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.
When people say "reality isn't God! you are changing the definition" it flies in the face of scholars who have tomes upon tomes that say that definition has been around since the beginning of time and is older than any New Testament God definition.
Another logical fallacy
That definition being around since the beginning of time does not make it a valid and correct definition.
Since the beginning of time Earth was defined as a flat disk by most people. So what?
Was this definition valid?
I know definition of reality and I don't see any reason for inventing a new label for what we already labeled by word "reality". I don't need another word, whether this word "god" or any other.
You have proven time and time again that you either do not understand what I am saying, or do and choose to argue against a straw-god.
You simply choose to repeat your error once again. I understand perfectly what you are saying. I merely do not agree with it or believe it. Learn the difference and you will stop being so wrong, so often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Again, that is the issue: it is an argumentum ad populum. I have no interest in what a "majority" says
Nor have I. I merely mention that the definition I work with does agree with the majority. I do not substantiate or validate its use by appeal to that majority however. So you would do well to learn how to apply fallacies like "argumentum ad populum" correctly before you make it any more obvious to people that you do not understand the basics of philosophy.
Again, to help your education a little, to apply the term "argumentum ad populum" the person you are speaking to has to be actually defending their point by noting that the majority agree with them. This is however not what I did. I explained my point, argued and explained it, and then just noted that it does happen to match what the majority of mono-theists claim.
So perhaps learn the fallacies and what they mean, before presuming to admonish others on their applications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Again, an inability to understand allegory, framed arguments or metaphors permeates so many atheists.
Then take it up with those atheists instead of falsely pretending it applies to me. As not only does it not apply to me, I do not even identify myself by the term "atheist" at all. Other people do, sure, but I do not. And it is comical that you accuse others willy nilly of strawmanning, yet you have to lump me in with groups I do not even label myself as in order to do so yourself. As they say, clean your own house up before rubbing your finger checking for dust in that of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
You say what I said was "gibberish"
No I did not. You really do like making up lies about what I have said and not said. Actually I say the exact opposite. I say that I perfectly understand the things you and the theistic cohort say. All the time. It is not gibberish. I just do not agree with it, I understand the faults and fallacies in it. It is you, no one else, who insists on misconstruing lack of agreement, as lack of understanding. Often, if not entirely, falsely so.
.................... anymore credible than a belief in fairies, goblins, elves and unicorns? There is no verifiable evidence to support the existence of any god.
I know definition of reality and I don't see any reason for inventing a new label for what we already labeled by word "reality". I don't need another word, whether this word "god" or any other.
"You" being the operative word. That is the logical fallacy.
"I" don't see any value in romantic relationships. So does that mean "I" would not be illogical if I said romantic relationships don't exist?
"You" being the operative word. That is the logical fallacy.
"I" don't see any value in romantic relationships. So does that mean "I" would not be illogical if I said romantic relationships don't exist?
Yeah, this is another great example of dishonest argumentation - straw man.
You, being unable to deal with my argument honestly, decided to misrepresent my argument and attack its made up, distorted version.
Using your example, I would not say
I don't see any value in romantic relationships.
I would say
I don't see any value in inventing a new label for what we already have a label for - romantic relationships. What would be a reason for arbitrarily changing that existing label to a new one, for example
"God"?
Can you answer this question?
BTW, can you answer the rest of my questions?
What Jesus are you talking about?
Where are the arguments "fedora boys" are "unable" to understand?
Are you able to argue honestly, without, "straw men", "red herrings", cherry picking questions etc.?
Yeah, this is another great example of dishonest argumentation - straw man.
You, being unable to deal with my argument honestly, decided to misrepresent my argument and attack its made up, distorted version.
No, it was a complete rebuttal. I will show you how.
Quote:
Using your example, I would not say
I don't see any value in romantic relationships.
I would say
I don't see any value in inventing a new label for what we already have a label for - romantic relationships. What would be a reason for arbitrarily changing that existing label to a new one, for example
"God"?
Again, calling reality God IS NOT NEW! How many times do I have to prove this? There is no comparison between calling God reality as the Tao te Ching or Hindu scriptures do and saying "it is a new label." THAT is a straw man.
The idea of "Brahman" existed long before science gave us a definition of "reality". If anything, it's science that has slapped a new label onto Brahman.
Quote:
Can you answer this question?
BTW, can you answer the rest of my questions?
What Jesus are you talking about?
Where are the arguments "fedora boys" are "unable" to understand?
Are you able to argue honestly, without, "straw men", "red herrings", cherry picking questions etc.?
Jesus was talking about himself and the Kingdom of heaven, which is a state of mind which comes from being at one with the divine within one's self. At no point did he say "you have to die to get to heaven."
That is the argument the fedora crowd does not understand: THE BIBLE WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY!
It doesn't even take itself literally, like when Hosea interpreted Jacob's struggle with an angel as a struggle in payer.
And the truth ultimately has to be experienced, not understood through words.
That is, again, the argument everyone is ignoring:
1) God has many different meanings throughout many religions.
2) Reality is God according to many religions
3) Therefore, God does exist
4) I did not invent this "new definition of reality," as it has existed before modern science
5) It is a useful definition, as religions have made use of it to help countless millions through the world and through the ages
6) saying things like "that makes no sense!" or "that's useless" does not take away from the validity of points 1,2,3 and 4 because of point 5.
Now can you refute the above without giving personal opinions (that doesn't make sense, that's silly) or strawmen arguments? (I invented the word "Brahman" or the idea of God as reality is new) I doubt it.
And the truth ultimately has to be experienced, not understood through words.
yes this
reading about dance, is not dancing
watching others dance is not dancing
analyzing dance, arguing about dance, calling dancers stupid, is not dancing
defining dance, is not dancing
when you yourself dance....that is dancing
the Divine is experienced, not understood through words
it is a relationship, not an idea
"You" being the operative word. That is the logical fallacy.
"I" don't see any value in romantic relationships. So does that mean "I" would not be illogical if I said romantic relationships don't exist?
That is the logical fallacy. Equivocation. Not seeing (not having been presented with) valid evidence is not the same as 'not seeing' (is not to your taste) the value of this or that inclination or preference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
No, it was a complete rebuttal. I will show you how.
Again, calling reality God IS NOT NEW! How many times do I have to prove this? There is no comparison between calling God reality as the Tao te Ching or Hindu scriptures do and saying "it is a new label." THAT is a straw man.
The idea of "Brahman" existed long before science gave us a definition of "reality". If anything, it's science that has slapped a new label onto Brahman. .
And justifiably so. 'Brahman' has the connotation of a deity. Not just the workings of physical laws with an alternative label slapped on it.
You cans do it. Some physicist have done it. A practice I deplore as it gives rise to just these opportinities for slipping god -claims under the door of reality. That particular ploy is the 'New' one.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-28-2015 at 10:36 PM..
And the truth ultimately has to be experienced, not understood through words.
That is, again, the argument everyone is ignoring:
1) God has many different meanings throughout many religions.
2) Reality is God according to many religions
3) Therefore, God does exist
4) I did not invent this "new definition of reality," as it has existed before modern science
5) It is a useful definition, as religions have made use of it to help countless millions through the world and through the ages
6) saying things like "that makes no sense!" or "that's useless" does not take away from the validity of points 1,2,3 and 4 because of point 5.
Now can you refute the above without giving personal opinions (that doesn't make sense, that's silly) or strawmen arguments? (I invented the word "Brahman" or the idea of God as reality is new) I doubt it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
yes this
reading about dance, is not dancing
watching others dance is not dancing
analyzing dance, arguing about dance, calling dancers stupid, is not dancing
defining dance, is not dancing
when you yourself dance....that is dancing
the Divine is experienced, not understood through words
it is a relationship, not an idea
Amen, brothers! I am now fairly certain that without experience, it is next to impossible to believe. Sad, very sad.
Amen, brothers! I am now fairly certain that without experience, it is next to impossible to believe. Sad, very sad.
Why is it so important to believe?
I would like to believe certain things but the evidence is lacking (not to mention proof).
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.
