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.
Ahhhhhhhhhh....you may have missed that a poster that you virtually always agree with gets constantly stuck on strict definitions on an almost daily basis.
Instead of playing gotcha you should read our posts carefully. You might learn something.
Ahhhhhhhhhh....you may have missed that a poster that you virtually always agree with gets constantly stuck on strict definitions on an almost daily basis.
First..you skew what she said...as usual.
She said..."Dictionary alone will be a limiting factor in understanding poetry and spirituality and the language of spirituality."
She did not say to dismiss any or some formal dictionary meanings/definitions...but, to even expand upon that & not be limited.
Then, she showed she has many of you figured out:
"Atheists such as you would like to pin these terms down to one thing so it they conveniently fit the way you think - no god, because no evidence. End of story."
Such as the typical Atheist favorite, "Anthropomorphic being-type Deity God as described in Ancient Writings", that "dwells up above" and keeps track of everything we think & do, and controls everything that happens in The Universe and on Earth based upon His (gotta be male) volatile attitude at the time.
And no other GOD Entity than that can be considered or critiqued!
NOW...prove that God objectively exists, or you must admit there is no God...and we will throw in lots of insults & mocking for good measure.
Instead of playing gotcha you should read our posts carefully. You might learn something.
Oh, I read them carefully and I do learn from them. I don't learn from them what you want me to learn. As several others have also pointed out.
Dictionary definitions are helpful. It gives people a starting point for communication. But dictionary definitions do not always communicate common usage of words. And then we have the problem in this subforum about words from historic languages that have no exact translation. Even in modern language that is true. One of the most common phrases you will hear in Thailand, for example, is "mai pben rai". It has many, many shades of meaning depending on context, and while its translation seems simple, it is not.
I don't think the "disappointed love" metaphor is entirely a perfect one and probably breaks down around the edges but I have found it a useful way to understand even highly distorted thinking. You can't possibly be angry with someone unless you (rightly or not) expected something from them that is symbolic to you of respect, acceptance, and affirmation, which are the things anyone would hope to experience from any relationship (be it a significant other, god, some in-group, what have you). If you get what you see as active disrespect or betrayal then you are injured and angry around it.
You might be failing to see love that's actually there, you might not fully understand what it actually is and isn't, or how to express it. But it's a basic human need to be loved and accepted and if you feel it's being withheld and especially if it's being withheld unjustly or vindictively, then you could well come to see that as a great personal betrayal. And there is no end of rage that can come of that in some people.
What is white supremacy for example but a wrong expectation of apex social status based on nothing but skin color? And an expression that you're not getting that status and respect and affirmation because society is failing to maintain some purity that you suppose would give you those things? You wanted to be part of society, and it turns out it doesn't value you for some inherent aspect of yourself. So you ultimately decide to hurt society in as florid and painful a way as you possibly can. Maybe by shooting up a supermarket in a black neighborhood.
By calling this "disappointed love" I'm in no way excusing or romanticizing violent actors. I'm simply avoiding the mistake of mindlessly dismissing them as incomprehensible monsters who have no relation to the rest of humanity so that we don't have to follow some sort of actual causal chain we might have to reflect on. That would likely lead us to having to consider that the root of such sick minds has a lot to do with economic inequality, failed educational systems, inadequate attention to mental health issues, the easy availability of guns that are made solely to kill and maim lots of people in a short time that nobody outside the military really has any business possessing, etc. In short, instead of allowing us to merely be outraged and do nothing to make a better future for ourselves, it might lead us to some soul searching and some real changes in society that stubbornly refuse to happen as we stack up one nightmare event after another.
If you have a better way to look at this, that might have equal or better predictive or explanatory power, I'm all ears. I'm not married to my little aphorism.
I'm not sure I've got a better way of looking at this, but I don't think it's all that complicated for me either. I don't think white supremacy or shooting up a supermarket in a black neighborhood has all that much to do with any kind of love for example, or "disappointed love." Each circumstance might involve any number of different emotions, and I just call 'em the way I see 'em without trying to lump them all into any kind of love category. I don't think what you are doing is to excuse anyone for wrong-doing, but on the other hand I'm not too sure what you are doing. Call me simple as sometimes people do...
Religion is an organization of the people by the people based on the religious texts as a foundation that provides the codes of conduct and methods of worship. It is the relationship between people, a community. Belief is a relationship between an individual and the divinity. One can have faith and never attend church or go to the temple or even worship per the texts.
I don't know why this is so confusing to atheists.
My guess is they do not want this to be the case. How can the believers give themselves so much freedom? What then happens to Hell??? Who are the sinners then? What happens to God, the Santa Claus who gives us all we desire and brings us candy when we cry?
Only thing confusing to me is how so many comments can be devoted to explaining what religion and/or atheism really is, and/or what these clarifications have to do with the title of this thread...
I do not mean to be pedantic, but it is philosophy rather than science that describes the "hard problem of consciousness". That it calls it that rather than "the inherently insoluble problem of consciousness" suggests that progress might be made in the future. But you are correct -- in the meantime, we CAN accept and live with unknowns and uncertainties. They are not intolerable things that must be papered over with baseless assertions and wild guesses. They can be provisionally accepted as placeholders unless and until we actually learn enough to answer those questions.
One could consider love a hard problem too, if by this we mean that science cannot measure it, but just because there is no scientific manner in which to measure such things does not mean they are somehow beyond the realm of the natural physical world, or in any way supernatural.
Instead of playing gotcha you should read our posts carefully. You might learn something.
For some its not about learning. Its about telling us how atheism is the only logical conclusion. Then they dog pile without ever listing what what they are saying past "Atheism is a response" like it is the arbitor.
In many ways, they do exactly what theist do. But from the inside they can't see it and when the front door is opened, they say that room is off limits ... The strawman room is not allowed,
First..you skew what she said...as usual.
She said..."Dictionary alone will be a limiting factor in understanding poetry and spirituality and the language of spirituality."
She did not say to dismiss any or some formal dictionary meanings/definitions...but, to even expand upon that & not be limited.
Then, she showed she has many of you figured out:
"Atheists such as you would like to pin these terms down to one thing so it they conveniently fit the way you think - no god, because no evidence. End of story."
Such as the typical Atheist favorite, "Anthropomorphic being-type Deity God as described in Ancient Writings", that "dwells up above" and keeps track of everything we think & do, and controls everything that happens in The Universe and on Earth based upon His (gotta be male) volatile attitude at the time.
And no other GOD Entity than that can be considered or critiqued!
NOW...prove that God objectively exists, or you must admit there is no God...and we will throw in lots of insults & mocking for good measure.
yup
They tell us the definition.
if what is said is out side of anti-god ... its deemed off limits.
They can't see that when we limit lines of logic to promote a personal agents its exactly religion-ist fundy think type ...
Just list beliefs to see if we can shed light on what is happening
my deity
living system
some thing more
nothing more
anything outside of a deity is a strawman (in a belief forum none the less)
For practical reasons, we need to stick together against a big four deity and not challenge each other.
They are ll valid when we are open and honest when we deploy them. When we back door PM to shut down a line of logic ... well, its over at that point isn't it.
They tell us the definition.
if what is said is out side of anti-god ... its deemed off limits.
They can't see that when we limit lines of logic to promote a personal agents its exactly religion-ist fundy think type ...
Just list beliefs to see if we can shed light on what is happening
my deity
living system
some thing more
nothing more
anything outside of a deity is a strawman (in a belief forum none the less)
For practical reasons, we need to stick together against a big four deity and not challenge each other.
They are ll valid when we are open and honest when we deploy them. When we back door PM to shut down a line of logic ... well, its over at that point isn't it.
That's right.
The minute you say, "It comports with observations that whatever we are, the system we are in is more of it...and whatever we are doing, The Universe is necessarily doing".
That's a Strawman!
Why? You might be brushing up against a "Higher Power"...that's why.
Also...people are not allowed to have their own perceptions of things deemed as valid...especially if it imbues a appellation or vocative that they are allergic to.
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.
