|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 02/08/2007 : 16:52:48 [Permalink]
|
Neurosis said:
quote:
Is supernatural gibberish? No. Is it a useful term? No. It means literally everything that is not under natural law. This is exactly the same as if I invented a word Hjek in referece to height which means not 5 feet. If I then said that a building is Hjek, I have said only that it is not five feet tall. Nearly unusable information, but information none the less.
The term supernatural is the same. It is not edifying to use the term in a description. There is no reason to accept such a description as anything more than gibberish (Dude's point of view), but it does inform of something (Marf's point of view) no matter how useless. Like knowing the belt size of the man you are interviewing for a job. Or for the Allies to know the name of Hitler's first grade teacher.
Ehhh.... no.
Gibberish:
quote:
1 : confused, unintelligible, or meaningless speech or language
Within the context of reality, when describing things that are real, the term "supernatural" has no meaning, therefore it is gibberish. It is an invented word that the ignorant use to explain things they don't understand. "Supernatural" does not describe anything and it has no meaning outside the context of the various fantasies it is used to describe.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2007 : 17:52:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Neurosis said:
quote:
Is supernatural gibberish? No. Is it a useful term? No. It means literally everything that is not under natural law. This is exactly the same as if I invented a word Hjek in referece to height which means not 5 feet. If I then said that a building is Hjek, I have said only that it is not five feet tall. Nearly unusable information, but information none the less.
The term supernatural is the same. It is not edifying to use the term in a description. There is no reason to accept such a description as anything more than gibberish (Dude's point of view), but it does inform of something (Marf's point of view) no matter how useless. Like knowing the belt size of the man you are interviewing for a job. Or for the Allies to know the name of Hitler's first grade teacher.
Ehhh.... no.
Gibberish:
quote:
1 : confused, unintelligible, or meaningless speech or language
Within the context of reality, when describing things that are real, the term "supernatural" has no meaning, therefore it is gibberish. It is an invented word that the ignorant use to explain things they don't understand. "Supernatural" does not describe anything and it has no meaning outside the context of the various fantasies it is used to describe.
Uh... are you serious? I mean this whole time i thought your were speaking from the stand point of usable language. If you truly are talking about meaning, then you are wrong because supernatural, is defined. It has meaning, its just that it means things we can't test for because they are beyond (above) nature.
Gibberish defined:
"Gibberish is a generic term in English for talking that sounds like speech, but has no actual meaning."
Is the word supernatural confused speech that just sounds like language, such as tongue speech or when someone's broca's area is damaged (or wernicke's area for sentence structure)? No. Does it have a meaning? Yes. Therefore, you are wrong to use gibberish in its exact meaning. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 01:33:36 [Permalink]
|
If a thing exists, then it exists in nature(using the more encompassing meaning of nature here).
The word "supernatural" is used to describe things that exist outside of nature, which is rather self evidently impossible.
The word describes nothing. It is pure and utter gibberish.
You can easily refute my position by pointing out one single real thing that can use the word as a descriptor.
quote:
Is the word supernatural confused speech that just sounds like language, such as tongue speech or when someone's broca's area is damaged (or wernicke's area for sentence structure)? No. Does it have a meaning? Yes. Therefore, you are wrong to use gibberish in its exact meaning.
Nope. It sounds like speech, but it has no meaning, therefore it is gibberish. It is an invented phrase that has no value in any conversation about real things.
Even if there is some actual deity that exists outside of our universe, the word would still not be appropriate for a description. Such a deity would exist in a larger part of the natural world of which we are currently unaware, especially if such a being were able to interact with us inside our universe.
I may be using a more literal definition for "gibberish" than you are, but I think it is appropriate.
Now, if we are talking about supernatural in the popular sense (vampires, werewolves, elves, dragons, wizards, etc), then it gains some meaning within that specific context. But it isn't really used to mean "outside" of nature in that context either, just things outside of normal human experience. But that isn't the context we are discussing here.
(spelling edit) |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 02/09/2007 01:36:25 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 02:29:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
If a thing exists, then it exists in nature(using the more encompassing meaning of nature here).
Proove it.
quote:
The word "supernatural" is used to describe things that exist outside of nature, which is rather self evidently impossible.
Why?
quote:
The word describes nothing. It is pure and utter gibberish.
Wrong and that is not the definition of gibberish.
quote:
You can easily refute my position by pointing out one single real thing that can use the word as a descriptor.
You actually are the claimant. I am only saying that things which may exist but cannot be proven with our current understanding and perhaps even violate the laws of nature can be described as supernatural. It is no more different then using the term alien life to describe life not found on this planet. Is such life existent? Can I prove it? Yet still alien is not a gibberish word.
quote:
quote:
Is the word supernatural confused speech that just sounds like language, such as tongue speech or when someone's broca's area is damaged (or wernicke's area for sentence structure)? No. Does it have a meaning? Yes. Therefore, you are wrong to use gibberish in its exact meaning.
Nope. It sounds like speech, but it has no meaning, therefore it is gibberish. It is an invented phrase that has no value in any conversation about real things.
Bring that one up to websters because they define it in all of their dictionaries (actually I have not found a dictionary without the word in it). Also, the word gibberish means nothing about the useful explanation power of words, only whether they are real words with real meanings which the word supernatural is.
quote:
Even if there is some actual deity that exists outside of our universe, the word would still not be appropriate for a description. Such a deity would exist in a larger part of the natural world of which we are currently unaware, especially if such a being were able to interact with us inside our universe.
Says you and you alone. The god could live in another universe outside this one but one that allows the god to control this one from it or interact in some way. It would be supernatual then because it would be above the nature and the natural world as we know and define it. You may redefine nature to include anything that exists (changing natural to existent) but who cares? All you have done is include everything in the term making it literally as usless as the word supernatural is to describe things we know of currently.
quote:
I may be using a more literal definition for "gibberish" than you are, but I think it is appropriate.
No. You are using one you made up. I am using the literal one.
quote:
Now, if we are talking about supernatural in the popular sense (vampires, werewolves, elves, dragons, wizards, etc), then it gains some meaning within that specific context.
God also whithin its context which is the meaning I am claiming.
quote:
But it isn't really used to mean "outside" of nature in that context either, just things outside of normal human experience. But that isn't the context we are discussing here.
So... Elves, dragons, and wizards are all said to use magick and that is supernatural to our current definition. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 13:20:08 [Permalink]
|
Neurosis ssaid:
quote:
Proove it.
If a thing exists, it exists in nature. That is self evidently true unless you are using some obscure definitions for "exist" and "nature".
Just because a thing may exist outside of our current ability to detect in no way renders such things "ouside of nature".
quote:
Wrong and that is not the definition of gibberish.
Excellent job on cherrypicking and out-of-context arguing. I told you that I was using a more literal definition of the word gibberish, and that I think it is appropriate in this specific context.
From the Merriam Webster unabridged dictionary:
quote:
1 : confused, unintelligible, or meaningless speech or language
If a word has no meaning in a specific contest, then that word can safely be called gibberish, within that context.
quote:
I am only saying that things which may exist but cannot be proven with our current understanding and perhaps even violate the laws of nature can be described as supernatural.
Then you are not using the main definition of the word supernatural, and certainly not using the word in the context in which it was brought up in this thread. (Baxter's idea of "greater explanations")
quote:
It is no more different then using the term alien life to describe life not found on this planet. Is such life existent? Can I prove it? Yet still alien is not a gibberish word.
No. The idea of alien life is called speculation. If you fail to comprehend the difference here, it is unlikely that we can have any further resonable discussion.
quote:
Bring that one up to websters because they define it in all of their dictionaries (actually I have not found a dictionary without the word in it). Also, the word gibberish means nothing about the useful explanation power of words, only whether they are real words with real meanings which the word supernatural is.
I have no reason to expect that you are actually stupid, so the conclusion here is that you are being deliberately obtuse.
When describing a real thing the word "supernatural" describes nothing, it adds no meaning to any descrition of any real thing. In that context it is a gibberish word.
This half-assed straw man of yours, where you try to make it seem as if I am claiming that the word "supernatural" has no meaning in any context, is dismissed for the fallacy it is.
Back to "gibberish" for a second:
quote:
No. You are using one you made up. I am using the literal one.
From the wiki entry which you linked:
quote:
Despite its putative etymology, the word "gibberish" today is used to describe something which has no merit or makes no sense. (For example, "That's just a lot of gibberish.")
Thank you for providing support for my usage of the term.
quote:
Says you and you alone. The god could live in another universe outside this one but one that allows the god to control this one from it or interact in some way. It would be supernatual then because it would be above the nature and the natural world as we know and define it. You may redefine nature to include anything that exists (changing natural to existent) but who cares? All you have done is include everything in the term making it literally as usless as the word supernatural is to describe things we know of currently.
(emphasis added)
You are confused.
You are not using the word supernatural to mean "outside of nature", but to mean "outside normal human experience/outside current knowledge".
If the deity you described was real, then how could they possibly be "outside of nature"? The thing you describe is a being that exists in a part of the natrual world we are currently unaware of, nothing more.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 14:31:10 [Permalink]
|
| I typed a long response to you but then it got deleted. I am not typing it again, because you will never admit you are wrong and could I care less about how you use words. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 02/12/2007 14:31:39 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 17:13:40 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
If a thing exists, it exists in nature. That is self evidently true unless you are using some obscure definitions for "exist" and "nature".
Ah, here we see the problem - you don't know the common meaning of "nature" in the context of this conversation. Nature can be meant the way you just defined it, but not in any conversations which include mention of supernatural phenomenon. In those contexts, "nature" takes on a more narrow definition. Then it includes that realm of existence which is perceived by the senses and understood through science and reason. There are people who believe in a sixth sense which can perceive another, often regarded as higher, realm of existence.
Dude also wrote: quote:
It is an invented phrase that has no value in any conversation about real things.
Ha! I just had to comment on this since you did it twice now. All words are invented.
quote:
Even if there is some actual deity that exists outside of our universe, the word would still not be appropriate for a description. Such a deity would exist in a larger part of the natural world of which we are currently unaware, especially if such a being were able to interact with us inside our universe.
See - here be the semantics difference... you are using "nature" in a broad sense, while most people use it in a more narrow sense. "God" is often perceived to be an entity which created and can possibly control nature, and is thus not accurately considered part of nature.
quote:
I may be using a more literal definition for "gibberish" than you are, but I think it is appropriate.
It would have been more appropriate for you to just say that you are incapable or unwilling to even try to understand another point of view and contradicts your own.
quote:
Now, if we are talking about supernatural in the popular sense (vampires, werewolves, elves, dragons, wizards, etc), then it gains some meaning within that specific context. But it isn't really used to mean "outside" of nature in that context either, just things outside of normal human experience.
That is a very modern, post-Enlightenment perspective. Yes, most people who believe in vampires and werewolves also believe there is an explanation for them that somehow is consistent with the natural world and that can be studied by science and perceived by the five senses. But that is not how everyone regards those supposed phenomenon, nor is it how they have been traditionally regarded.
Well, thank you Dude for another fascinating debate over semantics. Ta ta. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/12/2007 17:16:07 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 17:18:13 [Permalink]
|
| Dude, if you have any doubt that "nature" can have a more narrow meaning than anything which exists, consider how we use the term "natural". We see it on products meant to indicate that they are not processed or created in a lab. We differentiate things which are "man-made" and "natural" even though humans are part of nature and when we make things, we are acting within our human nature. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
GK Paul
Skeptic Friend
USA
306 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 20:30:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
Yes, I should clarify. I don't mean to imply that believers (in anything on faith alone) are inherently unintelligent. I simply mean that a god that creates intelligent man,
Ah, but let us not forget God created man as a simpleton. It was only a talking snake (the cleverest of Gods creation) that convinced man to outsmart God by eating a piece of fruit which gave him knowledge...
How the hell do people actually delude themselves into believing this shit???
Only Christian literalists believe in the snake story. For example even Billy Graham is not a literalist... Actually the word serpent or dragon is a better translation than snake. But I as a non-literalist Christian do believe the concept (which is the most important thing) behind the serpent story is accurate. Man has turned away from and disobeyed God and His laws and has paid dearly and is continuing to pay for that disobedience. The names, dates, stories etc. in the Bible are not as important as the spiritual truths and God made universal laws behind those things.
I think people put an overemphasis on the the book called the Bible sometimes. For example did you know that the church of Jesus Christ was in existence for about 30 years before a single sentence of the New Testament was written. The New Testament came out of the Church of Christ not vice versa. |
"Something cannot come from nothing" -- Ken Tanaka - geologist
"The existence of a Being endowed with intelligence and wisdom is a necessary inference from a study of celestial mechanics" --Sir Isaac Newton
GK Paul |
| Edited by - GK Paul on 02/12/2007 20:52:46 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 20:55:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul...
Only Christian literalists believe in the snake story. For example even Billy Graham is not a literalist... Actually the word serpent or dragon is a better translation than snake. But I as a non-literalist Christian do believe the concept (which is the most important thing) behind the serpent story is accurate. Man has turned away from and disobeyed God and His laws and has paid dearly and is continuing to pay for that disobedience. The names, dates, stories etc. in the Bible are not as important as the truths behind those things.
And is there something that makes you so special that your interpretation of those old myths is more likely to arrive at any "truths" than anyone else's? Have you been endowed with some divine insight or something? Of course you haven't. It's a shame you can't be honest for once, and admit that you just make up your interpretation however it best supports your arrogant self-righteousness, just like pretty much every other believer does.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 21:28:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GK Paul
Only Christian literalists believe in the snake story. For example even Billy Graham is not a literalist... Actually the word serpent or dragon is a better translation than snake. But I as a non-literalist Christian do believe the concept (which is the most important thing) behind the serpent story is accurate. Man has turned away from and disobeyed God and His laws and has paid dearly and is continuing to pay for that disobedience. The names, dates, stories etc. in the Bible are not as important as the spiritual truths and God made universal laws behind those things.
Baxter, I'm not sure if you're still bothering to check on this thread, but notice here how quickly the theist moves from labeling his unevidenced assertions "beliefs" to "truths." Those words are not synonyms.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2007 : 22:11:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Only Christian literalists believe in the snake story.
That includes every one in the early christian church, right? The same people who believed that Jesus was coming back in their generation! And the jews for centuries before?
What about Jesus? Was he a "Christian Literalist"? Do you think Jesus did not take the book of Genesis (or the rest of the Torah) as literal truth?
All the way up until...just recently? At what point did a majority of christians stop believing in a literal genesis story, I wonder? Was it maybe sometime in the 19th - 20th century? I wonder what else was happening in the world? Probably just coincidence...
What makes you right, and all those millions and millions of true believers wrong? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 02/13/2007 08:26:25 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 03:24:04 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
See - here be the semantics difference... you are using "nature" in a broad sense,
Congratulations on once again interjecting yourself without bothering to read the thread.
I stated, clearly, that I was using "nature" in the broad meaning.
Not my problem that, once again, you are more interested in jumping my shit than paying attention to the conversation.
I'll also ignore your unevidenced assertion that "most people" use the word "natural" in a more narrow definition. (you just enjoy making shit up, don't you?)
Much more likely is that "most people" use the definition of the word appripriate to the context they are discussing. Which some other participants in this thread seem to be incapable of doing.
quote:
Well, thank you Dude for another fascinating debate over semantics. Ta ta.
Its only a semantics debate because some other participants in the thread are inconsistent in their usage.
quote:
Dude, if you have any doubt that "nature" can have a more narrow meaning than anything which exists, consider how we use the term "natural". We see it on products meant to indicate that they are not processed or created in a lab. We differentiate things which are "man-made" and "natural" even though humans are part of nature and when we make things, we are acting within our human nature.
Uh huh. And people use "organic" to describe foods grown without pesticide or fertilizers. But so what? Does that mean gasoline isn't organic? No.
Again, I clearly stated that I was using "nature" in the very broad sense, as that seemed most appropriate to the topic of this thread.
Neurosis said:
quote:
I typed a long response to you but then it got deleted. I am not typing it again, because you will never admit you are wrong and could I care less about how you use words.
I accept your admission of error.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 09:35:28 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
Again, I clearly stated that I was using "nature" in the very broad sense, as that seemed most appropriate to the topic of this thread.
Oh for fuck's sake! This all started because you accused Baxter of speaking in "gibberish" for writing this:
quote:
And by a greater explanation, I'll say that I mean one that transcends natural laws.
So we're not talking about your use of the word nature, but rather, the meaning of nature in the context of this conversation. Since you responded to Baxter's statement, he, not you, set the context. And it is pretty damn clear from his statement that he was using a narrow meaning for nature, not the broad one. You only managed to call his statement gibberish by changing the meaning of nature to the broad one.
In other words - you took the concept of "nature" out of context so that you could accuse Baxter of speaking "gibberish". You disagreed that his statement was meaningful in terms of objective reality. You think it is merely an idea backed up by zero evidence. But you couldn't give Baxter the respect enough to disagree in a direct manner and then share your differing point of view. Instead you chose to belittle his intellect. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/13/2007 09:35:43 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2007 : 11:01:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
I accept your admission of error.
Your a dumbass Dude.
I never admitted error because I am right.
You made up all the definitions in this discussion. Nature does not mean 'thiings that exist'. Gibberish does not mean 'things that make no sense to one person in a conversation'. The word exist and existent have no mention of nature in their definitions.
Even if you define natural as 'things that have nature, ie existent' the word supernatural still applies. It means above nature, and the controller of what we perceive as nature and its laws (while still having a nature and existing) can be described as super natural. You chose to use the word gibberish in a colloquial way but will not allow the word supernatural to be used in a colloquial way (which is the way Baxter intended). No one would ever suggest that something is above nature if nature is defined as 'all that exist'. Thus supernatural would be an oxymoron whose meaning differs from its etymology, which is exactly how the colloquial 'gibberish' came into usage.
You are a hypocrite and dumbass who you can't admit error. You also apparently cannot envision something controlling your experience and that will never able to be understood by you. This thing would be described as supernatural in the same way as alien technology would be described as magick by the ancient cultures. It is not relevent that it is not magick, only that the word was an accurate way to describe that technology where no other word exists that better describes it. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
