atheism and theism both based on faith?

[lrkun]

I'm free to always reply so every time I get the chance. It's okay, accept that some of you are not willing to accept facts. You have the right to believe what you want to, even if it's wrong. Like I said, it's better to be effective in communicating by being particular with one's use of words. After all, a dragon is a dragon, but not a mythical one when not stated like so.

Dragon flies
Komodo dragon

etc.

Now, if you fail to get my point, I'm always free to explain it again and again and again.

 

[kenandkids]

drag,·on
noun /ˈdragən/ 
dragons, plural

1) A mythical monster like a giant reptile. In European tradition the dragon is typically fire-breathing and tends to symbolize chaos or evil, whereas in the Far East it is usually a beneficent symbol of fertility, associated with water and the heavens

2) A fierce and intimidating person, esp. a woman

3)(in the 16th and 17th centuries) A short musket carried on the belt of a soldier, esp. a mounted infantryman

3b) A soldier armed with such a musket

 

[lrkun]

A Komodo Dragon is a giant reptile, not like a giant reptile, unmythical and it isn't in europe; so it doesn't have to breath fire. It's more known to be a land crocodile or a gian monitor lizard. It's saliva is filled with bacteria which helps incapacitate it's prey. While young, it can climb trees, but not when it gets about to 9 feet in length. And no, I don't want it as a pet.

 

[australopithecus]

It's okay, accept that some of you are not willing to accept facts.

It's not a fact. Komodo dragons are not dragons any more than they are computer monitors. Your semantic tomfoolery is tiresome.

 

[australopithecus]

The Coccinellidae family of beetles is commonly know in the UK and elsewhere as Ladybirds.

By your logic this is a bird:

Silly, no?

 

[lrkun]

It's okay, accept that some of you are not willing to accept facts.

It's not a fact. Komodo dragons are not dragons any more than they are computer monitors. Your semantic tomfoolery is tiresome.

Ah, your choice of words are bothersome. But this does not convince me that you've corrected the error. And to even say that they are computer monitors? Now that's semantic tomfoolery.

 

[Bearcules]

I'm free to always reply so every time I get the chance. It's okay, accept that some of you are not willing to accept facts. You have the right to believe what you want to, even if it's wrong. Like I said, it's better to be effective in communicating by being particular with one's use of words. After all, a dragon is a dragon, but not a mythical one when not stated like so.

Dragon flies
Komodo dragon

etc.

Now, if you fail to get my point, I'm always free to explain it again and again and again.

I think everyone gets your point. It just appears to some (read: me) to be pedantic.

It is generally understood when one uses the term "Dragon" that one is referring to the mythical creature. You would be hard-pressed to find someone who believes Don Quixote thought he was fighting Komodo Dragons. The term "Komodo Dragon" is the name of the beast, not it's classification.

 

[lrkun]

I think everyone gets your point. It just appears to some (read: me) to be pedantic.

It is generally understood when one uses the term "Dragon" that one is referring to the mythical creature. You would be hard-pressed to find someone who believes Don Quixote thought he was fighting Komodo Dragons. The term "Komodo Dragon" is the name of the beast, not it's classification.

One may refer to a mythical creature or any of the above defined by ken. It's just unsmart to assume that it's always refers to a mythical beast. Then again, maybe that's the common consensus of this forum when talking about dragons. I disagree with that view.

 

[australopithecus]

And to even say that they are computer monitors? Now that's semantic tomfoolery.

How is it? Their alternate name is the Komodo monitor so you calling them a dragon (which they aren't) is as foolish as mistaking them for a computer monitor (which they aren't).

tl;dr - Just because something is named after something else, doesn't mean it is the same thing as the thing it's named after.

 

[Bearcules]

One may refer to a mythical creature or any of the above defined by ken. It's just unsmart to assume that it's always refers to a mythical beast. Then again, maybe that's the common consensus of this forum when talking about dragons. I disagree with that view.

One may refer to my dog as a dragon. It is just unsmart to assume that it always refers to a mythical beast. Then again, maybe it is the common consensus that when talking about dragons the users of this forum are not talking about my dog. I disagree with that view.

 

[lrkun]

And to even say that they are computer monitors? Now that's semantic tomfoolery.

How is it? Their alternate name is the Komodo monitor so you calling them a dragon (which they aren't) is as foolish as mistaking them for a computer monitor (which they aren't).

tl;dr - Just because something is named after something else, doesn't mean it is the same thing as the thing it's named after.

Simple, the word monitor is defined to mean differently in different contexts. :/ That's why it's foolish not to have seen it coming. Again that's why it's best to be specific.

 

[Pulsar]

You're all wrong. THIS is a dragon!

Let the silliness continue...

 

[australopithecus]

Simple, the word monitor is defined to mean differently in different contexts.

And dragon isn't? Komodos are called dragons, they aren't dragons. Dragonflies aren't dragons, snapdragons aren't dragons.

It's that simple.

 

[lrkun]

Simple, the word monitor is defined to mean differently in different contexts.

And dragon isn't? Komodos are called dragons, they aren't dragons. Dragonflies aren't dragons, snapdragons aren't dragons.

It's that simple.

It's not that simple. Komodo dragons are dragons. It's the arrangement of words.

X mythical dragon is likewise a dragon because it is called a dragon you know. By your logic, X, Y, or Z is so because it is called such.

 

[australopithecus]

It's not that simple. Komodo dragons are dragons. It's the arrangement of words.

Then you must concede that this is a bird:

...that this a toy children play with when it's windy...

...that this is a fish...

...that this is a horse...

...and that this is a cat...

It's the arrangement of words.

 

[lrkun]

No. You've yet to understand that the arrangement likewise depends on the context it used. That's why to define the same specifically is important. ^^ Also, a word + picture needs to be reconciled. <-- word/definition as applied with respect to the picture.

 

[Pulsar]

Then you must concede that this is a bird:

I was hoping you'd post some nice pics of tits and boobies.

 

[australopithecus]

You've yet to understand that the arrangement likewise depends on the context it used.

...and in no context is a Komodo a dragon as dragon is accepted to be defined.. It's merely named after the mythical beast. If I say "I don't believe in dragons" that is in no way challenged by the existence of Komodo monitors

 

[lrkun]

You've yet to understand that the arrangement likewise depends on the context it used.

...and in no context is a Komodo a dragon as dragon is accepted to be defined.. It's merely named after the mythical beast. If I say "I don't believe in dragons" that is in no way challenged by the existence of Komodo monitors

The problem here is the word dragon has many meanings. Again, it does not, alone, refer to a mythical beast. (ken's post).

If you don't believe in dragons, the lock there is: what do you mean by dragons? Why define? To have communicate clearly and avoid miscommunication. After all, I cannot read your mind.

 

[Squawk]

Meh, backtracking a bit, but I still don't get the issue with the term belief. Fill in X for the statement below.

I X, where X is acceptance of a given postulate

It doesn't have to state the reason for acceptance of the postulate, just acceptance. Believe is the only word that works. It's my contention that people are scared of the word believe because they equate it with a faith based position and are unwilling to use terminology that they feel weakens their position.

I believe in evolution. I believe in science. I'll state it loud and proud. It tells you absolutely nothing about why I believe in those things, it's simply a statement.

If I subsequently justify my belief I would start to discuss epistemology, empiricism, falsifiability and so on and so forth. Someone else might state that they believe in evolution because the polka dot fairy monster told them to. It's an irrelevance to that statement. I know hackenslash disagrees with me on this point, and I know that's he thought it through, so it's a point we must disagree on.

Tell me this. Would it be erroneous to state that "I accept that Jesus is my lord and saviour because the Bible states it to be the case"?

I would argue this is a perfectly sound statement, and highlight that it shows that acceptance is being used simply as a synonym due to fear of attack.