Freedom of Religion

[Abracadabra]

Unfortunately, that is the state of most of philosophy. A lot of pseudo-scientific, semi-religious intellectual sounding crap that means little. Sort of the bullshit you were spouting about the "spiritual essence of reality" and how, somehow, "quantum mechanics gives you permission to believe that".

Fortunately. I'm not a philosopher. I don't get lost in semantics, I clarify them . If the meaning or usage of a word seems suspect, I look it up, thereby avoiding any thought paralysis. If the words in an argument are used wrongly, I point it out and the whole argument automatically falls apart.

You can't just point to a dictionary and think that you have resolved an argument. Words simply aren't that concrete. As I had already pointed out, even our concept of "reason" changes as we learn more about the nature of reality. What we deem to be "unreasonable" at one point in time, suddenly becomes "reasonable" at another point in time. Our very understanding of what we deem to be "reasonable" chances dynamically.

So how could a dictionary even help in cases like this?

If you could simply turn to a dictionary to decide every argument all of science and philosophy would be finished and there would be no mysteries left. Any time you want to know something just run off and see what the dictionary has to say about it.

You can't build a philosophy based on semantics. It simply doesn't provide a strong enough foundation to build upon. It would be like trying to build a house on quicksand.

I have no interest in going there. I read over the rest of your post, and as far as I can see that's precisely where you're headed.

So thanks, but no thanks. I'm not interested in getting into endless fruitless arguments over semantics. It's just not my cup of tea.

I didn't think it was. You like to use words without regard for their meaning or their referents. Similarly, you like to use concepts and arguments without regard or knowledge of their underlying premises. Clearly, you'd be uncomfortable if the words and concepts are discussed with their actual meaning.[/quote]

That's totally false. I'm willing to discuss anything with anyone who is truly interested in the concept that I'm attempting to convey. But if they are going to stand there with a dictionary attempting to try to claim what I mean based on dictionary definitions, that's would make communication impossible because they would be attempting to force concepts onto me rather than genuinely trying to understand the concepts that I'm trying to get at.

Like I say, I'm more interested in communication than in talking to a robot who just stands there arguing the semantics of words. If you think I've misused a word, instead of arguing with me about the meaning of the word, just ask me to clarify my point.

That is the essence of true communication.

And communication is the ultimate goal of speech. Not arguing about semantics.

But let's face it, you're just extremely hostile to my concepts, so you aren't the slightest bit interested in trying to understand them. All you are interested in doing it creating a barrier where it's impossible to communicate at all an pretend that it's all my fault because I supposedly don't even have the ability to use words correctly.

That's overly pompous on your part and totally false to boot.

And that's why it would be a waste of time to attempt to communicate with you. Face it, you just don't want to hear it. And that's all there is to that.

---

I love it when a dude who believes in witchcraft accuses someone of not making sense.

Priceless.

Just because witchcraft doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that it's nonsense.

I love it when someone thinks that their view of the world represents the absolute truth.

Priceless

[RW_9]

How many threads has this same argument spawned on?

[Cosmic Ape]

Freedom is a two way street. If that religion encroaches on the freedoms of other people, then fuck Religious Freedom. Like when parents refuse their kids medical help because of their religion or when muslim suicide bomb buildings. Lock anyone up who advocates the genocide of the world and those parents should have their kids taken away and humiliated in the stocks for the public to see if they don't change their minds or they get their kid killed.

[Epimethean]

"Just because witchcraft doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that it's nonsense."


Except for the fact that it actually does not make sense-at all, as most anyone here can and has told you. You render yourself a very unreliable person by believing in such wackiness.

[genkaus]

You can't just point to a dictionary and think that you have resolved an
argument.

I can point to a dictionary and tell you that since you are not using the words as they mean, your argument is nonsensical.

Words simply aren't that concrete.

Yes, they are. In the sense that within a specific context they have specific meaning.

As I had already pointed out, even our concept of "reason" changes as we learn more about the nature of reality. What we deem to be "unreasonable" at one point in time, suddenly becomes "reasonable" at another point in time. Our very understanding of what we deem to be "reasonable" chances dynamically.

Don't equate "reasonable" with "reason". "Reason" is the way we gain knowledge. "Reasonable" is our conclusion if the apparent knowledge gained is not contradictory to the knowledge we have. It is definitely expected that the idea of what is "reasonable" would change as knowledge grows, but reason itself does not change.

So how could a dictionary even help in cases like this?

By indicating the content of current knowledge.

If you could simply turn to a dictionary to decide every argument all of science and philosophy would be finished and there would be no mysteries left.

Nonsense. Not all arguments, just yours. When an argument is presented, before evaluating it, one has to make sure if makes sense. If it doesn't then there is no need to go any further. Once you start making sensible arguments, I wouldn't have to point out the semantic errors and we can move on to the content of the argument itself. As long as you don't the content is indecipherable.

Any time you want to know something just run off and see what the dictionary has to say about it.

Nah. I google.

You can't build a philosophy based on semantics.

Philosophy cannot be "based" on semantics. And it cannot be built without it either. A philosophy that does not even bother to learn the meaning of the words it is expressed in would be incoherent and self-contradictory.

It simply doesn't provide a strong enough foundation to build upon. It would be like trying to build a house on quicksand.

And a philosophy without semantics is like a house built of quicksand.

I have no interest in going there. I read over the rest of your post, and as far as I can see that's precisely where you're headed.

That's totally false. I'm willing to discuss anything with anyone who is truly interested in the concept that I'm attempting to convey.

And how do you propose to convey the meaning if you don't use the words according to their meaning?

But if they are going to stand there with a dictionary attempting to try to claim what I mean based on dictionary definitions, that's would make communication impossible because they would be attempting to force concepts onto me rather than genuinely trying to understand the concepts that I'm trying to get at.

So we have established that you have no interest in the meaning of the words you are using to describe your concepts. How else is one supposed to understand what you are saying unless there is an objective standard for communication? Psychically?

Like I say, I'm more interested in communication than in talking to a robot who just stands there arguing the semantics of words.

Communication without semantically correct communique is pointless. Neither party can be sure if the message was understood as it was intended.

If you think I've misused a word, instead of arguing with me about the meaning of the word, just ask me to clarify my point.

Rather than misusing the words, its as if you don't understand what they mean and which premises must be true for the concepts represented by those words to be applicable.

That is the essence of true communication.

Communication requires that the communicating parties share an area of communicative commonality - in this case, words with objective meaning.

And communication is the ultimate goal of speech. Not arguing about semantics.

Absence of semantics would make communication impossible.

But let's face it, you're just extremely hostile to my concepts,

Because they don't make any sense.

so you aren't the slightest bit interested in trying to understand them.

Because without semantically correct arguments, certain understanding is not possible.

All you are interested in doing it creating a barrier where it's impossible to communicate at all an pretend that it's all my fault because I supposedly don't even have the ability to use words correctly.

What you don't have is the ability to grasp the inescapable premises that your arguments are intended to deny.

That's overly pompous on your part and totally false to boot.

That I'm exacting?

And that's why it would be a waste of time to attempt to communicate with you. Face it, you just don't want to hear it. And that's all there is to that.

As long as you have no intention of making a rational and self-consistent argument - no, there is not point in communication. But don't presume that if you do make such an argument, the its fallacies and errors won't be pointed out.

Just because witchcraft doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that it's nonsense.

Witchcraft - practices using something supernatural which is by definition beyond human understanding. How can it make sense when its very existence requires something that cannot make sense?

---

[quote='Abracadabra' pid='236468' dateline='1328553014']
You can't just point to a dictionary and think that you have resolved an
argument.

I can point to a dictionary and tell you that since you are not using the words as they mean, your argument is nonsensical.

Words simply aren't that concrete.

Yes, they are. In the sense that within a specific context they have specific meaning.

As I had already pointed out, even our concept of "reason" changes as we learn more about the nature of reality. What we deem to be "unreasonable" at one point in time, suddenly becomes "reasonable" at another point in time. Our very understanding of what we deem to be "reasonable" chances dynamically.

Don't equate "reasonable" with "reason". "Reason" is the way we gain knowledge. "Reasonable" is our conclusion if the apparent knowledge gained is not contradictory to the knowledge we have. It is definitely expected that the idea of what is "reasonable" would change as knowledge grows, but reason itself does not change.

So how could a dictionary even help in cases like this?

By indicating the content of current knowledge.

If you could simply turn to a dictionary to decide every argument all of science and philosophy would be finished and there would be no mysteries left.

Nonsense. Not all arguments, just yours. When an argument is presented, before evaluating it, one has to make sure if makes sense. If it doesn't then there is no need to go any further. Once you start making sensible arguments, I wouldn't have to point out the semantic errors and we can move on to the content of the argument itself. As long as you don't the content is indecipherable.

Any time you want to know something just run off and see what the dictionary has to say about it.

Nah. I google.

You can't build a philosophy based on semantics.

Philosophy cannot be "based" on semantics. And it cannot be built without it either. A philosophy that does not even bother to learn the meaning of the words it is expressed in would be incoherent and self-contradictory.

It simply doesn't provide a strong enough foundation to build upon. It would be like trying to build a house on quicksand.

And a philosophy without semantics is like a house built of quicksand.

I have no interest in going there. I read over the rest of your post, and as far as I can see that's precisely where you're headed.

[quote='Abracadabra' pid='236468' dateline='1328553014']That's totally false. I'm willing to discuss anything with anyone who is truly interested in the concept that I'm attempting to convey.

And how do you propose to convey the meaning if you don't use the words according to their meaning?

But if they are going to stand there with a dictionary attempting to try to claim what I mean based on dictionary definitions, that's would make communication impossible because they would be attempting to force concepts onto me rather than genuinely trying to understand the concepts that I'm trying to get at.

So we have established that you have no interest in the meaning of the words you are using to describe your concepts. How else is one supposed to understand what you are saying unless there is an objective standard for communication? Psychically?

Like I say, I'm more interested in communication than in talking to a robot who just stands there arguing the semantics of words.

Communication without semantically correct communique is pointless. Neither party can be sure if the message was understood as it was intended.

If you think I've misused a word, instead of arguing with me about the meaning of the word, just ask me to clarify my point.

Rather than misusing the words, its as if you don't understand what they mean and which premises must be true for the concepts represented by those words to be applicable.

That is the essence of true communication.

Communication requires that the communicating parties share an area of communicative commonality - in this case, words with objective meaning.

And communication is the ultimate goal of speech. Not arguing about semantics.

Absence of semantics would make communication impossible.

But let's face it, you're just extremely hostile to my concepts,

Because they don't make any sense.

so you aren't the slightest bit interested in trying to understand them.

Because without semantically correct arguments, certain understanding is not possible.

All you are interested in doing it creating a barrier where it's impossible to communicate at all an pretend that it's all my fault because I supposedly don't even have the ability to use words correctly.

What you don't have is the ability to grasp the inescapable premises that your arguments are intended to deny.

That's overly pompous on your part and totally false to boot.

That I'm exacting?

And that's why it would be a waste of time to attempt to communicate with you. Face it, you just don't want to hear it. And that's all there is to that.

As long as you have no intention of making a rational and self-consistent argument - no, there is not point in communication. But don't presume that if you do make such an argument, the its fallacies and errors won't be pointed out.

Just because witchcraft doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that it's nonsense.

Witchcraft - practices using something supernatural which is by definition beyond human understanding. How can it make sense when its very existence requires something that cannot make sense?

Why isn't the post showing?

[Abracadabra]

"Just because witchcraft doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that it's nonsense."

Except for the fact that it actually does not make sense-at all, as most anyone here can and has told you. You render yourself a very unreliable person by believing in such wackiness.

You mean that by being truthful I risk having closed-minded people passing totally unwarranted judgements on me and jumping to totally unwarranted conclusions about me.

You don't know enough about me, or how I personally view "witchcraft" to even remotely make such a snap judgement. In fact, if you're pushing your imagined ideas of what you think "witchcraft" entails onto me, then perhaps it's no wonder you feel the way you do.

That's totally absurd.

Before you do that, I suggest that you read a whole lot of books on "witchcraft" and visit a whole lot of different forums where "witchcraft" is being discussed (especially in a religious context such a Wicca), and begin to realize that even people who are into "witchcraft" have vastly different ideas of precisely what they mean by this term.

If you're going to be another one of those people who just runs off and grabs a dictionary and comes back to say, "Well the dictionary says that witchcraft should mean this", then please don't comment on any of my posts ever again. Because that is totally ignorant.

People who take "witchcraft" seriously would totally laugh at dictionary definitions of "witchcraft". We can just about guarantee you that the person who wrote that dictionary definition has absolutely no clue what real "witchcraft" is all about.

In fact, here's a definition from a quick Google Search:

witch·craft/ˈwiCHˌkraft/
Noun:
The practice of magic, esp. black magic; the use of spells and the invocation of spirits.

Especially black magic? Where the hell did they come up with that nonsense?

And what's a "spell"? That term right there is highly misunderstood and highly debated even among people who claim to practice "witchcraft". Many people who practice witchcraft as a religion don't even like to use the term "spell". They prefer to think in terms of psychic awareness and the orchestration of will via psychic channels. Replace the term "psychic" with "cerebral" and you could almost be a secular atheist and practice witchcraft at the same time.

Invocation of spirits? What does the term 'spirit' even mean to you?

I can call up a spirit anytime I want. But it may not fit your definition of what you require a 'spirit' to be.

Let's look at a simple definition again:

spir·it/ˈspirit/
Noun:
The nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.

Well, I can certainly call up my own spirit anytime I so desire. And if you are familiar with the concept of the Occultist's Qabalah (which you probably aren't) I can also call up any spirit associated with the Qabalah anytime I so desire.

Are those "spirits' just facets of my very own spirit? Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. Who's to say? Even I can't say for sure, and I'm the one who's been calling them up!

That's why I'm still an Agnostic Spiritualist. If I could say with absolute certainty that the spirits I invoke are not merely facets of my very own spirit, then I'd be a Gnostic Spiritualist instead of an Agnostic Spiritualist.

But to claim that I deserve no respect simply because I'm open-minded to concepts that can be loosely labeled as "witchcraft", is truly nothing more than your own closed-minded prejudice and conclusion-jumping that I somehow associate "witchcraft" with ideas that you might imagine it should be.

You're imagination of what "witchcraft" should be, and my imagination of what "witchcraft" should be may be like parallel universes and have basically nothing in common at all.

All you're doing is trying to push your ideas of "witchcraft" onto me and and then passing judgement on me based on your ideas of what you think "witchcraft" should be.

That's ridiculous.

[The Grand Nudger]

A conclusion that someone has a few screws loose the minute they invoke withcraft is warranted. Completely warranted.

The only ideas about witchcraft are imagined, because witchcraft is imaginary bullshit.

Absurd...like witchcraft?

I've read enough books on witchcraft to last me several lifetimes.I'm a longtime witchvox poster..it's still bullshit. That people have imagined a wide variety of bullshit lends said bullshit absolutely no credibility.

Real witchcraft? nickers:

That's the common usage, that's where they came up with it. In western culture it has negative implications almost entirely across the board.

What's a spell...well, you don't like dictionaries..so I guess it will remain a vague undefined concept. There is no such thing as psychic awareness, or psychic channels. Many atheists do entertain the idea of magic and pyschic abilities (so no words need to be replaced)...atheism does not address this. You can be an atheist and believe in fairies...or be an atheist rubbing love candles with magic oil. You'd still be an atheist.

Ah, I see, you like to use well understood and defined words until you realize you need to gtfo..then you want to quibble over a definition? How about this, if you don't like the definition of a word for a concept you're trying to communicate, use a different word, or make up your own?

Sigh, Kabbalah? You're all over the board. Kabbala is, again...bullshit. You can summon no such spirit, because no such spirit exists. These things aren't even facets of your own "non-physical" anything, and if you'd like to lean forward I'll tap you on the very physical place all of this resides....

[KichigaiNeko]

---

You can't just point to a dictionary and think that you have resolved an
argument.

I can point to a dictionary and tell you that since you are not using the words as they mean, your argument is nonsensical.

Words simply aren't that concrete.

Yes, they are. In the sense that within a specific context they have specific meaning.

As I had already pointed out, even our concept of "reason" changes as we learn more about the nature of reality. What we deem to be "unreasonable" at one point in time, suddenly becomes "reasonable" at another point in time. Our very understanding of what we deem to be "reasonable" chances dynamically.

Don't equate "reasonable" with "reason". "Reason" is the way we gain knowledge. "Reasonable" is our conclusion if the apparent knowledge gained is not contradictory to the knowledge we have. It is definitely expected that the idea of what is "reasonable" would change as knowledge grows, but reason itself does not change.

So how could a dictionary even help in cases like this?

By indicating the content of current knowledge.

If you could simply turn to a dictionary to decide every argument all of science and philosophy would be finished and there would be no mysteries left.

Nonsense. Not all arguments, just yours. When an argument is presented, before evaluating it, one has to make sure if makes sense. If it doesn't then there is no need to go any further. Once you start making sensible arguments, I wouldn't have to point out the semantic errors and we can move on to the content of the argument itself. As long as you don't the content is indecipherable.

Any time you want to know something just run off and see what the dictionary has to say about it.

Nah. I google.

You can't build a philosophy based on semantics.

Philosophy cannot be "based" on semantics. And it cannot be built without it either. A philosophy that does not even bother to learn the meaning of the words it is expressed in would be incoherent and self-contradictory.

It simply doesn't provide a strong enough foundation to build upon. It would be like trying to build a house on quicksand.

And a philosophy without semantics is like a house built of quicksand.

I have no interest in going there. I read over the rest of your post, and as far as I can see that's precisely where you're headed.

That's totally false. I'm willing to discuss anything with anyone who is truly interested in the concept that I'm attempting to convey.

And how do you propose to convey the meaning if you don't use the words according to their meaning?

But if they are going to stand there with a dictionary attempting to try to claim what I mean based on dictionary definitions, that's would make communication impossible because they would be attempting to force concepts onto me rather than genuinely trying to understand the concepts that I'm trying to get at.

So we have established that you have no interest in the meaning of the words you are using to describe your concepts. How else is one supposed to understand what you are saying unless there is an objective standard for communication? Psychically?

Like I say, I'm more interested in communication than in talking to a robot who just stands there arguing the semantics of words.

Communication without semantically correct communique is pointless. Neither party can be sure if the message was understood as it was intended.

If you think I've misused a word, instead of arguing with me about the meaning of the word, just ask me to clarify my point.

Rather than misusing the words, its as if you don't understand what they mean and which premises must be true for the concepts represented by those words to be applicable.

That is the essence of true communication.

Communication requires that the communicating parties share an area of communicative commonality - in this case, words with objective meaning.

And communication is the ultimate goal of speech. Not arguing about semantics.

Absence of semantics would make communication impossible.

But let's face it, you're just extremely hostile to my concepts,

Because they don't make any sense.

so you aren't the slightest bit interested in trying to understand them.

Because without semantically correct arguments, certain understanding is not possible.

All you are interested in doing it creating a barrier where it's impossible to communicate at all an pretend that it's all my fault because I supposedly don't even have the ability to use words correctly.

What you don't have is the ability to grasp the inescapable premises that your arguments are intended to deny.

That's overly pompous on your part and totally false to boot.

That I'm exacting?

And that's why it would be a waste of time to attempt to communicate with you. Face it, you just don't want to hear it. And that's all there is to that.

As long as you have no intention of making a rational and self-consistent argument - no, there is not point in communication. But don't presume that if you do make such an argument, the its fallacies and errors won't be pointed out.

Just because witchcraft doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that it's nonsense.

Witchcraft - practices using something supernatural which is by definition beyond human understanding. How can it make sense when its very existence requires something that cannot make sense?


"Why isn't the post showing?"

---

You missed a quote tag genkaus

---

"Witchcraft" is just headology / psychology. Inspiring gullible people into thinking that something magical has happens because if you gave the scientific reason they would not understand and miss the whole point of you explaining anything to them.

"Witches" were just women who knew a bit to alot more than your average person and so they were persecuted because it was they who would talk to the Housewives stating that "you should move the privy away from the well because the goblins are attacking the children and making them ill, hear is a tincture of garlic and a few other herbs that will help the children" Woe be unto them should they actually state that having you sewerage right next to your drinking water would encourage "invisible bugs" called bacteria which are making the children sick.

As has been stated in another thread...we are a gullible species and can be convinced that we see Dragons when there is nothing there ...

[Abracadabra]

---

A conclusion that someone has a few screws loose the minute they invoke withcraft is warranted. Completely warranted.

The only ideas about witchcraft are imagined, because witchcraft is imaginary bullshit.

Absurd...like witchcraft?

I've read enough books on witchcraft to last me several lifetimes.I'm a longtime witchvox poster..it's still bullshit. That people have imagined a wide variety of bullshit lends said bullshit absolutely no credibility.

Real witchcraft? nickers:

That's the common usage, that's where they came up with it. In western culture it has negative implications almost entirely across the board.

What's a spell...well, you don't like dictionaries..so I guess it will remain a vague undefined concept. There is no such thing as psychic awareness, or psychic channels. Many atheists do entertain the idea of magic and pyschic abilities (so no words need to be replaced)...atheism does not address this. You can be an atheist and believe in fairies...or be an atheist rubbing love candles with magic oil. You'd still be an atheist.

Ah, I see, you like to use well understood and defined words until you realize you need to gtfo..then you want to quibble over a definition? How about this, if you don't like the definition of a word for a concept you're trying to communicate, use a different word, or make up your own?

Sigh, Kabbalah? You're all over the board. Kabbala is, again...bullshit. You can summon no such spirit, because no such spirit exists. These things aren't even facets of your own "non-physical" anything, and if you'd like to lean forward I'll tap you on the very physical place all of this resides....

---

So in other words, anyone who disagrees with your views of life is stupid and undeserving of respect?

I see.

Anyone else feel this way?

May as well speak up now whilst the topic is hot.

I'll just make a list of all your screen names and treat you in precisely the same way then. Seems only fair don't you think?

[tackattack]

you missed a hide tag KN