Atheism As A Religion MOD ALERT

Incorrect. A term is a word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept. "Legal venue" fits that description perfectly.

Since the entire basis of your reply is completely wrong, then, please feel free to try again.

 

"Phrase not found in the Dictionary and Encyclopedia. Please try the words separately:"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/legal+venue

argue with the professionals

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/term

"4.
a. A word or group of words having a particular meaning:"

as pointed out previously, the legal dictionary has no such meaning assigned to that "phrase".

Want to try again?

 

No, I'll keep arguing with a rank amateur, thanks. You already admitted that "legal venue" is a phrase that people do use. It's not my fault if that dictionary doesn't record the definition of a term that even you know is one that people use.

That's enough to prove my point thanks. "Legal venue" is a group of words having a particular meaning. Why are you proving MY point though and not yours? Rather odd.

The legal dictionary does not define the term "Central Processing Unit", but that doesn't mean it isn't a term that certain people use. Keep making a fool of yourself though, please. It's amusing.

 

A 'phrase' yes. NOT a 'term' as you have related to it being. Hello rank amateur.

A group that has no legal meaning in any legal dictionary. What you are suggesting is that 'legal venue' is akin to 'smir ziqual'. So what precise meaning are you going to apply to the phrase 'legal venue'? What is really odd is the apparent fact that you do not have the comprehension necessary to make an accurate determination of the difference between a 'phrase' and a 'term'.

Central Processing Unit is not determined to be a 'legal' phrase, however you will find the phrase Central Processing Unit in a scientific dictionary or even the 'medical dictionary' located at http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/central+processing+unit or even the regular dictionary found at www.thefreedictionary.com/central processing unit . Yes! you are playing the role of the fool in a very fine fashion. Keep up the good stage act.

 

A 'term' is just a phrase that is used "to describe a thing or to express a concept". Are you saying that when people use that phrase they are NOT referring to a thing or concept?

Which only matters if legal dictionaries are the sole arbiter of speech in this forum.

There are very few formal definitions of it, which is odd since it's a term that is definitely used many times with pretty much the same meaning each time. I'm going to suggest that it means a place where civil and criminal court cases are heard. As I have said already.

I just did. For the second time. That's two things you failed to comprehend the first time, yet here you are pretending that I am the one lacking comprehension? Amusingly brainless hypocrisy from you as usual. Please keep it up.

So, you agree that terms exist which are not in the legal dictionary. That's a good start.




Now, with all your pedantic trolling (in my opinion, there I said it, so please don't whine like a baby about only mods being able to determine who is a troll, as you always do) out of the way, maybe we could return to the actual point? Which is that, outside of a US courtroom or other formal place of law, the declaration of atheism being a religion for the purposes of that court or law are not relevant.

 

Atheism isn't a religion because no atheist "priest" or "holy man" has demanded money from me for his Mcmansion or expensive car with threats of damnation if I don't contribute.


Case closed

 

No! You are.

Would you use a scientific dictionary to be the sole arbiter of speech relating to legal issues?

Ambiguity seems to be in the forefront of your dissertation. Even in your closing statement for the paragraph above, you merely relate to what you would 'suggest'. To make a suggestion is not the same as stating a 'fact'. Apparently then you are not absolutely certain what 'legal venue' is.

On the contrary. As I pointed out above, your suggestion is far from "accurate" as it does not include all of the possible variables of 'venue' and 'legal' which would or could form the meaning of 'legal venue'. Thus proving that you are locked in a box of thinking that does not allow for the inclusion of all possible variables. >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<<

Nope! I admit that the phrase 'legal venue' is not found in the legal dictionary. You seem to be aiming at misrepresenting what I have stated on the record.

In your opinion? So what ? You have an opinion... so do all the readers of this forum. Which in the point of this thread places the thread and the discussion in a 'court' and place of 'law' relating to the issues that are discussed in or on this forum. You fail to recognize how far reaching the terms are which you choose to use in your writings. Politics is a matter of law and this PF is a matter of law thus making this forum a place (court) of law(s).

 

>>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

I would not use ANY dictionary as such an arbiter. That's the point.

I am certain what I mean by it, and what is meant by it whenever I have seen it used. I just haven't seen it in any dictionary.

That's irrelevant. It's not just two random words thrown together, the words when used together indicate a particular thing. If you think my suggestion is wrong then please say what you think is meant when people use those two words together.

You do NOT agree that terms exist which are not in the legal dictionary. Wow. Just... wow. No wonder trying to make you understand... well.. anything at all, is such a desperately uphill struggle.

>>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

 

Any failure on my part respecting a discussion with you, is due to a large part on your inability to say things (make suggestions) that you cannot irrefutably prove to be accurate.

Ahhh... then you are suggesting that dictionaries are not suitable to your agenda. Got it.

If you have not seen it in any dictionary (thanks for that admission) then you should also realize that the meaning of such a phrase is completely arbitrary and dependent upon the person using the phrase.

Another attempt at misrepresentation. I said nothing about "two random words". That is a conception derived from your mind.

The word "is" is also found in the legal dictionary as well as any other dictionary using the English language. So what? It is nice to know that my discussions with you lead you to an uphill struggle. That would possibly mean that you are having difficulty understanding and comprehending what I am saying and thus leading you to make conclusions that are not necessarily based on factual matters.


>>>MOD EDIT: REPLY TO DELETED SECTION<<<

 

You're dodging the point, so I assume that means you accept that you were wrong. Fair enough.

When placed alongside your whining when you thought I was misrepresenting you, this mesreprentation of yours just highlights, as if yet another highlight was needed, the constant hypocrisy that you present here.

ALL definitions are arbitrary. Dictionaries are written by people with opinions, not magic psychic robots.

I repeat, if you think my suggestion is wrong then please say what you think is meant when people use those two words together.

So what? You mean you genuinely don't understand that only accepting the existence of terms that are in the legal dictionary will make it impossible for you to discuss almost anything?

Firstly, it does rather undermine the "you're making personal attacks!" position, when you first make a response in kind. But such hypocrisy is not unexpected when one looks at what you have posted so far.

Secondly, I was careful to call your POST stupid. Not you personally. Smart people often say and do stupid things.

 

What exactly would an "Illegal Venue" be?

 

I can't recall any time I've heard that term. "legal venue". The very term suggests there is an opposite illegal venue. Would that mean a place without a business license is an illegal venue?

 

Ahhh...as opposed to a commercial venue. A venue where issues of law are concerned. Makes sense now.

 

I have no idea. I also have no idea what mistaken thinking might lead a person to think that every term must necessarily have a polar opposite. If I mentioned that "Trial Run" was a term then would you ask me what a "Trial Walk" is?

 

I accept nothing you say as being true and real.

Care to point directly to any of that alleged hypocrisy? I didn't think you could or would.

If that be the case, then why do you and others complain about the definitions that I select to use?

I am not a mind reader. Are you now suggesting that you are capable of reading the minds of every person who mentions the phrase "legal venue"?

The question was directed at you. Why do you evade that question by posting one of your own?

Gee whiz... in the school yard, if you throw the first punch, I have the right to reciprocate. So don't complain about what is returned to you in like manner.

Well, now... where do you suppose that 'posting' of mine originated? Well of course... from me... it was a product of my mind... a product of my intellect... so what are you really calling stupid if not me? Be honest for a change.

 

Well, thats a great way to debate.

I've done it several times already. Any pretense that I have not is mere dishonesty on your part.

I'd have to take that on a case by case basis.

No. Are you of the opinion that one must be psychic in order to understand the meaning of anything anyone says?

No evasion. If your comprehension is so desperately poor as not to see the point, I'll phrase it as a statement rather than a question: only accepting the existence of terms that are in the legal dictionary will make it impossible for you to discuss almost anything.

No complaint either. Just pointing out hypocrisy. OH SNAP, I did it right there in the very post you replied to saying i couldnt point out your hypocrisy!

I really am not calling you stupid. As I often point out, I think you're just an amusing troll. In other words, youre a smart guy who DELIBERATELY posts stupid things. In my opinion.

 

Well thank you. At least I am being absolutely honest with you.

Once again... I cannot accept your comment as true and real based on your previous track record.

Then do so instead of just saying what you would have to do.

Who said anything about being a "psychic"? Are you again misrepresenting what I have said?

Who said that I only accept definitions presented by a 'legal dictionary'. Again, you are making a misrepresentation of what I have stated.

And you still have not pointed out any hypocrisy.

Now you are either expressing a personal opinion (which amounts to a pile of dung) else you are attempting to assume the position and authority of a Moderator by attempting to assign to me the title of 'troll' which authority is reserved for Moderators.

 

Are you saying you think a "mind reader" and a "psychic" are substantively different things?

You did. I said "So, you agree that terms exist which are not in the legal dictionary." And you replied "Nope!" Did you misunderstand and post something you didnt mean?

Only a small child or a troll (in my opinion) would deny something that's right there in front of them for all to see.

Well gee whiz, when I said "in my opinion", did you make the giant leap of logic that I was stating a personal opinion? If that's something you feel needs to be made a big deal of then I think we can all see why you're having such serious issues understanding the rest of the discussion.

 

Why not since according to you all definitions are arbitrary?

Instead of simply repeating what you stated previously, why don't you try posting the link to the location where I made that claim as an original statement of my own without my being prompted by you? Your suggesting of me not understanding something or posting something that I didn't mean to say only begs the question of where (post location) did I make such a statement?

Only a small child or a troll (in my opinion) would allege something that has not been made apparent.

You made the statement and you did not claim it was the opinion of someone else and not your opinion, therefore, it was your opinion and a personal opinion at that.

Unless otherwise stated, my comments are not based on 'feelings'. Are you now promoting the notion that you have the authority to speak for "all" who read these postings? Seemingly, your thinking is a bit twisted or warped. It is after all, you, who claims that all definitions are arbitrary.

 

you are just trying to neutralize the fundies by depriving them of their life blood

 

Please address the topic without personal attacks or insults.

 

Definitions are arbitrary but they exist to aid in communication. Arbitrary doesn't mean 'completely random'.

Why does it need to be an original statement of your own? I asked if you agree that terms exist which are not in the legal dictionary, and you said nope. That's all that needs to be said. Do you wish to take that "nope" back, or do you stand by it?

But again we are drifting from the actual point, which is that this is not a court of law and so legal definitions need not frame the discussion.

 

"ar·bi·trar·y (är&#8242;b&#301;-tr&#277;r&#8242;&#275
adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator."

"ran·dom (r&#259;n&#8242;d&#601;m)
adj.
1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance."

Would you care to rethink what you are now claiming?

Simple. If I did not make the statement as an original statement of my own design (but rather simply repeated the comment), then that repeated comment cannot be said to have originated from my intellect.

I also gave an explanation as to the "nope", which you gleefully avoided publishing as a part of your commentary on my statement. Misrepresentation of my comments.

Do you wish to quit misrepresenting what I have stated? True, that is all that is needed to be said when your intent is to misrepresent what was stated as an explanation. Nice try duchess.

On the contrary. Again, this is a legal forum as it deals with politics... politics being a legal term as well as a part of the common vernacular, and the subject matter being part and parcel to legal proceedings that have been established.

 

Your usual equivocation fallacy, as expected. #2 is the relevant definition.

Whether it "originated from your intellect" or not, you made your position clear when you said nope.

Misrepresentation? I asked a question and you answered in the negative. The explanation that followed didn't change that "nope" to a "yes", did it?

So you haven't taken it back. Fair enough.

There you go again negating things. So you're saying that legal definitions DO need to frame discussions on this forum. Which is simply asinine.

 

to be a religion it has to have a belief in god the Creator to be lab led a religion.

Buddhist do not believe in God the Creator, but when they start to live in the west they are adamant that indeed theirs is not a living philosophy as some western Buddhist refer to it as such…but a religion..

i think i did this with you before..
i like saying this i guess…maybe in a few years i shall respond to this quote in a like manner …

maybe there is a ribbon or PF trophy for the most same answered quote by the same person ever trophy/ribbon