|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 5, 2019 11:41:40 GMT
goz said: [ full text here] <clips>
1 ... Since my aptitude for any of these areas in these mathematically based areas are unknown to you, this is a ridiculous statement, since your own proven aptitude when asked to solve statistical and mathematical problems on these Boards has been woefully inaccurate and filled with erroneous thinking. Thinking clearly can yet not necessarily be associated with mathematics. 2 ... Which authorities will present what to me about what? If it is not today then can I assume it is sometime in the future like Armageddon? 1 Again, I follow a school, you follow a herd. 2 I would not hazard a guess what you might assume. Your critical and devastating mistake is the assumption that any group of religious people necessarily failed science. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact religious people with the obvious exception of Christians following Trump are actually far better at science. Much like the "evangelical" Christians blindly follow their herd currently supposed to be led by Trump, your herd has a blind faith in science that leads to the acceptance of quite much that's really not science. You mistrust and refuse to credit real scientists because they are not members of your herd. The rather obvious mistake seen time and time again is the misunderstanding and misapplication of statistical analysis. You have still not, as far as I know, recognized the vast and significant difference between statistical analysis and actual science ceteris paribus. You and your herd are incapable of constructing convincing arguments and turn to the force of government to impose your beliefs on others, very much like Trump followers depend on the force of their dominance of government. In fact however you know nothing at all of science and they know nothing at all of religion. There are no "schools" that teach statistical analysis is on par with science ceteris paribus. There are no "schools" that teach that facts are determined by dictionaries as you often try. It is just you and your lost herd. It might serve you well to remember that "science" is not disputed by anyone, especially religious people. Real science is readily and easily tested. If it is in dispute then it is not readily and easily tested and is therefore not science, yet anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Sept 5, 2019 11:58:13 GMT
In fact religious people with the obvious exception of Christians following Trump are actually far better at science. Bullshit. You just love pulling this stuff out of your ignorant ass, don't you?
Bullshit. You aren't even going to bother providing a specific example, are you? Because you know how silly you are going to look.
This actually is exactly what you do. Please provide an example of a "real" scientist we sane people reject but whose wisdom only you appreciate. (Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.)
Sorry, cupcake, but in the real world, religious idiots like yourself dispute science all the time.
Failure is apparently your middle name. Hate to break it to you, pumpkin, but real science is disputed all the time. There is a difference between real science that is still under debate and science that is considered settled. Science doesn't just magically become real when a majority finally agree with one another. The disputes, and the way they are conducted, are actually a very important part of what makes science science. But of course, all of this goes right over your little know-nothing head.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 5, 2019 12:03:25 GMT
In fact religious people with the obvious exception of Christians following Trump are actually far better at science. Bullshit. You just love pulling this stuff out of your ignorant ass, don't you?
Bullshit. You aren't even going to bother providing a specific example, are you? Because you know how silly you are going to look.
This actually is exactly what you do. Please provide an example of a "real" scientist we sane people reject but whose wisdom only you appreciate. (Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.)
Sorry, cupcake, but in the real world, religious idiots like yourself dispute science all the time.
Failure is apparently your middle name. Hate to break it to you, pumpkin, but real science is disputed all the time. There is a difference between real science that is still under debate and science that is considered settled. Science doesn't just magically become real when a majority finally agree with one another. The disputes, and the way they are conducted, are actually a very important part of what makes science science. But of course, all of this goes right over your little know-nothing head.
Your stunningly convincing arguments failed to post. By what mishap?
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Sept 5, 2019 12:06:54 GMT
Your stunningly convincing arguments failed to post. By what mishap? You've been given two opportunities to back up your claims with specific examples that would advance the case you wanted to make. As I predicted, you avoided doing so in both instances. This is, as we all know, because you are a deluded know-nothing who can do nothing but blurt hot air and nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 5, 2019 12:11:50 GMT
Your stunningly convincing arguments failed to post. By what mishap? You've been given two opportunities to back up your claims with specific examples that would advance the case you wanted to make. As I predicted, you avoided doing so in both instances. This is, as we all know, because you are a deluded know-nothing who can do nothing but blurt hot air and nonsense. I have a website. Where's yours?
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 5, 2019 12:37:05 GMT
You've been given two opportunities to back up your claims with specific examples that would advance the case you wanted to make. As I predicted, you avoided doing so in both instances. This is, as we all know, because you are a deluded know-nothing who can do nothing but blurt hot air and nonsense. I have a website. Where's yours? Until now, I haven't gotten involved here. But I just laughed out loud at the idea of someone who thinks that citing the "credential" of having a website proves he is not deluded.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 5, 2019 12:59:37 GMT
I have a website. Where's yours? Until now, I haven't gotten involved here. But I just laughed out loud at the idea of someone who thinks that citing the "credential" of having a website proves he is not deluded. What's funnier is a "scientist" asking for "credentials." Thanks anyway for proving my point that you are all incapable of science and depend entirely on authority. Notice you are in a topic that ridicules your stunning ignorance of the interdependence of complex systems necessary for the establishment and sustenance of life. Notice also that you failed to answer my question since short RNA chains presently tear each other apart, what do you believe will happen ever to change that?
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Sept 5, 2019 13:42:45 GMT
I have a website. Where's yours? Not only did you just make a complete fool of yourself by posting childish bullshit that has no relevance, you once again avoided citing specific examples to show that you aren't talking out of your dumb ass.
It's like you want to be laughed at as you dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Sept 5, 2019 13:48:21 GMT
Thanks anyway for proving my point that you are all incapable of science and depend entirely on authority. In the modern age, everyone depends on experts in other fields if they want to get their shit right. As someone who manifestly doesn't care about truth or reality, of course you would avoid listening what what people who know more than you have learned. It's part of your strategy to maintain your delusions.
Actually, what the topic ridicules is your ignorance of science. Everyone here knows this. When you can articulate why this is a serious question based on actual science that anyone needs to be concerned about, you will deserve an answer. Right now the best bet is that this is a phrase you picked up somewhere which you carry around in much the way a little boy carries around a old blanket with some text on it that he doesn't understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 5, 2019 21:16:01 GMT
Its no good, you'll still be there, not answering and evading straight questions.. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. But one may not deny or affirm any fact based on a definition. Your words not mine. So now you are in error again. 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. 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. 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 5, 2019 22:00:11 GMT
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. But one may not deny or affirm any fact based on a definition. Your words not mine. So now you are in error again. 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. 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. 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
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 6, 2019 4:03:06 GMT
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. 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. 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. 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. But one may not deny or affirm any fact based on a definition. Your words not mine. So now you are in error again. 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. 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. 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 You have said that I am no good at statistical analysis (which I strongly contest) HOWEVER...I can count. In this thread. the five times that Film Flaneur has proven you wrong is more wrong than the three times you have accused him of being wrong just now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 6, 2019 11:41:55 GMT
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 twoYou have said that I am no good at statistical analysis (which I strongly contest) HOWEVER...I can count. In this thread. the five times that Film Flaneur has proven you wrong is more wrong than the three times you have accused him of being wrong just now. Are both of you imbeciles are do you just enjoy playing imbeciles on the internet? It is important for FilmFlaneur to understand that he is not the arbiter of other people's meanings when they speak. Lofty and admirable the goal of everyone everywhere always meaning exactly the same thing with their terms, it is not practical with many of the terms in much controversy. It might be easy for everyone to agree what a "tuning fork" is, but the definition of a "Christian" is too controversial to expect meanings to align across all speakers. FilmFlaneur expects to solve the problem by means of his authority (he has no wits), however his trifling and superficial experience with the real world makes that unlikely. Where controversy and debate arise professionals agree to ad hoc definitions of terms. In that way there is communication. Otherwise people simply talk past each other without communicating. Obviously FilmFlaneur has never been in a professional debate, real controversy or otherwise. I suspect he is trying to avoid communication rather than facilitate it. These definitions in no way invalidate the definitions useful before or after in other contexts. I suspect much of his (and your) confusion is the result of the belief that definitions exist outside any speaker's immediate use of one. Definitions do not. What appears in the dictionary are labels that have been useful in communication especially about reality. To ignore the reality, to ignore the facts, to ignore the problem at hand in order to preserve some mere label out of several labels is not useful and therefore illogical. My definitions are practical in this context and that is really the only place they need to be practical. In other contexts it might make sense to use other definitions. The definition of the word "table" can depend on whether the discussion is about furniture or a collection of data. Usually the context makes clear which is meant. Just as there are different uses of the word "table" there are different uses of the words "Christian" and "religion." To argue that his use is correct to the exclusion of other uses is absurd in adult society. Your fail to communicate because that is what grunts do when enforcing their will on others.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Sept 6, 2019 14:48:37 GMT
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 Planet Arlon must indeed be a very "special" place.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 6, 2019 19:44:01 GMT
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 But 'rules' and 'standard' practice are not words I have used here, so this is a strawman. I ought also to have mentioned last time the general point that you define a dictionary in your peculiar way by "what is found [there], labels" and go on "Here are some facts.." But as I constantly have to remind you of what you said, one apparently may not deny or affirm any fact based on a definition. Since your definition is not of the usual one of dictionaries being held to contain word definitions and meanings, then it appears that you are being all arbitrary again, which you have helpfully told me is something which can be wrong and must be mutually agreed. But you are right, after so much evasion and deflection (none of my objections above being considered in your reply) I am not sure why I bother. Perhaps it is because you are entertaining and instructive - even if not in the ways you might hope LOL. Better luck next time.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 6, 2019 20:20:32 GMT
It is important for FilmFlaneur to understand that he is not the arbiter of other people's meanings when they speak. I leave definitions and the meaning of words to dictionaries, Arlon - you know, those pesky things you argue with - 'and win'? In general terms it is quite easy to define what a Christian is even though some, as Arlon has helpfully demonstrated a few times in the past, are guilty by being too prescriptive employing the Scotsman fallacy. The only really controversial definition of the term I have seen for a while has been on this thread by asserting that Christians are akin to atheists or cannot be said to follow a moral code! Arlon, we remember, once said that he was a member of a school debating society or something similar. So that must be the source of such authority. But professionals (such as scientists, a group who Arlon holds in such disdain) do not usually exchange views using definitions created or done for a particular (ie the present) purpose. They more commonly rely on definitions which are current currency in their field. Otherwise, as we discover with Arlon for whom all definitions are arbitrary and which are divorced from facts, one might just end up making up stuff and arguing with standard authorities which prove inconvenient. At least I do not have a continuing reputation for evasion and deflection. Arlon's continuing insistence that dictionaries only contain 'labels' is, as had been already pointed out to him, a prime example of that which he condemns: affirming supposed facts based on a definition. In this case it is clear that not only does he use 'labels' in a very unusual way but offers his own arbitrary and very contentious definition of something which is also all his own to create his own 'facts'. This last paragraph is a mixture of special pleading, ad hominems and now the striking claim that we need 'other definitions' - obviously the ones that Arlon has just made up. It reminds me of the infamous "alternative facts" phrase used by U.S. Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway a couple of year back.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 6, 2019 21:47:18 GMT
You have said that I am no good at statistical analysis (which I strongly contest) HOWEVER...I can count. In this thread. the five times that Film Flaneur has proven you wrong is more wrong than the three times you have accused him of being wrong just now. Are both of you imbeciles are do you just enjoy playing imbeciles on the internet? It is important for FilmFlaneur to understand that he is not the arbiter of other people's meanings when they speak. Lofty and admirable the goal of everyone everywhere always meaning exactly the same thing with their terms, it is not practical with many of the terms in much controversy. It might be easy for everyone to agree what a "tuning fork" is, but the definition of a "Christian" is too controversial to expect meanings to align across all speakers. FilmFlaneur expects to solve the problem by means of his authority (he has no wits), however his trifling and superficial experience with the real world makes that unlikely. Where controversy and debate arise professionals agree to ad hoc definitions of terms. In that way there is communication. Otherwise people simply talk past each other without communicating. Obviously FilmFlaneur has never been in a professional debate, real controversy or otherwise. I suspect he is trying to avoid communication rather than facilitate it. These definitions in no way invalidate the definitions useful before or after in other contexts. I suspect much of his (and your) confusion is the result of the belief that definitions exist outside any speaker's immediate use of one. Definitions do not. What appears in the dictionary are labels that have been useful in communication especially about reality. To ignore the reality, to ignore the facts, to ignore the problem at hand in order to preserve some mere label out of several labels is not useful and therefore illogical. My definitions are practical in this context and that is really the only place they need to be practical. In other contexts it might make sense to use other definitions. The definition of the word "table" can depend on whether the discussion is about furniture or a collection of data. Usually the context makes clear which is meant. Just as there are different uses of the word "table" there are different uses of the words "Christian" and "religion." To argue that his use is correct to the exclusion of other uses is absurd in adult society. Your fail to communicate because that is what grunts do when enforcing their will on others. Blah blah blah blah blah. It still, however remains that in ALL contexts 'Christianity' is still a 'religion', or pertaining to one of some kind. When is it not?
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Sept 6, 2019 22:29:43 GMT
Are both of you imbeciles are do you just enjoy playing imbeciles on the internet? It is important for FilmFlaneur to understand that he is not the arbiter of other people's meanings when they speak. Lofty and admirable the goal of everyone everywhere always meaning exactly the same thing with their terms, it is not practical with many of the terms in much controversy. It might be easy for everyone to agree what a "tuning fork" is, but the definition of a "Christian" is too controversial to expect meanings to align across all speakers. FilmFlaneur expects to solve the problem by means of his authority (he has no wits), however his trifling and superficial experience with the real world makes that unlikely. Where controversy and debate arise professionals agree to ad hoc definitions of terms. In that way there is communication. Otherwise people simply talk past each other without communicating. Obviously FilmFlaneur has never been in a professional debate, real controversy or otherwise. I suspect he is trying to avoid communication rather than facilitate it. These definitions in no way invalidate the definitions useful before or after in other contexts. I suspect much of his (and your) confusion is the result of the belief that definitions exist outside any speaker's immediate use of one. Definitions do not. What appears in the dictionary are labels that have been useful in communication especially about reality. To ignore the reality, to ignore the facts, to ignore the problem at hand in order to preserve some mere label out of several labels is not useful and therefore illogical. My definitions are practical in this context and that is really the only place they need to be practical. In other contexts it might make sense to use other definitions. The definition of the word "table" can depend on whether the discussion is about furniture or a collection of data. Usually the context makes clear which is meant. Just as there are different uses of the word "table" there are different uses of the words "Christian" and "religion." To argue that his use is correct to the exclusion of other uses is absurd in adult society. Your fail to communicate because that is what grunts do when enforcing their will on others. Blah blah blah blah blah. It still, however remains that in ALL contexts 'Christianity' is still a 'religion', or pertaining to one of some kind. When is it not? When they start using colors and weird fonts (thinking that that somehow makes their message clearer) you know that they're really beyond reach!
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 6, 2019 22:43:37 GMT
Blah blah blah blah blah. It still, however remains that in ALL contexts 'Christianity' is still a 'religion', or pertaining to one of some kind. When is it not? When they start using colors and weird fonts (thinking that that somehow makes their message clearer) you know that they're really beyond reach! I couldn't agree more...with this and another poster in particular!
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 6, 2019 23:54:45 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [ full test here] <clip>
I leave definitions and the meaning of words to dictionaries, Arlon - you know, those pesky things you argue with - 'and win'? That's great for definitions, but definitions are not the issue here as I will again make clear with yet a new illustration, the canned vegetable problem. First though ... and ... Maybe you should reboot your computer after all. Now for the canned vegetable problem. There are two labels, "corn" and "diced carrots." There are two vegetables curiously enough, corn and diced carrots. However one day on opening a can labeled "diced carrots" only corn is found. What has happened here? Is the definition of "diced carrots" wrong? The product in the can is rather obviously not conforming to the definition. No, there is nothing wrong with the definition in itself. There is nothing wrong with the definition before it was applied to any can. There is something very wrong though. The label was misapplied to a can of corn. I haven't challenged any dictionary or anyone's definition of Christianity (yet). I merely pointed out that it does appear someone is applying the wrong labels. When you leave your mother's basement you might notice that "religious" labels are indeed applied very differently. That's fine for the separate groups, but it doesn't work when various groups join the same the discussion. That's when ad hoc definitions serve well. Now I will however ask you to develop your definition of religion. I want you to describe what it is. Have you ever been in the street minding your business when a fundamentalist Christian approached you and begged you to "accept Jesus"? Did you wonder what that means? Did you ask what it means? Here's a problem, the very young street witnesses often have no idea what it means. They could not tell you what it means. Does it mean you should avoid divorce? Work hard? Study? They might tell you it does not. What is the definition of an "evangelical" Christian? What are the requirements? I believe you will find after careful and prolonged investigation that there are often very little or no standards whatsoever. It is very polite of you to count as a "Christian" anyone who claims to be one, but that is no help whatever in knowing what the word means. We may discuss who is a Christian, but have no idea what it means to be one. When you use words that have no meaning some people will call you a blithering idiot. Why shouldn't they? Your words are utterly pointless. Unlike you, I use words to a purpose, and that requires they mean something insofar as identifying one thing from another. When two groups are the same like Christians and atheists I try to find one word for both. When those are different from all other people I try to find a different word for the others. This is merely to facilitate useful communication. Perhaps one day you will learn to facilitate useful communication instead of shouting it down like a blithering idiot.
|
|
