Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Emmisal

The God Debate - Is it really about evidence?

1,043 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sherapy

Furthermore, by using my near superhuman powers, irrefutable logic and reality fact checkers, one can have no disagreement with my statement about ' thing'

and further furthermore ; Some words are place fillers, nothing words. They’re not exact enough to make an impact or to influence tone or emotion, and they simply take up space. Some words don’t pull their own weight and may even diffuse the impact of surrounding words. These filler words work okay in a first or second draft, but they should be replaced on a rewrite or edit. They aren’t bad words, aren’t words you need to refrain from using 100 percent of the time, but you should review them in any work of fiction and quite possibly in any piece of writing. I’ve already covered the word it; read the Ubiquitous, Wandering It for specifics. In this article we’ll look at thing. Thing is common. Generic. Vague. Often meaningless. We use thing again and again in both speech and writing, quite often because settling for thing is easier than coming up with an accurate word, a more pointed word. But too many uses of vague words—or the use of a vague word at the wrong time—can flatten the impact you are trying to create with the rest of your words. Thing used in the wrong place can draw every bit of originality or tension or power out of a sentence or paragraph. It can even drain a scene. Imprecise words can work for conversation, and filler words can work for drafts, but since writers have the luxury of time to choose just the right words in just the right combinations and order, writers should take advantage of that luxury. We already know that word choices can make or break a novel. The right words can turn the common into the unique, and word choices can direct a story for both the characters and the readers. One simple way to choose strong words, the best words for any scene or story, is to remove common or imprecise or filler words and replace them with exact and specific words. Words that fit character, setting, genre, emotion, and the action of the moment all at the same time help create memorable fiction. The right words help writers create standout characters, characters readers will want to remember. Precise words and phrases that truly fit into the mix of fiction elements you’ve chosen are one of the major ingredients for good fiction, for producing unforgettable stories. Thing is one word you can almost always change in a way that will create a stronger impact. A character might say thing, of course. But even coming from a character’s mouth or thoughts, the word may not accomplish nearly as much as a more specific word could. Pinpoint-precise words can stir tension and raise the conflict level. They can influence reader emotions. They can reveal the personality of the character who uses them. Pointed words can propel a story thread in a new direction while filler words such as thing just sit on a page like a lump of cold mashed potatoes, adding nothing. Doing nothing. Rather than rely on the common thing, especially dozens and dozens of times in a manuscript, use words that are appetizing and useful, words that add to the rest of the sentence, paragraph, or scene. How to Avoid Thing You almost always want to use a specific word rather than thing(s) when it’s obvious there are other choices. Use a specific noun when possible and when doing so doesn’t require convoluted sentences. As with any suggestion, there are exceptions. If only a couple of words are logical or legitimate substitutes for a particular noun and you’ve already used them many times or if a character needs to say thing to reveal her emotions (the stupid thing was underfoot again), let thing be one of your options.* We all hoped the new thing [plan, option, setup, adventure] would work out. The only things [gear] she still needed were [was] the tent, a sleeping bag, and dry shoes. The box was filled with things [memories, keepsakes, junk, mementos, trash] from his childhood. The committee’s proposal was a good thing [compromise, option, choice]. That will only make things [my life, my prospects, our circumstances] worse. They searched the woods for the thing [treasure, talisman, answer, creature] for the next five weeks. *They searched the woods for the danged thing for six nights straight. Reword to eliminate a need for thing or a substitute word. She still needed a tent, sleeping bag, and dry shoes. The committee’s proposal was a solid one. Use other less common vague words when no specific word really fits, when a general word is sufficient, when the character can’t think of the right word, or when the character doesn’t want to name the item. Her things [stuff, crap, junk] had been crammed into the trunk in no particular order. Pack your things [****, garbage] and get out. The thing [doohickey, thingamajig, doololly**] didn’t fit. That will make things [the situation] even worse. The thing [object, item, package] you were asking about arrived this morning. If you can’t eliminate the phrase because you need the sound or rhythm of it, use related phrases to avoid the use of thing. The thing is, he just doesn’t understand. The truth is, he just doesn’t understand. One thing was certain: they were lost. One truth was inescapable: they were lost. The inescapable? They were lost. The one certainty? They were lost. After you remove thing and things and rewrite for specifics and impact, search out thing’s relatives and give them the same treatment. Something, everything, nothing, and anything often create the same bland impact that the use of thing does. Change the compound thing words into exact words that remind readers of the subject and/or that add to the tension or to the emotional element. These words may not be as noticeable to readers as the generic thing, so you may not need to worry as much about changing them, but they are imprecise. If you can reword without creating a mess, do it. If you use one or more of them often, definitely change some of them. I’ve got something I need to tell you. I’ve got news for you. I’ve got a report on the incident. Something scary happened today. A guy tried to break into my car today. You got anything for me to do? Any chores for me? Everything she said was a lie. Her every word was a lie. Every “revelation” was a lie. He tried everything, but nothing worked. He tried each option twice, but none worked. Exception If you’re using one of the thing words to lead to a delayed revelation—maybe to create a slow or dramatic buildup—or are using it to show that a character is inexact or is fearful of getting to the point, then don’t think you must change your wording. Create the effect you need with the words that will best create that effect. Yet you don’t want to overuse such devices and you still don’t want to overuse the thing words. Use words that create impact, yes. But use a variety of words that sound different from other words and that look different on the page. Search your manuscript when you’re ready to do some cleaning up and replace nothing words with impact words.

Furthermore, by using my near superhuman powers, irrefutable logic and reality fact checkers, one can have no disagreement with my statement about ' thing'

and further furthermore ; Some words are place fillers, nothing words. They’re not exact enough to make an impact or to influence tone or emotion, and they simply take up space. Some words don’t pull their own weight and may even diffuse the impact of surrounding words. These filler words work okay in a first or second draft, but they should be replaced on a rewrite or edit. They aren’t bad words, aren’t words you need to refrain from using 100 percent of the time, but you should review them in any work of fiction and quite possibly in any piece of writing. I’ve already covered the word it; read the Ubiquitous, Wandering It for specifics. In this article we’ll look at thing. Thing is common. Generic. Vague. Often meaningless. We use thing again and again in both speech and writing, quite often because settling for thing is easier than coming up with an accurate word, a more pointed word. But too many uses of vague words—or the use of a vague word at the wrong time—can flatten the impact you are trying to create with the rest of your words. Thing used in the wrong place can draw every bit of originality or tension or power out of a sentence or paragraph. It can even drain a scene. Imprecise words can work for conversation, and filler words can work for drafts, but since writers have the luxury of time to choose just the right words in just the right combinations and order, writers should take advantage of that luxury. We already know that word choices can make or break a novel. The right words can turn the common into the unique, and word choices can direct a story for both the characters and the readers. One simple way to choose strong words, the best words for any scene or story, is to remove common or imprecise or filler words and replace them with exact and specific words. Words that fit character, setting, genre, emotion, and the action of the moment all at the same time help create memorable fiction. The right words help writers create standout characters, characters readers will want to remember. Precise words and phrases that truly fit into the mix of fiction elements you’ve chosen are one of the major ingredients for good fiction, for producing unforgettable stories. Thing is one word you can almost always change in a way that will create a stronger impact. A character might say thing, of course. But even coming from a character’s mouth or thoughts, the word may not accomplish nearly as much as a more specific word could. Pinpoint-precise words can stir tension and raise the conflict level. They can influence reader emotions. They can reveal the personality of the character who uses them. Pointed words can propel a story thread in a new direction while filler words such as thing just sit on a page like a lump of cold mashed potatoes, adding nothing. Doing nothing. Rather than rely on the common thing, especially dozens and dozens of times in a manuscript, use words that are appetizing and useful, words that add to the rest of the sentence, paragraph, or scene. How to Avoid Thing You almost always want to use a specific word rather than thing(s) when it’s obvious there are other choices. Use a specific noun when possible and when doing so doesn’t require convoluted sentences. As with any suggestion, there are exceptions. If only a couple of words are logical or legitimate substitutes for a particular noun and you’ve already used them many times or if a character needs to say thing to reveal her emotions (the stupid thing was underfoot again), let thing be one of your options.* We all hoped the new thing [plan, option, setup, adventure] would work out. The only things [gear] she still needed were [was] the tent, a sleeping bag, and dry shoes. The box was filled with things [memories, keepsakes, junk, mementos, trash] from his childhood. The committee’s proposal was a good thing [compromise, option, choice]. That will only make things [my life, my prospects, our circumstances] worse. They searched the woods for the thing [treasure, talisman, answer, creature] for the next five weeks. *They searched the woods for the danged thing for six nights straight. Reword to eliminate a need for thing or a substitute word. She still needed a tent, sleeping bag, and dry shoes. The committee’s proposal was a solid one. Use other less common vague words when no specific word really fits, when a general word is sufficient, when the character can’t think of the right word, or when the character doesn’t want to name the item. Her things [stuff, crap, junk] had been crammed into the trunk in no particular order. Pack your things [****, garbage] and get out. The thing [doohickey, thingamajig, doololly**] didn’t fit. That will make things [the situation] even worse. The thing [object, item, package] you were asking about arrived this morning. If you can’t eliminate the phrase because you need the sound or rhythm of it, use related phrases to avoid the use of thing. The thing is, he just doesn’t understand. The truth is, he just doesn’t understand. One thing was certain: they were lost. One truth was inescapable: they were lost. The inescapable? They were lost. The one certainty? They were lost. After you remove thing and things and rewrite for specifics and impact, search out thing’s relatives and give them the same treatment. Something, everything, nothing, and anything often create the same bland impact that the use of thing does. Change the compound thing words into exact words that remind readers of the subject and/or that add to the tension or to the emotional element. These words may not be as noticeable to readers as the generic thing, so you may not need to worry as much about changing them, but they are imprecise. If you can reword without creating a mess, do it. If you use one or more of them often, definitely change some of them. I’ve got something I need to tell you. I’ve got news for you. I’ve got a report on the incident. Something scary happened today. A guy tried to break into my car today. You got anything for me to do? Any chores for me? Everything she said was a lie. Her every word was a lie. Every “revelation” was a lie. He tried everything, but nothing worked. He tried each option twice, but none worked. Exception If you’re using one of the thing words to lead to a delayed revelation—maybe to create a slow or dramatic buildup—or are using it to show that a character is inexact or is fearful of getting to the point, then don’t think you must change your wording. Create the effect you need with the words that will best create that effect. Yet you don’t want to overuse such devices and you still don’t want to overuse the thing words. Use words that create impact, yes. But use a variety of words that sound different from other words and that look different on the page. Search your manuscript when you’re ready to do some cleaning up and replace nothing words with impact words.

Ha ha ha ha, very funny!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Did you notice you just contradicted yourself? You're saying agnosticism is a logical impossibility.

Read it it how it was written not how you interpreted it by your highlights,

ie

Some modern atheists try to fudge the question by claiming that atheism is NOT a construct of disbelief but simply a lack of belief in gods but that is a logical impossibility (And i can't quite understand what they are worried by apart from in america the "bad name " that atheists wrongly have.. It is a clear and honest position to declare al disbelief in the existence of gods.. Perhaps some are really agnostic not atheistic)

I said (or actually quoted from the philosophical definition of atheism) that to claim atheism is simply a lack of active belief, is a logical impossibility (because that is the nature/definition of agnosticism, and thus cannot be taken or occupied as a position of atheism)

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

At this point, for our purposes, it is irrelevant to the argument whether one believe's in God or not, because even if one doesn't believe, what one doesn't believe in or does believe in is "infinite perfection," what is of use to us in this context is that we have some knowledge of the concept and that is the key to this argument, in otherwords, it is the idea that is important not whether you believe in it or not.

As an atheist in order to address any question I go through a critical thinking process first, I use the scientific method, I ask myself things like is there anything I can come up with that would falsify a claim, I would ask are the arguments offered for a claim rooted in evidence ( sound)? Is the claim comprehensive in scope, is it honest, does it contain elements of bias and what are they, can the claim be replicated, is the evidence able to be independently verified?

(In a general sense) as an atheist, while I can't say there is no God for certain, I can say based on the lack evidence( real world ) for any gods, I conclude (at this time) it is more reasonable to say they don't exist. In otherwords, I conclude this position is justified based on lack of evidence. It is generally simpler to show that something which does exist does exist (displaying an example will usually do it) than to show that something which doesn't exist doesn't exist (bigfoot stories persist).

On the flip side, if I am to take the religious side I would conclude that is reasonable based on the lack of evidence to say I have faith there is a god(s). I conclude this position is justified based on lack of evidence.

In all honesty, in real world application, I do fit the atheist shoes.

Sorry but you have clearly and absolutely defined your self as an agnostic and you are open to change on the basis of new evidences. Some would say this is a form of weak atheism but unless you declare definitely that you DO NOT believe in the existence of gods, then you are NOT a atheist. You have logically arrived at the conclusion that there is no EVIDENCE for gods and so you wont believ in them (an agnostic rationale) Well that has nothing to do with what you BELIEVE

I find your approach interesting and modernistic You seek to justify belief based on knowledge but of course they are totally independent constructs

Knowledge does not inform belief or disbelief, only further knowledge. You seem to think that some form of modern logical critical thinking can give a definitive solution to the question of whether to believe or not (at least for yourself) IT cannot. Belief (including disbelief) has to exist and be constructed in the total absence of knowledge, and thus the total lack of evidences for something is not a logical reason, at all, for you to not positively believe in it (or indeed for you to construct a position of positive non belief.) If you had evidences you would not require belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

This is like a dog chasing it's tail. I'm enjoying the show.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Furthermore, by using my near superhuman powers, irrefutable logic and reality fact checkers, one can have no disagreement with my statement about ' thing'

and further furthermore ; Some words are place fillers, nothing words. They’re not exact enough to make an impact or to influence tone or emotion, and they simply take up space. Some words don’t pull their own weight and may even diffuse the impact of surrounding words. These filler words work okay in a first or second draft, but they should be replaced on a rewrite or edit. They aren’t bad words, aren’t words you need to refrain from using 100 percent of the time, but you should review them in any work of fiction and quite possibly in any piece of writing. I’ve already covered the word it; read the Ubiquitous, Wandering It for specifics. In this article we’ll look at thing. Thing is common. Generic. Vague. Often meaningless. We use thing again and again in both speech and writing, quite often because settling for thing is easier than coming up with an accurate word, a more pointed word. But too many uses of vague words—or the use of a vague word at the wrong time—can flatten the impact you are trying to create with the rest of your words. Thing used in the wrong place can draw every bit of originality or tension or power out of a sentence or paragraph. It can even drain a scene. Imprecise words can work for conversation, and filler words can work for drafts, but since writers have the luxury of time to choose just the right words in just the right combinations and order, writers should take advantage of that luxury. We already know that word choices can make or break a novel. The right words can turn the common into the unique, and word choices can direct a story for both the characters and the readers. One simple way to choose strong words, the best words for any scene or story, is to remove common or imprecise or filler words and replace them with exact and specific words. Words that fit character, setting, genre, emotion, and the action of the moment all at the same time help create memorable fiction. The right words help writers create standout characters, characters readers will want to remember. Precise words and phrases that truly fit into the mix of fiction elements you’ve chosen are one of the major ingredients for good fiction, for producing unforgettable stories. Thing is one word you can almost always change in a way that will create a stronger impact. A character might say thing, of course. But even coming from a character’s mouth or thoughts, the word may not accomplish nearly as much as a more specific word could. Pinpoint-precise words can stir tension and raise the conflict level. They can influence reader emotions. They can reveal the personality of the character who uses them. Pointed words can propel a story thread in a new direction while filler words such as thing just sit on a page like a lump of cold mashed potatoes, adding nothing. Doing nothing. Rather than rely on the common thing, especially dozens and dozens of times in a manuscript, use words that are appetizing and useful, words that add to the rest of the sentence, paragraph, or scene. How to Avoid Thing You almost always want to use a specific word rather than thing(s) when it’s obvious there are other choices. Use a specific noun when possible and when doing so doesn’t require convoluted sentences. As with any suggestion, there are exceptions. If only a couple of words are logical or legitimate substitutes for a particular noun and you’ve already used them many times or if a character needs to say thing to reveal her emotions (the stupid thing was underfoot again), let thing be one of your options.* We all hoped the new thing [plan, option, setup, adventure] would work out. The only things [gear] she still needed were [was] the tent, a sleeping bag, and dry shoes. The box was filled with things [memories, keepsakes, junk, mementos, trash] from his childhood. The committee’s proposal was a good thing [compromise, option, choice]. That will only make things [my life, my prospects, our circumstances] worse. They searched the woods for the thing [treasure, talisman, answer, creature] for the next five weeks. *They searched the woods for the danged thing for six nights straight. Reword to eliminate a need for thing or a substitute word. She still needed a tent, sleeping bag, and dry shoes. The committee’s proposal was a solid one. Use other less common vague words when no specific word really fits, when a general word is sufficient, when the character can’t think of the right word, or when the character doesn’t want to name the item. Her things [stuff, crap, junk] had been crammed into the trunk in no particular order. Pack your things [****, garbage] and get out. The thing [doohickey, thingamajig, doololly**] didn’t fit. That will make things [the situation] even worse. The thing [object, item, package] you were asking about arrived this morning. If you can’t eliminate the phrase because you need the sound or rhythm of it, use related phrases to avoid the use of thing. The thing is, he just doesn’t understand. The truth is, he just doesn’t understand. One thing was certain: they were lost. One truth was inescapable: they were lost. The inescapable? They were lost. The one certainty? They were lost. After you remove thing and things and rewrite for specifics and impact, search out thing’s relatives and give them the same treatment. Something, everything, nothing, and anything often create the same bland impact that the use of thing does. Change the compound thing words into exact words that remind readers of the subject and/or that add to the tension or to the emotional element. These words may not be as noticeable to readers as the generic thing, so you may not need to worry as much about changing them, but they are imprecise. If you can reword without creating a mess, do it. If you use one or more of them often, definitely change some of them. I’ve got something I need to tell you. I’ve got news for you. I’ve got a report on the incident. Something scary happened today. A guy tried to break into my car today. You got anything for me to do? Any chores for me? Everything she said was a lie. Her every word was a lie. Every “revelation” was a lie. He tried everything, but nothing worked. He tried each option twice, but none worked. Exception If you’re using one of the thing words to lead to a delayed revelation—maybe to create a slow or dramatic buildup—or are using it to show that a character is inexact or is fearful of getting to the point, then don’t think you must change your wording. Create the effect you need with the words that will best create that effect. Yet you don’t want to overuse such devices and you still don’t want to overuse the thing words. Use words that create impact, yes. But use a variety of words that sound different from other words and that look different on the page. Search your manuscript when you’re ready to do some cleaning up and replace nothing words with impact words.

Dear me. Haven't you broken the rules of the forum and of convention? You needed to provide a source and acknowledge the author of this pretty little piece because it certainly wasn't you. (Or was it? Are you the author of "the Editors Blog ?)

They aren’t bad words, aren’t words you need to refrain from using 100 percent of the time, but you should review them in any work of fiction and quite possibly in any piece of writing. I’ve already covered the word it; read the Ubiquitous, Wandering It for specifics. In this article we’ll look at thing. Thing is common. Generic. Vague. Often meaningless. We use thing again and again in both speech and writing, quite often because settling for thing is easier than coming up with an accurate word, a more pointed word. But too many uses of vague words—or the use of a vague word at the wrong time—

http://theeditorsblog.net/2014/09/08/nothing-words-thing/

Sorry but it is a habit i picked up from marking so many pre university papers where people just cut and paste from the internet When i see a piece obviously not in the writers own style i automatically google it to see if i can find the source. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

This is like a dog chasing it's tail. I'm enjoying the show.

I admit to being very pedantic and conventional when it comes to the correct use of words. Otherwise communication becomes difficult, if not impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

You know B2E. When you write those paragraphs I can't help but want to squish your head until your brain pops out. :angry::hmm:<_<:w00t:

39126212.jpg

Don't blame him. he didn't actually write it. :wub:

it was a nice concept and well done, but he really should have acknowledged the source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Sorry but you have clearly and absolutely defined your self as an agnostic and you are open to change on the basis of new evidences. Some would say this is a form of weak atheism but unless you declare definitely that you DO NOT believe in the existence of gods, then you are NOT a atheist. You have logically arrived at the conclusion that there is no EVIDENCE for gods and so you wont believ in them (an agnostic rationale) Well that has nothing to do with what you BELIEVE

I find your approach interesting and modernistic You seek to justify belief based on knowledge but of course they are totally independent constructs

Knowledge does not inform belief or disbelief, only further knowledge. You seem to think that some form of modern logical critical thinking can give a definitive solution to the question of whether to believe or not (at least for yourself) IT cannot. Belief (including disbelief) has to exist and be constructed in the total absence of knowledge, and thus the total lack of evidences for something is not a logical reason, at all, for you to not positively believe in it (or indeed for you to construct a position of positive non belief.) If you had evidences you would not require belief.

Belief has no place in an argument.

I am not interested in pursuing this further.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Belief has no place in an argument.

I am not interested in pursuing this further.

You Wally (meant in the nicest way, as an anglo Australian form of almost endearment) .) You study philosophy and logic. Surely you understand the nature and construction of belief? You have logically constructed a belief system for yourself and just explained it to me.

Atheism and theism are constructs which, at this time, are ONLY accessible via belief, or by personal evidences, ie knowledge, and so, as you feel belief has no place in deciding a philosophical position, and you profess no personal knowledge of god, then that leaves you, again by your own words, an agnostic.

There is no other way to construct a position of atheism or theism than BY belief, unless you have knowledge.

Your belief position is that a lack of evidences for god(s) is a likely indicator for the lack of existence of god (s.)

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

You Wally (meant in the nicest way, as an anglo Australian form of almost endearment) .) You study philosophy and logic. Surely you understand the nature and construction of belief? You have logically constructed a belief system for yourself and just explained it to me.

Atheism and theism are constructs which, at this time, are ONLY accessible via belief, or by personal evidences, ie knowledge, and so, as you feel belief has no place in deciding a philosophical position, and you profess no personal knowledge of god, then that leaves you, again by your own words, an agnostic.

There is no other way to construct a position of atheism or theism than BY belief, unless you have knowledge.

Your belief position is that a lack of evidences for god(s) is a likely indicator for the lack of existence of god (s.)

MW, the "The Problem of Evil," is a very well known atheistic argument;

Then we have Aquinas's Five Ways this is a very well known theist argument etc, etc.

You are in over your head Wally. :)

I am trying to be gracious here and say that yes, in taking Philososphy and Critical Thinking and Analysis there is nothing fruitful going to happen here.

Therefore, I am moving on.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

This is like a dog chasing it's tail. I'm enjoying the show.

he doesnt care how long he does it for, eh ?

:su

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

You Wally (meant in the nicest way, as an anglo Australian form of almost endearment) .)

It is not an Anglo/Australian term of endearment Walker ! You cannot even deliver a direct insult ... without somehow trying to pretend you didnt make it in the first place , within the same sentence !

To be a nerd, geek or loser, inept, dork, uninspiring, idiot, useless, ineffectual person, someone who is a fool, or has just made a tremendous fool of themselves,

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/wally

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/wally

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wally

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

If you are going to insult someone, just do it , dont do it while making apologies for it - dorkbrain !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

It is not an Anglo/Australian term of endearment Walker ! You cannot even deliver a direct insult ... without somehow trying to pretend you didnt make it in the first place , within the same sentence !

To be a nerd, geek or loser, inept, dork, uninspiring, idiot, useless, ineffectual person, someone who is a fool, or has just made a tremendous fool of themselves,

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/wally

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/wally

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wally

Indeed, using ad hominen is not a free pass out of a poor argument.

I do know "Wally" is not a term of endearment.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Dear me. Haven't you broken the rules of the forum and of convention? You needed to provide a source and acknowledge the author of this pretty little piece because it certainly wasn't you. (Or was it? Are you the author of "the Editors Blog ?)

They aren’t bad words, aren’t words you need to refrain from using 100 percent of the time, but you should review them in any work of fiction and quite possibly in any piece of writing. I’ve already covered the word it; read the Ubiquitous, Wandering It for specifics. In this article we’ll look at thing. Thing is common. Generic. Vague. Often meaningless. We use thing again and again in both speech and writing, quite often because settling for thing is easier than coming up with an accurate word, a more pointed word. But too many uses of vague words—or the use of a vague word at the wrong time—

http://theeditorsblo...ng-words-thing/

Sorry but it is a habit i picked up from marking so many pre university papers where people just cut and paste from the internet When i see a piece obviously not in the writers own style i automatically google it to see if i can find the source. .

Dont tell me you seriously thought I posted that piece ... in that format ... with shrinking type size .... as a comment or thinking that anyone would be silly enough to keep reading it.

Of course I didnt write it ! I was mocking you ! You are a complete numbskull ! yet again ... posts need to be read in context of the ones they are answering or the things they are referring to ....

oh dear ! :no:

and I suppose you think you are clever for exposing me ? You are just sinking into the quicksand deeper and deeper .... of your own volition !

- oh yeah, , its against the rules to quote rules at me Walker

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Indeed, using ad hominen is not a free pass out of a poor argument.

I do know "Wally" is not a term of endearment.

I just wanted to get in before he claimed it meant something different in Australia ... he will probably go on to 'prove' that anyway ( Walker style)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

I just wanted to get in before he claimed it meant something different in Australia ... he will probably go on to 'prove' that anyway ( Walker style)

No worries BTE, I have heard 'wally' before. I think he used it on Stubbs too as a 'compliment' and she wasn't having it either. :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

Belief has no place in an argument.

I am not interested in pursuing this further.

I think it would be understood, the type of individual you are, by the eloguent way of how you simply explained why you are the Atheist you are. It makes sense to me. I think it made sense to a lot of people here. I guess, that should be the important part, or maybe the priority, when discussing more about it to others here.

Dont tell me you seriously thought I posted that piece ... in that format ... with shrinking type size .... as a comment or thinking that anyone would be silly enough to keep reading it.

Oh phew!! Cause, I didn't keep reading it. I had a feeling I got the gist of it early on. :D;)

I just wanted to get in before he claimed it meant something different in Australia ... he will probably go on to 'prove' that anyway ( Walker style)

This particular laptop, that I use mainly tends to give me the meaning of a word, once I double click on it in a highlight. The first time I came across the word Wally, I immediately knew it for the insult it was.

I wonder if other's computers or laptop does this.

No worries BTE, I have heard 'wally' before. I think he used it on Stubbs too as a 'compliment' and she wasn't having it either. :)

Well, he didn't use 'wally' on me in the past, but there were other insults he did use, ( and bte, the gentleman that he is. :wub: (my hero) called him out on that) I think it was used it on Tiggs. My laptop translated it right away, and I wondered if Tiggs knew what it meant.

Man, I find it interesting how the different cultures tend to have different meanings for the same word! :o

Thank you Sheri. (((HUGS))))

I wonder if we Yankees ( ;) ) should start calling others 'Kanye' :P

Oh, dear....................... was that naughty?!?! :devil:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

MW, the "The Problem of Evil," is a very well known atheistic argument;

Then we have Aquinas's Five Ways this is a very well known theist argument etc, etc.

You are in over your head Wally. :)

I am trying to be gracious here and say that yes, in taking Philososphy and Critical Thinking and Analysis there is nothing fruitful going to happen here.

Therefore, I am moving on.

I am well ware of the problem of evil and its philosophical context

https://www.kul.pl/files/57/nauka/Rowe_The_Problem_of_Evil.pd

It is irrelevant to this debate

(and i don't understand the context or meaning of your response, to your position as an atheist/agnostic.)

What you take from logic and philosophy depends on your prior constructions of belief/disbelief

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

It is not an Anglo/Australian term of endearment Walker ! You cannot even deliver a direct insult ... without somehow trying to pretend you didnt make it in the first place , within the same sentence !

To be a nerd, geek or loser, inept, dork, uninspiring, idiot, useless, ineffectual person, someone who is a fool, or has just made a tremendous fool of themselves,

http://www.oxforddic...n/english/wally

http://onlineslangdi...nition-of/wally

http://www.urbandict....php?term=wally

Selective referencing. My wife and i use this term as a humorous insult with tenderness and affection Eg " You burnt the toast AGAIN, you wally." and i checked several on line dictionaries just to make sure that was how it was defined so i wouldn't really hurtfully insult sherapy ( And i had no intent to)

I did, however, point out my intended usage, because it a bit like "you stupid b******" which is actually ALSO a term of endearment among Australian men, but which most other cultures would find plain insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

If you are going to insult someone, just do it , dont do it while making apologies for it - dorkbrain !

Quite correct and i would do that if i was intending a insult I use this term for my wife quite safely and i would never insult her with intent to harm.

And i made my intent clear in my explanation Think what you like, you pusillanimous, pulchritudinous, pastiche of pastifarian propensities

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Indeed, using ad hominen is not a free pass out of a poor argument.

I do know "Wally" is not a term of endearment.

Then you know wrong .

i would refer you to a book called "And then there were nuns", In which the term is used between the nuns in exactly this fashion.

I am beginning to think my personal use and understanding of its nature came through my Scottish heritage which has a slightly different origin and meaning. it has always been used in my wider family and my wifes as a term of endearment.

WALLY, n. Also wallie, wallet. Sc. forms and usages of Eng. valet. See W, letter, 5.

1. As in Eng., a personal servant or attendant. Phr. wally-de-sham, -shang, wall-i'-the-chamber, valet-de-chambre, id.; also a crony, a close companion (Abd. 1921, -shang).Sc. 1816 Scott O. Mortality xxvii.:

I'm the Captain's wallie now.Slk. 1822 Hogg Three Perils of Man (1972) xxvii.:

A flunkey, or a wall-i'-the-chamber, as the Frenchman ca' it. . . . What's the great ill o' keeping a wally?Ayr. 1834 Galt Liter. Life III. 107:

The exciseman had been a wally-de-sham to my lord's brother.

2. A neat person of small stature, commonly used as a term of endearment (Bnff. 1866 Gregor D. Bnff. 206, wallet).

http://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/wally_n

if you were grievously insulted, then i apologise. It was definitely not my intent

Mind you it was mildly insulting but ALSO affectionate * for which i might also need to apologise

The Great Aussie Slang Dictionary

Wally: Idiot , clown, clumsy person – can be used as a term of endearment

http://bartrade.biz/ozslang.htm

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Dont tell me you seriously thought I posted that piece ... in that format ... with shrinking type size .... as a comment or thinking that anyone would be silly enough to keep reading it.

Of course I didnt write it ! I was mocking you ! You are a complete numbskull ! yet again ... posts need to be read in context of the ones they are answering or the things they are referring to ....

oh dear ! :no:

and I suppose you think you are clever for exposing me ? You are just sinking into the quicksand deeper and deeper .... of your own volition !

- oh yeah, , its against the rules to quote rules at me Walker

Not clever. It was too easy to be clever.

And yes i got your point of ridicule (as expected from you by now ) BUT that is no reason to post without referencing the author. it remains technically illegal, and ethically wrong, and against forum rules . And one can never be SURE what your intent was because you did NOT source it.

While i believe you did not intend a reader to think it was your own work, another reader could legitimately come to precisely that conclusion because you have made no effort to attribute authorship. .

I am precisely correct here, and its fun to watch you try to "wiggle" and " segway' your way out of it.

C'mon! Just admit you were wrong not to attribute authorship in using another's writing in order to make a point.

Oh and i did not quote any rules at you. I posed you a question, for YOU to answer

Dear me. Haven't you broken the rules of the forum and of convention?

wiggle wiggle wiggle

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

I just wanted to get in before he claimed it meant something different in Australia ... he will probably go on to 'prove' that anyway ( Walker style)

It is very easy to prove that which is true .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_

As I have said many times, atheism is an untenable position. A fallacy.

There a no atheists in foxholes:

http://www.conservapedia.com/There_Are_No_Atheists_In_Foxholes

It's fine to claim that no God exists when all things go well but as soon as some challenges arise, atheism dissolves into thin air.

Edited by TaridD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.