@scottmayers, again, where does honesty, and a dedication to learning, fit into all this???
There is such a thing as deliberately misrepresenting your opponents. The denialist types refuse to learn anything and many Christians say if it ain’t in my Bible I don’t want to know and I don’t believe it and I’ll represent it anyway I want.
Or is all opinion???
How about fleshing that out a little Scott?
Scientist who have spent life time learning and studying in their field. How’s that for a start?
Around here we have a clown who loves calling Dr. Michael Mann all sorts of nasty misleading things, hell it’s vicious slanderous attacks with no facts or serious science to be found. Why, for not writing an absolutely perfect research paper.
I mean the professor has been viciously and dishonestly attacked for writing a pioneering study (dubbed the hockey stick by opponents) - a study that clearly enunciated its own short comings.
Part of developing research. In hindsight his figures were very accurate, an untrained eye can’t even recognize the difference between the original graph and subsequent improvements. But that makes absolutely no difference to the unhinged right wing that continue to demand that the Dr Mann is a fraud, though he is, in truth, one of the leading experts in his field for good reason, he produces serious science year after year and decade after decade. Until you are ready to face that and question the deliberate intellectual vandalism the right has become to depend on, it’s all handwaving.
What about them apples??? Yeah, I’ve shifted from evolution to climate science here, but it’s the same malicious game plan at work.
It’s a long campaign that believes creating doubt and stifling any action is all that matters. Learning and understanding has absolutely no place in their sphere, so how do we deal with that? Creationists employ the same malicious, lie dependent, tactical strategies, as the oil and coal executives have.
Not everyone says “thee” for “the”. Some say “the” with a short “e”. Again, you seeing something that isn’t there. “thee” meant “you”, which is a pronoun. “The” is not a pronoun. It never was. One cannot change “la/el” or “the” to “thee” and say they are related. They aren’t.
So the ‘el’ has this articulating property of sound and the listeners who didn’t initally read in ancient times would require the context of where the word is used and do not concern themselves with the spelling. This was in response to you telling me that “thee” as a literal spelling is means ‘you’ as a pronoun, while the ‘the’ is in ''article" with distinct meanings as though they were absolutely independent creations from indepedendently different roots.
Maybe another analogy?
Imagine being the ancient thinker who ponders about what reality is and how it originated. If he then were trying to communicate it, ignoring what particular language they were speaking, what type of word would (s)he find meaningful to describe a novel concept referencing the idea to which we refer to as “God”?
Note that I’m asking the question prior to the existence of religion. I think you presume that the ‘-el’, meaning ‘God’, was an arbitrary addition to their language without recognizing that it had too had to come from some prior ‘non-religious’ origin. So what kind of non-religious term from the ancient Semitic language would you think they used to act as a substitute for meaning, God?
I am aware of this and deal with it alot (especially regarding political issues.) But it is usually intentional for some political underlying reason, especially if argued by those who are equally credible thinkers normally. But I only opt to present a reflected argument knowing the underlng motive and argue for the hypocrisy. They are also mostly about emotionally embedded factors. For instance, if you loved your spouse strongly, would you not also defend their honor even if (s)he is being irrational? I see many people waste time debating say, climate change ‘deniers’ without realizing their underlying motives. Instead, you have to go indirectly to first try to repair that before continuing on with the apparently ‘obvious’ forms of *denying
(if indeed it is them alone or both of you who are at fault).
A potential psychological/sociological effect exists that creates the “Lost Cause” or “Sunk Cost” Fallacy. [“Sunk Cost” Wikipedia
If, say, you require spending a $100,000 on a particular formal education and it requires six years or more before you are qualified to speak on it, by the time you get their, you too can emotionally defend theories that are wrong by ‘denying’ any flaws in the institutions or past theories that you had to assume before being permitted to questioning them.
AND…something that others don’t care to respect enough…besides the potential for one denying something from outside the normal established standards of qualifications, often the apparent amature’s qualifications exist, are equally well invested in, but ‘denied’ by anyone inside or outide of the traditional means of accreditation. The actual burden to prove the step by step factors by an amature is so high that it is impossible to do in principle. As such, it can bias the sincere intellectual value of debate if you expect those without formal accreditation to submit to the same particularstandards when the difference can represent one’s distinct parental background influences as well as ones economic ability to afford to get the education.
@lausten as admin (and everyone here debating this)
May I ask if we (can or others are interested?) transfer this to the Philosphy (of Science and/or Logic) sections where they exist? I feel we are tredding on the Noah’s flood debate that, though related, is a digression worthy of a distinct disucussion and makes it easier to locate by its topic? If I or someone esle wants to open a thread on this we could still reference back and forth to this.
That is a quote from the site that speaks on the pronunciation specifically. I only used it because the way one emphasizes absolutes from relatives also uses ways to differentiate the meanings. This references the sound that you demonstrate where it depends upon the next word. If the next term is a vowel, then use ‘an’, otherwise use ‘a’.
The ‘a’ or ‘an’ collectively though, has a single meaning and also originate from quantifying the next word semantically following it by specifying it as ‘unique’ [where ‘unique’ means ‘oneness’ or state of being singled out].
Since this acts to quantify, qualify, and direct attention to the next word, this articulates it and why we refer to it as an “article”. Thus it is also used as a pointer that simulates the function of a pronoun.
Example context:
“I have an apple. It is a green one.”
…where ‘one’ in context here expects you understand that the last use of ‘an’ stands as a pointer to the particular apple in question. “an” means “one” here, but can also be used for ‘any’ in other contexts.
Similarly,
“The apple I have is green. This is the one was refering to earlier, not the one I have now.”
The first “the” points to “apple” and acts to articulate it as being unique. The “the” in both incidents in the second sentence adds the quality of specification . Articles can be comparatively related to how we turn scalars to describe something into vectors in physics.
Edit: removed a dangling ‘[’ and added a ’ ’ to separate two distinct terms accidentally joined.
Edit 2: separated an intended contrast of the ‘a/an’ as having literally distinct spellings for its grammatic forms versus the *semantic meaning" of both collectively by separating the sentence between these into distinct paragraphs.
So you’re saying, when one sees “the” before “apple” that means “god apple” or if an ancient Egyptian says, “the god of the Hebrews” he’s saying, “god god of the Hebrews” or “you god of the Hebrews”? That doesn’t make a bit of sense and as I said, you’re stretching modern language and “the” has nothing to do with “thee”. Not every “el” in Spanish relates to the Hebrew “El” anymore than “the” is “thee” and not everyone says “thee” for “the” either.
I agree this is not the Noah debate. However, in any thread, it’s legitimate to question someone’s ability to make a claim. You have made claims that you admit you have no basis for, other than your own connections of sounds and similar sequences of letters, then you have gone on to deny there are legitimate authorities at all. This is beyond the lengths most people will go to defend themselves. Anyone reading this thread should know it’s part of your reasoning.
No. That’s the entire point. It’s exactly the same. The data required, and the steps, are either exactly the same for whoever demonstrates them, or you are using some other method that is not science. I’ll grant there is some politics within the scientific community, but you are trying to claim that the methods don’t work at all.
That is an absurdly shocking interpretation! [I couldn’t even find an emogie that represents this other than, ]
I was arguing to Write4U that the context of his example relates to how an article is a ‘pointer’ in meaning that then uses another version later to refer back to it like a pronoun.
But I only added that after noticing that he happened to interpret my uses of ‘the’ and ‘thee’ as distinct spellings with trivial syntax distinctions by comparing ‘a’ to ‘an’. Yet when I use the words, I am expressing how one pronounces the same term, “the” is either “the” or “thee” and are two versions representing the neutral relative use versus the specific use by semantic meaning, not syntax.
When the Egyptians say, “El” where you interpret this as “God”, correctly as an intentional referent that ‘the’ is used when acting as a pointer) but it is using the term that they would use for “the” in the specific form as our phonetically pronunciation, “thee”, even though we do not spell it out as “t’”, “h”, “e”, “e”, That is, God is named, “El” because it means one or “the”, and is equivalent to our use of “the” as the examples I gave.
So, using a different sentence, if given…
“There is a red apple and a green apple on my table. The apple I have in my hand though is the green one.”
means…
“There is (one particular) red apple and (one particular) green apple on my table. (One specific) apple of the two just mentioned is identical to (one particular) apple I am holding in my hand now.”
This shows that ‘a’ in this context is used to DEFINE the particular following nouns in the first sentence and ‘the’ in the first instance of the second sentence refers to a specific one of the two in my hand while the second instance points to the mapping of the pointer using ‘a’ in the first sentence that refers to “red apple”.
I can give you computer logic examples that distinguish variables from pointers which are confusing to some people when they are first introduced to it. The ‘variables’ act as PRONOUN referents, while the ‘pointers’ act as ARTICLES, even though they can both refer to the contents of the same location in memory.
And I asked you above to tell me what kind of word would you use otherwise to name a “god” prior to the invention of it (?). If you presume that the spelling and/or phoneme “el” sound used to map to the meaning “God” is arbitrary then you are indicating to me that you are religiously biased. That is, you are assuming that “el” was never used as anything other than “God” perhaps because this being said, “my name is El” when no one had ever used that word to mean anything from their prior non-religious language.
I think you know that there has to be a neutral referent in the same way that “Jesus Christ” meant, “I am appointed (by Nature or God)” [a king or the(e) king]. [This happens to be ambiguously interpreted as “I AM the REAL King, not the Ceasar” OR “**I am A king just like Ceasar (because we are all equal in God (or Nature’s) eyes”. That is, the name , “Jesus Christ” had particular non-arbitrary meanings that were just common words being used to summarily refer (or ‘point to’) a SPECIFIC person in history. \
The same goes for “el”. It is a referent (an article) that points to an understood being as a non-arbitrary choice that means, “one” or “the”.
No, you are misinterpreting me as though I am anti-science simply because I argue that there is no NEED for any science in this argument. I can address the ‘evidence’ as what any of us here ‘empirically’ share without a need to experiment beyond ourselves here. I only assume that one is atheistic and thus does not presume that some ‘god’ came down and said, “I know you’ve never heard of me, but I call myself, El, and it has no relation to anything you use in your language.” You guys, not me, are oddly acting as though God had a specific meaning that is arbitrarily selected out of a hat that has no link to any terms used before. You are implying that people innately presume meaning to some God genetically and why it has a distinct arbitrary word for it from that had more precedence to the latter use of it as “the”. You reverse the intellectual process of “emptying your cup” before judging the what you can put into it. the meaning, “El” as a god is just a label meaning “the One”(X) where X is understood to be the most significant being without a given cardinal name.
How do you interpret the underlined conclusion as what you are falsely stereotyping me as? And thatis what you are doing to me. You are presuming that it is blasphemous-like for me to dare have challenging view of others’ formally annointed authorities’ intepretations where they exist. [as though all scientists share one mind and opinion] I am only arguing for a position that I hold given I too am as qualified to discuss this because I AM using the appropriate means to argue.
To disagree with this, please prove that I am not qualified given you presume that I cannot possibly know anything without having some official annoint me with a degree? Prove also that no one who is formally accredited ever goes out of their own domain to assert something that is logically unsound. I am sufficiently confident to argue here. And I propose that you try the same thought experiment that I have challenged mrianna to try:
Would you invent an arbitrary name to the concept of ‘god’ as “the one and only” (true thing)" by intentionally using words that has never been used before? And if not, then you have to agree that you would name this thing you interpret as a particular God from your repretoire of words with meaning you know. If you think that this process of reasoning is unscientific because it is not being done in a lab, then don’t hold back…tell me if you presume the concept of God is more basically ‘empirical’ than the words it used to describe its essence.
Edit: removed a doubled accidental term and ‘as’ to ‘is’;
Edit 2: changed the sentence with " ‘the One’(X) by adding “without a given cardinal name”. The intention of '(X) is that the name “el” does not specifically require being spelled out and in fact is often indicated in the bible as having no specific identity because he is a universal concept. This is the reasoning behind not giving X a particular revealed name.
"God is used as an abbreviated “The (one and only) God”.
"The (Noah’s) Ark
the
determiner
denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge.
“what’s the matter?”
used to refer to a person, place, or thing that is unique.
“the Queen”
INFORMAL•ARCHAIC
denoting a disease or affliction.
“I’ve got the flu”
(with a unit of time) the present; the current.
“dish of the day”
INFORMAL
used instead of a possessive to refer to someone with whom the speaker or person addressed is associated.
“I’m meeting the boss”
used with a surname to refer to a family or married couple.
“the Johnsons were not wealthy”
used before the surname of the chief of a Scottish or Irish clan.
“the O’Donoghue”
used to point forward to a following qualifying or defining clause or phrase.
“the fuss that he made of her”
(chiefly with rulers and family members with the same name) used after a name to qualify it.
“George the Sixth”
used to make a generalized reference to something rather than identifying a particular instance.
“he taught himself to play the violin”
used with a singular noun to indicate that it represents a whole species or class.
“they placed the African elephant on their endangered list”
used with an adjective to refer to those people who are of the type described.
“the unemployed”
used with an adjective to refer to something of the class or quality described.
“they are trying to accomplish the impossible”
used with the name of a unit to state a rate.
“they can do 120 miles to the gallon”
enough of (a particular thing).
“he hoped to publish monthly, if only he could find the money”
(pronounced stressing “the”) used to indicate that someone or something is the best known or most important of that name or type.
“he was the hot young piano prospect in jazz”
used adverbially with comparatives to indicate how one amount or degree of something varies in relation to another.
“the more she thought about it, the more devastating it became”
used to emphasize the amount or degree to which something is affected.
“commodities made all the more desirable by their rarity”
Origin
Old English se, sēo, thæt, ultimately superseded by forms from Northumbrian and North Mercian thē, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch de, dat, and German der, die, das .
Okay, we’re done. I didn’t say that. I didn’t require that you have a degree, only that you have evidence, data, and logic to support your claim. You can’t seem to make that distinction. I remember conversations like this from 8 years ago now, and they were tiresome and pointless then.
No one claimed to know the precise origin of “El” or use non-scientific reasoning to arrive at what they said. It’s legitimate to rely on scholarship when making a statement. It’s not necessary to discuss every word you say and justify the definition. But, if you start talking about etymology and ancient languages, and saying things that contradict easily found sources, then either show your work or state that you are just speculating. Waving your hands and claiming those sources are “political” is not “inquiry”, it doesn’t promote dialog, it is not in the spirit of this forum.
You could have simply said, “yes, I know this is not the common wisdom on this topic, but I noticed these patterns and thought they were interesting”, then continued on with your speculation. But every other paragraph is now a challenge to other people, about how unwilling we are to engage with you. I just don’t find your theory compelling or interesting. Don’t attack others for saying that.
I’m actually “going out” this weekend, but if I have time next week, I can list the statements that you have made, and they are legion, about our disagreement about just what “authority” means.
They are not the same though. I still don’t understand how you figure they are the same.
Yes, exactly what I was asking to begin with. You are misinterpreting “the” as “thee” and messing up the whole syntax. IMHO it would more than likely help you to study Hebrew, because El in Hebrew is not, in any way shape or form, the same as El in Spanish. I’m not even sure you understand the English language for that matter, because your use of words you see as the same in one language as another isn’t quite right.
As I said before the archaic “thee” meant “you”. Today’s “the” (pronounced with either a short e or a long e) is far from meaning “you”. Try reading some Shakespeare for a good example of “thee”, which is not “the”.
JULIET
O God, I have an ill-divining soul! Methinks I see thee, now
thou art below, As one dead in the bottom of a tomb:
Either my eyesight fails, or thou look’st pale.
Notice here, that Juliet says “thee” and “the” and neither one are used in the sense you convey. “The” and "thee are not the same. Your evaluation of English is all wrong and yet I assume it is your first language, but then again, even many native speakers can’t even speak English, much less how it’s properly used.
And his reasoning is not backed up by any sources, much less any reliable sources. The problem is, he has some flaws in his reasoning, which studying languages- English first, and then at least one other language, could be helpful. It might not hurt to take a course in logic and reason too.
Thanks for the ‘feedback’. I feel that I am required to tip toe around those expecting authoritative respect with priority over the virtue of treating others as equals. You are asserting opinions about my credibility regardless of how I can debate.
I only came back here because I’m bored of the ease of challenging others to be more rational and scientific with relative success elsewhere. While it is fun, I’d like to be able to find just one science forum that doesn’t expect the guest to defer to authoritarianism by an everpresent elitism.
"You can’t have your pudding unless you eat your meat! How can you eat your meat before you have any pudding?!..
Hey you, …yes, you standing there, …stand still laddie, stand still I say!"
[Pink Floyd, The Wall]
…then you said,
But I clearly said this from the beginning. Once said, I don’t need to preface everything that is clearly my opinion with, “In my opinion, …” because that proves to just get insultingly slapped in my face too. Here is one earlier assertion of mine regarding this:
I am not going to tippy toe around here out of fear of being banned for emotionally upsetting anyone when I am being sincere to argue here. I value logic above all, am the least abusive, and it is ALL that can be expected in any online forum attempting to promote better thinking skills and better respect for science.
Supporting one’s opinion from outside is fair for some arguments but not always necessary. My own premises going into an argument try to only use the empirical evidence of those participating in an argument where possible. It is demonstrating science in a closed forum relying more on what those participating know from their own independent ability to observe and reason. Otherwise, why not just have a big poster up front that says, “Go to school, stupid!”
That is why I asked for the thought experiment to mriana and then you that you are not willing to try. I’ll ask again:
What would you, based upon your own ability to sense, think, and reason, name Biblical or other religious people, places, or events, in their pantheon of characters prior to religion being established?
[If you happen to be religious or politically biased regarding historical roots that establish believed rights to specific ownership claims based upon them necessarily, you will likely not want to answer this because it implies you believe the names were literally given by your God arbitrarily, as opposed to from some lexicon derived from civization apart from religion, which means the words are then non-arbitrarily assigned from it.]
If you don’t like my approach to debate, I’ll go. I overstayed my welcome the last time only to be trolled by admins here and was the only reason I sabatoged my own posts of my own thread: my content online is property I rightfully own intellectually without apology and while I was disrespectful in destroying it as I had, I was fed up with the abusive insults by you guys and didn’t believe that I should have traces of my contributions in places that were merely deficating on me with extreme prejudice.
I’m not going to stick around with this type of irrational abuse. My background IS logic and includes science, and science methodology. See my last comment above to lausten.
I will not speak with people who attempt to gaslight myself or others to my reputation. I don’t insult your own personal credibility but your kind of responses only fuels responses that don’t move things forward constructively.
That’s correct. You also don’t need to keep saying how your casual observations are just as good as expert opinions, or how anyone who doesn’t respect opinion has a character flaw.
Let me speak what I think. You are falsely interpreting what I said for some reason. (?)
The term, “the” now has two pronunciations of which I will post the direct google given defition that shows this:
the
/T͟Hē,T͟Hə/
determiner
denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge.
“what’s the matter?”
used to point forward to a following qualifying or defining clause or phrase.
“the fuss that he made of her”
Notice the two pronunciations? Note also that even though I didn’t have to look this up before I commented before, that the definition clearly speaks of “…already mentioned” in the first definition and “point forward”. I tried to explain how these are forms of ‘pointers’ that in the logic of computation (general ‘computer science’ is the logic of computing, or simply ‘logic’ in general, not just computers.)
If you won’t do the thought experiment, then are you implying that you belong to some religious interest? [I understand that humanists in skepticism can be religious too. This may be creating a predetermined bias and why you are willing to trust the Hebrew as being unrelated.]
Then you are biasing yourself to the religious source. It is strongly in the interest of Israelis to support the distinction of pre-Judaeo religioius links or they cannot use the political arguments that they have precedence to ancient history as the “owners” of Palestine. Christians will mostly share this too given they rely on believing the Hebrew (Jewish) people Supreme favor of God as granting the lands of ancient Palestine to them uniquely. Muslims also have a claim but invert who it was formally transfered. Also, Muslims would not welcome linking Egyptian roots to the indirect route to them for similar reasons. All would have been most welcoming of purging the distinctions. And so NO, you will have a hard time finding such favorable links and a definite campaign to dismiss and ridicule those who otherwise could not even have the ability to prove this directly.
Irrelevant. You, not me, have imposed the older literal use of distint SPELLINGS of the pronunciations as what I was referring to. I used “thee” as the pronunciation used to EMPHASIZE the cardinal interpretation even where we no longer add ‘e’ when prouncing the direct meaning. Prior to any established religion ,unless you selectively favor some religious belief that all the terms in Scriptural sources are abitrarily passed on without ANY connection to colloquial use of common words, would use words that mean “one” or “the one” in a cardinal way to refer to “The(e) One” [I capitalize this because it this is their referent to what later became the religious referent (pointer) to the understood being that they also happen to believe is not literally a name but a title. All cultures use this and why we still discovered the Native Americans using similar words to directly label someone based upon titles, such as referents to animals.
Even the “you” interpretation that the English used also relate. When one speaks formally, one can use the referent, like “one” to imply “you” given this is implicit.
If you still cannot stop and think about it, then there is nothing I can say now to change your mind. I believe I am tainted with you now regardless and anything I say will meet the same force of resistance and increasing intensity to insult me regardless of any actual logically satifying agreement you have internally.
Jesus Christ: “I am (equal) to the King” or “I am (the) King” depending on whether one was interpreting him as demanding equality or demanding superior authority as literally being annointed as King rather than the Caesar himself. The “I am” is also cointerpretable as “the one” in which they used the same word to reference different particular meanings in context.
YHWY (or Ye-oveh or Je-hovah) literally “the egg” [“I egg” seems awkward but can be used in some context] and would be a generic way to label some unknown variable, like “the source” but again using a cardinal understanding as “the(e) source”.
“Jacob” [ja-cob(ble)] means “I walk”, “I stumble” or "the one who walks or stumbles.}
Abram [Abba -ra-m] = “father speak(er/s)”; Abraham [Abba-ra-ohem] = “Father speak(er)s” for all"
Israel [Ash-ra-el] = the mixed northern culture who still embraced the old Assyrian female consort in combination to the the southern culture. The Judean province were a priestly caste who were more strict.
The fact that I merely point to these are just matter-of-factly and I CAN seek other sources that gave me my interpretations that I now intuit. But I’m not doing a paper here and know that it would still not matter: it would be dismissed as you are sure to always find a dominating religious source that says otherwise. I already have the rhetorical sense of disapproval of me as a person (or I would not be receiving condescention in your responses).
Sure. I can alter how I speak with you as I get to know you if it is offensive. But I am not receiving friendly responses but condescending insults. When someone tells me what I know or don’t know, it is insulting. It is the first common behavior I receive when I mention something uncommon and disapproved of. I can back up what I say when given time too. Like I said, I don’t have to appeal to some teacher to prove what I learned and already knew when I learned where I was getting my evidence at the time of thinking intuitively .
Henry Ford, was once challenged in court by the Dodge Brothers to his actions in keeping the Model T alive while simultaneously letting the stock slip to pennies on the dollar so that he could take over the company. The court challenged his history to which he asserted that he didn’t require knowing everything when he could puch a button above his desk to ask someone else to do the research if need be.
The same goes for my approach; if it is absolutely necessary, I’ll look up what I need but do not require remembering when and where I learned it when speaking casually about it. It only becomes contentious when challenged. And I first begin with preferring to argue locally with what anyone can intuit beforehand. But if you receive responses that hint at their emotional disrespect of you, then why should it matter? I will certainly lose when this is not my house I’m invited as a guest to by hostile hosts.
No, I’m not. That is what I got out of what you said. It’s what I understood you were saying.
Yes, I’ve mentioned that before, but the other form that sounds like “thee” has no relationship to “thee” meaning “you”.
No, not religious anything. It’s all about English.
No, I’m not. There is just no relationship.
No, it’s not irrelevant, because you equated the Spanish “el” to the god form of “El” and the English “the” with “thee” in previous posts.
This does not make “the” royal or godly.
This does not make “the” a noun or pronoun. It’s an article and just because “I am” is cointerpertable to “the one”, doesn’t make them interchangeable, related to El, or even Thee.
We’ve already been over this and I’m not going to debate this with you.
)
]