John Platko wrote:

Regina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Paul wrote:
It doesn't matter what I think the definition of the word is, what matters is the context in which it is used (or in your posts, so often, abused).

I'm growing tired of your pretentious wibble and incredibly silly word games. I'm more and more convinced that you are just pissing all of us about.

The amazing thing about all this, shocking actually, is that I don't have to (nor have I) play any games with the context of words to make my point. The truth is simply that atheists use the words supernatural, and evidence, incorrectly. And it all seems silly to me because using the words correctly in no way validates the claims of religious people.

Just in case you missed the memo: there is no atheist usage of words.

It's been my experience that the number one game that atheists (generally speaking) play when discussing religious ideas is to attempt to define a word in a way which contradicts what generally accepted dictionaries give as the actual definition and then argue from their new meaning of the old word as if their invalid definition was somehow valid because they said so.

This thread is a good example. Take the word "supernatural' for instance. If you understand what the word actually means, then it makes as much sense asking someone describing something that is supernatural for their scientific evidence that it exists then it does to ask "what shade of green is your colorless green ...".

The net result of such a way of engaging in so called rational discussion is that the discussion ends up being as rational as talking to a guy who explains how a rock put in motion by a hand will only stay in motion as long as the hand continues to exist. And once the obvious truth has been clearly presented to either the rock displacer, or word eraser, and they persist in their error we can conclude that delusion is afoot- the only difference being the flavor of delusion. Sigh.

So, in summary, your approach is to cite what you claim as an authoritative document purportedly addressing an unspecified problem, in order to cut off further discussion of whether or not you really have a problem on your hands. Where've I seen that one before. John? You're busily retreating from authoritarian readings of the bible only to fall into the arms of authoritarian readings of a dictionary. Wherever did you learn such habits of mind to enforce a particular point of view? That point of view, in particular, would be your understanding of what everyone in the world ought to denote by, e.g., supernatural.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Regina wrote:
Just in case you missed the memo: there is no atheist usage of words.

But this is the rinkydincarnation thread. Anything's possible. Or, at least, pissable. Give it a myth.

Ohhhhh. Are you talking about what the word supernatural meant in one of it's past lives? How's that work again?

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Regina wrote:
Just in case you missed the memo: there is no atheist usage of words.

But this is the rinkydincarnation thread. Anything's possible. Or, at least, pissable. Give it a myth.

Ohhhhh. Are you talking about what the word supernatural meant in one of it's past lives? How's that work again?

Ohhh, Johnny. Are you still going to tell the world how the supernatural works, or doesn't work? Brilliant savant that thou art.

I'm not confused about how some people insist that their precious fee-fees are meaningful and never bend some sort of spoon. Their precious fee-fees were never meaningful to anyone who didn't find their precious fee-fees meaningful. That includes me in relation to you and your precious fee-fees.

ElDiablo wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Paul wrote:

John Platko wrote:What exactly do you think the definition of the word evidence is?

It doesn't matter what I think the definition of the word is, what matters is the context in which it is used (or in your posts, so often, abused).

I'm growing tired of your pretentious wibble and incredibly silly word games. I'm more and more convinced that you are just pissing all of us about.

The amazing thing about all this, shocking actually, is that I don't have to (nor have I) play any games with the context of words to make my point. The truth is simply that atheists use the words supernatural, and evidence, incorrectly. And it all seems silly to me because using the words correctly in no way validates the claims of religious people.

What you're doing is making a simplistic comparison between dictionary definitions and then attempting to to elucidate them with made up terms and examples of what you consider supernatural. When you're called out on the BS of the terms and examples you retreat and try to convince us that you are merely comparing dictionary definitions.

I'm doing no such thing. I'll make my point again. Nothing up my sleeve. No smoke and mirrors. No BS terms. My point is simple.

Dictionaries (the referees of the meaning of words) define supernatural as:

Merriam Webster:

: 1) unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
2b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

The Free dictionary:

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous

Oxford Dictionaries:

(Of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:

Collins English Dictionary:

1.of or relating to things that cannot be explained according to natural laws
2.characteristic of or caused by or as if by a god; miraculous
3.of, involving, or ascribed to occult beings
4.exceeding the ordinary; abnormal

Cambridge Dictionary:

of something’s cause or existence) not able to be explained by the laws of science:

And despite the actual meaning of the word supernatural, atheists persist in asking people "what scientific evidence do you have of the supernatural?"

WTF?

Agrippina wrote:But they do that all the time. Just make shit up, and you can't argue with them about it.

Have you every considered that I may be right about the actual meaning of the word supernatural?
And, I'm not asking you to take my word for it. Google it yourself.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Regina wrote:

John Platko wrote:


The amazing thing about all this, shocking actually, is that I don't have to (nor have I) play any games with the context of words to make my point. The truth is simply that atheists use the words supernatural, and evidence, incorrectly. And it all seems silly to me because using the words correctly in no way validates the claims of religious people.

Just in case you missed the memo: there is no atheist usage of words.

It's been my experience that the number one game that atheists (generally speaking) play when discussing religious ideas is to attempt to define a word in a way which contradicts what generally accepted dictionaries give as the actual definition and then argue from their new meaning of the old word as if their invalid definition was somehow valid because they said so.

This thread is a good example. Take the word "supernatural' for instance. If you understand what the word actually means, then it makes as much sense asking someone describing something that is supernatural for their scientific evidence that it exists then it does to ask "what shade of green is your colorless green ...".

The net result of such a way of engaging in so called rational discussion is that the discussion ends up being as rational as talking to a guy who explains how a rock put in motion by a hand will only stay in motion as long as the hand continues to exist. And once the obvious truth has been clearly presented to either the rock displacer, or word eraser, and they persist in their error we can conclude that delusion is afoot- the only difference being the flavor of delusion. Sigh.

So, in summary, your approach is to cite what you claim as an authoritative document purportedly addressing an unspecified problem, in order to cut off further discussion of whether or not you really have a problem on your hands. Where've I seen that one before. John? You're busily retreating from authoritarian readings of the bible only to fall into the arms of authoritarian readings of a dictionary. Wherever did you learn such habits of mind to enforce a particular point of view? That point of view, in particular, would be your understanding of what everyone in the world ought to denote by, e.g., supernatural.

So, in summary, your approach is to say that pretty much all generally accepted dictionaries are full of shit. Wherever did you learn such habits of mind to enforce a particular point of view? I think not science! That point of view, in particular, to pretend a word means whatever you want to pretend it means so the absurdity of your argument can be denied has been unmasked.

The word supernatural means what the dictionaries say it means, not what you wish it to mean- no matter how many fellow believers you can muster to agree with you.

John Platko wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Paul wrote:
It doesn't matter what I think the definition of the word is, what matters is the context in which it is used (or in your posts, so often, abused).

I'm growing tired of your pretentious wibble and incredibly silly word games. I'm more and more convinced that you are just pissing all of us about.

The amazing thing about all this, shocking actually, is that I don't have to (nor have I) play any games with the context of words to make my point. The truth is simply that atheists use the words supernatural, and evidence, incorrectly. And it all seems silly to me because using the words correctly in no way validates the claims of religious people.

What you're doing is making a simplistic comparison between dictionary definitions and then attempting to to elucidate them with made up terms and examples of what you consider supernatural. When you're called out on the BS of the terms and examples you retreat and try to convince us that you are merely comparing dictionary definitions.

I'm doing no such thing. I'll make my point again. Nothing up my sleeve. No smoke and mirrors. No BS terms. My point is simple.

Dictionaries (the referees of the meaning of words) define supernatural as:

Merriam Webster:

: 1) unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
2b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

The Free dictionary:

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous

Oxford Dictionaries:

(Of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:

Collins English Dictionary:

1.of or relating to things that cannot be explained according to natural laws
2.characteristic of or caused by or as if by a god; miraculous
3.of, involving, or ascribed to occult beings
4.exceeding the ordinary; abnormal

Cambridge Dictionary:

of something’s cause or existence) not able to be explained by the laws of science:

And despite the actual meaning of the word supernatural, atheists persist in asking people "what scientific evidence do you have of the supernatural?"

WTF?

Again, "atheists" do no such thing.
And yet again: your dictionary definitions imply that the "supernatural" only exists in the heads of theists, occultists, the mentally ill, the naive, the uneducated and con artists focused on making a fast buck by fleecing some of the above mentioned. So I think we can agree now that any belief in the supernatural indicates a a lack of one or more candles in the chandelier. Or making a profit from it. Or using it to further one's political agenda.

John Platko wrote:
So, in summary, your approach is to say that pretty much all generally accepted dictionaries are full of shit. Wherever did you learn such habits of mind to enforce a particular point of view? I think not science! That point of view, in particular, to pretend a word means whatever you want to pretend it means so the absurdity of your argument can be denied has been unmasked.

The word supernatural means what the dictionaries say it means, not what you wish it to mean- no matter how many fellow believers you can muster to agree with you.

My approach is to tell you that the best use of a dictionary is for informing someone about what's contained in a dictionary. It's not a form of argument. What meaning of the word supernatural am I recommending you use? All I'm doing is recommending you stop using the word in conversations with me, because it's getting you precisely fucking nowhere.

The dictionary definitions of supernatural guide me toward a disinclination to engage anyone in conversation about it. I'm not telling you how to define the word; I'm telling you to fucking drop your efforts to inform me about what supernatural means. I don't need to communicate with anyone about it. The word is useless to me, and also to you, should you wish to converse with me.

John Platko wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Paul wrote:
It doesn't matter what I think the definition of the word is, what matters is the context in which it is used (or in your posts, so often, abused).

I'm growing tired of your pretentious wibble and incredibly silly word games. I'm more and more convinced that you are just pissing all of us about.

The amazing thing about all this, shocking actually, is that I don't have to (nor have I) play any games with the context of words to make my point. The truth is simply that atheists use the words supernatural, and evidence, incorrectly. And it all seems silly to me because using the words correctly in no way validates the claims of religious people.

What you're doing is making a simplistic comparison between dictionary definitions and then attempting to to elucidate them with made up terms and examples of what you consider supernatural. When you're called out on the BS of the terms and examples you retreat and try to convince us that you are merely comparing dictionary definitions.

I'm doing no such thing. I'll make my point again. Nothing up my sleeve. No smoke and mirrors. No BS terms. My point is simple.

Dictionaries (the referees of the meaning of words) define supernatural as:

Merriam Webster:

: 1) unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
2b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

The Free dictionary:

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous

Oxford Dictionaries:

(Of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:

Collins English Dictionary:

1.of or relating to things that cannot be explained according to natural laws
2.characteristic of or caused by or as if by a god; miraculous
3.of, involving, or ascribed to occult beings
4.exceeding the ordinary; abnormal

Cambridge Dictionary:

of something’s cause or existence) not able to be explained by the laws of science:

And despite the actual meaning of the word supernatural, atheists persist in asking people "what scientific evidence do you have of the supernatural?"

WTF?

Ok. Let's start anew and forget all the other crap about the pond (or whatever John called that which includes the mysteries), reincarnation, prayer etc...

John from here on out is only going to show that he knows the definition of supernatural and he'll demonstrate this by copying and pasting the definitions from various dictionaries. And to show he isn't making any claims about anything other than knowing the definition, he will not attempt to expand upon the definition by providing what he thinks are examples that fit the definitions. He will not create new words or put them in a new context that changes their meaning. He will stay strictly to the definitions.

This part of the thread is now over for John, the supernatural has been defined nothing else need be said. Nada. Zip.

Cito di Pense wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Regina wrote:
Just in case you missed the memo: there is no atheist usage of words.

But this is the rinkydincarnation thread. Anything's possible. Or, at least, pissable. Give it a myth.

Ohhhhh. Are you talking about what the word supernatural meant in one of it's past lives? How's that work again?

Ohhh, Johnny. Are you still going to tell the world how the supernatural works, or doesn't work? Brilliant savant that thou art.

I'm not confused about how some people insist that their precious fee-fees are meaningful and never bend some sort of spoon. Their precious fee-fees were never meaningful to anyone who didn't find their precious fee-fees meaningful. That includes me in relation to you and your precious fee-fees.

That's all you got? It's kind of sad really. Make up words to mean what you want them to mean so that the words you string together can be salvaged as "coherent" sentences.

John Platko wrote:That's all you got? It's kind of sad really. Make up words to mean what you want them to mean so that the words you string together can be salvaged as "coherent" sentences.

It's simply not my problem, John. You're all hot-to-trot in explaining to everyone how the supernatural works. That is, John, the Bat-piss.

John Platko wrote:

Agrippina wrote:But they do that all the time. Just make shit up, and you can't argue with them about it.

Have you every considered that I may be right about the actual meaning of the word supernatural?
And, I'm not asking you to take my word for it. Google it yourself.

Of course you're right: it's made up nonsense that won't stand up to scrutiny. I don't need to google it, I know what it means.

The trouble with supernatural stuff is just that, it can't be examined, so all it is is whatever rubbish the people who believe in it want it to be: miracles, reincarnation, wine turning into blood, crackers turning into flesh, women getting pregnant without the benefit of a man's participation, any nonsense they want to believe in and continue to believe in because it can't be disproved.

As I've said enough times, I don't care what nonsense people believe in, as long as they don't try to convince me to believe in it too. You are quite welcome to believe that Tenzin Gyatso is the reincarnation of previous incarnations, of previous incarnations, of previous incarnations, of some or other "enlightened" being, I don't care, just don't try to convince me that it's true, without offering me some tangible evidence of your claims. Yes I know that tangible evidence for your claim is impossible to find because you think your claim is above inspection. I'm very happy for you live in with that delusion. All I'm saying is that until you show me that he is in fact the reincarnation of someone who lived over and over again for thousands of years, I'll continue to see him as nothing more than a charlatan who exploits gullible people with those claims.

Regina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:

John Platko wrote:


The amazing thing about all this, shocking actually, is that I don't have to (nor have I) play any games with the context of words to make my point. The truth is simply that atheists use the words supernatural, and evidence, incorrectly. And it all seems silly to me because using the words correctly in no way validates the claims of religious people.

What you're doing is making a simplistic comparison between dictionary definitions and then attempting to to elucidate them with made up terms and examples of what you consider supernatural. When you're called out on the BS of the terms and examples you retreat and try to convince us that you are merely comparing dictionary definitions.

I'm doing no such thing. I'll make my point again. Nothing up my sleeve. No smoke and mirrors. No BS terms. My point is simple.

Dictionaries (the referees of the meaning of words) define supernatural as:

Merriam Webster:

: 1) unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
2b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

The Free dictionary:

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous

Oxford Dictionaries:

(Of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:

Collins English Dictionary:

1.of or relating to things that cannot be explained according to natural laws
2.characteristic of or caused by or as if by a god; miraculous
3.of, involving, or ascribed to occult beings
4.exceeding the ordinary; abnormal

Cambridge Dictionary:

of something’s cause or existence) not able to be explained by the laws of science:

And despite the actual meaning of the word supernatural, atheists persist in asking people "what scientific evidence do you have of the supernatural?"

WTF?

Again, "atheists" do no such thing.

Some atheists do, in fact many atheist, corrupt the meaning of words just as I describe.

And yet again: your dictionary definitions imply that the "supernatural" only exists in the heads of theists, occultists, the mentally ill, the naive, the uneducated and con artists focused on making a fast buck by fleecing some of the above mentioned. So I think we can agree now that any belief in the supernatural indicates a a lack of one or more candles in the chandelier. Or making a profit from it. Or using it to further one's political agenda.

I believe the implications you refer to are the result of your own mental processes and not the actual words in the dictionaries.
And Catholic Church's have lacked many things over the centuries but rarely candles- even if they are sadly electric candles theses days. In summary, we Catholics keep the lights on even if no one is in the pew.

John Platko wrote:

Regina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

And despite the actual meaning of the word supernatural, atheists persist in asking people "what scientific evidence do you have of the supernatural?"

WTF?

Again, "atheists" do no such thing.

Some atheists do, in fact many atheist, corrupt the meaning of words just as I describe.

Well, John, you didn't exactly say that earlier, did you? If you'd meant to say some atheists, you surely might have said what you meant to say. I think what you're avoiding doing at this point is making contact with the arguments of any individual you think is corrupting the meaning of a word, the better to argue with no one in particular, instead of mincing your words and making shoddy retractions.

John Platko wrote:In summary, we Catholics keep the lights on even if no one is in the pew.

Moses de la Montagne wrote:You can't say "we Catholics" unless you're willing to defend Catholicism in some substantial way. Or, if you can, then we Catholics think you're loony.

Gee, John. The atheists don't stroke you, the Catholics don't stroke you. Sure sign that you're onto something, such as aiming for martyrdom.

John Platko wrote:

Regina wrote:

John Platko wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:

What you're doing is making a simplistic comparison between dictionary definitions and then attempting to to elucidate them with made up terms and examples of what you consider supernatural. When you're called out on the BS of the terms and examples you retreat and try to convince us that you are merely comparing dictionary definitions.

I'm doing no such thing. I'll make my point again. Nothing up my sleeve. No smoke and mirrors. No BS terms. My point is simple.

Dictionaries (the referees of the meaning of words) define supernatural as:

Merriam Webster:

: 1) unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
2b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

The Free dictionary:

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous

Oxford Dictionaries:

(Of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:

Collins English Dictionary:

1.of or relating to things that cannot be explained according to natural laws
2.characteristic of or caused by or as if by a god; miraculous
3.of, involving, or ascribed to occult beings
4.exceeding the ordinary; abnormal

Cambridge Dictionary:

of something’s cause or existence) not able to be explained by the laws of science:

And despite the actual meaning of the word supernatural, atheists persist in asking people "what scientific evidence do you have of the supernatural?"

WTF?

Again, "atheists" do no such thing.

Some atheists do, in fact many atheist, corrupt the meaning of words just as I describe.

And yet again: your dictionary definitions imply that the "supernatural" only exists in the heads of theists, occultists, the mentally ill, the naive, the uneducated and con artists focused on making a fast buck by fleecing some of the above mentioned. So I think we can agree now that any belief in the supernatural indicates a a lack of one or more candles in the chandelier. Or making a profit from it. Or using it to further one's political agenda.

I believe the implications you refer to are the result of your own mental processes and not the actual words in the dictionaries.
And Catholic Church's have lacked many things over the centuries but rarely candles- even if they are sadly electric candles theses days. In summary, we Catholics keep the lights on even if no one is in the pew.

I am strictly relating to dictionary definitions that connect the supernatural with gods, occult beings, the miraculous, violation (!) of natural laws, spirits, etc.
Yes, those implications were arrived at through my own mental processes. Because that's what I do, I think. Which is the opposite of trying to argue with dictionary definitions that refute one's very own point.

John Platko wrote:I'm doing no such thing. I'll make my point again. Nothing up my sleeve. No smoke and mirrors. No BS terms. My point is simple.

Dictionaries (the referees of the meaning of words) define supernatural as:

Merriam Webster:

: 1) unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
2b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

The Free dictionary:

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous

Oxford Dictionaries:

(Of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:

Collins English Dictionary:

1.of or relating to things that cannot be explained according to natural laws
2.characteristic of or caused by or as if by a god; miraculous
3.of, involving, or ascribed to occult beings
4.exceeding the ordinary; abnormal

Cambridge Dictionary:

of something’s cause or existence) not able to be explained by the laws of science:

And despite the actual meaning of the word supernatural, atheists persist in asking people "what scientific evidence do you have of the supernatural?"

WTF?

Dictionaries tell us about usage. If a dictionary says "unable to be explained by science" that is not the be all and end all of it. Dictionary compilers are rarely qualified to be able to determine what can and cannot be explained by science, now or ever.

None of those definitions above makes the question "what evidence do you have of the supernatural?" meaningless. It's you who keeps pushing the concept of different 'types' of evidence.

I don't ask for 'scientific evidence', I might ask for evidence, and when it comes to things supernatural, without fail the evidence put before me is not credible.

I have no reason to accept that things, generally described as 'supernatural', such as reincarnation, are anything other than the imaginings of feeble minds and the gullible.

(it's odd but I can't find 'gullible' in any online dictionary )

John Platko wrote:And despite the actual meaning of the word supernatural, atheists persist in asking people "what scientific evidence do you have of the supernatural?"

Just checked, and in my posting history here, I have never used the phrase 'scientific evidence' (other than when quoting someone else), or asked for 'scientific evidence'.
The only times the phrase has come up in any of my posts is a few times when quoting theists using it. Funny that.

Paul wrote:

John Platko wrote:And despite the actual meaning of the word supernatural, atheists persist in asking people "what scientific evidence do you have of the supernatural?"

Just checked, and in my posting history here, I have never used the phrase 'scientific evidence' (other than when quoting someone else), or asked for 'scientific evidence'.
The only times the phrase has come up in any of my posts is a few times when quoting theists using it. Funny that.

John's error has been trying to give substance to the definition, he claims to only be discussing the dictionary meaning afterwards.
He attempted to turn it into a philosophical discussion then began asserting that the supernatural can be known.His posts flip flop between the two frequently, only compounding his error.