Renegade_Turner Schools the Wolfire Forums on Semantics

[Wilbefast]

That is indeed a pretty arsehole thing to say - pity I wasn't around to be incensed

[Assaultman67]

Ren, if you are immortal (by the definition) and you do consider some people here to worship you, you at least match 3 of the 6 definitions for a god ...

you're just being "ignant" now

What I find absolutely amazing in this whole conversation is instead of saying

"lol im obviously joking, im not immortal. You're a spastic."

at any point in the conversation. Instantly making anything I said wrong ...

Your arrogance and unwillingness to admit you are mortal dragged us into a completely fictious debate

You're providing some very foggy and wishy-washy logic for your arguments, which stacked awkwardly because of your unwillingness to admit a fallacy you have.

[SamW]

You just can't joke with this guy, he will rail against your poorly formed jokes if he can't really argue against your statements.

I'm going to peg all that down to blind envy.

Well, to worship an immortal may not technically be worshiping a god, but even worshiping a god may technically not be religious. That is probably because there are simply a bunch of unknowns when talking about religion. For example one could be worshiped and be immortal without being all powerful. But as has been said, this is all completely tangential... wait (google define: tangential). Scratch that. This is all completely off topic for the current discussion, which incidentally is off topic of the discussion to Armored Wolf hating the fact that there isn't another Wolfire tour video. In other words I am continuing a discussion that is clearly within the category of thread derailment.

Which leads me to also go completely off topic and wonder with amazement at how easy it is for Rengade Turner to completely and utterly cause this kind of thread derailment. It is so easy, attack some one in ways that are irrelevant to the discussion, and they will feel obligated to defend themselves even if it completely derails the current discussion, or in many cases simply extends the life of the thread beyond it's natural life. All the back and forth is also a good way to bolster your own post count, not that it matters.



...




... I wish I could temporarily get the ability to moderate all this off-topic-e-ness away, temporarily and at an on my own time kind of way.



.... I deem the following on-topic enough, and self certify that it is not a waste of Wolfire forums database space.



So anyways what do you want to see in the next Wolfire tour?
I want to see into the mind and brilliance of David. Things like reverse shadow casting make us all feel feeble minded and stupid. Well if we can't get a tour of his brain I guess his workspace would be a marginal second.

[tokage]

Good observation there SamW, but may I address an issue with what you said.

For example one could be worshiped and be immortal without being all powerful.

This is not an 'example', in fact the word "all powerful" is meaningless in itself. Noone and nothing can be all powerful, therefore no being that is immortal and is worshipped can be all powerful, so you bringing it into the argument is pretty useless. Let me elaborate, "all powerful" means "no action is impossible to do". Now it is pretty easy to find two actions, where any being can't possibly do both of them, e.g. 'create a stone that can't be lifted' and "lift all stones created". With this example either the created stone can be lifted and it is not possible to create a stone not liftable or it is possible to create the stone and impossible to lift all stones. There are some rhetoric tricks found by defenders of the 'god is all powerful'-proposition to work around this problem, for example "The being in question could lift the stone if it wanted, it just chooses not to be able to." or "the definition of 'all powerful' doesn't include logical paradox", but in the end it is just that: rhetoric tricks.

But anyways, good observation that forum threads around here tend to be derailed quickly...

[Renegade_Turner]

*Idiocy*

It's a bit bizarre how you're arguing as if I, as in the person sitting at this keyboard, actually believe myself to be unaffected by the conventional laws of vitality. The fact that you're actually talking about my perpetual charade as if it's something which is actually being argued in reality speaks volumes about your grasp of the current situation.

This isn't an argument about whether or not I'm an immortal, it's an argument about the misconceptuous (I may now actually be making up my own words) assumptions which you put forward by saying/implying that (1) all gods are religious by nature, and so anyone who holds misgivings about religious subjects cannot claim to be a god, i.e. X holds agnostic views, therefore X cannot claim to be a god, (2) X is worshipped, therefore X is a god, and, when this was disproved by me, reverted to (3) X is immortal, therefore X is a god. This is without any references to any text which denotes that all immortal beings are gods, or that all beings who are worshipped are gods, or in fact that all gods are religious by nature.

Also what's this about 3 of the 6 definitions? You're very good at using weasel words.

Take, for example, this jellyfish, which is considered to be theoretically biologically immortal. Should I begin forming a doctrine for a religious sect which will be devoted to this genus of jellyfish due to its odd biological characterisics?

Note that all definitions of immortal do not necessarily mean that something cannot die. It can also just mean that it can theoretically live forever.

[Assaultman67]

... Also what's this about 3 of the 6 definitions? You're very good at using weasel words. ...

The links in one of my previous post go to the definitions of the word ... for god you have:

1. God:

a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

If you are Immortal, it could be concieved you are also the perfect being, the epitome of biology ...

[Assaultman67]

This isn't an argument about whether or not I'm an immortal, it's an argument about the misconceptuous (I may now actually be making up my own words) assumptions which you put forward by saying/implying that (1) all gods are religious by nature, and so anyone who holds misgivings about religious subjects cannot claim to be a god, i.e. X holds agnostic views, therefore X cannot claim to be a god, (2) X is worshipped, therefore X is a god, and, when this was disproved by me, reverted to (3) X is immortal, therefore X is a god. This is without any references to any text which denotes that all immortal beings are gods, or that all beings who are worshipped are gods, or in fact that all gods are religious by nature...

Fair enough, lets go back to the hypothetical debate of "Whether or not If you are Immortal, and you are worshiped, are you a god?" or would it be more fair to say "If you are immortal, and worshipped can you not be a god"

... Also what's this about 3 of the 6 definitions? You're very good at using weasel words. ...

The links in one of my previous post go to the definitions of the word ... for the definition of immortal you have:

1. Not subject to death: immortal deities; the immortal soul.

as for god you have:

1. God:

a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

If you are Immortal, it could be concieved you are also the perfect being, the epitome of biology ...

(interestingly enough the 4th definition stands by itself saying you just have to be worshipped without any supernaturalness ...)

[Blorx]

I just randomly saw SamW's name and wondered if it was Sam Worthington on the other end. Wow, am I tired.

[Armored Wolf]

Are you doing "a-b-2-3-4-5-6" on purpose, or did I miss something because I'm too lazy to read?

Awesome side effect of my imposer: You'll never know whether it's really me or not unless you look closely. Awesomesauce.

[Assaultman67]

a & b are actually under 1 i presume ... i dunno i just copied and pasted the definition from the online dictionary ...

...

Anywho back to modeling ...

[Renegade_Turner]

I'm sorry, you're doing that thing again where the definition you have picked for the words to suit your arguments is the only correct version of the words in your eyes. You seem to lack the understanding.

Fair enough, lets go back to the hypothetical debate of "Whether or not If you are Immortal, and you are worshiped, are you a god?" or would it be more fair to say "If you are immortal, and worshipped can you not be a god"

Immortal: Adjective

* S: (adj) immortal (not subject to death)

Worship: Verb

* S: (v) idolize, idolise, worship, hero-worship, revere (love unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess; venerate as an idol) "Many teenagers idolized the Beatles"

Observe I have not rejected your definitions of the words, even if your use of the word "immortal" is selective in that it uses the less-used version of the word only, i.e. the one that concerns deities.

Now, to go back to the question I quoted you on. "If you are immortal, and worshipped, can you not be a god?" The answer is yes. You can. Citation? The two definitions I highlighted and cited sources for.

There is a point here. I don't have to prove that I'm right. I just have to prove that your arguments are wrong. That way, I'm always right.



Nick Naylor reminds me of me. You remind me of his son.

[Freshbite]

*raises hand*

Votes for a lockdown?

[Renegade_Turner]

Shut up and stop meddling, meddler.

People voting for threads getting locked gets right on my tits. Stop having a vagina.

Who can tell me what's wrong with those two sentences?

[Freshbite]

This thread has fulfilled its purpose and have gotten seriously derailed.
A topic lock should be placed.

[Renegade_Turner]

And what is your objective justification for wanting the forums to be run as a police state?

That's about as silly as the type of people who want films like Young People Fucking banned simply because of the title and the fact that they're not interested in seeing it. Just because it's not to your tastes of what a movie (or in this case a thread) "should" be does not mean it should be banned.

Anti-statism man. Go play Bioshock. It worked perfectly there.