|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 15, 2020 21:23:54 GMT
Righto. You did all right to begin with, you asked pertinent questions, and at least once you actually responded to the answer to them, sadly I see you slipping again into fantasy land. I wont bother engaging with fantasy or lies.
Thanks for trying Arlon, if you decide to debate honestly sometime I am sure you will make a reasonable debater.
His felt his resolution weakening and double back down on his assurance he’s always right, because he thinks he thinks outside of the box. Him and Erjen both, I hate myself cos I troll them but then every now and again they act like they want an actual honest discussion, but then this happens. And it's not like I am even the sharpest tool in the shed, if I am enough to ruin their chances at debate, what the hell???
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 15, 2020 21:22:09 GMT
Righto.
You did all right to begin with, you asked pertinent questions, and at least once you actually responded to the answer to them, sadly I see you slipping again into fantasy land. I wont bother engaging with fantasy or lies.
Thanks for trying Arlon, if you decide to debate honestly sometime I am sure you will make a reasonable debater.
Thank you for the time you took to critique. I am sure agree though that some critiques are just nonsense. Yes I do agree, you have aptly proven that time and time again.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 8, 2020 22:10:32 GMT
probably not, in fact I am likely very arrogant, it's part of my charm.
Sorry that is just a total non-sequitur, English professors are for english, brain surgeons are for brain surgery, school children are still learning, not sure why any of that is relevant.
I don't think that is true, but at any rate I am not sure what mistake you think I have made You believe dictionaries do more than they do because you have no idea what anyone does and want it simple. Righto.
You did all right to begin with, you asked pertinent questions, and at least once you actually responded to the answer to them, sadly I see you slipping again into fantasy land. I wont bother engaging with fantasy or lies.
Thanks for trying Arlon, if you decide to debate honestly sometime I am sure you will make a reasonable debater.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 23:59:55 GMT
In the case of the Oxford Dictionary, I am not an Oxford scholar, in fact i daresay that this is going to be the case for all dictionaries, much like I don't charge in on brain surgery because I am not qualified.
I guess as the boards foremost intellectual, you think you are being fair, but really given your intelligence as evidenced on this board, this is just arrogance.
Given the very purpose of a dictionary is to define the meaning of words, I don't see how using it for such is a problem.
I said that the purpose of a dictionary was to define words, are you suggesting this is not the case? what is a dictionary for then?
No one said it should, I said if you argue you should agree on the definition of terms, so not really sure what 'proof' you are talking about , but are you saying that when you are arguing it does not matter if you agree on terms??
I am pretty sure I have never made that claim, and I don't really know why you brought it up, but I really can't do much about this
- Do you think you're any less arrogant than I am? How does that work?
- English professors are not brain surgeons either. Elementary school children are not professors of anything.
- Sometimes it's easier to learn from other people's mistakes than our own.
probably not, in fact I am likely very arrogant, it's part of my charm.
Sorry that is just a total non-sequitur, English professors are for english, brain surgeons are for brain surgery, school children are still learning, not sure why any of that is relevant.
I don't think that is true, but at any rate I am not sure what mistake you think I have made
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 6:57:36 GMT
Oh, but I am smarter than you
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 6:43:44 GMT
It didn't get done at all, because it is made up. Yeah so? Aesop's fables are all made up too. Yet, we still take the lessons from them, right down to this very day. He does not care, witness my conversation with him in the Christ is Lord thread. If you cant prove it exists it is apparently ludicrous to argue about it, and you are entitled if you do.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 6:38:48 GMT
And now i did look it up, and I can say yes, professional scholars study the usage of words and update the dictionary based on their findings. In response to your earlier answer I will say it is better than I expected from you. You had better teachers than I guessed. The main problem people have when they have one using a dictionary is the attitude that reality needs to conform to the definition available in the dictionary. That is backward. That is what you attempted. You made an argument based on a dictionary definition in a dictatorial manner. That is very bad practice. A "proof" should never depend on a dictionary definition. One of the first things I noticed wrong with this board was the attempt to prove that homosexuality was not a choice based on the dictionary definition of "orientation." In the case of the Oxford Dictionary, I am not an Oxford scholar, in fact i daresay that this is going to be the case for all dictionaries, much like I don't charge in on brain surgery because I am not qualified.
I guess as the boards foremost intellectual, you think you are being fair, but really given your intelligence as evidenced on this board, this is just arrogance.
Given the very purpose of a dictionary is to define the meaning of words, I don't see how using it for such is a problem.
I said that the purpose of a dictionary was to define words, are you suggesting this is not the case? what is a dictionary for then?
No one said it should, I said if you argue you should agree on the definition of terms, so not really sure what 'proof' you are talking about , but are you saying that when you are arguing it does not matter if you agree on terms??
I am pretty sure I have never made that claim, and I don't really know why you brought it up, but I really can't do much about this
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 5:58:34 GMT
And now i did look it up, and I can say yes, professional scholars study the usage of words and update the dictionary based on their findings.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 5:57:23 GMT
You know that A) Your presence on this board is effectively you right, like that fact that you dont have to use your real name is not hiding your lack of intelligence, and b) we all know who you are right, and that your published website only supports my statement. I will assume, as I usually do, that you have something better than this going on, and that your answer to this question might be enlightening, "Where do you think dictionaries get their information and how?" shit you know that is a good question, and pertinent. I dont really have anything better going on, I am procrastinating from work.
well I seem to recall without googling that the first (english) dictionary was written by some English noble, name slips my mind, but I am not 100% sure of his qualifications. Of course there are many different dictionaries, I know that Tolkien was one dictionary author in the 60s (it might have been the 50s), and that he is a qualified oxford English graduate, so I suppose my answer is that the people who write the dictionary (although I guess edit is a better word) are (in the case of the Oxford dictionary) Oxford English professors, I presume that they gather the information they need to update the dictionary every time they do a new one, but I do not know the actual process.
I am guessing you are bringing this up to suggest that dictionary definitions are not always the actual meaning of a word, I would argue that firstly they are the very definition of a meaning of a word, they are after all a dictionary definition, but also secondly that the actual definition of a word does not matter at all in the context of an argument, only that both parties agree on the definition so that they may argue on the same page.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 5:40:50 GMT
Can I ask you exactly what it is you think I am arguing for? You tell me? It is your point about arguing for a hypothetical, for the sake of pseudo-intellectual and meaningful discussion on the nature of this God thing. If you can't concede to your own failure, then you are just a masochist, because you keep coming back for more when you have already been scalded. Yeah so you are admonishing me for making some kind of argument for God by the looks of your strawman here, given that I have never made an argument for god, and your continual strawman around that I have to conclude that not only is your comprehension quite low, but also that you have some kind of need to appear to be smarter than me, sorry not really worth my time. When you figure out why you like to derail arguments based on your inability to understand hypothetical ideas, please let me know.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 5:31:54 GMT
i will waste this much time on you. if you spent as much time making cogent arguments as you spent misinterpreting what was said and attacking strawmen, you could be a formidable debater. Your whole basis is surrounding something that is abstract and unreal. Claiming that others who call you out are misinterpreting you, is your own strawman, because you don't have any rational reasoning behind what it is you are arguing for. A delusion is not cogent argument. Can I ask you exactly what it is you think I am arguing for?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 4:29:57 GMT
hmm, could be hit and miss, gremlins is quite 80s not sure it's gonna translate
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 4:29:15 GMT
like i say, a swing and a miss. I dont waste my time debating about the existence of god, there is no proof. If I do engage in a hypothetical conversation on a topic relating to the idea of God, I will talk about that topic as it is presented, ie the assumption is that God exists, otherwise there is no actual conversation to be had around it this topic. That you categorise my wanting to actually talk about things other than the existence of god as a hissy fit tells me a huge amount about you and your ability to entertain ideas and hypothetical notions. I have never once said that I think this should be a fansite for those who believe in God, my issue is with people who shut down conversations by bringing up strawmen. look buddy I have wasted well enough time on this conversation, you clearly are stuck in your ways, I will just ignore your when you try to derail conversations in the future.
hope you have a great day.
With you it is hit and miss, because it is like you are only arguing with yourself, to gain some ground over a strategy that is redundant and egregious. So yes, attempting to defend yourself and need for a hypothetical argument over something you have even admitted you can't prove is a waste of time. That is why you are getting called out and then going into denial when you do. All theists are in denial. i will waste this much time on you. if you spent as much time making cogent arguments as you spent misinterpreting what was said and attacking strawmen, you could be a formidable debater.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 2:35:28 GMT
I mean I hear your point, I just think it's stupid. You can have a hypothetical argument, or you can argue about things that don't exist, and you can get value out of those arguments, but your method is that you wont argue you will just try to shut it down. Not really worth my effort. Because it is a moot and ludicrous point of argument to begin with. You seem entitled to hear the things you want to, from others that are on a deluded belief wavelength, so when it gets shut down, you then have a hissy, because you didn't get what you wanted. This is not a fansite for those that believe in God. like i say, a swing and a miss. I dont waste my time debating about the existence of god, there is no proof. If I do engage in a hypothetical conversation on a topic relating to the idea of God, I will talk about that topic as it is presented, ie the assumption is that God exists, otherwise there is no actual conversation to be had around it this topic. That you categorise my wanting to actually talk about things other than the existence of god as a hissy fit tells me a huge amount about you and your ability to entertain ideas and hypothetical notions. I have never once said that I think this should be a fansite for those who believe in God, my issue is with people who shut down conversations by bringing up strawmen. look buddy I have wasted well enough time on this conversation, you clearly are stuck in your ways, I will just ignore your when you try to derail conversations in the future.
hope you have a great day.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 2:19:22 GMT
So you think that if I ask "can God create a rock he cannot lift" that you have made a meaningful contribution to say in the thread, God does not exist? How in any way shape or form does that contribute the argument?
not sure where you are getting the declarative fact thing form.
How in the way shape or form does it create a meaningful contribution that God can create a rock that he cannot lift, when there is no basis of evidence behind this creator God thing you are talking about, let alone have it lift rocks? The topic in this instance is God and its strength, which is declarative as you are saying God is real. You would have prove how real first and it is your argument about God, so go right ahead. I mean I hear your point, I just think it's stupid. You can have a hypothetical argument, or you can argue about things that don't exist, and you can get value out of those arguments, but your method is that you wont argue you will just try to shut it down. Not really worth my effort.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 1:12:22 GMT
And still way more balanced, intelligent and rational than you. Because anonymous discussion board? You know that A) Your presence on this board is effectively you right, like that fact that you dont have to use your real name is not hiding your lack of intelligence, and b) we all know who you are right, and that your published website only supports my statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 0:59:49 GMT
Yeah Arlon, dictionaries are the enemy ^^ mental age = 9 ^^ And still way more balanced, intelligent and rational than you.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 0:57:47 GMT
Or, and bear with me here, I said what I wanted to say, and anything else is A. none of your business and B. not related to what I wanted to say, but yeah you pretend you have the moral high round. Seeing it appears to be my business, may I ask just what this 'evidence' for God was when we had this discussion that I fail to remember ( it can't have been mind bogglingly conclusive I must say. If someone had hard evidence for the existence of God I think I might have remembered?) Not quite sure how you managed to interpret that, but I have responded 3 times now on this thread including once directly to you to say the argument was NOT about God. Although maybe now you are beginning to see why I find it hard to talk with you when your comprehension is this bad.
EDIT: in fact the sentence you highlighted SPECIFICALLY says I was not talking about an argument about God.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 0:55:37 GMT
I am talking about the point for atheists, what possible value is there in commenting on a discussion around the nature of ( a supposed) God, to just say there is no God, clearly you are not interested in the actual topic, so why bother posting at all? Why would you make a posting topic in the form of a declarative fact, and then expect those who disagree to just move on? You should have specified "For Christians only." The statement offends me as both a Jew and an agnostic atheist. So you think that if I ask "can God create a rock he cannot lift" that you have made a meaningful contribution to say in the thread, God does not exist? How in any way shape or form does that contribute the argument?
not sure where you are getting the declarative fact thing form.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Nov 7, 2020 0:53:15 GMT
atheist /ˈeɪθɪɪst/ Learn to pronounce noun noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. ^^ Thick as a brick ^^ Yeah Arlon, dictionaries are the enemy
|
|
