J
JohnDamian
Guest
Even a man of the low sciences should come to expect philosophical terminology in the philosophy section
If you like, I can give empirical evidence that we are in the philosophy section
- Status
If you like, I can give empirical evidence that we are in the philosophy section
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Still going on my friends? I have no problem with Physics, Einstien referred to physics as the God of Order. Yet I believe its worth noting, That " The God of Miracles has one powerfull advantage over the God of Order. The God of Miracles explains the mythology of our purpose in the Universe; on this subject the God of Order remains Silent"?
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
Aren’t you a bit too busy thrashing out the conundrum of whether or not you exist?Even a man of the low sciences should come to expect philosophical terminology in the philosophy section
If you like, I can give empirical evidence that we are in the philosophy section
J
JohnDamian
Guest
Philosophy 101 shows that we certainly exist at the very least - even if we accept the most strong Solipsism, which by no means I doAren’t you a bit too busy thrashing out the conundrum of whether or not you exist?
in nuce cogito ergo sum
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
You think therefore you are. How do you know that I’m not a Turing machine?Philosophy 101 shows that we certainly exist at the very least - even if we accept the most strong Solipsism, which by no means I do
in nuce cogito ergo sum
I
Ignatius
Guest
Not really, The Princeton dictionary on-line says that a person isIgnatius:
Not according to the English department at Princeton University.
I’m happy to go with their definition.
Code:
* S: (n) person, individual, someone, somebody, mortal, *soul* "there was too much for one person to do"
* S: (n) person (a human body (usually including the clothing)) "a weapon was hidden on his person"
* S: (n) person (a grammatical category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms according to whether they indicate the speaker, the addressee, or a third party) "stop talking about yourself in the third person"Some clarity can be gained from a more thorough analysis using multiple sources such as the Webster dictionary.
Main Entry: per·son
Pronunciation: \ˈpər-sən
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French persone, from Latin persona actor’s mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosōpa, plural of prosōpon face, mask — more at prosopopoeia
Date: 13th century
1 : human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : guise
3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing
5 : the personality of a human being : self
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
— per·son·hood -ˌhu̇d\ noun
*As can be clearly seen, a human being is only one of the possible definitions of a person. I hope this helps illuminate and clarify your misconceptions on the subject.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
You missed a salient one…
Key: “S:” = Show Synset (semantic) relations, “W:” = Show Word (lexical) relations
Noun
* S:
person, individual, someone, somebody, mortal, soul **(a human being) **“there was too much for one person to do”* S:
person (a human body (usually including the clothing)) “a weapon was hidden on his person”* S:
person (a grammatical category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms according to whether they indicate the speaker, the addressee, or a third party) “stop talking about yourself in the third person”You sir, are a liar and a rogue…
J
JohnDamian
Guest
The Princeton University Dictionary is NOT the be all and end all of dictionaries… Since when was the English Language formed by a university founded in 1746, in America of all places - not England… 
The word Person, from the Online Etymology Dictionary is:
“early 13c., from O.Fr. persone “human being” (12c., Fr. personne), from L. persona “human being,” originally “character in a drama, mask,” possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu “mask.” This may be related to Gk. Persephone. The use of -person to replace -man in compounds and avoid alleged sexist connotations is first recorded 1971 (in chairperson). In person “by bodily presence” is from 1560s.”
Whilst it originated in the French Word for “Human Being” it is previously borrowed from the words for Character and Mask…
Now, the context of a word specifies it’s meaning…
When we say “person” in Drama, we are typically speaking of the persona or character being portrayed. (etymonline.com)
When we say “person” in a court of law, or general useage, we mean a Human being (princeton)
When we say “person” in a PHILOSOPHY FORUM, we use the definition, which is: any human or non-human who is selfconscious or rational being (dictionary.com)
When we say Person in Theology we mean any of the hypostases / modes in the trinity. (dictionary.com)
Now there is no need for further pettifogging, it is clear that as this is a philosophy forum, we take the meaning of the word person in the philosophic sence, and from dictionary.com that is “a self conscious or rational being”…
The word Person, from the Online Etymology Dictionary is:
“early 13c., from O.Fr. persone “human being” (12c., Fr. personne), from L. persona “human being,” originally “character in a drama, mask,” possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu “mask.” This may be related to Gk. Persephone. The use of -person to replace -man in compounds and avoid alleged sexist connotations is first recorded 1971 (in chairperson). In person “by bodily presence” is from 1560s.”
Whilst it originated in the French Word for “Human Being” it is previously borrowed from the words for Character and Mask…
Now, the context of a word specifies it’s meaning…
When we say “person” in Drama, we are typically speaking of the persona or character being portrayed. (etymonline.com)
When we say “person” in a court of law, or general useage, we mean a Human being (princeton)
When we say “person” in a PHILOSOPHY FORUM, we use the definition, which is: any human or non-human who is selfconscious or rational being (dictionary.com)
When we say Person in Theology we mean any of the hypostases / modes in the trinity. (dictionary.com)
Now there is no need for further pettifogging, it is clear that as this is a philosophy forum, we take the meaning of the word person in the philosophic sence, and from dictionary.com that is “a self conscious or rational being”…
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
Now there is no need for further pettifogging, it is clear that as this is a philosophy forum, we take the meaning of the word person in the philosophic sence, and from dictionary.com that is “a self conscious or rational being”…
I’ve got a better idea. How about you quit bandying stupid philosophical semantics which have made no progress whatsoever in the last 3,000 years and will make no progress in the next 3,000 years and stick to the substance of the argument rather than the semantics?
By the way, hold the mustard…
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
E
eonNEXUS
Guest
It’s a sad thing… I wonder, if God existed, what he would be like.
The sad thing, however, is it’s not the Men in the Sky that tell you what to do. It’s their fanclubs.
The sad thing, however, is it’s not the Men in the Sky that tell you what to do. It’s their fanclubs.
J
JohnDamian
Guest
Most modern thinkers regard things like… Scientific Method (R. Bacon, Alhazen) to be a rather useful product of philosophy… That, and you know… Human rights (Aristotle)? Free speech(Madrasah movement)? Pacifist movements (Tolstoy)? Empiricism (Hume)? and so on and so forth… A little more than we regard men in white coats playing genocide with nuclear bombs and biowarfare.
I’ve got a better idea. How about you quit bandying stupid philosophical semantics which have made no progress whatsoever in the last 3,000 years and will make no progress in the next 3,000 years and stick to the substance of the argument rather than the semantics
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
ROTFLMFAO!!!Most modern thinkers regard things like… Scientific Method (R. Bacon, Alhazen) to be a rather useful product of philosophy… That, and you know… Human rights (Aristotle)? Free speech(Madrasah movement)? Pacifist movements (Tolstoy)? Empiricism (Hume)? and so on and so forth… A little more than we regard men in white coats playing genocide with nuclear bombs and biowarfare.
When it comes to genocide, I’m happy to bow to your knowledge as one of the followers of the kings and teachers of genocide…
J
JohnDamian
Guest
My faith is not in men, but in God… A God that tells us to “not kill”ROTFLMFAO!!!
When it comes to genocide, I’m happy to bow to your knowledge as one of the followers of the kings and teachers of genocide…
Just because some people have made mistakes or have sinned does not turn me away from what I see to be the truth, if anything it compels me forward!
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
Is that a fact… Well, for your homework, I suggest some Deuteronomy, Leveticus, Jeremiah, Romans, Paul’s Letters to the Thessalonians after his epileptic fit…My faith is not in men, but in God… A God that tells us to “not kill”
Just because some people have made mistakes or have sinned does not turn me away from what I see to be the truth, if anything it compels me forward!
How about Ezikiel? Don’t you think it was a little harsh forcing him to eat human turd?
Original sin? What sick idiot came up with that one? A philosopher with too much time on his hands no doubt.
L
lemondiesel
Guest
I will assume yourMy faith is not in men, but in God… A God that tells us to “not kill”
Just because some people have made mistakes or have sinned does not turn me away from what I see to be the truth, if anything it compels me forward!
meant you were being sarcastic, but are you saying God needs to reinforce “do not kill” (or our basic morals)
K
KindredSoul
Guest
Moonstruck, you have said that you do not intend to mock us or our beliefs, and in good faith I have taken your word for it. Words like this, though, express the opposite. One does not suggest that a “sick idiot” must have come up with a belief that one is not inherently mocking as stupid or bad. You have used other phrasing and sarcasm similarly confrontational, and it is exactly the sort of thing that rightly causes people who hold our beliefs to take your posts personally. Please watch yourself on this sort of behavior, if your intentions are sincere and you honestly don’t want to come across as mocking people and/or their beliefs. Thank you.Original sin? What sick idiot came up with that one? A philosopher with too much time on his hands no doubt.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
Y
yppop
Guest
Moonbeam,
I’ve got a better idea. How about you quit bandying stupid philosophical semantics which have made no progress whatsoever in the last 3,000 years and will make no progress in the next 3,000 years and stick to the substance of the argument rather than the semantics?
By the way, hold the mustard…
I thought the substance of the argument revolved around your question; “What is God?”
So, how about you quit creating diversions and take up my challenge?
Yppop
L
lemondiesel
Guest
Were any of you around when being Atheist was intellectually fascinating?
times have changed apparently…:tsktsk:
times have changed apparently…:tsktsk:
H
Hooding_Trees
Guest
I don’t agree. The whole concept of original sin is not only ludicrous, but utterly immoral.Moonstruck, you have said that you do not intend to mock us or our beliefs, and in good faith I have taken your word for it. Words like this, though, express the opposite. One does not suggest that a “sick idiot” must have come up with a belief that one is not inherently mocking as stupid or bad. You have used other phrasing and sarcasm similarly confrontational, and it is exactly the sort of thing that rightly causes people who hold our beliefs to take your posts personally. Please watch yourself on this sort of behavior, if your intentions are sincere and you honestly don’t want to come across as mocking people and/or their beliefs. Thank you.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
- Status