• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Split Thread Synonyms, homophones and language

I doubt he meant it as you use it, indicating a preference for one over the other. He said this:

An emotional preference for certain gods over others does not follow from the premise that atheists despise gods.


I am curious.
How had I not indicated that I intended to use betwixt in exchange for 'amidst'? (Especially after pointing to that synonym, several posts ago?)
 
Last edited:
Last edited by a moderator:
After much head scratching I've concluded that what the OP is trying to convey in those two odd sentences is something like: "The very concept of gods is repugnant to atheists, so when they hear the word used they react emotionally". I could be wrong. Right or wrong, if I continue to have to work this hard to understand his posts I simply won't bother to read them.
 
Here is its usage in a sentence via yourdictionary.com:

"After the murder of Tiberius by Naevius Sertorius Macro, the prefect of the praetorian guards, which was probably due to his instigation, Caligula ascended the throne amidst the rejoicings of the people."

http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/amidst

Right. Notice that "the people" are taken to exist, and that Caligula was surrounded by their rejoicings.

To accuse another of being "surrounded by" 'gods' depends upon assuming (or believing, or being of the opinion that) 'gods' exist.

Do you read your own arguments?
 
Your thought cycles bore me, as do the others that have responded thus far.

Have you not any valid sequence to express?

Note: If I had detected an error (amidst my expressions) based on our criticism, I would have long made that publicly known here. (The human brain is a trial/error construct anyway) However, you are yet to display any such error.

Such is your embarrassment's design.

I see. You are of the opinion that you can ignore valid critique of your idiosyncratic (and factually incorrect) communication styles because you believe you are right, and reality take the hindmost.

More "humor".
 
I am curious.
How had I not indicated that I intended to use betwixt in exchange for 'amidst'? (Especially after pointing to that synonym, several posts ago?)

In your opinion, how can an atheist to be said to be "between", or "among" or "betwixt" things that are not demonstrated to exist, and in which the atheist does not believe?
 
In your opinion, how can an atheist to be said to be "between", or "among" or "betwixt" things that are not demonstrated to exist, and in which the atheist does not believe?


I am pretty sure he is using the standard definition in the first part of the quote, and his construct of "god" in the second.

Either way, googling "militant atheism" provided no scientific evidence that atheists despise the concept of god, just opinions about what a subset of atheists think. So the whole side conversation is merely PGJ's opinion, and pretty much irrelevant.
 
It is your opinion that you have a bias betwixt bias.
Too true. But since the opinion is of my own opinion, it is empirical evidence my bias does in fact exist betwixt bias. I am after all the world's greatest authority on my own opinion. You should believe that and take it on faith.
 
I believe (!) I covered all this way back on page 1 in my first post in the thread.

.......The thing is, words have meanings, and you don't get to just change the meaning of words to suit your own ends.

Anyone who uses language deliberately to obscure their meaning is going to come unstuck on this forum. There are too many clever people who won't let that nonsense wash. If obscuring lack of thinking with poor use of language doesn't work, the next tactic is usually to attempt to obscure it using unreadable formatting. Funny how often we see these patterns around here.

Ooooh, look what else I said:

Look, you're just playing word games......

There is nothing else to this thread other than the OP's word games. There is no brilliant new insight, no theory worth examining, no humour. Just word games: redefine "god" so that it includes humans (and chimps and dolphins, too, incidentally), and then spend pages defending such nonsense with the usual "linear thinkers think linearly" crap. Ho hum.......you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking, rushing around to come up behind you again. The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older....
 
Believe it.

Sure. I have no problem accepting that you have opinions, everyone does. Holding such opinions does not magically make them true. It doesn't matter who you are or what those opinions might be. Or who I am and what my opinions might be.

Where it all goes wahoonie shaped is when any individual claims that their opinion is inviolable truth. Hence religion, which continues to insist what your opinion should be and issue threats if you disagree. For example, condoms in Africa. Are you for it, or against it? Most of christianity is against, even though it would save countless lives. But christianity doesn't care much about the only life you have, it only cares about the afterlife that they cannot prove, in favour of an afterlife that they remain unable to demonstrate.

A rather odd position.
 
Sure. I have no problem accepting that you have opinions, everyone does. Holding such opinions does not magically make them true. It doesn't matter who you are or what those opinions might be. Or who I am and what my opinions might be.

Where it all goes wahoonie shaped is when any individual claims that their opinion is inviolable truth. Hence religion, which continues to insist what your opinion should be and issue threats if you disagree. For example, condoms in Africa. Are you for it, or against it? Most of christianity is against, even though it would save countless lives. But christianity doesn't care much about the only life you have, it only cares about the afterlife that they cannot prove, in favour of an afterlife that they remain unable to demonstrate.

A rather odd position.
I really do appreciate your attempt to at least try and bring meaningful philosophical content to this joke of a thread.:thumbsup: Sincerely I do.:thumbsup::thumbsup: Especially love the way you incorporated "wahoonie" into your comment.:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: I hadn't heard that one in years! So now I believe we have belief and bias betwixt big wahoonie!:D
https://www.discworldemporium.com/419-large_default/the-big-wahoonie-t-shirt.jpg


Edited by Agatha: 
Edited for rule 5


But the science forum just isn't the place. And actually I try to stay away from the religious forums, since I am a heretic Christian that immediately gets attacked by both sides anyway!:p Besides, lets face it, I have absolutely no chances of changing a single person's deeply and sincerely held religious (or atheist) beliefs anyway. So it is pointless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe (!) I covered all this way back on page 1 in my first post in the thread.



Anyone who uses language deliberately to obscure their meaning is going to come unstuck on this forum. There are too many clever people who won't let that nonsense wash. If obscuring lack of thinking with poor use of language doesn't work, the next tactic is usually to attempt to obscure it using unreadable formatting. Funny how often we see these patterns around here.

Ooooh, look what else I said:



There is nothing else to this thread other than the OP's word games. There is no brilliant new insight, no theory worth examining, no humour. Just word games: redefine "god" so that it includes humans (and chimps and dolphins, too, incidentally), and then spend pages defending such nonsense with the usual "linear thinkers think linearly" crap. Ho hum.......you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking, rushing around to come up behind you again. The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older....

///__science_Redefinition
You comment above is invalid.

I had long mentioned that the redefinition compounds in science, and so, such was not "my" definition.

Your emotional bias betwixt Gods causes you to not see a clear overlap between claimed theistic gods, and humans.

This overlap occurs whether or not you like it.


///__does_ not include chimps
Humans occur as the species that runs 10^16 to 10^18 synaptic operations per second, in the brain. This speed is unfounded in other species, so dolphins and chimps are not included.

Please research before commenting.
 
I really do appreciate your attempt to at least try and bring meaningful philosophical content to this joke of a thread.:thumbsup: Sincerely I do.:thumbsup::thumbsup: Especially love the way you incorporated "wahoonie" into your comment.:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: I hadn't heard that one in years! So now I believe we have belief and bias betwixt big wahoonie!:D
[qimg]https://www.discworldemporium.com/419-large_default/the-big-wahoonie-t-shirt.jpg[/qimg]

But the science forum just isn't the place. And actually I try to stay away from the religious forums, since I am a heretic Christian that immediately gets attacked by both sides anyway!:p Besides, lets face it, I have absolutely no chances of changing a single person's deeply and sincerely held religious (or atheist) beliefs anyway. So it is pointless.

Try not to invoke words such as 'absolutely'.

The uncertainty principle shows the contrast.

We can't do anything absolutely, we do things probabilistically.
 
(A)

Slowvehicle said:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Your thought cycles bore me.

One need not belief, to observe non beliefism.

...so it is not your own belief that you, personally, can change the word 'god' to include humans?

Science constantly redefines phenomena.

When Newton blundered, rather than discard gravity, future description (Einstein) re-defined 'gravity'.

Rather than belief, this redefinition occurred on the horizon of scientific evidence.


(B)
Slowvehicle said:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
1)
Newton blundered.
Einstein's description 'won'.


(2)
Atheists tend to despise the concept of God.
And so, they have emotional bias betwixt Gods.
You appear to believe that 'gods' exist, else how might one be 'betwixt' them.

One need not believe to observe intersections.

Simply, it is scientifically observable that humans and claimed theistic Gods share a particular property (See original post)



(C)
Slowvehicle said:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Please google "Militant atheism".
I see. In other words, you are of the opinion that all a-theists are "Militant Atheists". What an odd belief.

I need not possess any opinion on such a matter.



(D)
Slowvehicle said:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Which does not help your case. For you to be of the opinion that there is a predictable atheist reaction to being "amidst" (or "among", or "between", or "in juxtaposition to") 'gods', you would have to believe that there were, in fact, 'gods'..

(D.1)
I generally referred to the concept or idea of gods. Words may be concepts or ideas. (I need not believe in an idea, to express that one despises such an idea or concept)


(D.2)
By extension, I need not possess any belief or opinion in any quantity, to express that beings despise themselves.

Yes, humans are minimally capable Gods, and so when atheists despise gods, they despise themselves...

Atheists exist, so I need not believe such a thing.








(E)
Slowvehicle said:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
You are yet to describe how it satisfies grammatical and syntactic validity, while failing "semantically".

Edit: Your comments are irrelevant, betwixt the topic at hand..
Persisting in error does not make it become less erroneous, no matter what you, personally, believe.

You are yet to specify such an error.




(F)
Slowvehicle said:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
One may trivially be amidst one thing.

Betwixt is a synonym for amidst, as I had linked many posts ago.

From post #116:
"Amidst" does not support your belief. In your opinion, how might one be "amidst" that which cannot be demonstrated to exist?


See answer D above.




(G)
Slowvehicle said:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I am curious.
How had I not indicated that I intended to use betwixt in exchange for 'amidst'? (Especially after pointing to that synonym, several posts ago?)
In your opinion, how can an atheist to be said to be "between", or "among" or "betwixt" things that are not demonstrated to exist, and in which the atheist does not believe?

See answer D above.
 
Last edited:
I am pretty sure he is using the standard definition in the first part of the quote, and his construct of "god" in the second.

Either way, googling "militant atheism" provided no scientific evidence that atheists despise the concept of god, just opinions about what a subset of atheists think. So the whole side conversation is merely PGJ's opinion, and pretty much irrelevant.

No opinion necessary.

Sample absent my opinion, (ie instance that displays atheistic expression of distaste in 'God'):

(A)
Here is Dawkins expressing distaste for a form of God:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic.."

See The God Delusion.

See Dawkins answer questions on his above text: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sRBGGzdsl8





(B)

Here is Dawkins disregarding the hypothetical concept of God, (saying if such a thing existed, it would "undermine scientific endeavour....")

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK48AsRIMM8
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Your thought cycles bore me, as do the others that have responded thus far.

Have you not any valid sequence to express?

Note: If I had detected an error (amidst my expressions) based on our criticism, I would have long made that publicly known here. (The human brain is a trial/error construct anyway) However, you are yet to display any such error.

Such is your embarrassment's design.

Is English your native tongue? Your posts read like a word salad. I'm sure someone has already pointed this out. That formatting you do borders on headache-inducing.

Given the above, What non-trivial point are you trying to make?
 
Only 4 more degrees to Kevin Bacon!

Edit: The point being, the two may be synonymous with common words, but that does not make them synonymous to each other. Fail.


Hokulele said:
So "disregarding" means "despising" now?

Quite Humpty Dumpty of you.

Why do you persist to abide by your prior error?

Albeit, despise is a synonym for disregard:

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/despise

You simply need to quickly research before commenting.
 
Last edited:
(1)
At any rate, you need to do research before posting comments.
(Your blunders in prior posts in this thread display that you fail to research before expressing your thoughts)




(2)
What contradiction?

Keep in mind that I am the inventor of a phenomenon called 'non-beliefism'.
As such, I have zero beliefs.

[2.A] One need not belief to observe science / empirical evidence.

As such, the claimed theistic God is scientifically re-definable, by comparing said typical claimed theistic properties, with empirical evidence.

[2.B] An empirically defined God emerges from the above process.

[2.C] Keep [2.A] and [2.B] in mind.

This is almost entertaining.

Motes and beams, chook.
 
What an interesting blunder...to be of the opinion that one word being listed as a synonym for another makes them proper subsets.

Words mean things, Pogo.

Hokulele had spoken as if disregard and despise were disparate words, when in reality, disregard is a synonym for despise.

Hokulele chose to abide by his/her error, regardless of the evidence presented.

This is strange, as the human brain is a trial/error construct. It is odd that he/she failed to acknowledge his/her error, and persisted to express non valid sequences.
 
Last edited:
Is English your native tongue? Your posts read like a word salad. I'm sure someone has already pointed this out. That formatting you do borders on headache-inducing.

Given the above, What non-trivial point are you trying to make?

See original post.

The original post is layman-bound, whence such is a profound simplification of my default expression cycle.
 
I see. You are of the opinion that you can identify "typical" behaviour. WHat an odd thing to beleive, about a near-stranger.



"...cited..." Details, chook. (You can look it up.)

(1)
That error has been purged.

Sidenote: Both cite and site have the common synonym lay, so they are perhaps interchangeable. However, I observe that cite is better utilized.


(2)
Separately, you spoke priorly as if there probably persisted invalidity amidst the quote of mine, that you had cited in post #186.
What is the error you claim to detect?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom