Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Community Forums
 General Discussion
 The water cooler, part 3
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 54

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25760 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2011 :  08:58:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

Hey you don't have to get all snooty with me for simply pointing out the contradiction in the meanings.
By the time most people have graduated high school, they've understood that English is messy and some words have contradictory meanings.
The "they" I was referring to here was Merriam-Webster for not proofreading and discovering that they had posted conflicting meanings for the same word before they had released their online dictionary.
Are you saying that Merriam-Webster should lie about how words are used? Dictionaries report usage, they don't invent it. It would be a massive failure for a dictionary to not report the multiple, contradictory meanings of "natural."
But this only leads us to my underlying point, why do "they" feel the need to assign the conflicting meaning (not man made) to the word natural in the first place?
"They" did no such thing.
We already have the word "artificial" if you simply want to identify man as the force of nature causing a particular object or a phenomena to appear or occur.
You'll need to look up the etymologies of the different meanings for "natural" to find out who to blame.
Do we draw a distinction and say man's actions are unnatural because he is a living being with intelligence? Then why is not a beaver or an elk's actions, and the results of those actions, deemed unnatural as well? Why pick out man and distinguish him from the rest of the living creatures put here by nature by declaring his actions alone as unnatural?

Do we draw a distinction and say man's actions are unnatural because he is currently the most intelligent of the living beings that nature has created? If so then before man, the most intelligent being of that day, was it's actions unnatural as well? And if man were to go extinct tomorrow would then the 2nd most intelligent being on earth, would its actions now be unnatural?
I think you're going to need to ask people who've been dead for hundreds of years these questions.
You see we are told in the Bible that man was made special by God and was set apart from the rest of his creation and that he will have dominion over the entire creation. And this is so self-evident that even un-believers and those who have never read the Genius account before recognize this self-evident reality. But since they refuse to acknowledge God and his order or are unaware of it they, for no reason given and with no authority to do so, attach the qualifier (not man made) as one of the meanings for natural, even though it contradicts early meanings given for the word. So out of all the millions of beings and forces of nature at work on our earth they pick out man and with a wave of their magic wand they deem his actions as unnatural. They see God's self-evident truth in reality that man was created special and given dominion over all but instead of acknowledging God they simply give a hand wave and declare man's actions as "unnatural". The Christian will say that man is set apart from the rest of creation because God made him that way while the unbeliever will address this self-evident truth by simply declaring that man's actions are unnatural with no explanation or reason as to why they are unnatural, other than to say they are unnatural because we said so.
In all likelihood, the meaning of "natural" as "not man-made" was coined by a religious person, Bill. Probably even a Christian, considering how many English speakers are Christian.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2011 :  09:57:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.



I think you're going to need to ask people who've been dead for hundreds of years these questions.

I am asking you, right now. Do you, like the dictionary and many others, distinguish man's actions as unnatural as opposed to every other living creature on earth who's actions are deemed as natural or is there no distinguishing to be made between man and all other nature?

And all likelihood, the meaning of "natural" as "not man-made" was coined by a religious person, Bill. Probably even a Christian, considering how many English speakers are Christian.

Speculation, but even if so we know why he did it. The Bible describes God as creating man as separate from the rest of creation and He gave man dominion over all things. Why would a naturalist separate and distinguish man apart from the rest of creation?

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Edited by - Bill scott on 08/08/2011 11:33:55
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2011 :  10:00:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by leoofno



I don't care about Al Gore's income. It has no bearing on the issue.

That is because you are indoctrinated and can only see what you want to see. Just like the poor saps who ignore the fact that Benny Hinn has amassed a personal fortune and flies in a private jet off of the revenue generated at his false prophesies and fake healing conventions. Just like Benny Hinn, Al Gore has ammased a personal empire and lectures the common man about sacrifice for the cause all while he pulls jet skies around behind his private house boat, owns homes that consume more energy than some small towns and flies in a private jet off to his next lecture racket.



I asked for evidence that climate scientists say that extreme weather is proof of GW. I am not surprised that you don't have any. (And yes, I even included Al as a possible source to make it easier for you.)

I never claimed they did. I said that it was media that likes to claim everything from the S.F. Giants winning the World Series to The Royal Wedding as evidence for man made global climate change.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25760 Posts

Posted - 08/08/2011 :  13:27:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

I am asking you, right now. Do you, like the dictionary and many others, distinguish man's actions as unnatural as opposed to every other living creature on earth who's actions are deemed as natural or is there no distinguishing to be made between man and all other nature?
As I've been saying, it depends on the context. It's why the word has more than one meaning. As a person with at least an average grasp of his native tongue, you should understand this. You don't get confused by the huge number of different meanings of "do," do you?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 08/09/2011 :  04:30:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.



As I've been saying, it depends on the context. It's why the word has more than one meaning
.

By all means then give me a few examples of when you would say that mans actions are unnatural.



As a person with at least an average grasp of his native tongue, you should understand this. You don't get confused by the huge number of different meanings of "do," do you?

No, I usually do not. But then again, my point never had anything to do with the number of meanings the word "natural" had, but rather had everything to do with the fact that the word had two meanings that were direct contradictions of each other. I simply pointed out that this made it possible for us to refer to a man made pond as unnatural, natural and artificial all at the same time and be correct on all accounts. I said this because we were discussing the word "natural". After pointing this out you then next go off on some tangent about me having trouble with words that have mutiblie meanings. Lets not get confused here. I understand, and have no problem, that some words have more than one meaning. I just pointed out that "natural" had conflicting meanings because we were discussing the word "natural". No more tangents, please.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25760 Posts

Posted - 08/09/2011 :  07:20:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

But then again, my point never had anything to do with the number of meanings the word "natural" had, but rather had everything to do with the fact that the word had two meanings that were direct contradictions of each other.
Yes, a bunch of words are in that category. There's even a word for it: contranyms. Here is a list of some, obviously incomplete because it doesn't include "apology."
I simply pointed out that this made it possible for us to refer to a man made pond as unnatural, natural and artificial all at the same time and be correct on all accounts.
No, you asked why "they" would allow this to happen, or why "they" didn't edit the dictionary correctly. You didn't "simply" do anything.
I said this because we were discussing the word "natural". After pointing this out you then next go off on some tangent about me having trouble with words that have mutiblie meanings. Lets not get confused here. I understand, and have no problem, that some words have more than one meaning.
If words were to only have one meaning each, it would be impossible for any word to be a contranym. You didn't address or even acknowledge the contranyms I pointed out earlier, so I figured your beef must have been with words having multiple meanings at all.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 08/09/2011 :  08:01:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.



Yes, a bunch of words are in that category. There's even a word for it: contranyms. Here is a list of some, obviously incomplete because it doesn't include "apology."


Right. And they need to add "natural" to that list, as I have pointed out.



No, you asked why "they" would allow this to happen, or why "they" didn't edit the dictionary correctly. You didn't "simply" do anything.

1: I did this simply after pointing out the conflicting meanings. 2: Who cares? I was just curious and this has nothing at all to do with whether man's actions are natural, unnatural or both.



If words were to only have one meaning each, it would be impossible for any word to be a contranym. You didn't address or even acknowledge the contranyms I pointed out earlier, so I figured your beef must have been with words having multiple meanings at all.

Well, now you see otherwise.


I am asking you, right now. Do you, like the dictionary and many others, distinguish man's actions as unnatural as opposed to every other living creature on earth who's actions are deemed as natural or is there no distinguishing to be made between man and all other nature?

As I've been saying, it depends on the context. It's why the word has more than one meaning...

Fine, then for the 2nd time please give me some examples, with context, of when you would deem man's actions as unnatural.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 08/09/2011 :  08:29:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.





And all likelihood, the meaning of "natural" as "not man-made" was coined by a religious person, Bill. Probably even a Christian, considering how many English speakers are Christian.

Well if it was a Christian who coined and added the meaning (not man made) to the word "natural" that should not come as a big surprise considering that the Bible says that man is separate and set apart from the rest of creation and is to have dominion over it. Now what is surprising is that naturalists, such as yourself, would except this meaning and even use it considering that in the completely materialistic universe man is no different and no better or worse then any other creature nature has created. Nature no more cares for man or has separated him from the rest of creation than it has a dung beetle. So obviously I am very curious about under what context a naturalist/materialist would claim that man and/or his actions are unnatural.

You see whoever coined and added the meaning (not man made) to the word "natural", whether Christian or not, did so because they could recognize this truth in the reality of which they lived. Man is separate from all other creation and he does have dominion over it.
The trouble for the naturalist is that in a completely materialist universe man is not set apart from all creation and has no less or no more importance or worth to nature than a maggot does. But yet his eyes and the reality of his world display that man is separate and has dominion over all creation. So the naturalist must try and rationalize how man can be separate and set apart from the rest of nature while also being not separate or not set apart from the rest of nature both at the same time.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Edited by - Bill scott on 08/09/2011 10:51:30
Go to Top of Page

alienist
Skeptic Friend

USA
210 Posts

Posted - 08/09/2011 :  09:45:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send alienist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Bill Scott said, Bankrupting the American people with artificial astronomical energy cost is not the way to do this.

Way to be histrionic about the whole subject, Bill. I am reminded of the time the car industry was saying that the government requiring cars to have catalyct converters would bankrupt them. But it didn't. The smog in LA disappeared for a while with the change in how cars were made. Then it came back once everyone started buying SUV's (I can't imagine why you would need an SUV in LA)

I think officials in Saudi Arabia have said they don't want oil prices to get too high because that would trigger more energy conservation measures.
Politicians are beholden to oil companies for their campaigns so they have no incentive to push for energy conservation

Well, those are my rambling, jumbled thoughts. I think I am still recovering from not getting enough sleep last week.

The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9641 Posts

Posted - 08/09/2011 :  12:04:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by alienist

Bill Scott said, Bankrupting the American people with artificial astronomical energy cost is not the way to do this.

Way to be histrionic about the whole subject, Bill. I am reminded of the time the car industry was saying that the government requiring cars to have catalyct converters would bankrupt them. But it didn't. The smog in LA disappeared for a while with the change in how cars were made.

Well, Bill get's a hard-on every time Al Gore is mentioned. Notice how he usually is in deep lurk-mode until some google(?) software gets triggered by Al Gore's mention and he creeps out from under whatever rock he's hiding to spew his gall.
"Bankrupting the American people with artificial astronomical energy cost is not the way to do this." is just another line of evidence-free conjecture he dreamed up.



Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

alienist
Skeptic Friend

USA
210 Posts

Posted - 08/09/2011 :  14:31:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send alienist a Private Message  Reply with Quote

Just to back up my earlier statement about which scientists agree that humans contribute to global warming and which scientists do not.

A study published in the January 2009 newsletter of the American Geophysical Union, the professional association of earth scientists, found that while nearly 90 percent of some 3,000 climatologists who responded agreed that there was evidence of human-driven climate change, 80 percent of all earth scientists and 64 percent of meteorologists agreed with the statement. Only economic geologists who specialized in industrial uses of materials like oil and coal were more skeptical.


Metereologists study short term changes in weather. Climatologists study climate changes over decades and centuries

The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25760 Posts

Posted - 08/09/2011 :  14:54:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

Well if it was a Christian who coined and added the meaning (not man made) to the word "natural" that should not come as a big surprise considering that the Bible says that man is separate and set apart from the rest of creation and is to have dominion over it. Now what is surprising is that naturalists, such as yourself, would except this meaning and even use it considering that in the completely materialistic universe man is no different and no better or worse then any other creature nature has created. Nature no more cares for man or has separated him from the rest of creation than it has a dung beetle. So obviously I am very curious about under what context a naturalist/materialist would claim that man and/or his actions are unnatural.
I care for humans more than I do other critters. From a "grand scheme of things" view, we (and every other creature) are no different than an asteroid, but from our point-of-view, "life" as a category is different from "non-life," just like "humans" do things differently than most other living things.

Of course, by your logic, since I am an anti-theist, I should want to avoid using any words coined by theists or derived from other theistic words. But that would simply be spite, and not conducive to good communications.
So the naturalist must try and rationalize how man can be separate and set apart from the rest of nature while also being not separate or not set apart from the rest of nature both at the same time.
No, not at the same time. Context matters, Bill. If you try to adopt a different meaning for a word in mid-discussion, you'd be guilty of equivocation.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 08/10/2011 :  05:32:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.




I care for humans more than I do other critters.

That is it? That is the best example, with context, that you can give me of when/why man or his actions would be deemed unnatural?


From a "grand scheme of things" view, we (and every other creature) are no different than an asteroid,

That is what I have been saying all along. In the materialist/naturalistic universe man and his actions are no more unnatural than a maggot or an asteroids actions are.


but from our point-of-view, "life" as a category is different from "non-life,

But nature does not give a rat's ass about your point of view, Dave. And "different" does not equivocate into unnatural. Whales and birds are different. This does not make one of them unnatural. Both life and non-life were created in accordance with nature. Both human and critter/plant life were created in acordance with nature. All have no less or no more worth or meaning to nature than does the other. All are natural. So with who's authority do you just parade in here and claim that this is natural and this is unnatural? I am sorry, Dave, but your "point of view" does not trump the realities of nature.


" just like "humans" do things differently than most other living things.

Man is different then all the other living creatures and even the naturalist/materialist cannot deny this reality which we see in the real world. An orca whale my have dominion over all in the sea, while a lion may have dominion over the land and an eagle may have dominion over the sky, but man is the only one who has dominion over sea, land and sky. He has been given dominion over all. There are so many things that distinguish man from the rest of creation that that could be a thread all in itself. Again, that is the problem for the naturalist/materialist. They know that if this is a completely materialist/naturalistic universe than man is worth no more or no less than any other creature. He also knows his actions are no more or no less unnatural than any other creature created by nature. But yet with his eyes the naturalist sees in reality that man is separate and set apart from the rest of creation and that he has complete dominion over all other creation. So he has to rationalize and explain how man can be both natural and unnatural and this proves to be a most difficult task.


Of course, by your logic, since I am an anti-theist, I should want to avoid using any words coined by theists or derived from other theistic words. But that would simply be spite, and not conducive to good communications.

That is not my logic at all. I am asking you, as an anti-theist, by who's authority and on what bases do you decide which of man's actions are deemed unnatural?

No, not at the same time. Context matters, Bill. If you try to adopt a different meaning for a word in mid-discussion, you'd be guilty of equivocation.

For the 3rd time then, please give me some examples, with context, of when you would deem man's actions as unnatural. So far the only example or rational you have attempted to provide was to say that you care for humans more than other critters.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Edited by - Bill scott on 08/10/2011 07:02:23
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25760 Posts

Posted - 08/10/2011 :  08:45:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

That is it? That is the best example, with context, that you can give me of when/why man or his actions would be deemed unnatural?
You've got to be kidding. You've been given several examples already.
That is what I have been saying all along. In the materialist/naturalistic universe man and his actions are no more unnatural than a maggot or an asteroids actions are.
That's one context. There are others.
But nature does not give a rat's ass about your point of view, Dave.
No, it doesn't. I do.
And "different" does not equivocate into unnatural. Whales and birds are different. This does not make one of them unnatural.
Nice hidden context switch, there. That's the kind of dishonesty I've come to expect from you.
Both life and non-life were created in accordance with nature. Both human and critter/plant life were created in acordance with nature. All have no less or no more worth or meaning to nature than does the other. All are natural.
Yes, in that context.
So with who's authority do you just parade in here and claim that this is natural and this is unnatural?
The language's authority.
I am sorry, Dave, but your "point of view" does not trump the realities of nature.
No, there's no "trumping" of anything going on. It's just a context switch. The sort of thing that you overtly reject, but covertly perform.
Man is different then all the other living creatures and even the naturalist/materialist cannot deny this reality which we see in the real world.
But you just said that we're all the same.
An orca whale my have dominion over all in the sea, while a lion may have dominion over the land and an eagle may have dominion over the sky, but man is the only one who has dominion over sea, land and sky.
In a Biblical context, perhaps. In the real world, man gets killed everywhere on a regular basis without special tools. Naked people are slow, vulnerable and can't fly too well.
He has been given dominion over all.
Who had the authority to grant that?!
There are so many things that distinguish man from the rest of creation that that could be a thread all in itself.
But in the "grand scheme of things," humans are just bundles of atoms obeying the laws of physics and chemistry.
Again, that is the problem for the naturalist/materialist. They know that if this is a completely materialist/naturalistic universe than man is worth no more or no less than any other creature. He also knows his actions are no more or no less unnatural than any other creature created by nature. But yet with his eyes the naturalist sees in reality that man is separate and set apart from the rest of creation and that he has complete dominion over all other creation. So he has to rationalize and explain how man can be both natural and unnatural and this proves to be a most difficult task.
No, it's a pathetically easy task for someone who understands that words mean different things in different contexts. I'm pretty sure that you do understand this (and so you won't reach for your house key when someone talks about musical keys), but are just being purposefully dense in this discussion for reasons I won't begin to guess at.
That is not my logic at all. I am asking you, as an anti-theist, by who's authority and on what bases do you decide which of man's actions are deemed unnatural?
On the authority of the people who use the English language, because that's what the word means.
For the 3rd time then, please give me some examples, with context, of when you would deem man's actions as unnatural. So far the only example or rational you have attempted to provide was to say that you care for humans more than other critters.
No, you were given examples, in context, before you even asked for an example.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 08/10/2011 :  11:32:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.




In the real world, man gets killed everywhere on a regular basis without special tools.


I see.

So if a man in the water reaches down and catches a fish with his bare hands were his actions natural, unnatural or both?

If the same man uses a spear to harpoon a fish were his actions natural, unnatural or both?

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Edited by - Bill scott on 08/10/2011 11:41:56
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 54 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.41 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000