From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Feb 01 2002 - 14:00:50 MST
<Deliberate snipping mode engaged>
[David Hill 1*] Wow, such big words and so many of them. And me such a poor
pitiable high school dropout.
[Hermit 1] If you are so pitiful, and know it, why not listen more and talk
less.
[David Hill 2] Hermit, I am surprised by your kind words, but thank you. I
shall use the primary definition in my dictionary for pitiful; "Pitiful-
full of pity, tender, compassionate" You may not think these useful or
desirable attributes, but I do. Of course, you also may not accept the
definition found in my dictionary as you do not with the word Atheist.
[Hermit 2] Your dictionary is worthless and you are full of shit. You,
having asserted that you are "pitiable," which is echoed in my observing
that you are a "pitiful" thing, should have been sufficient context, for you
to find a clue to the intended meaning. While I don't like the Websters
much, I have one here. [quote]Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary
of The English Language", Gramercy Books, New York, 1994, ISBN
0-517-15026-3. A quick look at pitiful and I find "pitiful adj. 1. evoking
or deserving pity: [i]a pitiful fate[/i]. 2. evoking or deserving contempt
by smallness, poor quality, etc.: [i]pitiful attempts[/i]. 3.
[i]Archaeic.[/i] full of pity, compassionate. [1400; late ME; see PITI,
-FUL] pitifuly, adv, - pitifulness, n. 2 PITIFUL, PITIABLE, PITEOUS apply to
that which exites with pity (with compassion or with contempt). That which
is PITIFUL is touching and exites pity or is mean and contemptible: [i]a
pitiful leper; a pitiful exhibition of cowardice[/i]. PITIABLE may mean
lamentable or wretched and paltry: [i]a pitiable hovel[/i]. PITEOUS refers
only to that which exhibits suffering and misery, and is therefore
heart-rending: [i]piteous poverty[/i]. 2. deplorable, mean, low, base, vile,
despicable. --Ant. 1. delightful, 2. honorable.[/quote]
[Hermit 2] That is the complete entry. It describes you, and your
contemptible and despicable attempt to invert the meaning of words quite
thoroughly. It also highlights why you need a new dictionary.
[Dave Hill 2] Such action supports one of my points regarding communication
in the search for Truth. We do not share definitions. Even were we to
agree verbatim on the textual definitions of terms, we would each still
bring along our individual world views which would color each word's
connotations so as to make agreement unlikely.
[Hermit 2] No, it is your dishonesty that makes it impossible to communicate
effectively with you. There is no intellectual obstruction to effective
communications.
[Dave Hill 1] My dictionary does not have strong and weak athiesm, only a
one liner "Athiest- one who believes that there is no God."
[Hermit 1] Hermit, "Get a better dictionary. One not written by people
wanting to promote their beliefs, and one written by people who know how to
spell."
[Dave Hill 2] I do find it regrettable that you do not accept the authority
of my dictionary; Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged.
I'm sure the editors will be crushed. Given that it may not reflect common
usage I also asked half a dozen people what their definitions of Atheist was
and though they did not concur entirely, the consensus agreed with Webster.
[Hermit 2] Notice that the "quotation" you attributed to your dictionary
spelt "Athiest" incorrectly. Now, back to the "Webster's Encyclopedic
Unabridged Dictionary of The English Language", "atheist, n. a person who
denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. [1565-75;
< Gk athe(os) godless + ist] --Syn. ATHEIST, AGNOSTIC, INFIDEL, SKEPTIC,
refer to persons not inclined towards religious belief or a particular form
of religious belief..."
[Hermit 2] A person denying a god or gods, is a person rejecting a claim to
authority or loyalty. Notice also the synonyms.
[Hermit 2] The editors of the "Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary
of The English Language" based it upon the "Random House" dictionary for
sound philological reasons. Noah Webster had an agenda. Here, in his own
words, from the preface to Noah Webster's 1928 edition of "The American
Dictionary of the English Language" is what it was [quote] "It satisfies my
mind that I have done all that my health, my talents and my pecuniary means
would enable me to accomplish. I present it to my fellow citizens, not with
frigid indifference, but with my ardent wishes for their improvement and
their happiness; and for the continued increase of the wealth, the learning,
the moral and religious elevation of character, and the glory of my
country." Noah Webster, New Haven, 1828. And from CTI, "The American
Dictionary of the English Language" is based upon God's written word, for
Noah Webster used the Bible as the foundation for his definitions. This
standard reference tool will greatly assist students of all ages in their
studies. From American History to literature, from science to the Word of
God, this dictionary is a necessity. The 1828 dictionary reflects our
nation's Christian heritage, and the Christian philosophy for life,
government, and education. We present this magnificent work hoping that it
will be a great blessing to all who seek to use it in their
studies."[/quote]
[Hermit] I hardly need observe, that like most other fundamentalists, the
bible which Mr Webster chose was the "King James," representing English
usage of the sixteenth century and having little authority when it comes to
how words are used today.
[Hermit 2] So again, I suggest you get a better dictionary. One not written
by people wanting to promote their beliefs, and (if your citation was
correct) one written by people who know how to spell. Interestingly, the
editors of the Webster will not be crushed at all, indeed, their resourcing
of the dictionary makes it apparent that they agree with me.
[Hermit 2] I'm snipping the rest, it is trivial to show that an irresistible
force and an immovable object are incompatible, they cannot exist in the
same universe, just as it is trivial to show that a "plane" is flat by
definition, that for a geometric definition Euclid is a better starting
point than Webster, and that the sun does not rise and set, it simply
appears to due to the fact that the Earth is in orbit - and unless there
were a mechanism to change that orbit, science tells us that it will
continue to do so. You seem to know too little about mathematics, logic or
mechanics to understand such explanations.
[David Hill 2] I personally practice magic. I am an artist and I craft
images. Then I wave them in my hand and they become real. It's magic. At
least I am clueless as to how it works. I prefer solipsism to the Hermit's
rigid sophistry because I can continue to marvel at the wonder.
[Hermit 2] If you can't figure out that you are deliberately choosing the
irrational over the rational, then neither I nor anyone else can help you. I
suggest you find an alternate church. One for the "clueless", which appears
as good a definition of you as I have seen thus far. We will not miss your
noise.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:42 MDT