Send a Message
to jamesdang

Comments

13

Joined

Nov 13, 2010

jamesdang Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Atheism

Atheism and cowardice

Please watch this -- man from Chatholic family talking about religion. http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=ToF7j mOM7eY  (Feb 14, 2013 | post #7207)

Weird

Evolution vs. Creation

Watch this -- Another point of view on religion: http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=ToF7j mOM7eY  (Feb 14, 2013 | post #75836)

Atheism

Literal Meaning and Implied Meaning

to be meaningful is to make sence.  (Dec 8, 2010 | post #7)

Atheism

If a chlid asks...?

Good Question.  (Nov 21, 2010 | post #1)

Atheism

On trial: Faith, delusion or excuse for crime?

"They say his religious beliefs were delusions, that their client was insane and therefore cannot be held responsible for his actions." -- Haha, what an amazing excuse for doing bad things.  (Nov 19, 2010 | post #4)

Atheism

On trial: Faith, delusion or excuse for crime?

02:32 PM ET Share this on:Facebook Twitter Digg del.icio.us reddit Mixx MySpace StumbleUpon Share Comments (816 comments) Permalink On trial: Faith, delusion or excuse for crime? By Jessica Ravitz, CNN He's a self-proclaimed prophet who called his bed an altar. He wore robes, grew his beard long and penned a rambling manifesto. He said he received revelations and was destined to take 49 wives. And he is on federal trial for kidnapping Elizabeth Smart, now 23, and moving her across state lines for sex. Smart testified that Mitchell handed out a pamphlet stating the "Declaration of Our Faith" while preaching on the streets. The lawyers for Brian David Mitchell do not dispute that he abducted Smart, then 14, and held her captive for nine months. But they say his religious beliefs were delusions, that their client was insane and therefore cannot be held responsible for his actions.  (Nov 17, 2010 | post #2)

Atheism

On trial: Faith, delusion or excuse for crime?

http://religion.bl ogs.cnn.com/2010/1 1/15/on-trial-fait h-delusion-or-an-e xcuse-for-criminal -action/  (Nov 15, 2010 | post #1)

Atheism

Literal Meaning and Implied Meaning

So it is not? Ok, no problem.  (Nov 14, 2010 | post #5)

Atheism

Atheists Spending Big Bucks to Get You to Believe Nothing

Christians are also spreading gospel through advertisements on billboards, buses and trains, and in newspapers and magazines. Why should not Atheists do it?  (Nov 14, 2010 | post #16)

Atheism

Literal Meaning and Implied Meaning

Certainly not. That's not a new idea. The new idea is that both denotation and connotation of a statement must be meaningful to make itself meaningful.  (Nov 14, 2010 | post #3)

Atheism

Literal Meaning and Implied Meaning

My daughter Vivien used to ask me: “Dad, did you ever find something in your life which has not been found by any other people?” I said: “Yes, I did. I found a few of philosophical principles which I believe that no one else on the earth has ever revealed to human being.” The following may be one of them. I found an interesting thing -- every statement has two meanings: literal meaning and implied meaning. To make a statement meaningful, both literal meaning and implied meaning must make sense at the same time, otherwise the whole statement is meaningless, even though the literal meaning seems meaningful. For example, we can see in the market that many products are labeled “Made in China”. What makes this short sentence meaningful is that it implies that “there are other products not made in China.” For those patriots, they may choose not to buy Chinese goods and to buy goods “made in Canada”. If a product was labeled "Made on Earth”, which is 100% true, but is meaningless for us, because there is no product “made on Mars” (at least for now). This is a good example that the literal meaning is true but the implied meaning is false, so that the whole statement is meaningless. My friend David lives in the same building with me. We often drink together. One day we drank a lot at my home and he got drunk. To make sure his safety, I supported him to go back his home. Later he went to washroom to throw out. I wanted to make him feel better, so I got a tea cup from his kitchen and brought him a cup of tea. The tea cup was special, with a beautiful picture on it. He stared at the tea cup, and said: “Hi, this tea cup is ours.” I replied: “Yes, it’s yours.” He looked around, and smiled: “Sorry, I’m really drunk.” I laughed, too, and said: “No, you are not drunk. You even know this is your tea cup.” When David said “this tea cup is ours”, he implied "why is my tea cup in your home?" So he meant he was not at his home, which is not true. This is another example that the literal meaning is true but the implied meaning is false. This makes his talking funny and ridiculous. In normal status, he will not tell me that the cup is HIS while we are actually at his home. When I read religious people's articles, I often find that their conclusions are certainly wrong or meaningless but every argument seems to be true and logical. What is the problem? Now I understand that the problem is: even though the literal meaning of its arguments is true, the implied meaning may be false, which causes the conclusion to be false or meaningless.  (Nov 14, 2010 | post #1)

Top Stories

Women should tolerate husbands infidelity

I would say, NO!  (Nov 13, 2010 | post #3736)