Soooooooooo.....no rapture...again.

[V8tt]

I will say that you have some undying desire to try and use the dictionary to prove some point that you really don't have. As I read your posts I can actually visualize you about 3 inches from the computer screen as you Google words for their definitions. But I digress. In reference to one of your so eloquently copied and pasted words:

Definition of PROOF

a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

b: something that induces certainty or establishes validity

I took out the other 4-5 definitions that ALSO defined proof. I kept the ones that relate to our discussion. As you can plainly see, we are arguing semantics.

Semantics is defined (one of the definitions) as:

"the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics. "

If you go back to the definition of proof you will find that when I used the word in reference to Denny, I used it correctly. Now, one may argue (I will not) that what I am speaking of is NOT evidence; at which point I will use your dictionary yet again:

ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.
Idiom:
in evidence
1. Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets.
2. Law As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence.

So by using the definition of evidence I have accurately used proof in relation to a theist's faith as being possible proof - TO THEM. Which is NOT necessarily good enough to be proof FOR YOU. I did not twist the definitions. What you are seeming to do is take ONE of the many definitions given and use it in the way that you want it to be used.

You ask "how it is that you can tell him what proof he does and does not have" and I ask you how you can tell him that his beliefs and experiences do not count as proof to HIM when using the definition of proof from above: "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact". If you need to revisit the definition of "evidence", it is above as well.

I could go on and on, but frankly I just don't care to. I have nothing to prove to you, nor anyone else. I simply wanted to address some of your post and I have done that.

On a side note: You seem like a reasonably smart person, but you intentionally/unintentionally come off as condescending in your posts. You have used the dictionary in this one topic more than has probably been used in the history of this site, which makes me think that either 1. You are shallow and can't have a discussion without relying on other sources and/or 2. You are very very uptight and any deviation from your understanding of a topic sends you into hysterics upon which you must try and prove someone wrong. Either way I don't really give a shit. I am not even going to properly address the Shroud of Turin I used as an example and which you are WRONG about. I say wrong because you mention it as an

elaborate fake

Fake is defined as:

fake1    /feɪk/ Show Spelled
[feyk] Show IPA
verb, faked, fak·ing, noun, adjective
–verb (used with object)
1. prepare or make (something specious, deceptive, or fraudulent): to fake a report showing nonexistent profits.
2. to conceal the defects of or make appear more attractive, interesting, valuable, etc., usually in order to deceive: The story was faked a bit to make it more sensational.
3. to pretend; simulate: to fake illness.
EXPAND4. to accomplish by trial and error or by improvising: I don't know the job, but I can fake it. 5. to trick or deceive (an opponent) by making a fake (often followed by out ): The running back faked out the defender with a deft move and scored. 6. Jazz . a. to improvise: to fake an accompaniment. b. to play (music) without reading from a score. COLLAPSE
.
–verb (used without object)
7. to fake something; pretend.
8. to give a fake to an opponent.
–noun
9. anything made to appear otherwise than it actually is; counterfeit: This diamond necklace is a fake.
10. a person who fakes; faker: The doctor with the reputed cure for cancer proved to be a fake.
11. a spurious report or story.
EXPAND12. Sports . a simulated play or move intended to deceive an opponent. COLLAPSE
–adjective
13. designed to deceive or cheat; not real; counterfeit.
—Verb phrase
14. fake out, Slang .
a. to trick; deceive: She faked me out by acting friendly and then stole my job.
b. to surprise, as by a sudden reversal: They thought we weren't coming back, but we faked them out by showing up during dinner.

And since you are really smart and all, it is suprising that you misuse a word after trying to so vehemently prove that others here are misusing words and/or are too stupid to understand definitions.

See...we can ALL use the eDictionary.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm

A couple of sites that talk about the Shroud as not being a forgery/fake. I am sure you can show me some where they do claim it is a forgery. I don't really give a shit because I was using it as an example, not a basis for a new argument.

Nor will I mention Noah's Ark which you could RIGHT about. I have no proof and I do not have any faith that it is real, which leads to no real belief system about the boat/rock formation/? on the mountain.

Dude, there are a lot of smart people on here...Denny being one of them. I don't know the dude and I am not nut swinging. I have read a ton of his posts and they are usually insightful and I tend to learn some from them...especially in the area of silver and the economy. If you would quit trying to erroneously prove everyone wrong...you might learn something. Let me guess ( I could be wrong), you are in college and think that because some professor has taught you a thing or two about etymology, now you think you have all of the answers...or at least know how to Google them. Maybe I am wrong but that is how you come off. You have been here what...5 months or so and made 40 posts? Get to know a few of us here..not everyone is a dumb redneck with an attitude. If you are ever in Ft Worth, I will buy you a beer and we can further discuss definitions.

[Denny]

You're under the impression that agnostics think that the christian god can exist. Not anything else. Most agnostics that I've spoken with believe that there probably is a higher power but no religion understands what that higher power is.

Negative. I said God. You don't speak for all of them. I'm sure we can find one that is on the fence of anything that can be deemed a Creator might exist just as well as nothing... if we google our little hearts out, I'm sure we can find them!

As for V8tt's posts... I don't think I've ever met the guy, but I see that he gets it.

And I'm going to take that beer offer up. It's been a while since I've had one. I'm in DFW from June 12th-June 28th; accepting all offers of beer from the heathens of this site!

[jdgregory84]

Negative. I said God. You don't speak for all of them. I'm sure we can find one that is on the fence of anything that can be deemed a Creator might exist just as well as nothing... if we google our little hearts out, I'm sure we can find them!

As for V8tt's posts... I don't think I've ever met the guy, but I see that he gets it.

And I'm going to take that beer offer up. It's been a while since I've had one. I'm in DFW from June 12th-June 28th; accepting all offers of beer from the heathens of this site!

You actually refered to God as "He."

[Denny]

You actually refered to God as "He."

ya...

[Maddhattter]

Negative. I said God. You don't speak for all of them. I'm sure we can find one that is on the fence of anything that can be deemed a Creator might exist just as well as nothing... if we google our little hearts out, I'm sure we can find them!

As for V8tt's posts... I don't think I've ever met the guy, but I see that he gets it.

And I'm going to take that beer offer up. It's been a while since I've had one. I'm in DFW from June 12th-June 28th; accepting all offers of beer from the heathens of this site!

“As for V8tt's posts... I don't think I've ever met the guy, but I see that he gets it.”
If you mean that V8tt demonstrates his understanding by offering nothing more than a string of fallacies as an initial argument and a rebuttal, we can agree on that one.

I will say that you have some undying desire to try and use the dictionary to prove some point that you really don't have. As I read your posts I can actually visualize you about 3 inches from the computer screen as you Google words for their definitions.

I have been using the dictionary to achieve a certain end, this I admit. I’m not sure why you can’t just say what that point is, as I’ve stated it myself.

In order for all of us to communicate, we all have to be working off the same basis of definitions, i.e. the dictionary, since that’s what our language uses, so that we are not talking about different things. So please, dispense with the redefining of words, and stick to using them as they are defined.

I will also say that your visualization of my proximity to the screen is only slightly off. When using the Nvidia 3D Vision glasses, the screen becomes unreadable beyond an inch and a half or so.

But I digress. In reference to one of your so eloquently copied and pasted words:

Definition of PROOF

a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

b: something that induces certainty or establishes validity

I took out the other 4-5 definitions that ALSO defined proof. I kept the ones that relate to our discussion. As you can plainly see, we are arguing semantics.

Semantics is defined (one of the definitions) as:

"the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics. "

If you go back to the definition of proof you will find that when I used the word in reference to Denny, I used it correctly.

Rereading your first post, again, I agree that the definition you pulled from my “eloquently copied and pasted words” is the definition of proof that you were using. The problem is the whole reason I posted the definitions of both proof and faith. In your previous post, you equivocated proof and faith, going so far as to say “Proof and faith can sometimes be used interchangeably and still be correct”. The purpose of defining both proof and faith in my post was to illustrate the primary point of my post, that faith and proof are not interchangeable, by definition.

That is why I posted the definition of faith at the end. Considering the second definition is the one that relates to our discussion, it clearly states:

Definition of FAITH

2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

So, when my statements and definitions are put into the context they were used in, we are not arguing semantics. Due to the fact that the pertinent definition of faith excludes proof, and therefore cannot be interchanged with it.

[Maddhattter]

Now, one may argue (I will not) that what I am speaking of is NOT evidence; at which point I will use your dictionary yet again:

ev•i•dence (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev•i•denced, ev•i•denc•ing, ev•i•denc•es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.
Idiom:
in evidence
1. Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets.
2. Law As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence.

So by using the definition of evidence I have accurately used proof in relation to a theist's faith as being possible proof - TO THEM. Which is NOT necessarily good enough to be proof FOR YOU. I did not twist the definitions. What you are seeming to do is take ONE of the many definitions given and use it in the way that you want it to be used.

I never said that his belief was not good enough for him. Since he states he believes in God, his faith must be good enough for him. I brought up a few points in my previous posts, the main point in my post being that faith and proof cannot be used interchangeably as they are defined as very different things, especially the pertinent definition of faith in regards to this conversation.

As for the argument of evidence, you never referenced evidence in your post, so I never touched on it.

I’ve not taken anything out of context. I use the words you use in a message to figure out what it is you are saying. I give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you intend to say what you are saying, and use the words you use in the context in which you use them. Sorry if that is inconveniencing.

You ask "how it is that you can tell him what proof he does and does not have" and I ask you how you can tell him that his beliefs and experiences do not count as proof to HIM when using the definition of proof from above: "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact". If you need to revisit the definition of "evidence", it is above as well.

Now, by stripping out the second part of the definition, you’ve fallen into the problem I try to avoid. Truth and fact are not objective. Neither is reason. All I have been doing in this thread is pointing out that the claims that Denny has sent my direction are not reasonable, truth, or fact in the context of concluding the God hypothesis as accurate. I first entered this thread to illustrate how the burden of proof concept works, and how he was not applying it properly. He began to throw different claims, I countered them. So, in regards to offering is past experiences and beliefs as proof, he is attempting to demonstrate the weight of evidence to someone in which it holds no weight.

Even if I were stating that “his beliefs and experiences do not count as proof to HIM”, I would not be needing the definition of evidence to discount it as proof, due to the aforementioned, non-objective truth and fact clause.

Regardless of that, if I were claiming that his beliefs and experiences do not count as proof to him, I would bring up the fact that there is a well documented phenomena that demonstrates how poor data taking and storage devices we, as people, are. I would venture a guess that we all, at one point or another, have participated in a test of this phenomena. I would guess what we all have played the telephone game at one point or another in our lives. We remember things poorly, and when we do remember things, we remember them through a lens of our current perceptions, or beliefs, distorting it even more. In conclusion, if I were to argue that “his beliefs and experiences do not count as proof to HIM” there is evidence to support that his beliefs and experiences, in fact, do not count as proof, to anyone. What it does do, is provide some supporting evidence to him, which by definition, is not proof.

I could go on and on, but frankly I just don't care to. I have nothing to prove to you, nor anyone else. I simply wanted to address some of your post and I have done that.

Believe it or not, this does disappoint me. I do care about the God topic. That is why I engage in these discussions. While I do not have a belief in god/gods/supernatural myself, I consistently want to make sure that my beliefs accurately reflect reality as much as possible. So, if someone can provide PROOF of any supernatural event or creature, I want to know, so that I can stop spreading misinformation.

[Maddhattter]

On a side note: You seem like a reasonably smart person, but you intentionally/unintentionally come off as condescending in your posts. You have used the dictionary in this one topic more than has probably been used in the history of this site, which makes me think that either 1. You are shallow and can't have a discussion without relying on other sources and/or 2. You are very very uptight and any deviation from your understanding of a topic sends you into hysterics upon which you must try and prove someone wrong. Either way I don't really give a shit.

I admit to sometimes intentionally being condescending in a few of my posts, but, as a general rule of thumb, I don’t intend to be condescending. That is why I try to avoid ad hominem attacks. I do use them on occasion, but I don’t try to prop up my argument using them.

On to your other points, I fail to see how citing my source is being shallow. I have not been discussing my opinion on things and I have been making claims. Therefore, the burden of proof, for my claim, rests solely on my shoulders. When discussing definitions, the best source for them is the dictionary. I attempted to explain that in my previous post, but perhaps I was not thorough enough.

As for being uptight? I don’t think I am. I can say that I don’t fly into hysterics upon anything. I’m not properly equipped to go into hysterics. XD

I am not even going to properly address the Shroud of Turin I used as an example and which you are WRONG about. I say wrong because you mention it as an

elaborate fake

Fake is defined as:

fake1    /feɪk/ Show Spelled
[feyk] Show IPA
verb, faked, fak•ing, noun, adjective
–verb (used with object)
1. prepare or make (something specious, deceptive, or fraudulent): to fake a report showing nonexistent profits.
2. to conceal the defects of or make appear more attractive, interesting, valuable, etc., usually in order to deceive: The story was faked a bit to make it more sensational.
3. to pretend; simulate: to fake illness.
EXPAND4. to accomplish by trial and error or by improvising: I don't know the job, but I can fake it. 5. to trick or deceive (an opponent) by making a fake (often followed by out ): The running back faked out the defender with a deft move and scored. 6. Jazz . a. to improvise: to fake an accompaniment. b. to play (music) without reading from a score. COLLAPSE
.
–verb (used without object)
7. to fake something; pretend.
8. to give a fake to an opponent.
–noun
9. anything made to appear otherwise than it actually is; counterfeit: This diamond necklace is a fake.
10. a person who fakes; faker: The doctor with the reputed cure for cancer proved to be a fake.
11. a spurious report or story.
EXPAND12. Sports . a simulated play or move intended to deceive an opponent. COLLAPSE
–adjective
13. designed to deceive or cheat; not real; counterfeit.
—Verb phrase
14. fake out, Slang .
a. to trick; deceive: She faked me out by acting friendly and then stole my job.
b. to surprise, as by a sudden reversal: They thought we weren't coming back, but we faked them out by showing up during dinner.

[Maddhattter]

Continued from previous post..

And since you are really smart and all, it is suprising that you misuse a word after trying to so vehemently prove that others here are misusing words and/or are too stupid to understand definitions.

Not going to jump on this too much, as I’m going to assume that it was nothing more than an oversight on your part.

–noun
9. anything made to appear otherwise than it actually is; counterfeit: This diamond necklace is a fake.
10. a person who fakes; faker: The doctor with the reputed cure for cancer proved to be a fake.
11. a spurious report or story.
EXPAND12. Sports . a simulated play or move intended to deceive an opponent. COLLAPSE

Remember, context is key.

See...we can ALL use the eDictionary.

But apparently, only some of us use it properly.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm

New information on my part. Thank you, immensely, for being one of the few people I’ve come across that will cite their sources, and actually cite relevant sources to their claim.

A couple of sites that talk about the Shroud as not being a forgery/fake. I am sure you can show me some where they do claim it is a forgery. I don't really give a shit because I was using it as an example, not a basis for a new argument.

Nor will I mention Noah's Ark which you could RIGHT about. I have no proof and I do not have any faith that it is real, which leads to no real belief system about the boat/rock formation/? on the mountain.

While I concede that I’ve not thoroughly read the 2 papers you linked. I will assume, for the sake of this discussion that they do provide evidence that the Shroud of Turin is not an elaborate fake. By the fact that there are scientific studies that claim it to be a fake, I will have to concede that it is scientifically contested. I’ll even go so far as to give you the same consideration for the Noah’s Ark example. The issue I was bringing us is the false analogy. Quasars are not scientifically contested. That is akin to saying that my belief that there is no life at the bottom of the Marianas Trench, is equivalent to the belief of a Pastafarian, assuming you can find one who truly believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

One claim can be supported by evidence, no life at the bottom of Marianas Trench, while the other is not indicated, Pastafarian deity. To equate them is a false analogy, breaking that part of the argument, because you used the equivocation as an example, not in spite of it.

Dude, there are a lot of smart people on here...Denny being one of them. I don't know the dude and I am not nut swinging. I have read a ton of his posts and they are usually insightful and I tend to learn some from them...especially in the area of silver and the economy. If you would quit trying to erroneously prove everyone wrong...you might learn something. Let me guess ( I could be wrong), you are in college and think that because some professor has taught you a thing or two about etymology, now you think you have all of the answers...or at least know how to Google them. Maybe I am wrong but that is how you come off. You have been here what...5 months or so and made 40 posts? Get to know a few of us here..not everyone is a dumb redneck with an attitude. If you are ever in Ft Worth, I will buy you a beer and we can further discuss definitions.

Never claimed that there were no smart people on here, nor have I ever intended to indicate such. I’ve also never even spoken on his insightfulness into the area of silver and the economy. I’ve not tried to erroneously prove someone wrong. I have demonstrated how the evidence they use to support their God hypothesis is not proof, especially when it is faith, refer to relevant definition above.

You are the first person to bring up account age and post count as if it relates to anything. Never have I made the claim that anyone is “a dumb redneck with an attitude”, let alone everyone. I will state again, that, in most cases, I do not intend to come off as condescending. Nor have I thought I was coming off as such.

As for college, been done with that a few years, and looking forward to continuing at a later date. I just don’t understand how this is relevant. In your previous post, you walked through a false equivocation\analogy fallacy twice. In the post I’m responding to you ran the gamut of cherry picking, straw man fallacy, false equivocation\analogy, ad hominem to outright irrelevancy. Now, this in no way makes you stupid, nor is it my intent to imply you as such. It does, however, indicate that the respective points you made using them as fallacious.

Would love to sit down and have a few beers and discuss… well… anything. I love a good discussion. I prefer face to face discussions anyway. Less attempts at dry humor lost in translation.

[V8tt]

Touche' and good discussion. I think that the interwebz are sometimes a poor medium for getting points across. I read your post(s) agree with some of your points, while disagreeing with some of the others. This may very well be one of the first posts in DFWMustangs/DFWStangs history where someone did not call someone else a cocksucker/asshole/dickhead (you get the point) and/or offer to meet at Sonic for fisticuffs. I get back from San Diego mid-August, so if you and/or Denny are this way then let's have a few.

[ceyko]

Touche' and good discussion. I think that the interwebz are sometimes a poor medium for getting points across. I read your post(s) agree with some of your points, while disagreeing with some of the others. This may very well be one of the first posts in DFWMustangs/DFWStangs history where someone did not call someone else a cocksucker/asshole/dickhead (you get the point) and/or offer to meet at Sonic for fisticuffs. I get back from San Diego mid-August, so if you and/or Denny are this way then let's have a few.

Cocksucker, JITB, 15 minutes dickhead asshole!

[V8tt]

Cocksucker, JITB, 15 minutes dickhead asshole!

Fuck you Ceyko! You can come have some beers as well, but you are buying the first round...asshole.

[V8tt]

And I'm going to take that beer offer up. It's been a while since I've had one. I'm in DFW from June 12th-June 28th; accepting all offers of beer from the heathens of this site!

I'll be back in town around the 23rd of June for a few weeks to check on my restaurant. Hit a few of us up Denny and we'll have a few. You can tell us a few stories about the sandbox.

[jdgregory84]

ya...

Kinda narrows down which God you're talking about. Unless I'm looking too much into it.

[Denny]

I'll be back in town around the 23rd of June for a few weeks to check on my restaurant. Hit a few of us up Denny and we'll have a few. You can tell us a few stories about the sandbox.

Deal

Kinda narrows down which God you're talking about. Unless I'm looking too much into it.

Not really, but if it helps you get to sleep tonight, so be it.

[ceyko]

Deal

Post up when in town, I would not mind meeting you but I'll be damned if I'm going to have serious conversation when drinking! Ya'll can quote the bible, I just sit in the corner farting and burping for entertainment purposes.