FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-29-2003, 04:04 PM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: secularcafe.org
Posts: 9,525
Talking Re: "THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY"

Quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
No, we make allowances for Pantheists.


Heh. At least I'm expecting to get ragged for the way I set up my coordinate system, and the fact that I'm from Georgia!
Jobar is offline  
Old 06-29-2003, 06:12 PM   #22
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: washington, NJ 07882
Posts: 253
Default

I believe heavily in subjectivity and ambiguity. The only way I function is through assumptions. I assume the most likely thing from experience to be true, otherwise the ambiguity of the universe would leave me without any knowledge to base of my actions upon, because I would be unable to tell definetly what was around me.
Vylo is offline  
Old 06-30-2003, 12:06 AM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
Default

I'll cut to the chase .

Fictional characters do not factually exist (i.e., are non-fictional).

If anyone would like to challenge that tautology in any specific way, then they must provide compelling evidence.

We're all still waiting.
Koyaanisqatsi is offline  
Old 06-30-2003, 03:04 AM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,777
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Fictional characters do not factually exist (i.e., are non-fictional).
How is this mantra anything other than begging the question?
Jayhawker Soule is offline  
Old 06-30-2003, 11:42 PM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
How is this mantra anything other than begging the question?
Well I think that the evidence is clear that god is indeed a memetic pool generated by various social forces and forces of the imagination. As to whether there is anything TO the theory, I think there is undoubtedly the fact that god theory is a self-deception, a communal invisible friend.

The theory itself is afflicted with the serious problem excluding substantial explanatory machinery; there thus exists no concilient way of integrating god into what must be finite and meaningfully stochastic epistemic machinery.

Thus, God is not only a theory born of our earth-human-cheuvenism it is a singularly bad theory, and one which should be rejected. Fiction.
ComestibleVenom is offline  
Old 06-30-2003, 11:52 PM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Grand Junction CO
Posts: 2,231
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Bill
Thus, a dictionary has no more force of logic behind it than does a miniskirt.
I'll call you for a witness then, at my trial for looking up the meanings of words by lifting her skirt.
Nowhere357 is offline  
Old 07-01-2003, 08:30 AM   #27
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Bill
As for dictionaries, they are based upon the popularity of various usages, which means that a dictionary is nothing more than the collected opinions of dictionary editors, expressed after reviewing popular literature, which became popular as a matter of fashion.
That's actually only partly true. My parent company, in addition to other things, publishes several different dictionaries (The best known being the American Heritage Dictionary). There are essentially two kinds of dictionaries. Dictionaries like Merriam Webster and AH are descriptive that is they describe words in terms of common usage just as you suggest. Other dictionaries (like the AH Dictionary of Indo-European roots or the unabridged OED) are prescriptive meaning that they prescribe meanings for words based on etymology and linguistic criteria. Ultimately, though, language is a mostly arbitrary system from communicating meaning. Consequently, usage is extremely important when discussing the meanings of words and no one definition can really be considered canonical except in the case of words made up by specific individuals (like Huxley coining the word agnostic) and given specific meanings.
CX is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:33 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.