It's unhealthy to be an atheist...

What a terrible argument. When did contrails say that you couldn't make any "retributive comments"? You clearly already have. But the fact that you made such comments doesn't change the fact that he is right, that most religious people believe in an afterlife.

 

Read it again: "Using that definition would also allow the Theists to make "in general" comments about Atheists without any retributive comments from the Atheists"

Keep the record straight and in context.

 

Your very next sentence is "The Theists would be justified in the same manner as you are justifying your position". If that doesn't mean that you're claiming contrails said that you can't make retributive comments, what does it mean? You seem to be making a connection between your hypothetical and what contrails said. If you weren't, what was the purpose of mentioning that "atheists wouldn't be able to make retributive comments"?

 

It means, specifically, word for word, exactly what it says. Your interpretation of what you think it means is a problem you have with interpreting what people are saying. You seemingly are suggesting that there is some connotation hidden in the words. Please explain which word or set of words created this imaginative connotation that you are seeing.

BTW: You said "your very next sentence..." I did not see that "next sentence" in the quote that you brought forward with the quote function. Are you altering the quotes that are brought forward perhaps for some nefarious purpose?

That, GFP, is a misquote. What I said (in relevant part)(and you quoted it using the quote function) "...the Theists to make "in general" comments about Atheists without any retributive comments from the Atheists"
Now if you are going to quote people don't change the wording ... sometimes changing the wording can change the meaning. Be a little more careful ...

 

And? That explains nothing about your motivation for saying something or your intended meaning. Being a snobbish person with definitions, you clearly know that words can have different meanings. So saying "word for word, exactly what it says" really doesn't explain anything.

For example, if I say something along the lines of "that town is far out". What do I mean by that? I could mean that the town is incredibly awesome. Or I could mean that the town is in some rural area. If I told you that, then you ask me what it means, and all I can reply is "it means what it means". Well, wow siree, Incorporeal. That would make me an intellectually inept (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). What do your actions make you?

Hidden? I never said it was hidden. Why would it be hidden?

Already have, perhaps you should stop coming up with terrible arguments and pay attention to what people post to you?

Nope, no nefarious reason.You can literally see what the entirety of the post is by not being lazy and, perhaps, looking at it. Or is there some hidden rule where I have to oblige you by quoting every single thing you say for you to remember what you indeed said? The better question is are you possible pedantic? I think so.

But it didn't, did it, Incorporeal? You're right that I shouldn't have used quotes, but was it absolutely a necessity of the Universe that you take time to, instead of actually explaining yourself (hmmm, could it be because you have some of the worst, back pedaling arguments around) to make snide comments?

 

Why is it necessary for me to explain my motivation? I could have thought that you already realized that serving the Lord Jesus is my motivation. The intended meaning is a aggregate of the meanings of each word/phrase/clause ... deal with it.

Well just in one of your other messages, you were commenting on the fact that you know or understand semantics. That being the case, then you should be able to figure out what is said in that sentence when you don't add private interpretations. Try it... you might surprise yourself.

Without placing it in context to something, it is meaningless. My statement was relative something and was in context to that something. Now jump in there and figure it out. I cannot believe that you are wanting to follow suit in the game that you and others have accused me of being involved in? That is OK though, because I have all the time in the world to go along with it.

Well it certainly does not make me "an intellectually inept (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)." The context of my statement was made ... just like yours was made in your explanation. However, if you want to you can attempt to enter what you think it means and I will let you know whether or not you are guessing.

I just looked back and guess what... I didn't say that you had said anything was hidden. You must be hallucinating again.

No! You interjected what you believe that I said by using words in a quote that I did not use. So try again.

Last question first... Well of course I am pedantic and happy to be so... that places me in good relationship to the teachings of the 'Bible'. No you don't have to oblige me in quoting everything that I said to you... but in view of the fact that I have already busted you in making a quote of mine wherein you changed a word in the quote thus changing the context of what I said. So, in your specific case, it would be beneficial to both of us if you did do exact quotes of what you want o say that I said.

example: 2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

That requires the work of a pedantic person.

Could it be that you have a very bad comprehension of the English language and are standing in denial of the change of meaning that your deliberate misquote created?

 

The reason theists live longer happier lives is because they have no responsibility. They put all blame on something other than themselves.

If a christian (*)(*)(*)(*)s his wife's sister and knocks her up, Satan made him do it, and not the fact that he's a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). All he has to do is ask for forgiveness from his magical friend and the sky and all is forgiven.

Taking no blame for any actions, and blaming it all on demons whispering in their ear is one major flaw that theists have. But, it helps them sleep at night, knowing that they are dirtbags because of Satan, and not because they are dispicable people by nature.

 

Einstein was correct.

 

What convoluted logic.

Of course reality exists independently of consciousness.
"all known existence" is precisely that - the sum of our knowledge of the universe.
Conceptual separation is also precisely that - an intellectual exercise based on our subjective perceptions.

Yes you can internally create any subjective framework your mind can conceive. that of course does not have to have anything to do with the subjective reality that exists beyond your ears.

It does not change the fact that the sum total of the fabric of you existence consists of precisely the same particles as EVERYTHING else. It is only in our anthropocentric conceit that we separate ourselves from our surroundings because we humans have a need to be "special".

 

Quite an intellectual observation on your part. I am certain that Einstein MIGHT have been correct in relation to one thought or another that he considered. Which particular thought was it that he considered and which you have declared him to be correct?

 

I heard a hellfire and brimstone sermon by Dr. Billy Graham back in 1966. A year or less later as I was taught evolutionary theory in school I embraced atheism. I was into it pretty seriously until I was about thirteen years of age when Christian comedian and evangelist Garner Ted Armstrong introduced me first to the idea that the dead might be dead until the resurrection...… which would mean that the hellfire and brimstone idea was incorrect.

Later he gave powerful evidence that Darwinian evolutionary theory violated The Law of Probability in many ways.

Now....... I believe in a Creative Force that has evolved....... but I do believe in the creation of a specific Adam and Eve..... in order to bring back Lucifer and the third of the fallen angels who had followed him into an attempted take over of "heaven"........... which I assume now means the highest most fundamental energy dimensions of space - time?!

 

I think that kids who still believe in Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are generally more happy before they finally discover that they were being lied to. They are usually a little depressed for a while, but they get over it if they are not mentally unbalanced. The thing about religion is that these same types of myths and fairy tales are in many cases believed throughout life and may produce the same kind of naive sense of well being and wonderment that childhood tales once produced. Quite an interesting phenomenon I'd say!

 

Two years ago when she was ten years old I encouraged my daughter to read the NDE of Jan Price who during her brush with death met with her deceased dog. Would you say that this was an act on the same level as teaching her that Santa Claus was real? (Incidentally my wife and I never taught her about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy...… .but we did allow her to watch as many movies about them as she wished)!

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/animals01.html

Jan Price's Near-Death Experience With Her Pet Dog

 

And all that has made you healthier ? How?

 

I do not think that encouraging someone to read a current book regarding NDE is akin to perpetrating myths like Santa Clause or mythical gods.

 

Excellent!

I think that this is a wise approach and you might be surprised how many atheists would regard the reading of an NDE account to a child as being the same thing as teaching them about Santa Claus as if he was real!

We lost our five year old female Golden Lab Canela last October. I didn't have to go back to that NDE to encourage my daughter. She was already convinced that Canela was in a better place and would be watching out for her and all of us as much and as enthusiastically as she would be allowed to do!

 

Did you ever question your daughter as to a description of that "better place"? Or how about questioning her as to what she believes Canela would be able to do in Canelas' "watching out" for her and presumably the rest of the family?

 

Uh, that's not how language works. Words aren't mathematical values and meanings can't be aggregated.

Semantics isn't some divine tell all to what a sentence means.

I find it funny, well moreso hypocrtical, that whenever we can't convince you of something or you don't understand something, it's always OUR fault. But whenever the same thing happens to us, it's not your fault, it's STILL our fault. But, I guess that's your ego.

 

Then you have a problem don't you. I have seen no rule, regulation, law, statute, TOS, etc that declares that someone must explain their motivation. So where is the law that says words are not mathematical values or that says meanings can't be aggregated?

Really, then please explain the entirety of Semantics.

There you go following in the footsteps of another member... calling someone hypocritical, when you also cannot prove what feelings, beliefs, and virtues I have or don't have. Want to try that one again? My ego has nothing to do with it. It is the power of God working through me via the Holy Spirit. You cannot win against the Holy Spirit. That taught in the 'Bible'.

 

I'm not the person who claims you can aggregate meanings. That seems like your problem.

And there isn't one. But that doesn't mean you aren't being intellectually dishonest to try to throw out this tired old argument of yours and to deny requests like explaining what in the hell you actually mean.

...It has nothing to do with a law, it's just basic facts. Aggregation means combining elements. Since meanings don't have elemental units, it makes no sense to say you aggregated them.

I'm not your teacher. Why in the world should I do so?

We don't have to prove to YOU that you're a hypocrite for you to be one, Incorporeal. You hold people to standards that you don't hold yourself to, and you yourself admit that. That's the definition of hypocrisy.

If only you could prove that the Holy Spirit actually talks to you and that you're not a crazy person. Oh well.

 

No.. That is definitely your problem. You can aggregate them, however the meaning derived would be skewed very badly, so you would then have to resort to weeding out those meanings that are not contextually applicable... so the problem is yours if you don't have a basic understanding of the words used and the context in which they are used.

Well, if there is not one, then why try to enforce what is not available to enforce? I would say that you are being disingenuous.

Did I say that I did aggregate them? OR: was it a suggestion that you could aggregate them?

Thank the good Lord for that peace of mind. Well you are attempting to critique someone on the subject of semantics.

No.. you just have to prove that I don't possess the feelings, beliefs, and virtues that I claim to possess, in order for you to validate your claim.

Well, being that you have not claimed to be a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, your comments about someone being crazy only shows an evidence of your bias and possible hatred of that person.

 

Like that hasn't stopped them already.

There is no double standard, since anyone is able to make "retributive comments" any time they like, and those they are directed at are free to make their own "retributive comments" in response. What they can't do is claim one is making a generalization fallacy when they are not.

I notice you conveniently left out the next definition which reads "2. Affecting or characteristic of the majority of those involved; prevalent: general discontent." While I never personally claimed you were "cherry picking" definitions, I can certainly see why someone would.

 

"them" who? The Atheists or the Theists?

On the contrary. Of course they can. Remember what you said in your opening comments.

Naaaah... It was addressed in a following comment. I once had a fellow member accuse me of 'cherry picking' because I was not using the 'primary definition' at a given dictionary. So, I suppose it would be equally fair for me to make the same critique of you choosing a definition that is not the primary definition.... but I won't. Why? Because it is fair for you to use a definition that can stay in context to what is being stated even though that chosen definition is not the 'primary definition'. EXAMPLE: www.tfd.com/fact definition #2.c. That is definitely not a primary definition but it is applicable to the subject matter of "what is a fact." "Something believed to be true or real."

 

Whether true or not, one can't simply decide what they believe or do not believe.

To discard something, you have to have had it to begin with. You also can't make a return to something if you weren't a part of it previously. There are a lot of people who take up the mantle of being an atheist, though more commonly an agnostic, because they are upset with their god. Those people might later forgive and forget and return to their religion, but they never had truly left it.

 

No, you can't aggregate meanings of words. Again, they aren't numerical values.

Is it disingenuous to tell a child to act according to certain societal norms? If not, I don't see how it would be disingenuous to tell a grown up how to be a decent and intellectually honest person.

You said that the intended meaning of your sentence was an aggregate of the collective meanings of the words. Are you okay, is your memory failing you?

And? I don't have to prove to you that I know every facet of semantics to talk about semantics.

Validate my claim to WHOM? It's already been validated for myself and several other members on this forum. I don't need your validation to call you what you are.

Only psychiatrists can tell if a person is crazy, huh?