Would you like to see the death of religion.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

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?

No, Tim, your position is justifiable. That is, you can support your version (and yes, the Oxford Dictionary is no longer considered 'definitive'). My version, that you are misusing the phrase, is also justifiable, because the majority of sources consider it an error.

Where I was certainly wrong was to consider your position completely wrong. As I have said, it is not.

As to the vendetta, I think your actions (supporting yourself using a different username, pursuing minor wrangles with me through at least two threads despite requests from other posters to drop the matter, and finally your refusal to accept my admission of error) speak for themselves.

Clearly I irritate you, for which I'm sorry. I certainly don't come here intending to irritate people, and as far as I am aware I generally don't. Given that you actually requested a site ban, but have been unable to stop posting, I think you should consider that you may have a 'real' problem.

sincerely,
Scofflaw

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, Tim, your position is justifiable. That is, you can support your version (and yes, the Oxford Dictionary is no longer considered 'definitive'). My version, that you are misusing the phrase, is also justifiable, because the majority of sources consider it an error.

Where I was certainly wrong was to consider your position completely wrong. As I have said, it is not.

Your position is not justifiable.
You claimed:
1. my usage was a " very common misunderstanding" (post 250) - it was not
2. "The use of the phrase "begging the question" (post 260) to mean "inviting the question" is incorrect. - it is not.
3. that you were "pointing out that you are misusing the expression." (post 271) - I was not.

To sight a few google hits that explain the logical fallacy "begs the expression" is simply just that. Sighting a few google hits that explain the logical fallcy. To attempt to debate that your assertions pertaining to my usage of that expression were justifiable when they were categorically incorrect is ridiculous as your are then saying the OED is incorrect.

If you cannot admit your abject incorrectness here, and insist on spinning your way out of it, well then really I don't know why you bother discussing any issue with anyone. You clearly have an error admission issue.

Note 2Scoops: Would you like to retract your post:

"John Wine defends his subjective (and technically incorrect) interpretation of a specific expression."

Amazing how reticent people are admitting errors on the internet.

Zombrex

Why did you open a second account?

Isn't that something people get banned for on Boards.ie?

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why did you open a second account?

Isn't that something people get banned for on Boards.ie?

Why do you think that I am Tim Robbins?
Check the archives, I've been posting a while here.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

Why do you think that I am Tim Robbins?
Check the archives, I've been posting a while here.

You opened the John Wine account in October 2006, and have posted very little from it. It usually only posts when "Tim Robbins" has gone off in a huff, or to enter a debate as a theist rather than an atheist (which I think was the original purpose for the account).

As to how it is that you are identifiable as Tim Robbins, the answer would be your very belated and prevaricating 'denial' (credit for honesty there, anyway), your absolutely identical posting style, and your taking up of Tim's cudgels. In particular, your attitudes to other posters here are hardly those of someone with as low a post count as "John Wine" has - you've essentially just taken up where Tim left off. Finally, I simply can't bring myself to contemplate a universe that contains two people as irritating as TR. You're certainly not here to discuss the death of religion, anyway.

Of course the identification can't be either proven or disproven, except in a 'legal' sense of beyond reasonable doubt. The question then, of course, is that the case? I think the answer to that is plain, and the prosecution rests.

Now, I'm afraid that now I have both admitted my error (which you have misidentified, alas) and apologised for annoying you, I really can't see any value in discussing this further. I will offer you the usual deal - I ignore you, and you ignore me.

amused,
Scofflaw

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Scofflaw wrote: »

Of course the identification can't be either proven or disproven

Therein lies the problem.

Zombrex

John Wine wrote: »

Why do you think that I am Tim Robbins?

Because you are. That isn't the issue, it is why you are pretending otherwise that is puzzling

5uspect

Yes - through proactive secularism

Can't you check IPs for both accounts? If John Wine is Tim Robbins then they should be logging onto the same machines sometimes. If not it is unlikeky that they are the same person.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

5uspect wrote: »

Can't you check IPs for both accounts? If John Wine is Tim Robbins then they should be logging onto the same machines sometimes. If not it is unlikeky that they are the same person.

Even the same IP address would not establish identity, since many computers on, say, a University system, would share the same 'external' IP. Similarly, machines with different external IPs can also be conveniently available to one person. For various reasons I think the 'Tim Robbins' account is now inactive anyway, so I don't think that Tim is using two accounts simultaneously.

It's not really a major issue, though. I've had "John Wine" wrangling after me for two threads now - in the first one complaining that I can't make up words like 'alatrist', and in the second complaining that my definition of 'begging the question' is wrong because 'languages evolve'. There's only one thing consistent in that position, and it's disagreeing with whatever Scofflaw is saying, and generally thinking Scofflaw is arrogant (true) and wrong (sometimes true).

I don't have any doubt personally that this is Tim, but everyone else is of course entirely free to make up their own minds! I may of course be completely wrong.

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Yes - through proactive secularism

Sure a proxy would give everyone the same IP, however that would put both JW and TR in the same institution. Might explain a lot! Anyway I find it hard to imagine that Tim would go to such extremes to score a vendetta against you.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

5uspect wrote: »

Sure a proxy would give everyone the same IP, however that would put both JW and TR in the same institution. Might explain a lot! Anyway I find it hard to imagine that Tim would go to such extremes to score a vendetta against you.

I certainly hope not. It would be cute, having my own stalker and all, but I imagine the novelty wears off quickly.

Just to clarify, I certainly don't think John Wine was created for purposes of pursuing Tim's dislike of me. I think he was created to allow Tim not to be identifiable as an atheist in discussions - a strong motivation, I believe...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

The JW account isn't a new account - he has posted here before. Suffice to say I've raised the potential issue with the admins, so if we could leave the discussion at that for the moment. Maybe someone could even post something on topic. :eek:

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

Scofflaw, drop the spin.
I merely asked why you were using your own word "Altarist" instead of Deist.
In this case, I was speaking English and you decided I was wrong and started this argument.
It would never have happened, if you did a bit research.

joe_chicken

The ability of this forum to send threads off topic is nothing short of awe inspiring.

Now if there was only some way of harnessing that power for the good of mankind.

Power Output = (Anger incited)*(Articulation of posters) - Original Argument - Moderator calm ± Religious Zealotry

5uspect

Yes - through proactive secularism

joe_chicken wrote: »

The ability of this forum to send threads off topic is nothing short of awe inspiring.

Now if there was only some way of harnessing that power for the good of mankind.

Power Output = (Anger incited)*(Articulation of posters) + Original Argument - Moderator calm ± Religious Zealotry

Ah the Carnot efficiency for such a system would be terrible no matter how hot under the collar people get unless we can improve the amount of moderators to get a sufficiently cold reservoir.

Zombrex

joe_chicken wrote: »

Now if there was only some way of harnessing that power for the good of mankind.

Screw that, we are atheists remember we don't have morals. I want to destroy the moon with a "laser" !!:eek:

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

joe_chicken wrote: »

The ability of this forum to send threads off topic is nothing short of awe inspiring.

I blame the staff.

Sometimes the best discussions are the off-topic ones that happen when topic itself is exhausted.
Just obviously not in this thread.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Wicknight wrote: »

Screw that, we are atheists remember we don't have morals. I want to destroy the moon with a "laser" !!:eek:

Bah. That's only mildly evil. I want to project ads on it.

maniacally,
Scofflaw

2Scoops

John Wine wrote: »

Note 2Scoops: Would you like to retract your post:

"John Wine defends his subjective (and technically incorrect) interpretation of a specific expression."

.

Certainly. The text now reads "John Wine defends his subjective (and arguably incorrect) interpretation of a specific expression."

John Wine wrote: »

Amazing how reticent people are admitting errors on the internet.

Indeed.

John Wine

Yes - with the exception of personal beliefs.

2Scoops wrote: »

.

Certainly. The text now reads "John Wine defends his subjective (and arguably incorrect) interpretation of a specific expression."

Indeed.

Well then the Oxford English Dictionary is also "arguably incorrect". There are matters of fact and matters of opinion.
I don't see the point in discussing points with people who cannot admit they are wrong over matters of fact.
It's just a different form of fundamentalism.

PDN

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Scofflaw wrote: »

You opened the John Wine account in October 2006, and have posted very little from it. It usually only posts when "Tim Robbins" has gone off in a huff, or to enter a debate as a theist rather than an atheist (which I think was the original purpose for the account).

As to how it is that you are identifiable as Tim Robbins, the answer would be your very belated and prevaricating 'denial' (credit for honesty there, anyway), your absolutely identical posting style, and your taking up of Tim's cudgels.

Or, in true King James language, "thy speech agreeth thereto" (Mark 14:70).

condra

Yes - through natural causes

John Wine - Are you Tim ?

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

John Wine wrote: »

Well then the Oxford English Dictionary is also "arguably incorrect". There are matters of fact and matters of opinion.
I don't see the point in discussing points with people who cannot admit they are wrong over matters of fact.
It's just a different form of fundamentalism.

In that case, perhaps you should not do it?

ambiguously,
Scofflaw

1huge1

I wouldn't like to see the death of religion (though I would like to see some changes but thats another story)

Basically I think it gives people hope and doesn't have them worrying about death so much as they think there is something greater to come.

While I don't believe this sure why would I want to take away something from people that makes them happy even if some of them might be acting a bit naive (not saying that people who believe in religion are naive or anything don't get me wrong)

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

1huge1 wrote: »

I wouldn't like to see the death of religion (though I would like to see some changes but thats another story)

Basically I think it gives people hope and doesn't have them worrying about death so much as they think there is something greater to come.

Curiously enough, I'd say that's the major problem with it. What's the point worrying about the fate of this world when you're looking forward to the next?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Yes - through proactive secularism

Scofflaw wrote: »

Curiously enough, I'd say that's the major problem with it. What's the point worrying about the fate of this world when you're looking forward to the next?

To be fair I doubt there are too many people with that attitude. The belief that you will have a better afterlife is usually more innocently clung to than that.

And of course you don't need to believe in an afterlife not to give a toss what happens after you are dead.

Fanny Cradock

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Wicknight wrote: »

Screw that, we are atheists remember we don't have morals. I want to destroy the moon with a "laser" !!:eek:

I KNEW IT!

Fanny Cradock

Not all beliefs - just fundamentalist stuff.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Curiously enough, I'd say that's the major problem with it. What's the point worrying about the fate of this world when you're looking forward to the next?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't think that's fair at all. I direct you to the countless Christian organisations and individuals concerned with the fate of this world! I don't only talk about this wishy-washy spiritual concern that you (intellectual) atheists dismiss, but also temporal matters of but fleeting moment.

Scofflaw

Yes - through proactive secularism

Dades wrote: »

To be fair I doubt there are too many people with that attitude. The belief that you will have a better afterlife is usually more innocently clung to than that.

I agree, but I was thinking more of religion as a political force.

Dades wrote: »

And of course you don't need to believe in an afterlife not to give a toss what happens after you are dead.

On the other hand, you're rather more likely to worry about what happens while you're still alive.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I don't think that's fair at all. I direct you to the countless Christian organisations and individuals concerned with the fate of this world! I don't only talk about this wishy-washy spiritual concern that you (intellectual) atheists dismiss, but also temporal matters of but fleeting moment.

Again, I accept that entirely - indeed, one of the regular charges against atheists is that theists, rather than atheists, provide the vast majority of benevolent organisations. Without rehashing that argument here, I'd have to point out that the spiritual concerns of religious organisations often take precedence over temporal ones. A good example would be those religious charities that promote abstinence over contraception to reduce STD transmission (particularly AIDS), where it has been shown time and again that abstinence programs are far less effective - but the charities in question (or their religious backers) are concerned about the effects of condom use on 'spiritual welfare'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't think that's fair at all. I direct you to the countless Christian organisations and individuals concerned with the fate of this world!

Why?

Isn't the best thing that can happen to any believer is that they die and go to heaven?