Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Repeating "People uneducated you mean" does not make it suddenly true. I just told you if I had meant that I would have written that. I did not however. So keep your words out of my mouth. I know what I mean thanks, I do not need you telling me.
It looks like we need an example here!
Suppose you wrote “redcoats” and I wrote back saying “you mean the British.”
You may not complain that I put words in your mouth unless if you were unaware of the fact that the term “redcoat” was used to refer to the soldiers of the British army.
The same applies here: People who are not aware of the fact that the gods originally possessed no superhuman powers are uneducated! They have studied neither mythology nor ancient texts.
What you say or not say matters not!
Suppose you wrote “redcoats” and I wrote back saying “you mean the British.”
You may not complain that I put words in your mouth unless if you were unaware of the fact that the term “redcoat” was used to refer to the soldiers of the British army.
The same applies here: People who are not aware of the fact that the gods originally possessed no superhuman powers are uneducated! They have studied neither mythology nor ancient texts.
What you say or not say matters not!
How about that?
You are STILL putting words in his mouth. Nozz would not complain but would say 'Of course I mean the bloody British (aside that a lot were Hessian) - we are talking about the war of independence - did you think I was talking about Butlins?'
There is of course no link as the redcoats no longer wear redcoats and are no longer redcoats even though they are still bloody British. The analogy breaks down because gods are gods and men are men, just as stars are stars and planets are planets and tinkering about with changed ideas and speculations about eternity, half -formed gas -clouds, divine powers, dead stars demigods and gas giants, not to mention the red - herring of the blunderbuss term 'messenger' only serves to show that the term cannot always be neatly pigeonholed. That does not make the earth a star nor Osiris a man, nor the Pope a God.
And none of this has anything to do with any contradiction between atheism and science. There is none - the only contradiction is between science and the non - science claims of cult, the supernatural and religion.
[quote=AREQUIPA;26001120]
You are STILL putting words in his mouth. Nozz would not complain but would say 'Of course I mean the bloody British (aside that a lot were Hessian) - we are talking about the war of independence - did you think I was talking about Butlins?
[/quote]
You would have made a very bad lawyer, dear friend! The issue here is about gods not having superhuman powers and not about British soldiers not wearing redcoats. The judge would have found out that Nozz did not know about naked gods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
... not to mention the red - herring of the blunderbuss term 'messenger' only serves to show that the term cannot always be neatly pigeonholed. That does not make the earth a star nor Osiris a man, nor the Pope a God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
And none of this has anything to do with any contradiction between atheism and science. There is none - the only contradiction is between science and the non - science claims of cult, the supernatural and religion.
The contradiction lies in the fact that science (biology apart) is the protector and caretaker of religion and therefore an enemy of atheism.
Do you possess the knowledge necessary to act as a representative of science and discuss with me the... blunderbuss term 'messenger' (the poisonous red herring) ?
No fantasies and imaginative assertions but thesis supported by evidence.
What do you say, old chap?
I say, B. S old bean. Science is secondarily a discipline of mental tools used to recover reliably factual data and primarily the date recovered by that discipline. It does not act as the protector of anything against anyone other than the presentation of invalidated claims as reliable data. Nor do I claim to be the representative of anything or anybody, but I do call out B.S when I see it and turn to the Scientific body of data and the mental tools it uses in order to dissect B.s claims.
So far your arguments have failed to produce anything that science would support and even your point above..I'll repeat it.... "The issue here is about gods not having superhuman powers and not about British soldiers not wearing redcoats. The judge would have found out that Nozz did not know about naked gods."
stumbles, in that YOU used the redcoat analogy, and you are trying to skip over a very well established comprehension of a distinction between gods and humans by finding some not very well explained exceptions. I find it hard to think of any gods that did not in some way have attributes beyond any that humans could legitimately claim to have. And then tossing some obscure reference to Naked Gods (which would surely bewilder any Judge in the land, assuming that he hadn't thrown you and your thesis into the street before the initial presentation was concluded) as though it proved something.
I would be delighted to discuss (in an appropriate thread) the various usages of the term 'messenger' as it appears in various languages and in a myriad usages but, since it is such a 'blunderbuss' (widely applied) term, it is a rich field for misdirection, definition -shopping (a similar trick to translation - shopping) and rule disproving by exceptions as in this 'some gods were just like humans' ploy to try to shore up this sand -shifty thesis that gods were no different from men and I am too canny to fall into the old 'definitions rather than concepts' trap.
B.s old sausage.
So I have seen little but fantasies and imagination presented as though it was a scientific thesis but really not showing anything yet that I have seen other than fantasies and imagination. Propped up by misdirection, (some crafty attempts at Ad Hom.) false analogies, obscure hints and general whackiness and denial of being shown to be completely wrong (the one about the pyramid as a pump and Eratosthenes pinched Old Kingdom measurements was yours, wasn't it?) to prop up an unclear hypothesis which seems to be based on an idea that what is thought of by science as a huge diversity of human myth -making was actually recording of facts.
So I say, B.s in logical, evidential, scientific and even legal terms. Old sprout.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-09-2012 at 04:40 AM..
(the one about the pyramid as a pump and Eratosthenes pinched Old Kingdom measurements was yours, wasn't it?
Ya! Eratosthenes’ cheating was dirty and is unforgivable, but the pyramid-pump thing was not my idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I would be delighted to discuss (in an appropriate thread) the various usages of the term 'messenger' as it appears in various languages and in a myriad usages…
“Messengers of gods”, old boy! Angels!
Look for such a thread in a day or two.
I fight guilty science using scientific weapons (evidence)!
Ya! Eratosthenes’ cheating was dirty and is unforgivable, but the pyramid-pump thing was not my idea.
Really? Ok. But your slander on Eratosthenes was roundly discredited in that thread. You ignored that evidence and you are still ignoring it. That was when I began to understand that there was something Wrong.
Quote:
“Messengers of gods”, old boy! Angels!
Yes. 'Angels' is simply messengers. (1) Messengers from rulers, messengers from Gods. The term is interchangeable but the messengers from God (indistinguishable from humans, according to the Bible, so their bona fides ought to be intently checked) have become confused with Cherubim (originally an Assyrian winged lion undoubtedly derived from Babylonian mythological beasts, hi-jacked for the OT and confused with celestial messengers of the human appearance because both angels and Cherubim were supposed to be continually cryiing 'Holy' (just to let the Assyrians know which god was really in charge) when not required for other duties. The confusion has resulted in winged humans in nightshirts zooming about the 0 BC skies tootling on tin trumpets.
Quote:
Look for such a thread in a day or two.
In view of my succinct exposition, is there any point?
Quote:
I fight guilty science using scientific weapons (evidence)!
Ah. 'Science' as used by you is the definition of the theist -English dictionary (2) rather than the way science defines it.
(1) Angel (Strong's concordances 4397) Malak 1) messenger, representative, a) messenger, b) angel, c) the theophanic angel
Gen 16:11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou [art] with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
Note, this passage struck me as being similar to Luke's annunciation passage 1.30. I have little doubt that he lifted the passage to provide his screenplay.
Angel is here just a handy agent for whatever God needs to have done. It can even be humans.
2Sa 19:27 And he hath slandered thy servant unto my lord the king; but my lord the king [is] as an angel (still malak 4397) of God: do therefore [what is] good in thine eyes.
The first Gospel ref is Matthew 1.20 greek 'aggello' masculine noun Root Word (Etymology) From aggello [probably derived from ἄγω (G71), cf ἀγέλη (G34)] (to bring tidings)
1) a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God.
Luke's passage to compare with Gen. 16. 0The angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. 31And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David.
(2nd foopnote) Science 'This is the evidence - what conclusions can we draw from it?' As used by t'tango. 'This is my theory. What evidence can I find to prop it up?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-09-2012 at 08:46 AM..
Nobody does. But "we don't know, ergo God" is ****-poor logic.
The way the herd mentality goes... tyranical grandpa in the sky.
So, why define God in such sick ways?
WHY?
Just so some have something ridiculous to argue, to make themselves feel smart?
Please, will someone for God's sake, explain to me why so many Atheists based their group/herd beliefs on ridiculous definitions of God, then ridicule religious herd thinking????
And what amazes me is they don't even see their own hypocrisy.
Quote:
...Or you can just go where the evidence takes you. It appears the universe is kinda uncaring. There is no evidence of a benevolent creator. Too bad, but them's the breaks.
You cannot measure liquid with a ruler.
The evidence goes like this: You cannot feel anything OUTSIDE of you.
EVERY experience you have, including your experience of God, or lack of, is experienced as a product of your own thinking (which can be affected by your physiology as well).
And since most of us are highly dependent upon others, (whether illusional or real dependency) - how others seem to affect us bears on how we define God (ie prayers being answered).
Yes, there may be "god subatomic particles" discovered... but because nobody has thought outside the herd mentality box, few scientifically obsessed, know what to make of it.
In the mean time, each & every person is worshiping gods... whatever they are most concerned about is their God. That means, many claim to have Allah, or Jehova or The Sun as their god, or even no belief in God, but in reality, worship & obsess over something besides what they claim to be most concerned with.
When enough people of influence in your life, have "false" gods... then you may well be left with the impression that "there is no evidence of benevolent creators."
There is no point railing against atheist definitions of god. The way to make a claim is very simple and it is up to you to tell us what your definition of god is before you substantiate that claims. The way to do it is simple:
1) State exactly what it is you are claiming (tell us what god is to you).
2) List exactly the things you think support the existence of that thing you defined in 1).
3) Explain exactly how the things listed in 2 support the claim made in 1).
If atheists are using definitions of god that are displeasing to you then simply improve how you engage with Step 1) above. Alas from years of conversation with theists they only ever engage in step 2. They assume you know what they mean by step 1) and they hardly, if ever, do anything for step 3.
Also do not assume that your answer to Step 1) is the same as any other theists one. I have met people who have sat beside each other in church for over 20 years and only during conversation with me did they discover that their step 1 was entirely different from the person they sat beside for those 20 years.
The way the herd mentality goes... tyranical grandpa in the sky.
So, why define God in such sick ways?
WHY?
Just so some have something ridiculous to argue, to make themselves feel smart?
Please, will someone for God's sake, explain to me why so many Atheists based their group/herd beliefs on ridiculous definitions of God, then ridicule religious herd thinking????
And what amazes me is they don't even see their own hypocrisy.
The reason why is because Theists themselves have continued to identify the postulated intent first cause with the very specific god of the Bible. It is hardly the fault of atheists if they argue on the basis of that, because the argument about a possible 'sortagod' or 'anybodygod' is academic and nothing to argue about, except academically.
Quote:
You cannot measure liquid with a ruler.
The evidence goes like this: You cannot feel anything OUTSIDE of you.
EVERY experience you have, including your experience of God, or lack of, is experienced as a product of your own thinking (which can be affected by your physiology as well).
And since most of us are highly dependent upon others, (whether illusional or real dependency) - how others seem to affect us bears on how we define God (ie prayers being answered).
Yes, there may be "god subatomic particles" discovered... but because nobody has thought outside the herd mentality box, few scientifically obsessed, know what to make of it.
Effectively, yes. If one does not begin with assuming a 'god' a priori which is an unjustified initial assumption (I won't use the term hypocritical ) in the context of an argument about how the universe started, then all the points you mentioned above are arguments as to why the feelings we have or effects that we see are explainable as not being the sign or actions of a god, but biological and physical effects.
Quote:
In the mean time, each & every person is worshiping gods... whatever they are most concerned about is their God. That means, many claim to have Allah, or Jehova or The Sun as their god, or even no belief in God, but in reality, worship & obsess over something besides what they claim to be most concerned with.
What you are getting at here is the need to distinguish between this postulated First cause/sortagod which we know nothing about and only disbelieve in because you logically cannot believe in what you don't know exists - the assumption that it exist without any good evidence is illogical, as I explained. I know there are many arguments intended to prove that there must be some deliberate motivator but that is due to a rather limited idea of what the universe actually is. We have to think outside the box, here.
Quote:
When enough people of influence in your life, have "false" gods... then you may well be left with the impression that "there is no evidence of benevolent creators."
That's quite right. These man - made gods or 'false' gods as you say, are nothing to do with the academic question about what caused the universe to get started. Neither are their religions and Holy Books relevant to the argument about 'first cause'.
And that's really the point. Since none of those 'false' gods, their religions, holy books rituals and priests with their instructions, exhortations and commandments are of any validity whatsoever, what, dear soupersoul, are we arguing about?
I agree that many atheists fail to distinguish between sorta god and Biblegod, but that is because many theists fail to do so and begin the 'proof of God' arguments with 'first cause', or at least end up there as a last - ditch undisprovable 'god' to hang their religious faith onto.
I'll pass over your assumption that such postulated creators must be 'benevolent' which is an invalid assumption I'd say, and just ask, suppose I accept the likely existence of some intelligence that had to have started the universe off, what do you think I should do about it?
I shall still say (as you do) that all the personal gods are False gods and their man - made religions are to be disbelieved for all our sakes. Now, then, since I have generally accepted all your argument above, shouldn't we both regards ourselves as irreligious, even if you believe that a first cause is very probable?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science is secondarily a discipline of mental tools used to recover reliably factual data and primarily the date recovered by that discipline. It does not act as the protector of anything against anyone other than the presentation of invalidated claims as reliable data. Nor do I claim to be the representative of anything or anybody, but I do call out B.S when I see it and turn to the Scientific body of data and the mental tools it uses in order to dissect B.s claims.
) in the context of an argument about how the universe started, then all the points you mentioned above are arguments as to why the feelings we have or effects that we see are explainable as not being the sign or actions of a god, but biological and physical effects.
