Would you like to see the death of religion.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

Ridiculous to you, agreed. But if there is a God and we are connecting spiritually to him, it is anything but ridiculous.

If God is going to connect spiritually to someone, let it happen outside of school hours, and preferably not until the child is old enough to make up it's own mind. Placing children in a room to worship is nothing short of brainwashing the vulnerable.

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sigh. No, I'm not arguing that you are incorrectly using an "informal but correct usage in a formal context". I am pointing out that you are misusing the expression. That's an incorrect usage, if that isn't clear, not by context, but completely. It is wrong to use the expression as you used it, because it does not mean what you meant by it, whether you are using it in the privacy of a PD meeting or at a philosophical convention.

That you can cite two web pages that agree with you means only that there are two web pages that misuse it the same way - and one of them at least is simply explaining what the expression means without any judgement on whether it is correct to use it. Since, as I've said from the start, this is a common misuse of the term, you would expect it to be just that: common. That does not make it correct.

If you are trying to prove that it is possible to irritate me by behaving exactly as Tim would, you have succeeded, and I congratulate you.

regards,
Scofflaw

It's not a common misuse of a term. Who are you to say if a term is commonly mis-used? It's a clearly defined contextual meaning in formal logic as we agreed and another common usage of it has evolved (probably because the translation of it was too literal). Now that doesn't mean it's mis-use.

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Dades wrote: »

If God is going to connect spiritually to someone, let it happen outside of school hours, and preferably not until the child is old enough to make up it's own mind. Placing children in a room to worship is nothing short of brainwashing the vulnerable.

This is almost like you "best education" point.
How you define "brainwashing" might be very different to what someone else defines as brainwashing?
These terms are unscientific.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

This is almost like you "best education" point.

My what now?

John Wine wrote: »

These terms are unscientific.

And what if? This is an internet forum, not a quantum physics lecture.

Brainwash:

# Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.

2Scoops

John Wine wrote: »

This is almost like you "best education" point.
How you define "brainwashing" might be very different to what someone else defines as brainwashing?
These terms are unscientific.

Perhaps the word you're looking for is 'subjective.' Incidentally, do you see the irony in your criticism?

Time for a new moniker methinks.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

2Scoops wrote: »

Perhaps the word you're looking for is 'subjective.' Incidentally, do you see the irony in your criticism?

Time for a new moniker methinks.

You may well be right.

cordially,
Scofflaw

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

2Scoops wrote: »

Perhaps the word you're looking for is 'subjective.'

Yes I would agree with that.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

It's not a common misuse of a term. Who are you to say if a term is commonly mis-used?

Try turning the question around.

regards,
Scofflaw

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Try turning the question around.

regards,
Scofflaw

Who are my to be saying it is being mis-used?
Question: I am not saying it is being mis-used, I am saying it is ambiguous.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

Who are my to be saying it is being mis-used?
Question: I am not saying it is being mis-used, I am saying it is ambiguous.

No. If you turn round the question "who are you to say a word is being used incorrectly?", you get "who am I to say a word is being used correctly?". That is, you need to turn round both bits of the question. You definitely don't get "Who are my to be saying it is being mis-used?"(sic).

Just to avoid what otherwise appears inevitable:

1. for you and I, read Scofflaw and 'John Wine' respectively
2. I am aware that I have transliterated the question - this is to make it more obvious how you reverse it. I know you've have objected to this before, but I am only trying to be helpful here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Scofflaw wrote: »

No. If you turn round the question "who are you to say a word is being used incorrectly?", you get "who am I to say a word is being used correctly?". That is, you need to turn round both bits of the question.

The question was:
"Who are you to say if a term is commonly mis-used?"

Now you have changed it to:
"who are you to say a word is being used incorrectly?"

Let's stick to the former.
There are a number of parameters in that question that can be turned around?

1. Scofflaw -> John Wine
2. Correctly -> Incorrectly

I have turned only the former around and got:
"Who are my to be saying it is being mis-used?"

You have turned both parameters around to get:
"who am I (John Wine) to say a word is being used correctly?"

Now, in this case, the operation "turn the question" around - isn't clearly defined.
Does:
1. Turn the question around - as in Turn is around to you
Or
2. Turn it around to you and invert the property?

I would say the former, you have decided the later. But I would accept again there is ambiguity here.

I think the problem with your thinking is you subjective paradigms and (ambiguity terminolgy) are absolute, definitive or objective when they are not.

More to the point, once again it doesn't really matter. My answer to either version of turning it around is the same.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

The question was:
"Who are you to say if a term is commonly mis-used?"

Now you have changed it to:
"who are you to say a word is being used incorrectly?"

Let's stick to the former.
There are a number of parameters in that question that can be turned around?

1. Scofflaw -> John Wine
2. Correctly -> Incorrectly

I have turned only the former around and got:
"Who are my to be saying it is being mis-used?"

You have turned both parameters around to get:
"who am I (John Wine) to say a word is being used correctly?"

Now, in this case, the operation "turn the question" around - isn't clearly defined.
Does:
1. Turn the question around - as in Turn is around to you
Or
2. Turn it around to you and invert the property?

I would say the former, you have decided the later. But I would accept again there is ambiguity here.

I think the problem with your thinking is you subjective paradigms and (ambiguity terminolgy) are absolute, definitive or objective when they are not.

More to the point, once again it doesn't really matter. My answer to either version of turning it around is the same.

Tim - go away.

irritated,
Scofflaw

2Scoops

1. John Wine defends his subjective (and technically incorrect) interpretation of a specific expression.
2. John Wine criticizes Dades for his subjective (but technically correct) interpretation of a specific expression.

Not that difficult to spot, really.
This House would argue both sides of the debate simultaneously.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

2Scoops wrote: »

1. John Wine defends his subjective (and technically incorrect) interpretation of a specific expression.
2. John Wine criticizes Dades for his subjective (but technically correct) interpretation of a specific expression.

Not that difficult to spot, really.

And extremely poor form. Also, that last post was absolute gibberish.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

TheThing! wrote: »

It was meant in response to one of his comments which suggested that because I am (he presumes, albeit correctly) a teenager, my opinion is not valid, which is a grade A Ad Hominem.

Since everyone else is being pedantic on this thread, I might point out that as you are a teenager this would be more of a case of ad puerum rather than ad hominem.

2Scoops

PDN wrote: »

Since everyone else is being pedantic on this thread, I might point out that as you are a teenager this would be more of a case of ad puerum rather than ad hominem.

You'll understand when you're older, sport.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

PDN wrote: »

Since everyone else is being pedantic on this thread, I might point out that as you are a teenager this would be more of a case of ad puerum rather than ad hominem.

...depending on gender, of course. Also, 'homo' is more 'a human person' than either a man (vir) or an adult. It's found in Latin sources describing an adult because a child was not legally a person.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

And people wonder why we have a whole forum to talk about 'disbelief'!

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Dades wrote: »

And people wonder why we have a whole forum to talk about 'disbelief'!

Atheists - the kind of people who would have annoyed the Creator with questions while He was working. That's why He hardened our hearts.

cordially,
Scofflaw

condra

Yes - through natural causes

I dont mean to hijack the thread but I do have a quick question.

Would you like to see the death of religion?

robindch

Yes - through natural causes

womoma wrote:

Would you like to see the death of religion?

It's been a while, but...:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055165808

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

womoma wrote: »

I dont mean to hijack the thread but I do have a quick question.

Would you like to see the death of religion?

Arah, go away out of that now. Don't be bothering me with your trivia questions.

Overall, though, no. I'd certainly like to see the death of the influence of religion, and I'd cheerfully go to the funeral of certain religions and sects, but overall I'd miss it I think.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

Yes - through proactive secularism

TheThing! wrote: »

It was meant in response to one of his comments which suggested that because I am (he presumes, albeit correctly) a teenager, my opinion is not valid, which is a grade A Ad Hominem.

My post was aimed at both you and nummnuts manner of delivery, not your point. You both placed yourselves on a high horse looking down on us christian idiots, assuming that religion is responsible for the woes of the world. You make assumptions that atheism would somehow bring in a new world order, and would improve things for all. That goes beyond atheism, and is actually 'Faith' in mankind. Such points, in my experience, are usually present in school-kids who are beginning to enter the adult realm, but are a little ahead of themselves. In my experience though, you need to find it out for yourself in time.;)

Yours condesendingly:D
Jimi.

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

2Scoops wrote: »

1. John Wine defends his subjective (and technically incorrect) interpretation of a specific expression.
2. John Wine criticizes Dades for his subjective (but technically correct) interpretation of a specific expression.

Not that difficult to spot, really.
This House would argue both sides of the debate simultaneously.

No. John wine was not technically incorrect. I said it was ambiguous. Search "beg the question" on Ireland.com and you'll see it is used many times in the contexts I used it. The usage of it has evolved, simple as that.

The Dades thing is subjective not ambiguous.

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

John Wine wrote: »

No. John wine was not technically incorrect. I said it was ambiguous. Search "beg the question" on Ireland.com and you'll see it is used many times in the contexts I used it. The usage of it has evolved, simple as that.

The fact that a phrase is used incorrectly by a lot of people does not make the meaning of the phrase ambiguous. It just means that there a lot of people out there who have low standards of literacy.

For example, you can easily search the internet and find numerous examples of apostrophes used incorrectly and of misspelled words. This is evidence of widespread stupidity, or maybe of fat fingers, but not of ambiguity.

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

PDN wrote: »

The fact that a phrase is used incorrectly by a lot of people does not make the meaning of the phrase ambiguous. It just means that there a lot of people out there who have low standards of literacy.

For example, you can easily search the internet and find numerous examples of apostrophes used incorrectly and of misspelled words. This is evidence of widespread stupidity, or maybe of fat fingers, but not of ambiguity.

In the Oxford Dictionary it says the following for "beg the question":

1. Raise a point that has not been dealt with: invite an obvious question
2. assume the truth of an argument or proposition to be prove, without arguing it.

So according to the OED, the phrase is clearly ambiguous i.e. two meanings.

Now Scofflaw with probably tell us the OED is wrong or he should admit he was wrong. Although I get the impression that is something he finds very difficult to do.

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

Now Scofflaw with probably tell us the OED is wrong or he should admit he was wrong. Although I get the impression that is something he finds very difficult to do.

It's a well known fact that nobody is wrong on the internet.

Now can we please move on? Would you like to see the death of religion, JW?
And your reasons, if you please.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

In the Oxford Dictionary it says the following for "beg the question":

1. Raise a point that has not been dealt with: invite an obvious question
2. assume the truth of an argument or proposition to be prove, without arguing it.

So according to the OED, the phrase is clearly ambiguous i.e. two meanings.

Now Scofflaw with probably tell us the OED is wrong or he should admit he was wrong. Although I get the impression that is something he finds very difficult to do.

You've certainly accused me of it before, anyway, although I don't think my record bears out the charge at all. Further, if you're going to pursue a vendetta, I would prefer that you had done it under your original username.

Since it is clear that you're here to pursue that issue, I accept that your position is justifiable, and that the Oxford Dictionary supports it.


cordially,
Scofflaw

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Scofflaw wrote: »

You've certainly accused me of it before, anyway, although I don't think my record bears out the charge at all. Further, if you're going to pursue a vendetta, I would prefer that you had done it under your original username.

Since it is clear that you're here to pursue that issue, I accept that your position is justifiable, and that the Oxford Dictionary supports it.


cordially,
Scofflaw

This is hillarious. You are shown to be categorically wrong and you turn it around as if there is a vendetta or that now my position is justifiable. It's not only justifiable, it's absolutely correct and
you're accusations and claims about incorrect usage were incorrect.
The death or religion? How about the death of ignorance and arrogance first?

Fanny Cradock

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

I assume this is Tim ^

Anyway, I fail to see the problem. Scofflaw has admitted his error. Move on or continue to justify Scofflaw's claim.