RE: Epicurean Paradox
April 10, 2012 at 4:45 pm
(This post was last modified: April 10, 2012 at 4:49 pm by NoMoreFaith.)
Are you seriously cherry picking wanton out of the definition of malicious and then using a second order definition to obtain your means?
Second order definitions do not equate to the primary. The primary itself uses malicious in motivation.
The usage of wanton in this order, in context, "Why jeopardize your career in such a wanton way?" requires the assumption you are aware your actions jeopardise your goal, whereas non-belief in God does not presuppose the awareness. An inaccurate context undermines your game sir.
Word games hold little interest for me. If you wish to continue to do so, I suggest we play scrabble, and not debate, because I have no interest if you continue with the move the goalpost manoeuvre.
No doubt you will claim that this rather twisted method of getting to without motivation, despite the second order of definition, defies the usage you have already used it.
However, I am aware of your response, and it will be entirely assertion that your second order definition is correct, in which case I should point out, that you should be more careful with your words, as if you are unable to choose words which support your case, then you are unable to support debate in your corner.
As in using the secondary definition of a word plucked from the secondary definition of malicious?
You're funny.
Naturally by "funny" I mean plucking the word impertinent from the second order definition of funny, and the second order definition of impertinent, of which second definition is incongruously absurd.
On the contrary, I am open to ideas about how and why the bible exists, and I am aware of its questionably historical origins. The question is; can you step outside your assertions long enough to long back at your belief?
Aah, yet you cannot see the effects of the fae, who enter our world from the seelie and unseelie kingdoms? Or the works of Anubis?
I said you'd start asserting. Glad to see you don't like to disappoint.
Oh but they are. My sons and wife are pillars of my universe, and thats all I need. They are tangible, loving and I see evidence truly every day. But mythological beasts and demons? A sound mind has no need.
So who do I hold in such high esteem.
Again, on the contrary, I merely ask for something more than dusty old myths to convince me.
Its not a lot to ask. I look for magic and wonder everywhere I look. I find it, regularly, but none of it supernatural.
You assume the rhetorical you as a personal one. My statement of prayer matches a great many people. The fact that your version of prayer requires God to do nothing, does not prove that he answered them.
Now you assume too much. Why would I not want eternal life? Why would I not want comfort of those who die. Why would I not want a wonderful reason for pain and suffering that justifies every inch of it.
No. You assume again I do not want these things. You merely assert that I don't. The question is; Why should I believe in the faeries, if the faeries refuse to offer evidence of their existence except in the dark private thoughts of the faithfully deluded.
That is not a sound argument. Life is too wonderful to put stock in faery tales and...
Second order definitions do not equate to the primary. The primary itself uses malicious in motivation.
The usage of wanton in this order, in context, "Why jeopardize your career in such a wanton way?" requires the assumption you are aware your actions jeopardise your goal, whereas non-belief in God does not presuppose the awareness. An inaccurate context undermines your game sir.
Word games hold little interest for me. If you wish to continue to do so, I suggest we play scrabble, and not debate, because I have no interest if you continue with the move the goalpost manoeuvre.
No doubt you will claim that this rather twisted method of getting to without motivation, despite the second order of definition, defies the usage you have already used it.
However, I am aware of your response, and it will be entirely assertion that your second order definition is correct, in which case I should point out, that you should be more careful with your words, as if you are unable to choose words which support your case, then you are unable to support debate in your corner.
(April 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm)Drich Wrote:Don't forget the dictionary too. I have a tendency to use words by their given definitions rather than slang interpretation of them.
As in using the secondary definition of a word plucked from the secondary definition of malicious?
You're funny.
Naturally by "funny" I mean plucking the word impertinent from the second order definition of funny, and the second order definition of impertinent, of which second definition is incongruously absurd.
(April 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm)Drich Wrote: The same goes for the bible, but without using personal bias, you are unable to conceive of the idea that the Bible being an account of the means to know this being is not the most probable explanation for its existence.
On the contrary, I am open to ideas about how and why the bible exists, and I am aware of its questionably historical origins. The question is; can you step outside your assertions long enough to long back at your belief?
(April 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm)Drich Wrote: I see the results of God everyday, and see the effects of God on the lives of the people I interact with daily.
Aah, yet you cannot see the effects of the fae, who enter our world from the seelie and unseelie kingdoms? Or the works of Anubis?
I said you'd start asserting. Glad to see you don't like to disappoint.
(April 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm)Drich Wrote: You nor those you hold in high esteem are the pillars of the universe you understand them to be.
Oh but they are. My sons and wife are pillars of my universe, and thats all I need. They are tangible, loving and I see evidence truly every day. But mythological beasts and demons? A sound mind has no need.
So who do I hold in such high esteem.
(April 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm)Drich Wrote: The Same Exact thing can be said about you and what you believe.
Again, on the contrary, I merely ask for something more than dusty old myths to convince me.
Its not a lot to ask. I look for magic and wonder everywhere I look. I find it, regularly, but none of it supernatural.
(April 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm)Drich Wrote: You assume too much. For prayer is not the formal wishing ceremony you have made it out to be here. If one prays according to the prayer modeled in scripture then you will indeed have it answered.
You assume the rhetorical you as a personal one. My statement of prayer matches a great many people. The fact that your version of prayer requires God to do nothing, does not prove that he answered them.
(April 10, 2012 at 4:16 pm)Drich Wrote: Or you simply need this to be true in order that you may in good conscience dismiss what you do not want or are afraid to explore on your own.
Now you assume too much. Why would I not want eternal life? Why would I not want comfort of those who die. Why would I not want a wonderful reason for pain and suffering that justifies every inch of it.
No. You assume again I do not want these things. You merely assert that I don't. The question is; Why should I believe in the faeries, if the faeries refuse to offer evidence of their existence except in the dark private thoughts of the faithfully deluded.
That is not a sound argument. Life is too wonderful to put stock in faery tales and...
Shakespeare Wrote:To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
To throw a perfume on the violet,
To smooth the ice, or add another hue
Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light
To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish,
Is wasteful and ridiculous excess.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
