Bible-beater pilots

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:51:46 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

Really. It's tough to have a discussion with someone that makes up
definitions for words.

What?! Point to the spot where *I* made up a definition for a word.

I gave you a whole alternate worldview, embraced by millions of
people, even if they are a significant minority. I gave you its
source, not written by me, and therefore not my contrivance. I gave
you its fundamentals. I gave you the reason why the definition is not
found in a dictionary.

Therefore, I didn't make up definitions for words, and the remainder
of your reasoning on that line is a really simplistic straw man. And
alleging so in this thread is ad hominem. "He's religious, therefore
we must not take any of his ideas seriously, no matter what."

It seems you'd rather attack a popular straw man than consider what a
different outlook might do to the fundamentals of a belief system
which is *not* atheism. I agree that that makes a good discussion very
difficult, but it is not I who has a problem with reason and logic
this time.

When I realized that he'd countered my dictionary citation with some
referenced scripture...well, there's little point to this.

You ask what source contains my notion, and I tell you. You dismiss
the notion because the idea is contained in scripture (a word whose
etymology reduces to "stuff written down", by the way). [1]

I didn't claim for you that the scripture was divine. I didn't swoon
about its heavenly source. I have no expectation that you'll click the
link and have a conversion experience of any kind.

I explained that that was the source of the *idea*. That was the
answer to your question:

I don't follow your definition of faith, as used here. Would you be so kind
as to provide that definition (instead of an example)?

And you answer that kindness by calling me the player in a fool's
game.

Address the *idea* on its *merits*, and you have the basis for arguing
the point of it. But if you apparantly can't stomach a proposition
because of its source, (which is basic logical fallacy; so much for
the atheist's worship of human reason) then and only then will there
be little point.

In any case, did you actually read the sentences which convey the
idea, or not? If not, what the hell are you afraid of?

Rob, who *has* read Rand, and rejected it on the merits

[1] At any rate, ask a "traditional" Christian minister whether or not
that particular reference is scripture, and why, and watch the
vitriolic denials fly.

Rob Perkins wrote:

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:51:46 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

Really. It's tough to have a discussion with someone that makes up
definitions for words.

What?! Point to the spot where *I* made up a definition for a word.

In message , you cite scripture
instead of dictionary as a source of a definition. It was to this I
referred with the text (which you didn't include in your citation):

When I realized that he'd countered my dictionary citation
with some referenced scripture...well, there's little point
to this.

You'd do as well to cite a Spanish dictionary for the definition of an
English word. It's about as meaninful.

- Andrew

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:00:25 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

In message , you cite scripture
instead of dictionary as a source of a definition. It was to this I
referred with the text (which you didn't include in your citation):

When I realized that he'd countered my dictionary citation
with some referenced scripture...well, there's little point
to this.

You'd do as well to cite a Spanish dictionary for the definition of an
English word. It's about as meaninful.

!!

The first dictionaries *were* descriptions of the meanings of foreign
words. Are you even aware what a modern dictionary is and how it's
compiled?

Beside the point. You're moving the goalposts, and committing ad
hominem: "He used a 'scripture' so therefore can't be relied upon."
It's not reasonable.

Rob

Rob Perkins wrote:

[...]
Beside the point. You're moving the goalposts, and committing ad
hominem: "He used a 'scripture' so therefore can't be relied upon."
It's not reasonable.

Ah, but it is reasonable. It isn't merely that you "used a scripture". If
you were discussing some religious detail, that would be reasonable.

However, you used one in place of a dictionary. That is not a reasonable
act, any more than citing a Spanish dictionary would be for claiming proper
use of English words would be so.

What point is there in having a discussion with a person where that person
feels free to use unreasonable sources for citation? If we cannot even
agree upon something as basic as the lexicon, discussion isn't even truly
possible. You can make claims like "experiments require faith", and never
even "know" (or "care", more likely) that you're using at least one word in
a grossly nonstandard way.

In your language, perhaps you're even correct. But I'm not using your
language. I'm using English.

It would be akin to someone saying "the rudder turns the airplane". Many
here would leap to correct this. But if the poster of such a statement
cited different definitions for either "rudder" (those things on the
trailing edge of the wings outboard of the flaps) or "turn" (rotate around
an axis) or "airplane" (a waterbound vehicle), then the statement would be
correct in the speaker's lexicon.

But that wouldn't be English.

Of course, you can define "English" however you want in your own lexicon.
That's just how pointless such a discussion becomes.

- Andrew

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:17:06 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

Ah, but it is reasonable. It isn't merely that you "used a scripture". If
you were discussing some religious detail, that would be reasonable.

And, here's where I get off the ride. If I can't explain my point of
view and cite the source of the ideas without the sources being
dismissed out of hand, then I agree, there is no point to it.
Especially if you won't repair your own fallacies, Andrew.

And in any case, the idea that "faith" is not a "religious detail"
strikes me as patently absurd. You're still moving the goalposts.

Rob

Rob Perkins wrote:

And, here's where I get off the ride.

You can get yourself off whereever you like.

If I can't explain my point of
view and cite the source of the ideas without the sources being
dismissed out of hand, then I agree, there is no point to it.

We're speaking not of "ideas" but "words". There's a significant
difference. Ideas can be created, evolved, and rejected by individuals.
Words are a part of the consensual communication protocol.

Especially if you won't repair your own fallacies, Andrew.

Any fallacies you think you see are the result of the difference between our
two languages. I'm using English. You're using something else. As I
wrote before, as long as we're not using the same language, communication
isn't possible.

And in any case, the idea that "faith" is not a "religious detail"
strikes me as patently absurd. You're still moving the goalposts.

The goalposts are where they've always been. You're just trying to redefine
the language - and therefore the discussion - and are perturbed about being
denied this sophistic ploy.

I don't really see that I can add anything more to this game - until/unless
you submit to the use of English - and so you'll just have to play with
yourself.

- Andrew

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:53:38 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

Rob Perkins wrote:

And, here's where I get off the ride.

You can get yourself off whereever you like.

Y'know, sexual innuendo doesn't really help win arguments.

We're speaking not of "ideas" but "words". There's a significant
difference. Ideas can be created, evolved, and rejected by individuals.
Words are a part of the consensual communication protocol.

You've got to be kidding. Look, at times I've been entertained doing
epistemology with novices; it can be fun and usually a lurker writes
to me thanking me for the insights. But I'm just not interested this
time, it's the holiday season and I've got to get my day job
accomplished sometime.

One more time, then, as denouement:

http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,835-1,00.html

....defines "faith" in my context. If you want to have a protracted
conversation with someone, take it to soc.religion.mormon or
something.

I'm done!

plonk
Rob