way that they are. I don't buy their willful lies and BS, and I'm NOT buying yours, either.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 11:39:49 AM PDT
Astrocat says:
J., my point is that I don't think you can define non-belief as active in any sense. Now reacting against a belief would be putting that disbelief into action, but the disbelief itself is not a verb, it's a noun.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 11:53:22 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
ND:'Now reacting against a belief would be putting that disbelief into action, but the disbelief itself is not a verb, it's a noun.'

Indeed. JH is making much of his willful misuse of a word that carries a specific religious meaning to a religious topic. In order for anyone to have a 'dogmatic' view on a religious topic, there MUST be an actual -dogma-.

I do not 'dogmatically' view the bible god as being 100% untrue, any more than I 'dogmatically' view Superman or Lex Luthor as being 100% untrue.

Atheism, as with the view that super powered beings don't exist, has no -dogma-.

The attempted use of -dogmatic disbelief- *in this context* would be the same as a creationist claiming that creationism is a -theory-, which, of course, it's just SO not.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 1:02:04 PM PDT
J. Harding says:
Andre,

"OK, You're WRONG. Is that clear enough ?"

It is clear that you have nothing to say. I'm wrong, but you can't tell me why? There's nothing there. I suspect that if you had something to explain, you'd explain it. Since you don't, you've got nothing.

"Just as the word -theory- does NOT mean IN SCIENCE what it means in 'common usage', so the word -dogma- does NOT mean when applied to RELIGION what it might be wrongly used for on other topics."

I explained to you why your theory example fails. The common meaning of theory doesn't accurately describe the theory of evolution. On the other hand several of the meanings of dogma fit religious dogma. Do you not see the distinction? In your example what is being described does not fit within the defintion of the word used to describe it. In my case what is being described does fit within the defintion. The theory of evolution is not a common theory. Religious dogma can be accurately described with several of the definitions of dogma. I'm not playing word games, I'm trying to make a simple point that you can't allow yourself to accept for some reason. I could accurately say that you dogmatically refuse to accept it.

The last part of your statement, "does NOT mean when applied to RELIGION what it might be wrongly used for on other topics" is particularly strange. Are you saying that dogma can't even be used correctly in non-religious topics? The definition disagrees with you, though you seem to think that things like definitions are beneath you. Overall, you seem to be saying that if one definition of dogma accurately describes religious dogma, all of the other definitions can't apply. Why do you think that? All you're giving me is your flawed analogy and I've explained why it's flawed at least twice now.

I'm sure you're going to cut and paste one of your "That which is asserted..." mindless quotes. Before you do, recall that I showed you dictionary definitions that included my usage. You hand-waved them away without explanation, just as you've hand-waved awawy my response to your theory example.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 1:04:44 PM PDT
Harry Marks says:
But slowly.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 1:05:55 PM PDT
J. Harding says:
Nancy,

I don't think it's a good idea to switch terms midway through discussion of a term's meaning. Non-belief is different than disbelief. I'm not defining disbelief as potentially active, that's the definition. Here's the definition of disbelief from dictionary.com:

dis·be·lief   
noun
1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
2. amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disbelief

Refusal to believe is active, right?

I'm not sure we're using the same definition of active. When I talk of active disbelief, I mean affirmative disbelief of the type described in the negative/positive atheism page. Is that what you mean?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 1:07:17 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
JH:'I'm wrong, but you can't tell me why?'

Well, that makes clear that you have nothing to offer but MORE of your LIES. I DID tell you specifically WHY. That you are apparently too willfully retarded to grasp both the EXISTENCE of the why as well as understanding it, well, that's your own problem.

'The common meaning of theory doesn't accurately describe the theory of evolution.'

The common use of the word -theory- doesn't accurately fir ANY scientific theory. If you are also too willfully ignorant to grasp that fact, again, your stupidity is your own problem.

'The theory of evolution is not a common theory.'

100% WRONG.

'I'm not playing word games'

Lie.

'Before you do, recall that I showed you dictionary definitions that included my usage.'

Which were as WRONG as the common use of the word -theory- being used in a SCIENTIFIC context. Duh.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 1:11:23 PM PDT
Astrocat says:
J., I see absolutely no difference between "non-belief" and "disbelief". I think you're really splitting hairs on that one.

When I say "active disbelief" I mean someone who has taken the noun and made a verb of it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 1:35:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 2, 2012 1:50:14 PM PDT
J. Harding says:
Andre,

You are so blind to what I say to you that you don't even see where we agree.

You said: "The common use of the word -theory- doesn't accurately fir ANY scientific theory. If you are also too willfully ignorant to grasp that fact, again, your stupidity is your own problem."

I said: "The theory of evolution is not a common theory."

You replied: "100% WRONG."

Don't you see that I said almost exactly what you said? I know that the common use of the word theory doesn't fit any scientific theory. I never said otherwise. Clearly MY stupidity is not the problem here.

Let me break it down for you more simply since that seems necessary. The reason that the common meaning of theory doesn't apply to the theory of evolution is not that the specialized definition applies. It is because the common definition of theory does not accurately describe a scientific theory. It so happens in the instance you've chosen that the scientific and common definitions appear to be mutually exclusive. That is a feature of the two definitions you're using in your example, not of words with multiple definitions generally.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 1:41:52 PM PDT
J. Harding says:
Nancy,

You see absolutely no difference between non-belief and disbelief because you appear to believe that disbelief doesn't exist. You disbelieve in the existence of disbelief. (Couldn't resist.) The reason both concepts exist is because they describe different phenomena. Off the top of my head I'd say that non-belief is a larger concept that includes disbelief.

'When I say "active disbelief" I mean someone who has taken the noun and made a verb of it.'

I don't know what to make of this. Disbelieve is the verb form of disbelief. Do you think that's not a real word or something?

dis·be·lieve
verb
transitive verb
: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb
: to withhold or reject belief

I think the "to withhold or reject belief" definition is particularly helpful in our situation.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 2:16:24 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
JH: Your inability to use words accurately is also not my problem.

When you (badly) wrote: -"The theory of evolution is not a common theory."-, the way that a non moron would have phrased that is: -The theory of evolution does NOT use the common definition of 'theory', it rightly uses the scientific use of the word.-

Thus, your idiocy in typing what you did, led me to read that your use of the word -common- was a PREFIX to the word -theory-, as to assert that the theory of evolution is not a scientific theory.

'Clearly MY stupidity is not the problem here.'

Wrong, a poor writer does NOT get to blame his readers for his OWN poor writing choices. Deal with it.

To try to use the common definition of -dogma- in a RELIGIOUS context is as WRONG as trying to use the 'common' use of -theory- in a SCIENCE context

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 3:44:13 PM PDT
Astrocat says:
J., I don't "believe" anything.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 7:08:17 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 3, 2012 7:21:11 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 7:20:40 AM PDT
J. Harding says:
Andre,

You're being ridiculous because you can't stand being wrong, even on the most trivial point.

"Thus, your idiocy in typing what you did, led me to read that your use of the word -common- was a PREFIX to the word -theory-, as to assert that the theory of evolution is not a scientific theory."

I wrote "The theory of evolution is not a common theory." and you somehow understood that to mean that the theory of evolution is not a scientific theory? What? How is that my fault? You're really going off the rails here.

I have no idea what you're talking about with this prefix nonsense. I prefaced theory with common when I meant common theory. How is that unclear? It's only unclear if you assume that I think the theory of evolution is not a scientific theory. I have no idea why you would assume that. I've never indicated any such belief on my part.

I was trying to express to you that the theory of evolution does not fit the common (non-scientific) definition of theory. I said that "The theory of evolution is not a common theory." How is that unclear? It's only unclear to you because decided long ago what my perspective on things must be and that it's wrong. I don't see how else "not a common theory" becomes "not a scientific theory" in your mind.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 7:22:40 AM PDT
J. Harding says:
Nancy,

You appear to reject the definitions of words when they're inconvenient for you. If you want to end this conversation, fine. That's what I'm taking from this little non-response.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 7:25:25 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
JH:'You're being ridiculous because you can't stand being wrong, even on the most trivial point.'

<Massive Lying Lunatic Projection>

'What? How is that my fault? You're really going off the rails here.'

Because what you meant to say was that the theory of evolution is a theory NOT in the common use sense of the word -theory-.

You can't write, that's for sure, and that's YOUR Bad.

Your whole 'point' seems to be that one can mix common use and specific in-field definitions. That is, of course, wildly wrong and very willfully STOOPID.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 7:32:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 3, 2012 7:35:23 AM PDT
J. Harding says:
Andre,

"Because what you meant to say was that the theory of evolution is a theory NOT in the common use sense of the word -theory-."

Yes, it's a theory. That's why I called it the theory of evolution. It's not a common theory, which is to to say that it's not a theory in the common sense. How is that unclear?

Fine. I'm not the best writer. I can accept that. You're still being silly and puerile. You have to sneak little childish insults into everything you post. Is that how you think good reasoning proceeds? You can't make a good argument, so you throw around your silly insults and your "Massive Lying Lunatic Projection"s. At least my posts don't devolve to that level of jerkiness.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 8:02:00 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
JH illiterised:'It's not a common theory, which is to to say that it's not a theory in the common sense. How is that unclear? '

The first five words of the above sentence. That's how. They are, to say the least, badly formed. When one says 'It's not an (X) theory-, the (X) is the MODIFIER of the *next following word*. IOW, dumbbell, what you actually wrote said that the theory of evolution does not fit the standard definition of theory as used in science. IOW, 'common' in science.

Really, a remedial English 101 course is your next personal need.

And, it is a good axiom that people who write so poorly cannot be trusted to be any more accurate on any more complex issues.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 8:34:25 AM PDT
J. Harding says:
Andre,

Yes, common modifies the next word, which is theory. How does that make what I wrote say that the theory of evolution is not a scientific theory? Nowhere does it say that. That's all in your head. All I said was that the theory of evolution is not a common theory. You and I have been using common to distinguish from the scientific definition of theory. Of course you conveniently forgot this when you misunderstood what I wrote. Now you continue to forget this so that you can try to explain to me how "The theory of evolution is not a common theory" says that theory of evolution is not a scientific theory. You're losing it.

Here's an example of you using common as I used it:

"I was very clear about the *difference* between 'common usages', and proper uses in the core areas of those proper uses. As in the word -theory-, whose common use is pretty much the OPPOSITE of it's meaning in science and the law."

Here's a page explaining scientific theories that includes a discussion of common usage of theory:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#.22Just.22_a_theory

"And, it is a good axiom that people who write so poorly cannot be trusted to be any more accurate on any more complex issues."

You misread what I wrote and blamed me for it. Now you continue your silly insults. If you had anything substantive to say, you'd say it. Instead you try to convince me that "not a common theory" somehow means not a scientific theory because common modifies theory. You're beyond reason.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 8:47:53 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
JH:'Yes, common modifies the next word, which is theory. How does that make what I wrote say that the theory of evolution is not a scientific theory?'

Really, get yourself, and quickly, to a Remedial English course. I don't do tutorials here. The fact is, sparky, YOU wrote BADLY, and now you are WHINING about that fact. Well, whine to YOURSELF, because YOU are the yabbo that did that.

'You misread what I wrote and blamed me for it.'

Lie. Sod off, liar.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 8:52:54 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 3, 2012 8:59:46 AM PDT
J. Harding says:
Andre,

Pot, meet kettle.

"The theory of evolution is not a common theory." Somehow this says to you that the theory of evolution is not a scientific theory. There's no English course in the world that's going to make that one true. As you yourself pointed out, common theory and scientific theory have very different meanings. When it's convenient for you, however, they magically mean the same thing! That's not some advanced English. That's advanced internet trolling.

Edit: I just looked at the post where you took "The theory of evolution is not a common theory" from. There's no way an honest reader could misunderstand this as you have:

"I explained to you why your theory example fails. The common meaning of theory doesn't accurately describe the theory of evolution. On the other hand several of the meanings of dogma fit religious dogma. Do you not see the distinction? In your example what is being described does not fit within the defintion of the word used to describe it. In my case what is being described does fit within the defintion. The theory of evolution is not a common theory. Religious dogma can be accurately described with several of the definitions of dogma. I'm not playing word games, I'm trying to make a simple point that you can't allow yourself to accept for some reason. I could accurately say that you dogmatically refuse to accept it."

Taking a quote out of context and then misunderstanding it, that's lying.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 8:59:51 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
JH still can't read:'Somehow this says to you that the theory of evolution is not a scientific theory.'

Indeed, and it shows that you still are a major willfully ignorant gob, because there's NO SUCH THING as a 'common theory'.

When YOU make up terms out of your fundament, don't be surprised if that results in a failure on YOUR part to communicate. There's NO such thing as -common-theory-. There IS -the common USE of the word theory-. Big honkin' difference, twinkie.

-Words have meanings.- Learn that, if nothing else.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 9:17:33 AM PDT
J. Harding says:
Andre,

"There's NO such thing as -common-theory-."

This is just more of your dishonesty. This is like saying that there are cars that are red, but red car makes no sense.

There's no way that you could have misunderstood what I was saying in the context where I said it. It's clear even on its own, if you're not willfully blind. You're honestly trying to tell me that you didn't understand me saying common theory after I said theory in the common usage or similar many times? That's your problem.

Here are examples of other people using the term common theory in the same way I did, in similar discussions:

http://wildeboer-fitch.wikispaces.com/Scientific+Theory+Blue_Firez09+nighthawkX
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_scientific_theory_and_just_the_common_theory

I'm sure your English wizardry is so grand that it trumps anything else, though.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 9:20:12 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
JH:'This is just more of your dishonesty.'

<Projection>

'Here are examples of other people using the term common theory in the same way I did, in similar discussions:'

Two more morons making the same mistake does not mean that it's not a mistake. Morons abound. Polls don't determine correctness of language.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 3, 2012 10:00:20 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 3, 2012 10:02:17 AM PDT
J. Harding says:
Andre,

Yes, what kind of moron would describe a car that is red as a red car? Truly, your mastery of English is impressive. It takes true genius to see that "The theory of evolution is not a common theory" means that the theory of evolution is not a scientific theory.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1406 29 days ago
Will there be insects in heaven? 49 7 minutes ago
Protecting our right to practice bigotry... 2636 9 minutes ago
Books on Universal Truth - Are There Any? 267 10 minutes ago
Faith-based Rallies 33 26 minutes ago
Is Homosexuality a 'Good Thing' II? 7043 36 minutes ago
Does Violence Ever Solve Anything? 45 1 hour ago
Christian Science is the only way! 65 1 hour ago
Atheist dogma 1249 2 hours ago
Time and Galilean Relativity. 38 2 hours ago
React, Respond, or Ignore? 110 3 hours ago
The War on Wonen Continues Apace 9628 3 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  476
Initial post:  Jun 25, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 4, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions