• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Search results

  1. Bunyip

    "Feminine" or Emotional Men

    LOL. Yes. It means they are sort of like margarine, not butter.
  2. Bunyip

    "Feminine" or Emotional Men

    The inference is that women are weak, and that crying is thus anathema. When I moved states about ten years ago, one of my buddies who looked a lot like a strategically shaven bear was balling his eyes out. I remember that as a truly powerful moment, not something to ever mock him for - what...
  3. Bunyip

    Atheism is not a default position

    Sure. Give me a definition of atheism and use it in a sentence, No problem.
  4. Bunyip

    "Feminine" or Emotional Men

    I raised a baby in my own, he is 17 now and an absolutely awesome kid. He got heaps of cuddles and lovin', I worked in the timber industry at the time. So what is my masculine self? The guy with the chainsaw, or the baby daddy with the nappy bag?
  5. Bunyip

    Atheism is not a default position

    That is a demonstrably false claim.
  6. Bunyip

    Atheism is not a default position

    In a given context, yes.
  7. Bunyip

    Atheism is not a default position

    The essence maybe, but not the definition.
  8. Bunyip

    Atheism is not a default position

    No it isn't. Correct definitions are correct only in a specific context.
  9. Bunyip

    Atheism is not a default position

    Because it is a common usage, and you can not change that by saying it is illogical. Why not just ride with it and let em' get to the actual argument?
  10. Bunyip

    Atheism is not a default position

    Exactly, so who cares? I don't No, it is the person trying to explain their argument, not the argument. No, you are just arguing with the way somebody is trying to explain themself - they don't get as far as making an argument.
  11. Bunyip

    Atheism is not a default position

    Ok. Sure. Pick away. Yes, which is a categoric error of logic. Describing a position is just describing a position, not a form of argumentation.
  12. Bunyip

    Atheism is not a default position

    Why? What would be the point? I could do that with all definitions. What? No, not at all. The definitions just describe the position your opponent is trying to explain to you. It is not the argument at all, it is a word they are using to try describe it to you. That's all.
  13. Bunyip

    What do people think "atheist" means?

    Is it Olde English? Believeth not? I would think; Doesn't believe.
  14. Bunyip

    What do people think "theist" means?

    What if the time span was 3 milliseconds?
  15. Bunyip

    What do people think "theist" means?

    Cheers. No,offence, but sweeping statements are always wrong - forgive me for jumping on it, but there is a rash of over-generalising sweeping the forum. :)
  16. Bunyip

    What do people think "atheist" means?

    I think that all the arguing about correct definitions is superceded in futility only by trying to re-organise words to make a claim out of disbelief with word play alone. As if such a simple semantic trick could carry any weight.
  17. Bunyip

    Non-physical entities with causal powers: computer programs

    No worries. Do you have those examples? Or an example of a non-physical entity please.
  18. Bunyip

    Non-physical entities with causal powers: computer programs

    Thankyou so much. Much of the argument and tension I find seem to be drawn from something as insignificant as a misconception about how we are using words. What we are trying to communicate is what counts, words apparently can mean just about anything.
  19. Bunyip

    Non-physical entities with causal powers: computer programs

    I don't agree that is the case. Reductionism? Sorry, but where did that come into it? How so? Not explained by physics sure, but not permitted? I disagree. Sure, violate away. (The laws of physics that is) why not? Quantum physics did.
  20. Bunyip

    Non-physical entities with causal powers: computer programs

    Sorry, should have said. Yes. This is a very different usage of terms than we find on the religious context, so I just want to clarify.
Top