- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
27 Jun 16
4 edits
Originally posted by karoly aczelYes broaden your horizons.
Yes broaden your horizons.
.
By this I mean keep learning. You don't ever stop learning do you?
You have touched upon some populist ideas from some major religions and have confirmed my idea that universal truth (which cannot be expressed adequatly by any words), runs through them all.
So I weed out the bad from the good any carry on.
The bad ...[text shortened]... there is more than one way to get to heaven.
(Heck , even reverse psychology like atheism 😀 )
-----------------------------------------
Broaden my horizons.
.
By this I mean keep learning. You don't ever stop learning do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I keep on learning.
You have touched upon some populist ideas from some major religions and have confirmed my idea that universal truth (which cannot be expressed adequatly by any words), runs through them all.
So I weed out the bad from the good any carry on.
The bad in this case being things like idolatry, carelessness , false ego , etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad ideas indeed.
But most importantly that no one religion has the monopoly on truth.
And they all claim it with the exception of Buddhism, which doesn't claim very much at all (lol). And Hinduism does not deny any other manifestations of the Divine (and hence gets my tick of approval).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whereas you go back to "No on shall come to the Father except through me" , and then go on to label others as elitist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not label all other faiths as elitist.
"Me" there is a Person. In my opinion "no one comes to the Father except through Me" means that if ANYONE comes to God the Father it will only have been through Jesus.
This may not be the same as "no one comes to the Father except through " the religion of Christianity.
"Me" as I said, was a Living Person.
No Sonship, this arguement does not work. If god is universal (which it must be by defintion), then there is more than one way to get to heaven.
(Heck , even reverse psychology like atheism )
---------------------------------------------------------------
It didn't say anything about going to heaven there.
It said "no one comes to the Father".
The destination is a living Person "the Father" . And the way TO the living Person is also a living Person - "Me" the Son of God.
I think it is universal but DEFINITE.
Originally posted by karoly aczelWhen RHP religionists play the 'ego card' against fellow posters during discussions, it invariably means they know they are losing an argument. It as an attempt to taint ideas and opinions so that they can be dismissed rather than rebutted or engaged.
Bringing the 'ego card' into this 'discussion' is pointless IMO.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIn this case, it was a good prediction, because I didn't make a mistake, nor did I contradict myself. Once again, you demonstrate that instead of using logical argument to demonstrate that I made a mistake, or contradicted myself, you try to merely pass over it by claiming that I am just being suborn. This is the exact same tactic sonship tried. He noted that I had a facade of logical thought and he couldn't find any chinks in it so he simply announced that I was saying what I said because of some motive that he made up (and had no evidence for whatsoever) - and even if true wouldn't change anything I had said to being less logical.
As predicted you will never admit that you have made a mistake.
This again, strengthens my case that I am more logical than you and pointing out that fact isn't a case of oversized ego, its just plain obvious.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSorry but if you are just being/acting too stubborn/ignorant to realize or admit that the two statements you made, ["facts are NOT true", and "A fact is a true piece of information"] is a contradiction (regardless of the contex), then I am not not going to waste any more time on you. Cherio.
In this case, it was a good prediction, because I didn't make a mistake, nor did I contradict myself. Once again, you demonstrate that instead of using logical argument to demonstrate that I made a mistake, or contradicted myself, you try to merely pass over it by claiming that I am just being suborn. This is the exact same tactic sonship tried. He noted ...[text shortened]... gical than you and pointing out that fact isn't a case of oversized ego, its just plain obvious.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkExcept I am not just being/acting too stubborn/ignorant (where did the 'ignorant' come in exactly?). I have already explained that I didn't make one of those two statements. That you are now repeating it after it being pointed out to you makes you either a liar or seriously challenged in the reading comprehension department.
Sorry but if you are just being/acting too stubborn/ignorant to realize or admit that the two statements you made, ["facts are NOT true", and "A fact is a true piece of information"] is a contradiction (regardless of the contex), then I am not not going to waste any more time on you. Cherio.
As for 'regardless of the context', how stupid can you be? Surely you know that context does matter? To claim that anything is so 'regardless of the context' is just plain stupid. I know you love 'absolutes', but even absolutes are subject to context.
27 Jun 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have already explained that I didn't make one of those two statements.
Except I am not just being/acting too stubborn/ignorant (where did the 'ignorant' come in exactly?). I have already explained that I didn't make one of those two statements. That you are now repeating it after it being pointed out to you makes you either a liar or seriously challenged in the reading comprehension department.
As for 'regardless of the con ...[text shortened]... t' is just plain stupid. I know you love 'absolutes', but even absolutes are subject to context.
Ah ok someone else must have hacked your account then because the two statements I copied and pasted were made by twhitehead.
I said:
A fact is something that is known to be true.
T said:
No, it isn't. A fact is something that is so. Facts aren't necessarily known, and facts are not 'true'.
I said:
Once again you are sucking definitions out of your thumb.
fact
fakt/
noun
noun: fact; plural noun: facts
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
"the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas"
synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty, factuality, certitude; truth, naked truth, verity, gospel
"it is a fact that the water supply is seriously polluted"
antonyms: lie, fiction
T said:
No, I just use better dictionaries than you. I note you failed to give the source of your definition. Did you make it up?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
* something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
* a true piece of information
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
* A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.
ReplyReply & Quote
I said:
So your own source contradicts your previous claim:
You previously said :"Facts aren't necessarily known, and facts are not 'true'."
Your own dictionary which you claim is better than mine agrees with mine (that ego again):
It says , : "A fact is "a true piece of information"
So are you going to retract your lie? Do you think anyone is going to take you seriously when you keep on contradicting yourself?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkNo, they were not. One of the statements you copied and pasted was made by:
Ah ok someone else must have hacked your account then because the two statements I copied and pasted were made by twhitehead.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
which I copied and pasted for your edification.
If you claim that anything that occurs inside a post under my username is a statement by me, then you must equally admit the same for yourself. For example I found the same two statements in a post by Fetchmyjunk. Did you make those two statements? Do you admit to contradicting yourself? (remember also that you clearly stated that context is irrelevant),
Or are you just unable to tell the difference between quoted text and text from a poster?
I actually referenced the site I was quoting from, unlike you who just pasted a definition without giving a source.
Clearly being more logical than you is a trivial achievement, thus claiming it for myself is hardly a case of oversized ego.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI said that "a fact is something that is known to be true." You respond with "No it isn't... facts are not true.", I google "fact definition" and copy and paste the definition (which supports my argument) "a thing that is known or proved to be true." You reject my definition and claim to have a better dictionary than me. You copy and paste a definition which supports my argument (that a fact is known to be true) and NOT yours because the definition that you copied and pasted said that a fact was "a true piece of information". It said absolutely nothing about a fact not being true. So the definition you used to "support" your argument was in fact contradicting your argument and supporting mine. The fact that you refuse to see or admit this just proves your arrogance/ignorance/ lack of reading comprehension/ lack of rationality. Take your pick.
No, they were not. One of the statements you copied and pasted was made by:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
which I copied and pasted for your edification.
If you claim that anything that occurs inside a post under my username is a statement by me, then you must equally admit the same for yourself. For example I found the same two sta ...[text shortened]... han you is a trivial achievement, thus claiming it for myself is hardly a case of oversized ego.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt would appear that you now accept that it was part of a dictionary definition that I quoted.
You copy and paste a definition which supports my argument (that a fact is known to be true) and NOT yours because the definition that you copied and pasted said that a fact was "a true piece of information".
Do you now accept that you were mistaken and that was not, in fact, a 'statement' made by me as you have repeatedly claimed?
It said absolutely nothing about a fact not being true. So the definition you used to "support" your argument was in fact contradicting your argument and supporting mine.
Not so. Despite your stupid claims that context doesn't matter, context does matter.
What I actually quoted in full was:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact
* something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
* a true piece of information
Which shows that the word 'fact' has two distinct usages. The first usage is the one I was using.
The fact that you refuse to see or admit this
In this sentence, what is the 'fact' that you are referring to? Is it the statement 'you refuse to see or admit this' or is it the supposed (but not actual) refusal?
The biggest problem that you, sonship and freaky share, is not your lack of logic, its that you just don't know when to walk away.
I think this would be a good point to remind you that the whole thread is asking what I, twhitehead, mean when I say 'brute fact'. It is not asking what you Fetchmyjunk think the phrase means or what a particular dictionary says it means. Basically, what I say it means is what it means. I quoted a dictionary and Wikipedia demonstrating that without a doubt my usage is not unique. That I included other possible usages in my quote is not a case of me contradicting myself. That I quoted a dictionary is not a case of me making a statement. Context does matter.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou are wrong and you know it, stop pretending otherwise. Take a deep breath and read this slowly. Maybe it will sink in, eventually.
It would appear that you now accept that it was part of a dictionary definition that I quoted.
Do you now accept that you were mistaken and that was not, in fact, a 'statement' made by me as you have repeatedly claimed?
[b]It said absolutely nothing about a fact not being true. So the definition you used to "support" your argument was in fact contrad ...[text shortened]... myself. That I quoted a dictionary is not a case of me making a statement. Context does matter.
The source that YOU were quoting clearly stated that a fact is a TRUE piece of information. This clearly contradicts YOUR earlier statement that a fact is NOT true. The earlier statement YOU made is therefore contradicted by the source that YOU quoted. Hence YOU were contradicting YOURSELF.
If a fact is something that is TRUE, as affirmed by YOUR source, (and mine) it means that your statement that a fact is NOT TRUE is clearly false. You know as well as I do that the same thing (a fact in this case) cannot be TRUE and NOT TRUE because that is a clear contradiction. No amount of whining, squirming, squealing or blabbering on your part is going to change that.
Now get off your high horse, admit you were wrong and we can put this behind us and move on.
27 Jun 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkRepeating over and over that I am wrong, doesn't make it so.
You are wrong and you know it, stop pretending otherwise. Take a deep breath and read this slowly. Maybe it will sink in, eventually.
The source that YOU were quoting clearly stated that a fact is a TRUE piece of information.
I see that you have conceded that I was actually quoting a source and not making the statement myself. That at least is progress.
Interestingly though I see no direct admission from you that you were wrong to claim that it was a statement of mine.
This clearly contradicts YOUR earlier statement that a fact is NOT true.
No, it does not. There are at least two possible meanings for the word 'fact' listed in that dictionary definition. I gave both of them. My earlier statement referred to the first meaning.
The earlier statement YOU made is therefore contradicted by the source that YOU quoted.
No, it isn't.
Hence YOU were contradicting YOURSELF.
Even if the source I quoted contradicted something I said (which it didn't), I would still not be contradicting myself any more than you quoting me saying something is contradicting yourself. Quotes are not statements by the person quoting.
If a fact is something that is TRUE, as affirmed by YOUR source, (and mine)
Except it isn't affirmed by my source. It is one possible meaning as listed in my source. Another possible meaning is also listed. Words can have multiple meanings. You do know that I hope?
28 Jun 16
6 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadRepeating over and over that I am wrong, doesn't make it so.
Repeating over and over that I am wrong, doesn't make it so.
[b]The source that YOU were quoting clearly stated that a fact is a TRUE piece of information.
I see that you have conceded that I was actually quoting a source and not making the statement myself. That at least is progress.
Interestingly though I see no direct admission from you that y ...[text shortened]... ther possible meaning is also listed. Words can have multiple meanings. You do know that I hope?[/b]
Repeating over and over that you are not wrong doesn't make it so 😛
I see that you have conceded that I was actually quoting a source and not making the statement myself. That at least is progress.
You were quoting the source to support your argument were you not?
Interestingly though I see no direct admission from you that you were wrong to claim that it was a statement of mine.
If you quote a source to support your argument then you are making a statement, i.e. that you agree with what the source is saying. Why quote a source that contradicts your argument?
There are at least two possible meanings for the word 'fact' listed in that dictionary definition. I gave both of them. My earlier statement referred to the first meaning.
You said facts are not true, the source you quoted said facts are true. End of story. The first meaning does not say that facts are not true so you have no argument there anyway.
Even if the source I quoted contradicted something I said (which it didn't), I would still not be contradicting myself any more than you quoting me saying something is contradicting yourself. Quotes are not statements by the person quoting.
Actually it did, you said facts are not true the source said facts are true. So you were contradicting yourself. You were quoting the source to support your argument that facts are not true but the source was saying that facts are true. End of story.
Except it isn't affirmed by my source. It is one possible meaning as listed in my source. Another possible meaning is also listed. Words can have multiple meanings. You do know that I hope?
Yes it is affirmed by your source. It's ironic that you blame other people for having poor reading comprehension. Your source clearly says A fact is "a true piece of information" . Are you denying that your source says that? You can deny this for as long as you want everyone can read that it is written there. The source you quoted does not say that facts are not true it says facts are true. End of story. I am done repeating this if you don't get it this time you never will.
28 Jun 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYes. That doesn't make it a statement by me as you repeatedly falsely claimed.
You were quoting the source to support your argument were you not?
If you quote a source to support your argument then you are making a statement, i.e. that you agree with what the source is saying.
No, not necessarily.
Why quote a source that contradicts your argument?
Why not? You have repeatedly quoted me in an attempt to support your argument have you not. Does this mean you agree with me and everything I said in what you quoted, you agree with, and whatever I said in what you quoted was, in fact, a statement by you? Seriously, try to think before you speak.
You said facts are not true, the source you quoted said facts are true. End of story.
Except is isn't the end of the story. The source I quoted also gave a definition for 'fact' in which they are not true.
The first meaning does not say that facts are not true so you have no argument there anyway.
But it is nevertheless the case that they are not true under the first meaning. So I do have an argument there.
End of story.
You seem mighty eager to end the story. I did suggest you have the good sense to just walk away.
It's ironic that you blame other people for having poor reading comprehension. Your source clearly says A fact is "a true piece of information" . Are you denying that your source says that?
Yes, actually, I am denying it. My source says more than that, and putting that sentence out of context does not convey the full meaning of what my source says, therefore that is not what my source says. Context matters.
I believe you are a Christian. Do you therefore believe that anyone who blasphemes should be put to death?
Leviticus 24:16
anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.