agnostic: the way to go.

[Hazel]

well, if you're not terrified, or at least a bit too vain to admit you're wrong, why haven't you, when you so blatantly are?

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "Being acceptable does not mean it is correct. "

Just like creation stories, hey?"

If you are using my words to correct me about 'creat..."

'Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have'

Any one in particular or are you accusing me of having none of them?

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "well, if you're not terrified, or at least a bit too vain to admit you're wrong, why haven't you, when you so blatantly are?"

You see me as wrong because you are looking at things with Philosophical blinkers on.

[Hazel]

Are we back to arguing semantics again? Nipping that in the bud right now, its irrelevant, as I'm sure your capable of understanding the meaning of the post. Replace the word hypocrisy with "double standards", and its probably a sentence that you're happy with... except that its pointing out your double standards of course.

Seriously, just admit you've been making unsubstantiated claims, and stop slipping around like a greased weasel.

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "well, if you're not terrified, or at least a bit too vain to admit you're wrong, why haven't you, when you so blatantly are?"

You see me as wrong because you are looking at things ..."

right, lets get this sorted once and for all. I AM NOT ARGUING FROM A PHILOSOPHICAL POINT OF VIEW, I AM ASKING YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS OR TO RETRACT THEM AS UNSUBSTANTIATED.

This is not a philosophical point, no matter how many times you try to claim it is.

I see you as wrong because your claims about meanings, your claims about pretty much anything in fact, are in direct contrast to the evidence. No philosophy, just looking at the facts.

[Daniel]

cs wrote: "Why would I be terrified? "

I have no idea. For most people, it's not a problem to admit when they're wrong and yet you seem to be totally afraid of doing so.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "Are we back to arguing semantics again? Nipping that in the bud right now, its irrelevant, as I'm sure your capable of understanding the meaning of the post. Replace the word hypocrisy with "double..."

'semantics' You like this word, it gets you out of a lot of trouble.

Replace the word 'hypocrisy', why? Did you use it incorrectly or are you having second thoughts about it?

[Shanna]

hypocrisy and double standards are synonymous, she was dumbing it down for you cs.

[cHriS]

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Why would I be terrified? "

I have no idea. For most people, it's not a problem to admit when they're wrong and yet you seem to be totally afraid of doing so."

I watched the news headlines at 12.45. The news reader ended by saying, we will have more news for you a 1pm.

But at 1 o clock it was the same news that she read out. We all know what she meant, but she was wrong in what she said.

[Daniel]

cs wrote: "But at 1 o clock it was the same news that she read out. We all know what she meant, but she was wrong in what she said."

You seem to be under the impression that I was using an incorrect definition, but that people know what I mean anyway. What you're not getting is that the way I used it IS a CORRECT USAGE based on the REAL definition. An actual one. Not an imaginary one, like the version you are holding to.

You keep pretending that it's a matter of opinion or something. There is no matter of opinion. The word I used is correct according to the definition of the word. That's what you're not getting. I used it CORRECTLY. You just don't know what the word means. I can't help that you're ignorant of definitions and I don't even care that you are. Like I've said numerous times, it's not a big deal, except that you keep on acting like you aren't ignorant of the definition, even though I've shown you the definition and recommended that you look it up.

I'm sure you feel very clever for the news story where you again attempted to create a false version of what happened, but you don't seem to be getting that YOU are the one who misunderstood. YOU are the one who made the error. I was not wrong in what I said at all. YOU simply don't know the meaning of the word.

Be an adult about it and admit it.

[Daniel]

cs wrote: "Daniel wrote: "I watched the news headlines at 12.45. The news reader ended by saying, we will have more news for you a 1pm.

But at 1 o clock it was the same news that she read out. We all know what she meant, but she was wrong in what she said. "

All of this stems from one simple problem. You had an idea about what the word "rise" means. What I said did not match your idea about what the word means. You were so excited to say I was wrong about something that you did so without bothering to make sure your idea was even correct. Now, even though it is has been proven absolutely that the idea you had about what the word means is wrong, you keep trying to argue that the word must mean what you thought it meant before.

Have you even considered the possibility that maybe you just didn't have a full understanding of the definition?

[Hazel]

cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Are we back to arguing semantics again? Nipping that in the bud right now, its irrelevant, as I'm sure your capable of understanding the meaning of the post. Replace the word hypocris..."

I hold my hands, I can make mistakes and admit to them, because I'm a reasonable adult. I used the word hypocrisy to be synonymous with double standard, as that is the way people use it in everyday speech. Technically, the two aren't completely synonymous, though they do have some overlaps. I happily changed it to the more accurate term "double standards" in order to stop short the very semantic argument that you launched into anyway cs, one would almost think you're trying to avoid discussing any real issues... but surely that can't be the case, as you've just accused other people of doing that, and you wouldn't accuse others of doing something you yourself were guilty of, would you? And seeing as no doubt you'll need this explaining to you, if you can't spot humour at the expense of your double standards: this was a rhetorical question, it doesn't need a reply. Go back to discussing the actual discussion points.

[cHriS]

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "But at 1 o clock it was the same news that she read out. We all know what she meant, but she was wrong in what she said."

You seem to be under the impression that I was using an incorre..."

"The word I used is correct according to the definition of the word...."

We are talking not about THE WORD as you keep trying to suggest; to deflect, I guess. We are talking about THE SUN RISES three words.

[Hazel]

The sun rises

1the definite article
\before consonants usually thə, before vowels usually thē, sometime before vowels also thə; for emphasis before titles and names or to suggest uniqueness often ˈthē\

Definition of THE

1a —used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is definite or has been previously specified by context or by circumstance
b —used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is a unique or a particular member of its class
c —used as a function word before nouns that designate natural phenomena or points of the compass
d —used as a function word before a noun denoting time to indicate reference to what is present or immediate or is under consideration
e —used as a function word before names of some parts of the body or of the clothing as an equivalent of a possessive adjective
f —used as a function word before the name of a branch of human endeavor or proficiency
g —used as a function word in prepositional phrases to indicate that the noun in the phrase serves as a basis for computation
h —used as a function word before a proper name (as of a ship or a well-known building)
i —used as a function word before a proper name to indicate the distinctive characteristics of a person or thing
j —used as a function word before the plural form of a surname to indicate all the members of a family
k —used as a function word before the plural form of a numeral that is a multiple of ten to denote a particular decade of a century or of a person's life
l —used as a function word before the name of a commodity or any familiar appurtenance of daily life to indicate reference to the individual thing, part, or supply thought of as at hand
m —used as a function word to designate one of a class as the best, most typical, best known, or most worth singling out ; sometimes used before a personal name to denote the most prominent bearer of that name
2a (1) —used as a function word with a noun modified by an adjective or by an attributive noun to limit the application of the modified noun to that specified by the adjective or by the attributive noun (2) —used as a function word before an absolute adjective or an ordinal number
b (1) —used as a function word before a noun to limit its application to that specified by a succeeding element in the sentence (2) —used as a function word after a person's name to indicate a characteristic trait or notorious activity specified by the succeeding noun
3a —used as a function word before a singular noun to indicate that the noun is to be understood generically
b —used as a function word before a singular substantivized adjective to indicate an abstract idea
4 —used as a function word before a noun or a substantivized adjective to indicate reference to a group as a whole



Definition of SUN

1a often capitalized : the luminous celestial body around which the earth and other planets revolve, from which they receive heat and light, which is composed mainly of hydrogen and helium, and which has a mean distance from earth of about 93,000,000 miles (150,000,000 kilometers), a linear diameter of 864,000 miles (1,390,000 kilometers), and a mass 332,000 times greater than earth
b : a celestial body like the sun : star
2: the heat or light radiated from the sun
3: one resembling the sun (as in warmth or brilliance)
4: the rising or setting of the sun
5: glory, splendor


Definition of RISE

intransitive verb
1a : to assume an upright position especially from lying, kneeling, or sitting
b : to get up from sleep or from one's bed
2: to return from death
3: to take up arms
4: to respond warmly : applaud —usually used with to
5 chiefly British : to end a session : adjourn
6: to appear above the horizon
7a : to move upward : ascend
b : to increase in height, size, volume, or pitch
8: to extend above other objects
9a : to become heartened or elated
b : to increase in fervor or intensity
10a : to attain a higher level or rank
b : to increase in quantity or number
11a : to take place : happen
b : to come into being : originate
12: to follow as a consequence : result
13: to exert oneself to meet a challenge

The (definite arcticle - definition H, I think) sun (definition 1a) rises (definition 6).

again, all from merriam webster, a reliable source. If you have issue, take it up with the dictionary people. However, this shows that Daniels sentence works. Now, the pair of you, drop it, and get back to the interesting stuff.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Are we back to arguing semantics again? Nipping that in the bud right now, its irrelevant, as I'm sure your capable of understanding the meaning of the post. Replace the wo..."

Thats ok; there is a lot of double standards in many of the posts here, so I guess I have to go with you on that one.

[cHriS]

Happy Easter to all. If easter is something you go with.

[Hazel]

Happy easter to you too cs, I don't knwo about you, but I do so love how these pagan festivals have survived.

[Shaun]

Being given chocolate is always good :)

[Shanna]

Can't go wrong with good chocolate

[Daniel]

cs wrote: "We are talking not about THE WORD as you keep trying to suggest; to deflect, I guess. We are talking about THE SUN RISES three words. "

Actually using the three word combination makes my case stronger still. I don't know why you think that difference helps your case since the dictionary specifically says that those three words in combination are an example of CORRECT usage.

[Daniel]

Rabbits are cool, too.

[Old-Barbarossa]

The tradition of chocolate eggs is from the 11th cent and comes from Greenland.
Vagtam Leifson on his way to Vinland was lost at sea...but returned later with tales of having been blown south and visiting cities of great size. He brought back chocolate which had been given to him in great quantities as the locals thought he was Quetzalcoatl due to the dragon prowed ships and his winged helmet.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Daniel wrote: "Rabbits are cool, too."

That was the Romans.

[Daniel]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Daniel wrote: "Rabbits are cool, too."

That was the Romans."

Yeah? I like the Romans, too.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Chocolate covered?

[Old-Barbarossa]

Suppose it depends on which Roman...

[Old-Barbarossa]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknew...

[Daniel]

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "Chocolate covered?"

I guess a chocolate covered Roman would be good. Never had one.

[Shaun]

Hi Lynley, welcome to the thread although to be honest, it stopped being about agnosticism/atheism a few pages back.

Your point has been made before, but don't worry. As it happens, I agree with you 100%.

There is no halfway point between theist and atheist, it's a binary state, and seeing people try to use agnostic as some kind of middle ground generally annoys me.

[Mike]

This is all very funny to watch/read but I have other things to do then to put forth a color sceme to the color blind. Someone here somehow got the idea I was a theist, and so acted as though I argued for theism. You add you subtract, and you dance, the issue is not spoken of, except in one or two posts. And then it is quickly ignored. BUT because of space restrictions, one couldn't present reality to those that refuse to see it (it can't be done in any case, since refusal to see is both a mental and physical phenomnon).

[Daniel]

Mike wrote: "This is all very funny to watch/read but I have other things to do then to put forth a color sceme to the color blind. Someone here somehow got the idea I was a theist, and so acted as though I a..."

You ignore every point made to you then jump in to launch unwarranted insults at (seemingly) no one in particular. Why?

[Mike]

Because I wasn't arguing with the non-points most have made. Dawkins may be right or he may be wrong, but he uses the very methods he abhors, to make many of his points. This makes those particular arguments just as wrong as those held by a theist. Agree, disagree, it doesn't matter. Some people still think we haven't been to the moon either.

[Hazel]

Mike, are you essentially saying that these discussions are pointless?

[Shaun]

Hazel wrote: "Mike, are you essentially saying that these discussions are pointless?"

His contributions could certainly be described that way.

[Daniel]

Mike wrote: "Because I wasn't arguing with the non-points most have made. Dawkins may be right or he may be wrong, but he uses the very methods he abhors, to make many of his points. This makes those particular..."

Being as you don't seem to have even read the book, I'm not sure you're in a position to speak about what methods he uses.

You seem to be commenting on what your idea of his methods is.

[Mike]

No Hazel, I am saying I am watching banter about a book whose essence is about a subject not familiar to the author. If he wrote on theoretical physics, he'd not do much better. I have read both his book and the book: The Dawkin's Delusion. I find the latter one more enlightening, even if I do not hold the beleif in a theistic god.

[Shaun]

Mike wrote: "No Hazel, I am saying I am watching banter about a book whose essence is about a subject not familiar to the author."

Dunno what thread you are reading, mate, but there hasn't been any banter about the book since the for the last 7 and a half pages...

[Old-Barbarossa]

Hell, I even threw in fabricated historical refs

[Hazel]

Mike wrote: "No Hazel, I am saying I am watching banter about a book whose essence is about a subject not familiar to the author. If he wrote on theoretical physics, he'd not do much better. I have read both h..."

I certainly haven't been discussing the book, you have been labouring under a misapprehension.

[Daniel]

Mike wrote: "No Hazel, I am saying I am watching banter about a book whose essence is about a subject not familiar to the author. If he wrote on theoretical physics, he'd not do much better. I have read both h..."

I reject the notion that god and theoretical physics are on the same level. The latter is hugely complicated and needs to be studied to be understood. The former is just an idea that can be thought about like any other idea.

What is it you feel he should have studied before he was allowed to think about an idea and write his thoughts down?

[Daniel]

Mike wrote: "No Hazel, I am saying I am watching banter about a book whose essence is about a subject not familiar to the author. If he wrote on theoretical physics, he'd not do much better. I have read both h..."

If you have actually read the book, then why don't you understand his position on god? I'm not saying you don't agree with it, I'm saying you don't even seem to understand what he is saying.

[Daniel]

Hazel wrote: "I certainly haven't been discussing the book, you have been labouring under a misapprehension."

I would like to get back to that, though. CS is obviously in hiding. What else could be said? CS is objectively wrong and, I suspect, is aware of that.

[Hazel]

Mike wrote: "No Hazel, I am saying I am watching banter about a book whose essence is about a subject not familiar to the author. "

Quickly, on this though, the loooong list of citations at the end of the book shows that Dawkins is certainly familiar with his subject matter.

[Mike]

Hazel, if so, why did he resort to methods he so heartily condemns in others? He has become familiar with the "fringe fundamentalists" but so what. I'd argue his book is correct if that was the ONLY persons he aims it at.

As for Daniel, I quote (loosely off the top of my head): "...I (annotation: this is HIS definition) will define the God Hypothesis defensibly - that there exists a superhuman supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe & and everything in it." HIS definition of monotheism is closer but nonetheless inaccurate according to those that "actually" believe in a single God (not fundamentalist Christians at this point as they have corrupted the original concepts started in the Jewish community); again, not that I am defending them, I am however offended by what appears to be being completely out of touch with several of his constituents who feel he is either too harsh or way out of his league.

I disagree with his starting point, so I disagree that his argument has any logical validity, or veracity even if his conclusion is correct for the group he targets.

[Hazel]

Mike, perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain what these methods you claim he used, yet condemns, are? You've been quite vague about what the actual methods are.

[Derrick]

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "I know it appears in many atheists handbooks"

What are you talking about? There's a handbook for atheism? Many of them?"

I want one! Can you send me a copy, along with the Gay Agenda -- I've always wanted to read that one, too.

[Shaun]

Derrick wrote: "...the Gay Agenda -- I've always wanted to read that one, too. "

Oh, that's easy.

http://www.bettybowers.com/homoagenda...

Check out 3:33pm

[Derrick]

Shaun wrote: "Derrick wrote: "...the Gay Agenda -- I've always wanted to read that one, too. "

Oh, that's easy.

http://www.bettybowers.com/homoagenda...

Check out 3:33pm"

I KNEW it. :-)

This is my favorite bit:

7:00 P.M. Go to Abercrombie & Fitch and announce in a loud voice, "Over!"

7:40 P.M. Stop looking at the photographic displays at Abercrombie & Fitch and go to a cool store to begin shopping.

[Mike]

Hazel, several of his remarks and quotes (misquotes in at least one case) are internet farmed and inaccurate. Anyone can find any form of symmetricalness on the web if they search hard enough.

I am away from my home computer at the moment and don't have his book in front of me, when I do, I will give a few examples.

[Hazel]

please do, I'd be interested.