bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas. says:

Well dexton==are we?

Definitions are good mind/rational exercises. Can you state a definition and stay within it? If you can’t, no reasonable/rational person will have sway with you because until words are defined and adhered to, there actually is no communication, only miscommunication and all that flows therefrom.

Take rational for an example. A person’s rationality has nothing to do with the property of a number/measurement being rational or irrational. The concept of pi just needed a term by which to call it. Could have chosen chocolate ice cream for all the same meaning.

So, rational does not mean “knowledge” as you attempt to bootstrap yourself into a rational argument. Fail.

Do I ever say God does not exist? Maybe when tired or sleepy or as a throw away, but more often I say the belief in god is not logical and I provide the algorithm from Epicurus. When I say at #60 that god might exist and you can’t prove he doesn’t, how do you transform that into saying I said god doesn’t exist?

Now, this goes to my catch phrase of Silly Hooman of which you are NOT. Silly hooman is a group characteristic of otherwise intelligent people saying/acting/believing something “out of character” with their general intelligence.

Stoopid Human is another cutesy pie I use for individual people saying/acting/believing something just plain stupid. Like most things on Religion, or the US Constitution, and other mystical things. My own word smithing, but its fun on a cold winters night.

Try it, you might like it.

bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas. says:

dexton==I agree it is a challenge to disagree with one another when we don’t even correctly express what we mean to say? Nice joke to that point I have looked for a few times and haven’t found yet.

You are being too much the Politically Correct Relativist. Epicurus pointed out that creating a god that was all powerful, all good, and all knowing was irrational/illogical. It remains so today, and I don’t see that changing. So, how many thousands of years must something be logically incoherent before it is accepted as irrational?

You are taking what conceptually might possibly on rare occasions arise as if they had the same weight/importance/relevance as those thing well accepted/proven/scientific today. An imbalance. They are not equal. God exists is as likely as you walking off a cliff and all your electrons happen to rotate in the same direction so you don’t fall. You want to conjecture that god might exist but you won’t walk off a cliff. They aren’t equal.

I never said the Const was stupid. You need to read/think more carefully. Just because it is rather delicious, do you have an inkling why pi could be called chocolate ice cream with equal validity====or even more, than calling it irrational? ((yes, I’m fishing, but its a good one!))

dexton7 says:

Bobbo,

I’m just having fun at this point.. Until next time.

bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas. says:

dexton==there must be more “lag time” than the posted times indicate. If you check tomorrow:

What stoopid humans will do:

People who quote a sentence on what some Founding Father thought on a subject as if that is what the Const words mean.

People who quote a sentence from the Const without regard to Sup Ct Case Law directly on point==ie, the Const means what the Sup Ct says it means.

People who state some section of the Const doesn’t apply to a subject when the whole point is that some other provision is the relevant one.

People who won’t separate what the Const does say from what they think it should say.

There’s a few more, more contentious.

Mystical things: believed in but not understood.

dexton7 says:

Misanthropic Scott and Bobbo,

Indeed. I agree with that.