Tornado Strikes Junkyard. Builds Working Automobile

Tornado Strikes Junkyard. Builds Working Automobile Sept 5, 2019 22:00:11 GMT

Quote

Post by Arlon10 on Sept 5, 2019 22:00:11 GMT

Sept 5, 2019 21:16:01 GMT FilmFlaneur said:

Sept 4, 2019 21:43:19 GMT Arlon10 said:

I'll try again.

There are facts, opinions, and what is found in the dictionary, labels. These are three very different things that people often get confused, especially you.

Definitions and meanings are what are typically found in dictionaries, Arlon. The things you argue about with them and 'win'. Remember? A label is a piece of paper, plastic film, cloth, metal, or other material affixed to a container or product, on which is written or printed information or symbols about the product or item. I hope that helps.

Here are some facts. People who are Christians considered as a group have higher divorce rates, earn less income, and have less education. These are "facts" because it can be difficult and usually unnecessary to present false information about these metrics. The people in any other religion typically have lower divorce rates, earn more income and are more educated. These are also facts.v It is a fact that Christians compare to atheists in these metrics.

But what defines an atheist is not divorce, income, or education. It is a lack of belief in God. Divorcees are those best defined by divorce and high earners by their income. I remember you insisting that your definitions are necessarily arbitrary, need to be mutually agreed and that such definitions can easily be wrong. One might just as well compare Christians and offshore fishermen with equal profit in logic. Well, then: QED.

A fascinating question is why? What do these two otherwise markedly disparate groups have in common? It can be obvious from their own reports that both groups have no fear of a god. Many Christians have no more moral code to follow than atheists do. It seems to follow that such an attitude could possibly lead to laxity in various affairs. It is also possible that a general laxity was present to some degree first and led to such attitudes. Whichever the direction or directions we have our suspect.

To suggest that Christians have no moral code is nonsense, as those who remember the 10 Commandments, for a start, will recall. In fact it is arguable that most of Scripture, being amenable to moral instruction, just as Timothy says, ultimately offers a code by which to live by. To suggest that many Christians have no fear (or at least a strong regard for the imperatives) of their purported god is also wrong. So now you are wrong twice.

Now we have to write the story. A problem is what to call the various groups. The dictionary, or yours anyway, has no term for "religious people not counting Christians."

But here you are wrong for a third time, since the term always has been as far as I am aware 'infidel' denoting a person of a religion other than one's own, especially a Christian to a Muslim, a Muslim to a Christian, or a gentile to a Jew. That's not just in my dictionary either.

When I try to develop a term to address these facts..

But one may not deny or affirm any fact based on a definition. Your words not mine. So now you are in error again.

... you complain that I may not separate Christians out from other "religious" people because your dictionary defines Christianity as a "religion." Now we see the problem. It is indeed on your end. Your are trying to establish a "fact" about "Christianity" or "religion" based on one dictionary definition of questionable application to the facts at hand.

It has always been a rule with me (and in fact this is standard practice among social scientists) to take at face value the claims of self-defining groups, like religious people, about what they believe and how they see themselves. This is distinct, btw from an argument from popularity. So your own logic notwithstanding I will go with the virtually unanimous view of Christians that, whatever else they may disagree on, they in fact follow a religion, and are religious - but thank you anyway. It is also, despite your odd claim above not a definition which is 'only found in just one dictionary' either. In fact your own definition of Christianity, I would venture to suggest, is found in no dictionaries as all. So with you are wrong, now for a fifth time.

I explained to you that as usual I accommodate my definitions to the facts at hand while you as usual try to accommodate the "facts" (you do not have) to the definitions, which is not the correct way of doing things. You do it that way because you have never solved a problem in science yourself your entire life. You simply copy things from what you imagine to be authorities. Because you and some people who call themselves Christians simply copy from what you imagine to be authority the result is that you are not capable of engaging reality.

As I mentioned above, it best practice to ask people who hold beliefs what they themselves understand their beliefs to be and how they define themselves, since they are best placed to know. Everything you have said is just the usual highly personal opinion without substantiation, something moreover outside of the privileged group. And what is submitted without substantiation can be dismissed on the same basis. But you have been told this before.

One way to resolve this problem is for me to use all new terms like the "circumspect" and the "lax." The problem evades your dependence on your total misunderstanding of terms. Notice that the "lax" group now correctly includes Christians and atheists. The "circumspect" group now contains all other religions except Christianity as widely practiced. Now your dictionary is powerless to object to the facts. It might also be noted though that quite many definitions of religion and Christianity are already in wide use and the dictionary has typically been little to no help organizing the groups. Notice also that my definitions are more practical than yours.

Once again: you may not deny or affirm any fact based on a definition (here being your introduction of new terms 'lax' and 'circumspect'). Your words not mine. So now you are in error for the last time.

And you didn't overcome the reticence you have shown when questioned over your views on the fossil record or the effects of ice melting on sea levels. Evasion noted, again.

I don't know why you even bother. Your concept of the "rules" and "standard practice" are utterly ridiculous. Where did you get them exactly?

You've already lost this argument at least twice recently. If you want to lose yet a third time maybe give it a week or two