Are you religious?

[Rev]

It seems a bit strong to say all the religious are stupid.

 

[Rev]

Sangha in Sanskrit and Pali means assembly the later derivations where due to it's religious usage. The Sangha family as a surname has quite a history being influential in many districts in the Punjab and I believe holding some power over Delhi at one time. They where also many in Jallunder (can't remember the spelling) mostly jats I believe.

 

[swee'pea99]

Sorry still full of fallacies including the one pointed out last time.

Well, no. Because as clearly pointed out, you'd accused me of

Premise: Most people believe A
Conclusion: Therefore A must be true

And I'd made no such suggestion. I made it as clear as I could that I wasn't talking about what is true; just about what words mean. You really must learn to engage with what people actually say rather than with what you wish they'd said. That way you might lose the debate, but you'd at least retain a degree of credibility. As it is, you're clearly either unable to grasp what people are saying, or simply prefer heroically destroying paper tigers of your own creation, so I'm bugging out.

 

[swansonj]

"Lunatic" is an informal term referring to people who are considered mentally ill, dangerous, foolish or unpredictable; conditions once called lunacy. The term may be considered insulting in serious contexts, though is sometimes used in friendly jest. The word derives from lunaticus meaning "of the moon" or "moonstruck".

Foolishness is the lack or failure of wisdom and of making proper careful choices. In this sense, it differs from stupidity, which is the lack offintelligence.[1] An act of foolishness is called folly.

I thought lunacy was kinder than stupidity. Maybe I am wrong though.

Yes, thank you, that's expanded on the definition of lunatic, but I was rather hoping you would explain WHY you regard following a religion as lunacy?

 

[Rev]

Well, no. Because as clearly pointed out, you'd accused me of

Premise: Most people believe A
Conclusion: Therefore A must be true

And I'd made no such suggestion. I made it as clear as I could that I wasn't talking about what is true; just about what words mean. You really must learn to engage with what people actually say rather than with what you wish they'd said. That way you might lose the debate, but you'd at least retain a degree of credibility. As it is, you're clearly either unable to grasp what people are saying, or simply prefer heroically destroying paper tigers of your own creation, so I'm bugging out.

sorry you can lead a horse to water.....

I will try and elucidate again, oh and refute your propositions again

 

[byegad]

Just popped back to the discussion. Has anyone mentioned Fascism yet?

 

[Rev]

I never said what the majority believes is necessarily true.

That is exactly what you did, as I illustrated.

That would be absurd

Which is why I illustrated it!

It would, eg, mean that for many hundreds of years the world was flat.

And numerous other fallacies yes.

What I said was that what words mean is defined by the ways they are used.

Or mis-used!

By people. People generally. Not a few people, but people at large.

So in other words the definition of a word (including religion or god) is decided by the majority. Which is an appeal to popularity and as I have already illustrated fallacious!

That's what enables us, on the whole, to communicate.

So you do away with all etmology on the basis of majority definition. Which in any other words is still an appeal to popularity.

So, for hundreds of years, people may have been wrong in their belief that the world was flat, but at least everyone would have known what they meant by that statement.

And the point is?

the word 'Christian' means people who, among other things, believe that there is such a thing as god (who, that's to say, would answer the common or garden question: 'Do you believe in God?' with the unambiguous answer: 'Yes'); and that Jesus was qualitatively different from, say, Gandhi: ie, he was not just a splendid fellow and a fine moral teacher, but - in some sense - a divine being. As in 'God the Son'.

So you now unilaterally define for me what you believe constitutes a Christian, based on many huge assumptions about shared definitions of theological terms.

And if you don't buy into those specific beliefs, you may be 'christian' - in that your behaviour exemplifies Christian precepts as to how one should conduct oneself - but you cannot be 'a Christian'

So from your assumption as to the general acceptance (majority rule, appeal to popularity fallacy) of the meaning of words such as Christ, God, Divine, religious etc you draw a conclusion as to who can and who cannot be 'a Christian'

because a Christian is, among other things, someone who believes that there is a god, and that Jesus is his only begotten son.

However you have based this assumption on what? An appeal to popularity, whether linguistic or not makes not one jot of a difference.

Whether or not that's true is for theologians and bulletin board pedants to squabble over. Whether it's what the word means is - at least at this point in time - not really open to debate.

It is open to debate as is quite clearly proven here.

Maybe in a hundred years' time the man on the Clapham omnibus will be able to say: "Well, he's a Christian but he doesn't believe in God." But right now, that's not the case. The man on the Clapham omnibus would see that as a contradiction in terms. And he'd be right.

Only if one accepts the premise that you base this on which is that the Majority opinion is what defines, or in other words if most people believing something makes it true.
As it clearly does not you base the entirety of your argument on appeal to popularity and a few assumptions.

so as clearly illustrated an appeal to popularity whether regarding words or anything else is just as fallacious.

 

[Rev]

So swee,pee

And I'd made no such suggestion. I made it as clear as I could that I wasn't talking about what is true; just about what words mean.

Don't you understand that if we are debating a definition we are obviously debating what something does mean and does not mean. In short which is true and which is false. Don't you get that?
And as I have reasonably proven you most certainly did make such a suggestion.

You really must learn to engage with what people actually say rather than with what you wish they'd said.

If you knew what you were saying it may allay some of your confusion.

That way you might lose the debate, but you'd at least retain a degree of credibility.

I am sorry but that is just silly and although this feels a little like kicking a puppy I feel it is only fair to draw your attention to your huge addiction to fallacy and inability to comprehend a polite word as to your mistake

As it is, you're clearly either unable to grasp what people are saying

I refer you to the above thread where I have most obviously had to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, or in simple terms brake down the concepts into chewable chunks for you.

or simply prefer heroically destroying paper tigers of your own creation,

I am unaware of any paper tigers created on my part however I will readily apologise if you can illustrate I have.

so I'm bugging out.

Probably for the best, if you haven't grasped the simple stuff yet.

,

 

[Rev]

Oh dear... I see Rev doesn't know the difference between sex and gender - and is making a complete tit of himself again.

Oh I see the pontiff is back.
And still mistaking insult for intelligence.

 

[Rev]

Oh and regular what is the difference between a transexual and a transgender?

Please just answer....don't start looking it up.... I will know you naughty boy

 

[Rev]

Just popped back to the discussion. Has anyone mentioned Fascism yet?

Maybe not mentioned it yet. But we have had some prime examples of it!

 

[Rev]

Right Must dash Off to Wing Chun training and it will take me ages to get to the club.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Isn't the simple answer to the OP, either 'yes', or 'no'?

If you are level-headed, normal, balanced and don't believe in fairies and are in the 'no' camp, then there's no a lot of point in anyone in the 'yes' camp trying to change your mind.......

If you are a total loon, with eyes that meet in the middle, like men who dress in flowing gowns, and swear down that a book whose story was made up 2000 years ago to keep sheep herders in line belongs in the non-fiction part of a library and you as such are in the 'yes' camp, then there's not a lot of point in people in the 'no' camp trying to change your mind................

Paganism anyone......?

 

[TVC]

Pink Pantheism is more fun.

 

[vernon]

I wasn't aware that there was a hierachy of acceptable insult based on membership seniority.

Well you live and learn.