Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-13-2016, 08:58 PM
 
63,484 posts, read 39,770,989 times
Reputation: 7801

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash View Post
LOL. Based on your quoted statement above , Santa is real since millions of kids believe in him . Ditto the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster , aliens that kidnap humans for experiments , and the Force of the Jedi Knights .
Philosophically, since we have names for them and we have cognitive parameters for them, why are they NOT real. Our consciousness is every bit a part of reality as we are, so what is IN our consciousness exists in reality because we do. (In fact, the Genesis account hinted at the potential importance of this phenomenon of naming because the first thing Adam was asked to do was name all the creatures.) I suspect this kind of abstract philosophical consideration may be outside your concrete cognitive and intellectual bailiwick.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-13-2016, 08:58 PM
 
3,402 posts, read 2,776,351 times
Reputation: 1325
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
I have never moved the goal posts. I have always explained that all that is needed is a perception...by anyone, at any time...to assign a designation/title.
Great! You are a rapist. And a traitor. And an assassin. By your logic, all these things are objectively true, simply because I say so. I don't have to provide any evidence for these assertions, just becasue I percieve it. In fact I can change the definition of rapist to mean, "Guy who wears pants" and it is still objectively true. I am assuming you are on your way to the cops to turn yourself in? No? Becasue that would be absurd?

Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
We have definitions...in every language.
Love, hate, fear, happiness, justice, friends, heros, God, enemies, etc...all have been defined. The info is easy to find in any 1st world country...and even in lesser societies.

Once it can be verified that a subjective perception of a nonmaterial designation has actually been determined and assigned...it is now a fact (and objectively true) that which has been assessed had been imbued with that designation.

Otherwise, you'd have to claim that it cannot ever be true that anything that is subjectively determined actually exists.
Nothing is good, or bad, or God. No one is actually your friend or hero. There is no love, no hate, no fear, no justice, no joy or happiness, no sorrow, no anger, etc, etc, etc.
We all know these objectively exist...through certain knowledge that a subjective determination has been made to perceive in some way.
Some fail to grasp this simple concept...but very few that are not either actually or willfully ignorant.
Now this is a better argument!

Lets think it through though. Is there such thing as a hero? Not a person who shares the qualities of a hero, or a person to whom the label "hero" can be applied, but a single entity that is exactly what the word Hero means and nothing more? I would argue no, there is not. There is not a physical or existential manifestation of the label hero. It is as you say a designation, a label, and as such does not exist physically or materially, only as an idea. Thus when we say a person is a hero, we are comparing them to some mental definition of what it means to be a hero, we are comparing them to an idea that is abstract and unembodied.

In the same way, love, justice, friendship, joy, sorrow, and even god are abstract ideas which do not and cannot manifest physically independant of other things. They are ideas, yardsticks, labels but not things in and of themselves. You cannot measure, hold, smell or taste love or joy or fear in and of themselves. But we do not objectively know that love exists as anything more than a roughly agreed upon set of behaviors emotions and experiences, an idea. And not even one we can all agree upon!

In the same way, god, divinity, deity are ideas, abstractions, but they have no actual manifestation. When you argue Nature is god, you are arguing that nature is a sufficient equivalent to the abstract idea of god for the label to apply, but it doesn't poof the idea of god into existence. Nature is still all that exists, you have simply slapped a label on it. Any even worse, you use an idea of god that other believe deficient, and then claim that they must not only accept your assertion that nature equals god as fact, they must also accept that your idea of god is the correct one!

So I am willing to accept the existence of a god in the same way that I accept the existence of a hero or love or a friend. As something that does not have an objective definition but is instead a set up subjective ideas we may choose to use as labels to describe things that actually exist, but are not necessarily things that exist in and of themselves.

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2016, 09:05 PM
 
3,402 posts, read 2,776,351 times
Reputation: 1325
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Philosophically, since we have names for them and we have cognitive parameters for them, why are they NOT real. Our consciousness is every bit a part of reality as we are, so what is IN our consciousness exists in reality because we do. (In fact, the Genesis account hinted at the potential importance of this phenomenon of naming because the first thing Adam was asked to do was name all the creatures.) I suspect this kind of abstract philosophical consideration may be outside your concrete cognitive and intellectual bailiwick.
I am willing to postulate something like this, as long as we can agree that your concept of God is only as real as Harry Potter, your God existing as a product of your mind, and Harry Potter as a product of J.K. Rowling's. But I don't think that is really what you are claiming...

-NoCapo

P.S. As I think about it, that would probably make Harry Potter much more real than your God, since your concept of God, even as an idea, only exists in the mind of a select few people with whom you discuss your ideas. Whereas Harry Potter exists in the minds of millions of readers and movie fans round the world. Even more ironically, because I argue with you so much about your idea of God, I am probably one of the few minds supporting your God concept's existence! Oh Snap!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2016, 10:14 PM
 
63,484 posts, read 39,770,989 times
Reputation: 7801
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Philosophically, since we have names for them and we have cognitive parameters for them, why are they NOT real. Our consciousness is every bit a part of reality as we are, so what is IN our consciousness exists in reality because we do. (In fact, the Genesis account hinted at the potential importance of this phenomenon of naming because the first thing Adam was asked to do was name all the creatures.) I suspect this kind of abstract philosophical consideration may be outside your concrete cognitive and intellectual bailiwick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
I am willing to postulate something like this, as long as we can agree that your concept of God is only as real as Harry Potter, your God existing as a product of your mind, and Harry Potter as a product of J.K. Rowling's. But I don't think that is really what you are claiming...
-NoCapo
P.S. As I think about it, that would probably make Harry Potter much more real than your God, since your concept of God, even as an idea, only exists in the mind of a select few people with whom you discuss your ideas. Whereas Harry Potter exists in the minds of millions of readers and movie fans round the world. Even more ironically, because I argue with you so much about your idea of God, I am probably one of the few minds supporting your God concept's existence! Oh Snap!
Always good to hear from you, NoCapo. You are one of the few who seem capable of the abstractions necessary to engage my views rigorously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2016, 11:46 PM
 
12,595 posts, read 6,616,628 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
100% wrong!!! Dictionaries are not prescriptive, they are descriptive. The "experts" are simply telling you have the word is currently used, and possibly how it was used in the past, and where it came from. There is absolutely no body, no organization, at least for the English language, who sets or decides on definitions. You have it entirely backwards, the meaning of words are fluid and determined by how we use them, your "expert definers" are simply taxonomists. If you doubt me go get any first year linguistics text.

But you said it didn't matter... As long as someone perceives it as such it is true... Now you are backpedalling and want definitive evidence that my assertion matches an objective definition. Which not coincidentally, is how I feel about your God claims.



Great, then you shoudl be able to help me out here. What is"Tall"? Objectively speaking what is "Tall"? What does it look like? Where is it, what does it smell like, is it rough or smooth? Even if we were to grant that it is an abstract idea so it by definition has no physical existence ( again, not unlike "god"...), as an idea, how tall is tall? at what point is something small and not tall? Is there anything taller than tall?

It appears to me that even our ideas about what "Tall" is are subjective. We might be able to hash out some agreement between our individual perspectives, but that doesn't make it objective, merely a subjective consensus.


Spoken like someone who knows he is in over his head. To be quite blunt, if you cannot explain your position, you don't really understand it. Instead of a reasoned defense of your position, you are relying on assertion, incorrect "facts", and insults. I understand that you don't want to discuss it anymore, but I don't think it is my lack of knowledge that is at issue here...

You are always free to take your bat and ball and go home, like you have every other time we have had this discussion in the past what, 3 or 4 years. I guess we'll do it all over again next time you get in the mood to try to disparage us non-believers. See ya round.

-NoCapo
You protest about insults....but of all the jillions of examples you could have used...you assign stuff like "rapist", "assassin", "traitor" to me.
You are easy to figure out.

I said subjective perception can provide an objective designation IF the attributes of what is being assessed comport with the known expert definitions that provide a standard to go by.

You make it sound as if I think I can assess the attributes of "Squares", and then merely claim off-hand with no basis for my reasoning, that I perceive them as worthy of being titled "Round"...and that I believe they can then be objectively designated "Round".
You are being intentionally obtuse...I doubt you understand my explanations and analogies so poorly.

By the way...only the ignorant or clueless will agree that dictionaries do not provide good and accurate meanings of words. They are the best at that. Your dumbstuff claiming otherwise, notwithstanding.

Most times I really dig the fiesty, snarky, exchanges...especially when I really like the style and the member is smart and sharp. Like Rafius, Transponder, especially Shirina (one of the best ever here...but, then, this board has a super female contingent), and a whole bunch of others. I do all I can to instigate that genre of argument...and many are really good at it.
OTOH...some members, as well as some subjects (like Creation vs Evolution...I will not debate it) are not sufficiently fun & amusing (my main reason for being here), or interesting enough to me...as they don't "feed me" enough of what I'm looking for.
I seek exchanges that are amusing or interesting. It always becomes kind of annoying (that is a completely bogus vibe to me) if I must work trying to explain the most basic concepts supporting my Pantheist view...and it becomes evident it is actually or willfully misunderstood. Either way...that's a bogus trip.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2016, 06:13 AM
 
3,402 posts, read 2,776,351 times
Reputation: 1325
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
You protest about insults....but of all the jillions of examples you could have used...you assign stuff like "rapist", "assassin", "traitor" to me.
You are easy to figure out.
I chose labels that I don't believe, but that you would strenuously object to. This is my point, you do not believe your own claims when it comes to something that you know is real and has a negative impact on you. You are the one who was claiming that something is objectively true if even one person perceives it as such, but when you have skin in the game, suddenly we need evidence that is consistent with an agreed upon definition, which has been my position from the jump.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
I said subjective perception can provide an objective designation IF the attributes of what is being assessed comport with the known expert definitions that provide a standard to go by.

You make it sound as if I think I can assess the attributes of "Squares", and then merely claim off-hand with no basis for my reasoning, that I perceive them as worthy of being titled "Round"...and that I believe they can then be objectively designated "Round".
You are being intentionally obtuse...I doubt you understand my explanations and analogies so poorly.
But you demonstrably do this. You substitute the metaphoric usage of God for its definition, you insist time and time again that God is what anyone perceives it to be. You in essence have hijacked a discussion of squares, by claiming a square can have as many sides as you want it to have, and then claiming to have found a 3 sided square.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
By the way...only the ignorant or clueless will agree that dictionaries do not provide good and accurate meanings of words. They are the best at that. Your dumbstuff claiming otherwise, notwithstanding.
Never claimed otherwise. Dictionaries are great things, for recording non-exhaustive examples of how language is used. But they are not definitive, and they certainly are not used to dictate language to us. Using a dictionary is not substitute for understanding context, and the way in which a word is used. Misusing the dictionary to try and create false equivalences, I would argue is the "dumbstuff"

Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule View Post
Most times I really dig the fiesty, snarky, exchanges...especially when I really like the style and the member is smart and sharp. Like Rafius, Transponder, especially Shirina (one of the best ever here...but, then, this board has a super female contingent), and a whole bunch of others. I do all I can to instigate that genre of argument...and many are really good at it.
OTOH...some members, as well as some subjects (like Creation vs Evolution...I will not debate it) are not sufficiently fun & amusing (my main reason for being here), or interesting enough to me...as they don't "feed me" enough of what I'm looking for.
I seek exchanges that are amusing or interesting. It always becomes kind of annoying (that is a completely bogus vibe to me) if I must work trying to explain the most basic concepts supporting my Pantheist view...and it becomes evident it is actually or willfully misunderstood. Either way...that's a bogus trip.
No, I have an alternate theory. You lose interest because you are being called on your crap, and know that it is indefensible. In order for your assertion that you can prove that God exists, you have to play tortured games with language. The telling bit is that you are not so willing to play those games if they are applied to you and to words that can actually harm you. When the chips are down and something is at stake you want clear meaningful definitions, you want want evidence, and you will not accept someone else's perception as definitive.

I would submit that the reason why it is so hard for you to explain your Pantheist view is not malice or stupidity on the part of those of us critiquing your arguments, but of fundamental deficiencies and weaknesses in those arguments. It is not may fault that you cannot defend your belief in a logically coherent way, it is that you have chosen the wrong arguments.

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2016, 11:08 AM
 
4,851 posts, read 2,268,822 times
Reputation: 1588
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Philosophically, since we have names for them and we have cognitive parameters for them, why are they NOT real. Our consciousness is every bit a part of reality as we are, so what is IN our consciousness exists in reality because we do. (In fact, the Genesis account hinted at the potential importance of this phenomenon of naming because the first thing Adam was asked to do was name all the creatures.) I suspect this kind of abstract philosophical consideration may be outside your concrete cognitive and intellectual bailiwick.


Is considering Santa Claus , the Easter Bunny and the Force real simply because we name them and can give some parameters on them outside of my interest and belief ? Most certainly . They would be for any sane and mature adult . We are not discussing abstract concepts , but the reality of a particular kind of God .

Once again, nothing but word salad from you. But never any real meat .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2016, 05:58 PM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,500,449 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Philosophically, since we have names for them and we have cognitive parameters for them, why are they NOT real. Our consciousness is every bit a part of reality as we are, so what is IN our consciousness exists in reality because we do. (In fact, the Genesis account hinted at the potential importance of this phenomenon of naming because the first thing Adam was asked to do was name all the creatures.) I suspect this kind of abstract philosophical consideration may be outside your concrete cognitive and intellectual bailiwick.
abstract philosophical consideration ... this leads to... big trouble in little reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2016, 08:20 PM
 
12,595 posts, read 6,616,628 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
I chose labels that I don't believe, but that you would strenuously object to. This is my point, you do not believe your own claims when it comes to something that you know is real and has a negative impact on you. You are the one who was claiming that something is objectively true if even one person perceives it as such, but when you have skin in the game, suddenly we need evidence that is consistent with an agreed upon definition, which has been my position from the jump.


But you demonstrably do this. You substitute the metaphoric usage of God for its definition, you insist time and time again that God is what anyone perceives it to be. You in essence have hijacked a discussion of squares, by claiming a square can have as many sides as you want it to have, and then claiming to have found a 3 sided square.


Never claimed otherwise. Dictionaries are great things, for recording non-exhaustive examples of how language is used. But they are not definitive, and they certainly are not used to dictate language to us. Using a dictionary is not substitute for understanding context, and the way in which a word is used. Misusing the dictionary to try and create false equivalences, I would argue is the "dumbstuff"



No, I have an alternate theory. You lose interest because you are being called on your crap, and know that it is indefensible. In order for your assertion that you can prove that God exists, you have to play tortured games with language. The telling bit is that you are not so willing to play those games if they are applied to you and to words that can actually harm you. When the chips are down and something is at stake you want clear meaningful definitions, you want want evidence, and you will not accept someone else's perception as definitive.

I would submit that the reason why it is so hard for you to explain your Pantheist view is not malice or stupidity on the part of those of us critiquing your arguments, but of fundamental deficiencies and weaknesses in those arguments. It is not may fault that you cannot defend your belief in a logically coherent way, it is that you have chosen the wrong arguments.

-NoCapo
As usual...all you have, at the core...is that you lack the ability to contemplate, or even consider, any manifestation of GOD outside of Religious Deities.
Even though G-O-D is well know to be also defined as other than Religious Deities...and the Pantheist perception of The Universe as GOD is one of the most common and prevalent concepts and God Perception in the history of humankind.
Of course, you must close your mind and limit your consideration...because if you don't...GOD definitely objectively exists...and Atheism is rendered null and void.
GOD is defined as GOD is defined...whether you like it or not. It IS what it IS. If that doesn't suit you...take it up with Merriam-Webster...tell them you know the meaning of words better than them. Let us know how you make out.

No matter how many scores of times I explain that I assign the designation God to The Universe based upon THE KNOWN ATTRIBUTES of The Universe that comport with a known definition of GOD...you respond with rebuttals of things that you either have no way to know if attributes apply (like if I can be perceived as a rapist or an assassin) or other nonsensical comparisons of things with no attributes whatsoever that would comport definitively.
Why you, et al, make those illogical comparisons, I do not know...because it makes no sense.

AGAIN: My perception is based upon KNOWN ATTRIBUTES of The Universe that comport with the known definition of GOD. I thus determine (based upon those known ATTRIBUTES) that The Universe is worthy of my perception as GOD to me.
If The Universe didn't have known attributes that comport with the definition of GOD...it would not be logical that I perceive it as such.

Lastly...why Atheists always claim that Theists "run away"...I have no idea.
I mean...what is to fear from Atheism?
Compared to Overall Theism...Overall Atheism loses in any and every assessment that can be made.
Power, influence, acceptance, trust, respect, devotion, saturation, global growth, etc...all factors that mean anything in this world, has Overall Theism trouncing and crushing Overall Atheism.
Except being hated and distrusted...Overall Atheism greatly exceeds Overall Theism for that.
Nobody "runs away" from a foe they completely dominate...except, maybe out of boredom due to lack of a challenge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2016, 08:35 PM
 
4,851 posts, read 2,268,822 times
Reputation: 1588
People say you run away because you have a history of such . You make big claims about defeating atheism but never accomplish this, instead you leave and then when this is pointed out you make excuses for why you left . The idea that you have ever completely dominated any atheist in a discussion is so laughable as to cause beer to come out my nose .

Please dude, be serious . You have never stood your ground with any atheist ever . You leave, and you yell " well so, you're STILL on the losing team " as you exit . When I hear that phrase from you I know you are toast .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top