I Am Absolutely Certain that 'God' Does Not Exist

Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
I Am Absolutely Certain that 'God' Does Not Exist

...Since it's been argued by some that the above is a philosophically 'weak' position, I just felt like pointing-out a few things:

 - 'God' is a crap concept. There no way it could possibly exist; it isn't even defined. It has the same likelyhood for existence as 'Shootle'. Some day in the future, we might come across something and decide to label it 'God', just as we might someday do the same for 'Shootle'. This does not mean 'God' exists; it means the term is just drifting about, waiting to be abitrarily attached to some quantifiable entity as of yet.

 - God in the traditional sense of the word cannot exist. Yahweh violates several physical laws, and the books describing him and his actions are entirely erroneous. They were myths to explain things for which we had no previous explanation; now that we do have said explanations, these texts can and should be treated as fiction.

 -  God has been carried forward on the back of the afore-mentioned myths. These myths have been scientifically disproven; more reasonable theists have then had to invent new myths, based on areas of human understanding that are still fuzzy. But it's still the same old God - we've just tried prettying it up. The fact that we would recognize the myths as erroneous, but not the figure central to them, is borderline lunacy (...at least it's not total lunacy).

 

Theists? Care to rebuke these statements? Or at least define 'God' for me?

(...And Christians/Catholics? Care to explain how crackers = Jesus? Or justify how putting a nail through Jesus = bad, but eating and digesting Jesus = good? )

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah Kevin , me GOD as YOOOU

Yeah Kevin , me GOD as YOOOU !     Can't kill gawed (yet) but we can sure the fuck kill all idol worshiping religion .... 

   .... and go PZ Myers 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:'God' is a crap

Quote:
'God' is a crap concept. There no way it could possibly exist; it isn't even defined.

If it is not defined, how can it not exist? Might as well say that "thing" does not exist, because it is not defined.

Quote:
It has the same likelyhood for existence as 'Shootle'. Some day in the future, we might come across something and decide to label it 'God', just as we might someday do the same for 'Shootle'.

True.  But to say they do not exist is nonsense, IMO.

Quote:
This does not mean 'God' exists; it means the term is just drifting about, waiting to be abitrarily attached to some quantifiable entity as of yet.

I'm not sure if "arbitrarily" would be the right word to describe it.. but possibly.

Quote:
God in the traditional sense of the word cannot exist. Yahweh violates several physical laws, and the books describing him and his actions are entirely erroneous. They were myths to explain things for which we had no previous explanation; now that we do have said explanations, these texts can and should be treated as fiction.

Alright......

Quote:
God has been carried forward on the back of the afore-mentioned myths.

"God" the undefined? or "God" the defined, e.g., Yahweh, Zeus, Jupiter, etc?

Quote:
These myths have been scientifically disproven; more reasonable theists have then had to invent new myths, based on areas of human understanding that are still fuzzy.

I believe I once heard a saying that goes a long the lines.. "Faith is the belief in what makes sense to you.  If something does not make sense, then do away with it, for it has no place in faith."

Of course.. "faith" in the sentence is used rather inaccurately.. but whatever.

If "more reasonable theists" have "invent[ed] new myths" to fill in the fuzzy areas.. so be it.. at least they are not filling in the areas that have already been filled.

Quote:
But it's still the same old God - we've just tried prettying it up.

Which "God"? The undefined one? Or the "more defined" ones of Yahweh, Zeus, Jupiter, etc?

Quote:
The fact that we would recognize the myths as erroneous, but not the figure central to them, is borderline lunacy (...at least it's not total lunacy).

You mean.. sort of like the Illiad and the Odyssey? I'm pretty sure much of that stuff is "erroneous myth," does that mean the central figures are? or the central story?

Pretty sure not.

Quote:
Theists? Care to rebuke these statements? Or at least define 'God' for me?

Well.. I will arbitrarily affix "God" to the ambiguously defined "Yahweh" of the Christian Bible.   Except, merely holding onto the more general attributes for the purpose of this discussion.

(1) created the universe (in some sense), (2) loves his creation (in some sense), (3) allows for freewill, (4) more powerful and knowledgeable than a human (and a locomotive), (5) existed from at least from the time before our current universe's form 'til now, and... other stuff I'm sure.

Quote:
...And Christians/Catholics? Care to explain how crackers = Jesus? Or justify how putting a nail through Jesus = bad, but eating and digesting Jesus = good?

Not all Christians believe in transubstantiation, to many, I believe, the tradition is merely a symbol meant to remind one of the life and sacrifice of Jesus.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
And your idol is Gizmo ???

And your idol is Gizmo ???  ....  and you worship how ???


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Ya.. Gizmo is pretty

Ya.. Gizmo is pretty sweet.  Did you see how he killed all those Gremlins in Gremlins 2, dressed up as Rambo, with nothing but a couple of matches, rubber bands, and a paper clip? Actually.. I think that he only killed one that way..

In anycase.. I have no idea what you're saying IAMGODASYOU.  I realize that you define the word God pretty broadly to include everyone/everything (from as far as I can tell).. but seeing as I defined the word "God" different, in a way that specifically meant to exclude that possibility.. I'm not sure how my "idol" can be Gizmo? Unless by "idol" you mean to suggest "a physical thing in-representation of "God""? Which.. I suppose would make sense in the sentence.  If that is the case: no, I would not agree that "Gizmo" is my idol, nor that I worship "Gizmo."

Sticking out tongue


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
You funny guy Gizmo ! Yes

You funny guy Gizmo !

Yes what ain't god ? My question was serious, I just used your last name, yeah you knew that. 

Yes I laugh, because I AM dead serious. I don't get the theist god, or any worship of a serparate something, or creator ?????

Doesn't compute, my brain is incredibly small !!!!       


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Yes I laugh, because I

Quote:
Yes I laugh, because I AM dead serious. I don't get the theist god, or any worship of a serparate something, or creator ?????

Depends on how you define "worship." 

If a man can "worship" his tv, his golf clubs, his father, his wife, he certainly can worship anything. Can you understand "worhip[ing] a separate something" in that sense?  Or is it merely the whole "invisible separate something" that bothers you?

If it is the first.. I would only suggest that some people place certains things in positions of importance over all others things. This is the first step to "worship[ing]."

In the same way I place a human being of importance over a spider, these people put one person, or one thing, over all other things.  There is really no difference between the two practices.  And if you understand the one practice, you should be able to understand the other.

If it is the latter, I would merely suggest that there is no practical difference between the two.

While we may quarry over the idea of whether "worship" entails "placing that thing in a position of importance over all other things" as opposed to merely "placing the thing in a position of importance over some other things," I don't believe it is of any real importance.

What is important is that the person thinks it's important and how that perceived importance manifests itself in life--i.e., the two things combining to make one definition of "worship"

For the man who places people over spiders, he'll show it in some way.

In the case of the person who places his wife over all other people, he'll show it in some way.

For me and my "theist God," and so I show it in some way.  More specifically, living my life in accordance with how I perceive I am meant to live my life believing what I believe.  Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly.

It's all very self-reflexive. Smiling

Worship is a word, much like God, that can be affixed to many things.. not just traditions and spectacles.  IMO.

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Cool Gizmo, at first read I

Cool Gizmo, at first read I agree, so why are you theist and I am an atheist ? Are you a pantheist, regarding consciousness, or life is a gift, OR  ?  I just don't get the separation thing.

    I don't kill spiders unless they are fucking with me, the scary ones .... dead scary spider   


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Cool Gizmo, at first

Quote:
Cool Gizmo, at first read I agree, so why are you theist and I am an atheist?

I guess we'll find out.  I would assume that it's because you fill in the "unknown" with "I don't know, let's find out," while I fill it in with "'God,' now lets see if I'm right."

Neither gets in the way of the search for what actually fills in that "unknown," but depending on what type of person you are, the beliefs affect people differently. 

For instance, I for one, like to think there is more meaning to life than species continuation.  If humanity is no different than the dodo bird in terms of its place in evolutionary history, than our ability to transplant hearts from one person to the other is not any more meaningful than a dodo bird's ability to crack a nut.

Kudos on cracking the nut, but your species is dead now, so you fail.

There will always be room for the "God of the unknown"--and if believing in this God allows for me to view things as more than just cracking nuts, then I'm good for it.

(There are also some other reasons for my believe, but I figured to give this example. Smiling)

Quote:
Are you a pantheist, regarding consciousness, or life is a gift, OR?

"Life is a gift," is a loaded phrase.  I will tentatively say "yes," it is.

I am not a pantheist, at least in the sense that I understand the word.

Consciousness is consciousness.  A function of the brain.  Whether there is some shared consciousness or not, I don't know.  Important thing is that I perceive there to be separate consciousness.

Quote:
I just don't get the separation thing.

I don't get the whole "the total non-separation thing."  I perceive things as separate and therefore treat things as if they are separate.  That does not mean that I do not not consider certain "separate things" as equivalent in value and substance to myself--certainly not all things though.

Answer your question?

 

BTW, all spiders are pretty scary.. especially the little tiny ones that can crawl in your ear and lay eggs.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If it is not defined,

Quote:
If it is not defined, how can it not exist? Might as well say that "thing" does not exist, because it is not defined.

'Things' don't exist. Thing is just a category for certain objects (inanimate objects, objects that you aren't able to otherwise describe, etc).

You're doing nothing but playing a language game (and one that only works while you're abusing English).

Quote:

True.  But to say they do not exist is nonsense, IMO.

So you think that whatever I make up exists, then? Skepticism is just rubbish, in your mind?

Quote:

I'm not sure if "arbitrarily" would be the right word to describe it..

...Arbitrary 'isn't the right word', and yet that's all we ever do. 'Oh, Thor doesn't exist? Well I guess God must be X instead, then. Oh, Yahweh doesn't exist? I guess God must be Y, then,'

Quote:
"God" the undefined? or "God" the defined, e.g., Yahweh, Zeus, Jupiter, etc?

God the arbitrary label.

Quote:
If "more reasonable theists" have "invent[ed] new myths" to fill in the fuzzy areas.. so be it.. at least they are not filling in the areas that have already been filled.

'So be it'? That undermines the very concept of scientific exploration.

It's less crazy than fundamentalism, sure. But it's still fucking crazy.

Quote:
You mean.. sort of like the Illiad and the Odyssey? I'm pretty sure much of that stuff is "erroneous myth," does that mean the central figures are? or the central story?

Pretty sure not.

See what being unskeptical does to your knowledge base?

The characters in 'Illiad' and 'Odyssey' were myths, and modern romancing that says otherwise is moronic. Hell, Homer himself wasn't even likely a real figure; most scholars now agree that the Homeric epics were constructs of several different men, based on stories and myths passed by word of mouth.

Quote:
Well.. I will arbitrarily affix "God" to the ambiguously defined "Yahweh" of the Christian Bible.   Except, merely holding onto the more general attributes for the purpose of this discussion.

Well now you're in even worse shape, aren't you? We know that Genesis is an absolute fabrication, we know that Yahweh could not have done the things claimed in the Bible (they violate the laws of physics), we know that many locations within the Bible don't exist and never have, etc.

Quote:
(1) created the universe (in some sense), (2) loves his creation (in some sense), (3) allows for freewill, (4) more powerful and knowledgeable than a human (and a locomotive), (5) existed from at least from the time before our current universe's form 'til now, and... other stuff I'm sure.

 

See? Your 'definition' sucks. Created the universe 'in some sense' is not a valid descriptor; it's vague hand-waving. How did he do it? What are the specifics?

You don't know how it was done? Join the club, and stop pretending.

Likewise, your 'love' claim is erroneous. What examples do you have that demonstrate his alleged love for what he allegedly created? Given that he requires his creations to eat one another to survive, it's certainly not any kind of 'love' we know of.

The 'powerful and knowledgeable' claims are simply naked assertions. Why would he have to be either in order to create the universe? What evidence do you have that he is either? A retarded, lazy or sinister God would at least make some degree of sense, but of course, you insist on what the dogma has taught.

How do you know he's still around? Where's the evidence he's still here? Even if he was the prime agent behind the shift of our universe from one state to the next, how can you assume he's still here?

Quote:
Not all Christians believe in transubstantiation, to many, I believe, the tradition is merely a symbol meant to remind one of the life and sacrifice of Jesus.

...And to many others, it's a serious enough offense to nail a cracker to some paper that they feel they should senddeath threats to people and insist that persons be fired.

I want an explanation for this behavior, not wimpy apologetics and no true scotsman fallacies.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kay Cat
Superfan
Kay Cat's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2008-07-22
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:...Since

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

(...And Christians/Catholics? Care to explain how crackers = Jesus? Or justify how putting a nail through Jesus = bad, but eating and digesting Jesus = good? )

 

I'll attempt to answer this, as I grew up Catholic. In John 6:23 it is written that Jesus said "if you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have eternal life. Supposedly that meant if you took him, The Word Made Flesh, into you, you would live forever. Of course eating a being isn't going to make you live forever, but in that mystic and superstition filled time, people didn't realize that, so they attatched a whole bunch of silly rituals to their "holy" rites including priests and prophets muttering prayers over unleavened bread because they wouldn't and couldn't readily eat the body of some dead and probably mythical rabbi, and thus the Eucharist came into practice.

Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
I think the only reason

I think the only reason "strong" atheism is considered a weak philosophical position is because
"god" can be defined and re-defined to be what the hell ever you want it to be. How can one be sure that something so amorphous does not exist?

Practically, of course, that's utter bollocks. It doesn't make one whit of difference how you define "god", there's no point in caring if it exists.

The "big" gods - the ones with tremendous powers (including omnipotence) and perfect knowledge - simply have no evidence to support their existence. Claims that they hide deliberately place them in the "then why bother worrying about them" file.

The "medium" gods - the ones in deism and pantheism - are pointless things. Deist god? OK, fine, so what? Why care? Pantheist? I don't need to call the universe "god" to make it important.

The "small" gods - where they get fuzzy and seem more like people than gods, so much so that they're only rarely called gods - are so easily explainable by normal, natural phenomena that it's hard to tell why anyone ascribed reverence to them.

So why bother believing in any kind of god, then? Now-a-days it's mostly just believing in what ma and pa believed in. After that, it's folks not understanding the world they find themselves in and picking up the easy and comfortable answers.

I like useful answers better.

I'm not a "strong" atheist because... well, because I'm lazy. I don't' want to have to sift through the huge piles of god definitions to come up with an argument that backs my position. "No evidence means I don't see a need to care about it" works as well and it's a whole lot easier.

(Pardon my rambling. I ramble.)

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:'Things' don't exist.I

Quote:
'Things' don't exist.

I said thing.

Quote:
Thing is just a category for certain objects (inanimate objects, objects that you aren't able to otherwise describe, etc).

Thing is a category for everything and specific things.. depending on how you use it.  I can call a person "a thing"--and still be using it correctly.

In any case, your argument doesn't really undercut mine.  Whether "thing" is a category or not, without context, it is "undefined" in the same sense that "God" is undefined.

Quote:
You're doing nothing but playing a language game (and one that only works while you're abusing English).

Okee.

Quote:
So you think that whatever I make up exists, then? Skepticism is just rubbish, in your mind?

No.  I'm saying without definition (implied or otherwise), it cannot be said to exist or not exist. 

Quote:
...Arbitrary 'isn't the right word', and yet that's all we ever do. 'Oh, Thor doesn't exist? Well I guess God must be X instead, then. Oh, Yahweh doesn't exist? I guess God must be Y, then,'

Alright.  Arbitrary is the right word then. Smiling

Quote:
God the arbitrary label.

So.. God the undefined then.  Got it.

Quote:
'So be it'? That undermines the very concept of scientific exploration.

Why? You were only referring to the arbitrary task of affixing "God" to fill in the "fuzzy areas."  Nothing in that practice necessarily "stops the very concept of scientific exploration."  That necessity would depend more on how "God" is defined.

Quote:
See what being unskeptical does to your knowledge base?

The characters in 'Illiad' and 'Odyssey' were myths, and modern romancing that says otherwise is moronic. Hell, Homer himself wasn't even likely a real figure; most scholars now agree that the Homeric epics were constructs of several different men, based on stories and myths passed by word of mouth.

Homer may not have been a real figure.. and the people.. in large part.. myths.  But how much of the story is based upon fact (e.g., a war against troy, a person named achilles, a person named helen, or merely a woman who started off the war, or whatever,) there is no way to know... seeing as the story, from what I can remember of my class, was passed along from one generation to another, orally, during the greek dark age--a time of very limited historic record.

Quote:
Well now you're in even worse shape, aren't you? We know that Genesis is an absolute fabrication, we know that Yahweh could not have done the things claimed in the Bible (they violate the laws of physics), we know that many locations within the Bible don't exist and never have, etc.

I never said I believed any particular means by which God created the universe.

Quote:
See? Your 'definition' sucks. Created the universe 'in some sense' is not a valid descriptor; it's vague hand-waving. How did he do it? What are the specifics?

Alright.. he flicked his finger against a singularity which initiated the big bang.  Or.. he "spit out" a singularity which than "banged."  Now here we are.

Quote:
You don't know how it was done? Join the club, and stop pretending.

True.. maybe not the big bang.  Ah well.. keep searching I guess.

Quote:
Likewise, your 'love' claim is erroneous. What examples do you have that demonstrate his alleged love for what he allegedly created? Given that he requires his creations to eat one another to survive, it's certainly not any kind of 'love' we know of.

You asked me to define, not to defend.

But.. in any case, any concept of "love" is based upon perception and therefore, subjective.  I can explain to you my reasons, but I'm not sure they would be satisfactory.  Furthermore, I don't believe that he "requires" that we eat one another.  I surely can get by being a vegetarian.

Quote:
The 'powerful and knowledgeable' claims are simply naked assertions. Why would he have to be either in order to create the universe?

Since I asserted that the "God" I defined was the Yahweh of the Bible.. I had to follow at least some of the texts.

Quote:
What evidence do you have that he is either?

If he had any hand in the creation of the universe, he is more powerful than I, for I cannot affect the universe in any sense of the word when it is used in "affect the creation of the universe."

If he existed from the moment before the universe, he certainly is more knowledgeable, at least in one sense.

Quote:
A retarded, lazy or sinister God would at least make some degree of sense, but of course, you insist on what the dogma has taught.

Okee..

Quote:
How do you know he's still around?

Good point.  I don't.  Smiling

Quote:
Where's the evidence he's still here? Even if he was the prime agent behind the shift of our universe from one state to the next, how can you assume he's still here?

Good point. I can't.  I presume he does to fill in the fuzzy areas and for some other personal reasons.

Quote:
...And to many others, it's a serious enough offense to nail a cracker to some paper that they feel they should senddeath threats to people and insist that persons be fired.

Umm.. okay.

Quote:
I want an explanation for this behavior, not wimpy apologetics and no true scotsman fallacies.

Um.. you challenged all "christians/catholics" to respond.  I responded.  I cannot speak for a catholic, but I can speak as a christian.  There was no "no true scotsman fallacy" and I have no idea what you mean by "wimpy apologetics" since my response easily undercut your argument which was predicated on a belief of transubstantiation.
 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yes and , it was a message

Yeah Kay Cat and , it was a message about digesting the meaning of the message, not the teacher,  which was simple,  and non superstitious,  ....  "we are god, the christ is you" ....

    Another misunderstood message was the ancient Buddha's regarding Reincarnation (all is recycling) , Karma ( your attitude counts),  Nirvana (peace of mind) .....

                                       Seems all simple to me  

                       So who is fucking these simple messages up?  


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Kay Cat wrote:Kevin R Brown

Kay Cat wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

(...And Christians/Catholics? Care to explain how crackers = Jesus? Or justify how putting a nail through Jesus = bad, but eating and digesting Jesus = good? )

 

I'll attempt to answer this, as I grew up Catholic. In John 6:23 it is written that Jesus said "if you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have eternal life. Supposedly that meant if you took him, The Word Made Flesh, into you, you would live forever. Of course eating a being isn't going to make you live forever, but in that mystic and superstition filled time, people didn't realize that, so they attatched a whole bunch of silly rituals to their "holy" rites including priests and prophets muttering prayers over unleavened bread because they wouldn't and couldn't readily eat the body of some dead and probably mythical rabbi, and thus the Eucharist came into practice.

Oh, man! That's priceless.

So here he is, Jesus, the be-all-end-all of modern Christian morality, according to apologists, and he's fully endorsing cannibalism.

Apologists? Care to explain yourselves?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Jill Swift, thanks, this is

Jill Swift, thanks, this is why I am atheist,  GOD as YOU .....   


Kay Cat
Superfan
Kay Cat's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2008-07-22
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Kay Cat

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Kay Cat wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

(...And Christians/Catholics? Care to explain how crackers = Jesus? Or justify how putting a nail through Jesus = bad, but eating and digesting Jesus = good? )

 

I'll attempt to answer this, as I grew up Catholic. In John 6:23 it is written that Jesus said "if you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have eternal life. Supposedly that meant if you took him, The Word Made Flesh, into you, you would live forever. Of course eating a being isn't going to make you live forever, but in that mystic and superstition filled time, people didn't realize that, so they attatched a whole bunch of silly rituals to their "holy" rites including priests and prophets muttering prayers over unleavened bread because they wouldn't and couldn't readily eat the body of some dead and probably mythical rabbi, and thus the Eucharist came into practice.

Oh, man! That's priceless.

So here he is, Jesus, the be-all-end-all of modern Christian morality, according to apologists, and he's fully endorsing cannibalism.

Apologists? Care to explain yourselves?

 

no apologist here. I'm just spouting out what I was told. I don't believe it, and it is one thing that always confused me about the catholic church.

Vote for McCain... www.therealmccain.com ...and he'll bring Jesus back


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:...Since

Kevin R Brown wrote:

...Since it's been argued by some that the above is a philosophically 'weak' position,

...cause it is. In it you make a claim and so are compelled by intellectual honesty to support it. It is always safer philosophically to start with a proposition than with a claim, otherwise you get people like me whose first impulse on reading that was to rush in with asking for evidence - and I was going to do that, too, not just for the sake of argument but because I would be genuinely interested in seeing any evidence that you found convincing.  But alas, you tease. Sticking out tongue

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

I just felt like pointing-out a few things:

 - 'God' is a crap concept. There no way it could possibly exist; it isn't even defined. It has the same likelyhood for existence as 'Shootle'. Some day in the future, we might come across something and decide to label it 'God', just as we might someday do the same for 'Shootle'. This does not mean 'God' exists; it means the term is just drifting about, waiting to be abitrarily attached to some quantifiable entity as of yet.

Hmmm, I'm not sure that's entirely fair. I mean, I agree that in the main it's nigh impossible to find a believer who can relate a coherent sensical definition of the god they profess to believe in. But it's also true that the same person's god is a product of very complex and intuitive reasoning, so not being able to define it is not necessarily a failure of their sense of reason but a limit to the communicability of that reason. For example, "I feel it's true" is a common testimony of a believer, feeling gives reason before reason can apply to the feeling, and this is just a normal human propensity. 'I like this song' comes before recognition of why and how one relates to the lyrics.

This is not to say that there are not any number of compelling and rational proposed definitions for this idea of god, but that you will surely encounter millions upon millions of believers who like the song but cannot and do not analyse the music in such a way that they could say anything more about it than that; this doesn't mean there isn't a song.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 - God in the traditional sense of the word cannot exist. Yahweh violates several physical laws,

Physical laws can be violated to a degree, that is to say, novel events are realistic even in the presence of physical laws that would appear to exclude them. This is because such exclusions at any time are only given by the limited extent of processes that we know and understand, so although a process that directly contradicts physical laws is pretty much outrageous, innovative routes around them that we are yet to notice most certainly are not outrageous.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

and the books describing him and his actions are entirely erroneous. They were myths to explain things for which we had no previous explanation; now that we do have said explanations, these texts can and should be treated as fiction.

And how should we treat fiction? In all seriousness, what is the right way to consider art?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Gosh Eloise, would there be

Gosh Eloise, would there be a brief simple way you could say, I do or don't believe in , whatever , okay  some god, but that demands a bit of a definition explanation.

     How about simply , would you possibly agree we are god as thee


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Yeah Kay Cat and , it

Quote:

Yeah Kay Cat and , it was a message about digesting the meaning of the message, not the teacher,  which was simple,  and non superstitious,  ....  "we are god, the christ is you" ....

    Another misunderstood message was the ancient Buddha's regarding Reincarnation (all is recycling) , Karma ( your attitude counts),  Nirvana (peace of mind) .....

                                       Seems all simple to me  

                       So who is fucking these simple messages up?  

I want to punch you in the face.  Right in your confusing-wording face-god face.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I AM PROUD , thanks ....

I AM PROUD , thanks ....


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Physical laws

Eloise wrote:
Physical laws can be violated to a degree, that is to say, novel events are realistic even in the presence of physical laws that would appear to exclude them. This is because such exclusions at any time are only given by the limited extent of processes that we know and understand, so although a process that directly contradicts physical laws is pretty much outrageous, innovative routes around them that we are yet to notice most certainly are not outrageous.
This is either a very extraordinary claim, or it's a really nasty weasle.

Nothing happens contrary to nature, only contrary to what we know of it. Physical laws can not be violated, to any degree, because they are not "rules" that matter and energy play by but rather descriptions of how matter and energy behave. So if we see matter/energy "violating" physical laws, what we're really seeing is the discovery of new aspects of those laws.

As it applies to the idea of "god": You just stuffed poor old god into the gaps again.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I said

Quote:
I said thing.

Semantics.

Quote:
Thing is a category for everything and specific things.. depending on how you use it.  I can call a person "a thing"--and still be using it correctly.

In any case, your argument doesn't really undercut mine.  Whether "thing" is a category or not, without context, it is "undefined" in the same sense that "God" is undefined.

 

The first words I underlined are wrong. A thing is not a specific label for any specific object (thus why 'thing' lacks specific definition); it's a categorical label. Disagree? Post a picture of something that is specifically a 'thing' for us to look at.

Quote:
No.  I'm saying without definition (implied or otherwise), it cannot be said to exist or not exist.

If it cannot be defined, it doesn't exist. We have to at least have some idea of what it is (See: Definition) before we can fairly say, 'It might exist', because otherwise we're always running around and doing the same circle-jerk (See: Falsifiability).

It definately does not exist if you can't define it. I recommend reading Popper's work on the subject.

Quote:
Why? You were only referring to the arbitrary task of affixing "God" to fill in the "fuzzy areas."  Nothing in that practice necessarily "stops the very concept of scientific exploration."  That necessity would depend more on how "God" is defined.

And if everyone took your lazy approach?

'Ah, whatever. Probably God did it.'

How could you possibly argue that this wouldn't be an impediment to progress? Moreover, presuppositions break one of the foundational rules of the scientific method; their inclusion in scientific study invalidates the entire process.

Quote:
Homer may not have been a real figure.. and the people.. in large part.. myths.  But how much of the story is based upon fact (e.g., a war against troy, a person named achilles, a person named helen, or merely a woman who started off the war, or whatever,) there is no way to know... seeing as the story, from what I can remember of my class, was passed along from one generation to another, orally, during the greek dark age--a time of very limited historic record.

Correct. Which is why it's unfair to argue from ignorance and simply state, 'Oh, yeah, Achilles was probably real. Y'know... just a tough guy, or something,'

Quote:
Alright.. he flicked his finger against a singularity which initiated the big bang.  Or.. he "spit out" a singularity which than "banged."  Now here we are.

How did this initiate the big bang? What does flicking one's finger against a singularity, or spitting one out, do to initiate such an event?

Quote:
Furthermore, I don't believe that he "requires" that we eat one another.  I surely can get by being a vegetarian.

Tell that to the carnivores of the planet, all of whom we share common ancestry with.

Quote:
If he had any hand in the creation of the universe, he is more powerful than I, for I cannot affect the universe in any sense of the word when it is used in "affect the creation of the universe."

If he existed from the moment before the universe, he certainly is more knowledgeable, at least in one sense.

...But if all he had to do was 'flick a finger against a singularity', he isn't very powerful at all. And certainly he would not be 'more knowledgeable'; knowledgeable in other ways perhaps, but certainly 'more' isn't the correct term.

Quote:
There was no "no true scotsman fallacy" and I have no idea what you mean by "wimpy apologetics" since my response easily undercut your argument which was predicated on a belief of transubstantiation.

The subtext to what you wrote was that 'normal' Christians 'don't believe that Jesus = crackers'. This is a No True Scotsman fallacy; you have no idea what the majority of Christians believe, and certainly the orthodoxy (whom we miht refer to as the 'experts' of sort) support the claim that the crackers have large significance. It's the weakest of apologetics; because you've cherry-picked this particular piece of insanity out of your view, you think the overall scheme (which includes it) is reasonable, because any true Christian would do the same.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:I want to

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
I want to punch you in the face.  Right in your confusing-wording face-god face.

Bad form, dude. Bad form.

 

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I AM PROUD , thanks

Quote:
I AM PROUD , thanks ....

You know I'm joking right? Wouldn't want you to think I'd actually punch you in the face if given the chance.... maybe just a kick... in the knee.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Bad form, dude. Bad

Quote:
Bad form, dude. Bad form.

Aw.. come on Jill.  I was only joking.  I guess that would've come across better if I said it in person.  It truly is a sign of endearment though.  Nevertheless, I apologize for the offense and the apparent bad form.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
All to healing, loving the

All to healing, loving the enemy , healing the unnecessary suffering.  I figured you were joking YOU heathen idol worshiper god separationist   

                       When can we start the real fucking party ??? .... 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Semantics.Are

Quote:
Semantics.

Are important? Sticking out tongue

I said:
Quote:
Thing is a category for everything and (underlined) specific things.. depending on how you use it.  I can call a person "a thing" (underlined)--and still be using it correctly.

In any case, your argument doesn't really undercut mine.  Whether "thing" is a category or not, without context, it is "undefined" in the same sense that "God" is undefined.


You said:
Quote:
The first words I underlined are wrong. A thing is not a specific label for any specific object (thus why 'thing' lacks specific definition); it's a categorical label.


Quote:
thing1     Audio Help   /θɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thing] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.    a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.
2.    some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described: The stick had a brass thing on it.
 

Quote:
crea·ture     Audio Help   /ˈkritʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kree-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.    an animal, esp. a nonhuman: the creatures of the woods and fields; a creature from outer space.
2.    anything created, whether animate or inanimate.
3.    person; human being: She is a charming creature. The driver of a bus is sometimes an irritable creature.

So.. def 2 of "thing," focusing on the word "precisely described" as opposed to "specifically."  The disjunctive "or" allows me to do that.

Secondly, the def 3 of "creature" would entail people.

Quote:
Disagree? Post a picture of something that is specifically a 'thing' for us to look at.

I could put a picture of anything and then merely comment "look at this thing," and people would fill in their own definition based upon what is shown.  The use of the word in a certain context is what gives it definition--much like the word God.

Whether it is a categorical label or not, does not undercut the fact that it is used in other ways.

Quote:
If it cannot be defined, it doesn't exist.

Um.. there is a difference between "cannot be defined" and "not defined."  One defines practical impossibility.. the other.. a mere failure to do so.

"I cannot cross the road" is different than "I have not crossed the road."

Quote:
We have to at least have some idea of what it is (See: Definition) before we can fairly say, 'It might exist', because otherwise we're always running around and doing the same circle-jerk (See: Falsifiability).

Okay....

Quote:
It definately does not exist if you can't define it.

Once again.. you're changing the argument you started off with.  "Can't" and "is not," are different phrases with different implications.

Quote you:
Quote:
There no way it could possibly exist; it isn't even defined.

And now on we go..

Quote:
And if everyone took your lazy approach?

'Ah, whatever. Probably God did it.'

How could you possibly argue that this wouldn't be an impediment to progress?

Because I could still ask the question "how?"

?

Quote:
Moreover, presuppositions break one of the foundational rules of the scientific method; their inclusion in scientific study invalidates the entire process.
If God is merely the person that fills in the "fuzzy areas".. there is no reason why the "presupposition" could not be suspended for the purpose of the study (assuming it need be in order to not "invalidate[] the entire process."

Quote:
Correct. Which is why it's unfair to argue from ignorance and simply state, 'Oh, yeah, Achilles was probably real. Y'know... just a tough guy, or something,'

Fair enough.  But what you contesting is that:
Quote:
The fact that we would recognize the myths as erroneous, but not the figure central to them, is borderline lunacy (...at least it's not total lunacy).

i.e., that the "figure central to them" is not real.

The absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Quote:
How did this initiate the big bang? What does flicking one's finger against a singularity, or spitting one out, do to initiate such an event?

Does it matter? Pre-state universe aren't really things science is interested about.. or perhaps I'm mistaken.

Quote:
Tell that to the carnivores of the planet, all of whom we share common ancestry with.

Assuming they do.. nature of the beast I suppose.

Darn that evolution.  It's a good thing, but leads to such un-idealistic (in some senses) conclusions.

Quote:
...But if all he had to do was 'flick a finger against a singularity', he isn't very powerful at all.

Why? We just established that we don't know what power such an action entails. See above.

Quote:
And certainly he would not be 'more knowledgeable'; knowledgeable in other ways perhaps, but certainly 'more' isn't the correct term.

"More knowledgeable in other ways" then?

Quote:
The subtext to what you wrote was that 'normal' Christians 'don't believe that Jesus = crackers'.

Um.. there was no subtext like that at all.  I would never suggest that Catholics are not "normal" christians.

Pfft.

Quote:
This is a No True Scotsman fallacy;

And this is a Strawman argument?

Quote:
you have no idea what the majority of Christians believe,

Tis true, I do not.

Quote:
and certainly the orthodoxy (whom we miht refer to as the 'experts' of sort) support the claim that the crackers have large significance.

Whose orthodoxy? The Catholic? Or other denominations?


Quote:
It's the weakest of apologetics; because you've cherry-picked this particular piece of insanity out of your view, you think the overall scheme (which includes it) is reasonable, because any true Christian would do the same.

Um.. no, I never said that.  I merely responded for myself and other Christians that think like me.  No more or less.  Many denominations, however, do profess, I believe, a "non transubstantiation" perspective on the aforementioned act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Views_of_other_Churches_on_transubstantiation

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:...cause it is. In it

Quote:
...cause it is. In it you make a claim and so are compelled by intellectual honesty to support it. It is always safer philosophically to start with a proposition than with a claim, otherwise you get people like me whose first impulse on reading that was to rush in with asking for evidence - and I was going to do that, too, not just for the sake of argument but because I would be genuinely interested in seeing any evidence that you found convincing.  But alas, you tease.

I posted my evidence (...which you appear to have noted, given you responded to said evidence).

Quote:

Hmmm, I'm not sure that's entirely fair. I mean, I agree that in the main it's nigh impossible to find a believer who can relate a coherent sensical definition of the god they profess to believe in. But it's also true that the same person's god is a product of very complex and intuitive reasoning, so not being able to define it is not necessarily a failure of their sense of reason but a limit to the communicability of that reason. For example, "I feel it's true" is a common testimony of a believer, feeling gives reason before reason can apply to the feeling, and this is just a normal human propensity. 'I like this song' comes before recognition of why and how one relates to the lyrics.

This is not to say that there are not any number of compelling and rational proposed definitions for this idea of god, but that you will surely encounter millions upon millions of believers who like the song but cannot and do not analyse the music in such a way that they could say anything more about it than that; this doesn't mean there isn't a song.

You'll note that me saying 'I like this song' is a subjective statement. It requires no evidence; it's my opinion. Moreover, you'll also find that people can absolutely define why they like or dislike something - the reasons will, of course, simply be subjective.

We're not talking about subjective principles here. I've yet to hear a coherent defintion, Eloise - rather than dancing around as you always do, how about providing one? One not based on fallacious premises, as the one in our debate was?

Quote:

Physical laws can be violated to a degree, that is to say, novel events are realistic even in the presence of physical laws that would appear to exclude them. This is because such exclusions at any time are only given by the limited extent of processes that we know and understand, so although a process that directly contradicts physical laws is pretty much outrageous, innovative routes around them that we are yet to notice most certainly are not outrageous.

As Jill pointed-out already, this is a fallacious statement. Moreover, so many fields of physics are already so well established that we know to the point of near absolute certainty that certain things are simply impossible.

If you disagree, perhaps you'd care to explain the following:

 - The process by an adult female human being ca be turned into a pillar of salt, instantaneously.

 - The process by which the entire Earth can be covered with enough water that not even it's highest points were above the water line - and afterwards, still be habitable.

 - The process by which matter can be created out of nothing, instantaneously.

 - The process by which an adult female human being can concieve a child wthout being physically impregnated (spontaneous, miracle conception).

 - The process by which an adult human male can die, and lie dead for 72 hours, and then spontaneously come back to life.

 - The reason that the idea of a firmament around the world is a better explanation for the universe than our modern model.

 - The process by which a small sun, circling around inside the Earth's firmament, would be able to provide sufficient heat to the Earth.

 

...We could go on, of course. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
And how should we treat fiction? In all seriousness, what is the right way to consider art?

Well, certainly not as historical fact, if we want to be intellectually honest (...I realize that you don't do this, Eloise, so I'm not picking a fight with you here). Art is a subjectve thing (to some degree. Color theory, music theory, GNS theory / Big Model theory, etc, all suggest that there is at least some measurable criteria that defines whether something is good art or bad art... but this is perhaps for another discussion), but it's a terrible mistake to start conflating artistic expression and speculation with facts.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Eloise

JillSwift wrote:

Eloise wrote:
Physical laws can be violated to a degree, that is to say, novel events are realistic even in the presence of physical laws that would appear to exclude them. This is because such exclusions at any time are only given by the limited extent of processes that we know and understand, so although a process that directly contradicts physical laws is pretty much outrageous, innovative routes around them that we are yet to notice most certainly are not outrageous.
This is either a very extraordinary claim, or it's a really nasty weasle.

It's neither. No really, it's not even weasling. The physical laws aren't the last word on what can happen, they only apply to specific ways that things can and can't happen. To borrow from a classic example in this God debate: SLOT says that energy takes a random course, a bundle of evolving energy states cannot gain structure essentially through this process, however when two evolving states interact in certain ways there are sufficient resources in the combined state for structure to evolve in spite of the law. This is just the earth interacting with the sun we're talking about. The processes underlying both entities follow the laws of thermodynamics faithfully but, even so, can overcome them by the simple act of combination.  So we understand the thermodynamic law, and with it we understand the sun's process of fusion and the earth's mirror processes of random chemical motion, AND we understand the process that arises when the two come into contact in the same bath. This presents us with a degree of violation of the basic law behind it in that the law can turn on itself given the right conditions, to this degree the physical law cannot cast its shadow over what is ultimately possible only on the means of possibility of which our knowledge is quite strictly limited.

 

 

JillSwift wrote:

As it applies to the idea of "god": You just stuffed poor old god into the gaps again.

No, actually, I have only put omnipotence in the gaps where it belongs, I haven't stuffed God in with it, as Kevin noted, I am attempting to deftly sidestep the definition of God yet again and in so doing I'm not sticking him anywhere.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:It's neither.

Eloise wrote:
It's neither. No really, it's not even weasling. The physical laws aren't the last word on what can happen, they only apply to specific ways that things can and can't happen. To borrow from a classic example in this God debate: SLOT says that energy takes a random course, a bundle of evolving energy states cannot gain structure essentially through this process, however when two evolving states interact in certain ways there are sufficient resources in the combined state for structure to evolve in spite of the law. This is just the earth interacting with the sun we're talking about. The processes underlying both entities follow the laws of thermodynamics faithfully but, even so, can overcome them by the simple act of combination.  So we understand the thermodynamic law, and with it we understand the sun's process of fusion and the earth's mirror processes of random chemical motion, AND we understand the process that arises when the two come into contact in the same bath. This presents us with a degree of violation of the basic law behind it in that the law can turn on itself given the right conditions, to this degree the physical law cannot cast its shadow over what is ultimately possible only on the means of possibility of which our knowledge is quite strictly limited.
Er, no. Sorry that's just not so. You are not seeing a violation of physical laws there. You're seeing a "violation" of statements describing the laws of thermodynamics, yes. But the laws themselves? No. The matter and energy is behaving in exact accordance with universal laws.

It's a weasel Sticking out tongue

Eloise wrote:
No, actually, I have only put omnipotence in the gaps where it belongs, I haven't stuffed God in with it, as Kevin noted, I am attempting to deftly sidestep the definition of God yet again and in so doing I'm not sticking him anywhere.
Heh. OK, you got me there. =^_^=

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote: [Semantics] Are

Quote:
[Semantics] Are important. :P

If your interest is in playing word games in favor of arguing, I suppose you're right.

Quote:
So.. def 2 of "thing," focusing on the word "precisely described" as opposed to "specifically."  The disjunctive "or" allows me to do that.

Secondly, the def 3 of "creature" would entail people.

...Are you kidding me? Did you even read what you just pasted?

"2.    some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described: The stick had a brass thing on it."

See the emboldened part, which you apparently missed? According to the dictionary defintion, a 'thing' is something that can't be specifically designated or precisely described.

Note that the example supports this perfectly: there's something on the stick that the observer doesn't know how to describe, other than to say it's brass. The brass object is not, in reality, a 'thing'; that's merely the temporary, ignorant label. Further inspection might reveal it's true nature (a brass bell, perhaps, or a brass ornament).

Your second point is a straw man. Your ignoring the categorical description of 'thing' as presented in the dictionary, favoring one topic it presents for no reason.

Quote:
I could put a picture of anything and then merely comment "look at this thing," and people would fill in their own definition based upon what is shown. The use of the word in a certain context is what gives it definition--much like the word God


Whether it is a categorical label or not, does not undercut the fact that it is used in other ways.

And again, you're wrong. Context has little to nothing to do with it; attributes are what people use to form their descriptions of things ('This is red' 'This is mechanical' 'This has four legs' etc).

Let's look at some examples:

 

So, take a look at these things. Every single one is completely fictitious - yet they're so well defined, all you have to do is ask, for example, 'Who's Master Chief?' - nevermind any context - and most gamers will be able to easily pick him out by examining the attributes all of the things above.

Can you do the same for God? Can you draw me a picture of God, that anyone would readily accept as a somewhat accurate rendering of what God looks like?

Quote:
The absence of proof is not proof of absence.

...You mean evidence, I assume? And yes, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Example:

How does my bank know that I haven't deposited one million dollars into my bank account, if I go to them tomorrow and allege that I have? Simple: I'll have no evidence to support my claim. Moreover, the bank will have lots of consistent counter-evidence that I haven't made any such deposit. If you're drinking a beverage, how do you know when your glass no longer has any fluid in it? How can you tell that there aren't monsters lurking under your bed?

I could go on, but you get the idea. Of course absense of evidence is evidence of absense[/i]; that's not to say it's evidence that can't be cpuntermanded, simply that it's a solid piece of evidence (like any other), and you look for consistency with other evidence to validate or invalidate it.

Quote:
Does it matter? Pre-state universe aren't really things science is interested about.. or perhaps I'm mistaken.

Of course 'science' is interested. As long as even a single person is interested in exploring it through the scientific method, that's 'science being interested'. Science isn't some big family of people wearing labcoats out to get religion; it's a collective body of work made by anyone interested in contributing.

Quote:
Assuming they do.. nature of the beast I suppose.

Darn that evolution.  It's a good thing, but leads to such un-idealistic (in some senses) conclusions.

Wrong again.

First, if it was God making everything, your first sentence is gibberish. There is no 'nature of the beast' that God wouldn't have had control over.

Second, evolution is neither good nor bad. It's simply a fact. Whether or not selection pressure leading to speciation is 'unidealistic' is a matter of opinion; evolutionary science doesn't make the judgement either way. It simply defines the mechanisms.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
.... not sticking him

.... "not sticking him anywhere".

  Classic  E  

       Well I stuff "himgod in the toilet,  as the nit picker I must be 

                            Freaking babel .... god is a she too .... 

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
...cause it is. In it you make a claim and so are compelled by intellectual honesty to support it. It is always safer philosophically to start with a proposition than with a claim, otherwise you get people like me whose first impulse on reading that was to rush in with asking for evidence - and I was going to do that, too, not just for the sake of argument but because I would be genuinely interested in seeing any evidence that you found convincing.  But alas, you tease.

I posted my evidence (...which you appear to have noted, given you responded to said evidence).

Of course I did notice your argument, Smiling I was just a little tad disappointed to discover I'd read far too much into the thread title.

Quote:

Quote:

Hmmm, I'm not sure that's entirely fair. I mean, I agree that in the main it's nigh impossible to find a believer who can relate a coherent sensical definition of the god they profess to believe in. But it's also true that the same person's god is a product of very complex and intuitive reasoning, so not being able to define it is not necessarily a failure of their sense of reason but a limit to the communicability of that reason. For example, "I feel it's true" is a common testimony of a believer, feeling gives reason before reason can apply to the feeling, and this is just a normal human propensity. 'I like this song' comes before recognition of why and how one relates to the lyrics.

This is not to say that there are not any number of compelling and rational proposed definitions for this idea of god, but that you will surely encounter millions upon millions of believers who like the song but cannot and do not analyse the music in such a way that they could say anything more about it than that; this doesn't mean there isn't a song.

You'll note that me saying 'I like this song' is a subjective statement. It requires no evidence; it's my opinion. Moreover, you'll also find that people can absolutely define why they like or dislike something - the reasons will, of course, simply be subjective.

Yes but people cannot always define perfectly well or with explicit technical language their subjective impression of a song. It is subjective to find a sense of pleasure listening to a certain cadence, but that doesn't require them being able to express in detail why that particular meter resonates well with their sensibilities.

Also I don't think there is such a thing as simply subjective, it would be apparent from the general advance in the field of psychological analysis that subjective is complexly formed and that is what divides it the most from objective. Objective must be formed simply because it requires a careful record of its steps in order to be objective. A subjective experience is just such, in my opinion, because that record is discarded in the process.

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

We're not talking about subjective principles here. I've yet to hear a coherent defintion, Eloise - rather than dancing around as you always do, how about providing one? One not based on fallacious premises, as the one in our debate was?

Sorry? What do you mean by fallacious premise in our debate? What fallacious premise exactly?

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:

Physical laws can be violated to a degree, that is to say, novel events are realistic even in the presence of physical laws that would appear to exclude them. This is because such exclusions at any time are only given by the limited extent of processes that we know and understand, so although a process that directly contradicts physical laws is pretty much outrageous, innovative routes around them that we are yet to notice most certainly are not outrageous.

As Jill pointed-out already, this is a fallacious statement. Moreover, so many fields of physics are already so well established that we know to the point of near absolute certainty that certain things are simply impossible.

If you disagree, perhaps you'd care to explain the following:

 - The process by an adult female human being ca be turned into a pillar of salt, instantaneously.

 - The process by which the entire Earth can be covered with enough water that not even it's highest points were above the water line - and afterwards, still be habitable.

 - The process by which matter can be created out of nothing, instantaneously.

 - The process by which an adult female human being can concieve a child wthout being physically impregnated (spontaneous, miracle conception).

 - The process by which an adult human male can die, and lie dead for 72 hours, and then spontaneously come back to life.

 - The reason that the idea of a firmament around the world is a better explanation for the universe than our modern model.

 - The process by which a small sun, circling around inside the Earth's firmament, would be able to provide sufficient heat to the Earth.

 

...We could go on, of course. Sticking out tongue

As you may note in my reply to Jill, miracles per se, could be made apparent by the junction of two natural processes under certain conditions. The beginnings of the universe, I see you've put that in there, would not be required to adhere to natural processes since it would precede them in terms of causality, however as it is the cause of those processes those processes should logically follow from it.

That said, I should probably defer on the answer, at whatever risk it is to my credibility with you. I'm sorry, but not this time, either. I'm willing to continue discussing what I put forward in the debate at this time, but to go further than that would just muddy things, I think.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
 Them theists gods are

 Them theists gods are making me crazy , I need relief, please please , I am but a simple farmer .....

     I am god , what ain't ? , how so ... how can something not be god  ???? 

                 Only the atheists have given me real hope and shelter .....


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Yes but people cannot

Quote:
Yes but people cannot always define perfectly well or with explicit technical language their subjective impression of a song.

They don't have to in order to provide a definition for their likes. 'I like this song because I like the message', 'I like this song because I can really dance to it,' 'I like this song because I met my wife while listening to it,' etc, are all perfectly good definitions of why someone might like a song.

Quote:
Also I don't think there is such a thing as simply subjective

I do agree (...though this is debatable. See what I said, regarding fields of study into various art forms).

Quote:
Sorry? What do you mean by fallacious premise in our debate? What fallacious premise exactly?

DeludedGod wrote:

At any rate, all material interactions and processes as we understand them are the result of the interaction you described. But the second half of the post seemed primarily concerned with the problem of personal identity. It was not clear what precisely you meant by the point that sentience belongs to the universe. What do you mean to state that this property belongs to something? If material processes result from interactions within a Bosonic field (which they do) then where the distribution of information within the field causes the material process as observed, then all the properties of material objects themselves, and their processes, result, however indirectly from QM .But what you were essentially doing, therefore, was drawing an analogy. To state that two processes are analogous and that, as a result, if one process has some property, the other process must have the same property, is a non sequiturIt seemed that the primary implication of the principle being advocated was that personal identity is a problematic process, because material objects are not composed of immutable substances which are distinct from their external world. You need to decide what you are talking about. This debate is not about the philosophical problem of personal identity.

The non sequitor premise you drew by conflating an anology with factual information.

Quote:

That said, I should probably defer on the answer, at whatever risk it is to my credibility with you. I'm sorry, but not this time, either. I'm willing to continue discussing what I put forward in the debate at this time, but to go further than that would just muddy things, I think.

*Sigh*

...To be honest, it won't hurt your credibility with me. It's just another example for me to put on the stack of theists not being able / willing to empirically back their claims.

 

How's the weather in Australia, by the way?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Mercy, mercy,

Mercy, mercy, mercy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRrFWp4DUho

Buddy Rich Mercy, Mercy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDhKty0gz6Q&feature=related

   Where is that recording with the Lyrics all the way thru it      ????    no upload                     was it Cannon Ball sax guy ???     gospel !!!!  

   Milira Jones - Mercy Mercy Me (The Ecology)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkFDyo0kUPY&feature=related

 

 

 

 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If your interest is in

Quote:
If your interest is in playing word games in favor of arguing, I suppose you're right.

se·man·tics     Audio Help   /sɪˈmæntɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[si-man-tiks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun (used with a singular verb)

1.    Linguistics.

a.    the study of meaning.

b.    the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.

2.    Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.

3.    the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.

4.    general semantics.

 

No.. I think it's just important.  If we're not using words correctly or consistently.. it makes "arguing" very difficult. Sticking out tongue

 

Quote:
...Are you kidding me? Did you even read what you just pasted?

"2.    some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described: The stick had a brass thing on it."

See the emboldened part, which you apparently missed? According to the dictionary defintion, a 'thing' is something that can't be specifically designated or precisely described.

 

Which can be read two ways.. as I discussed in my post.  It can be read as saying "creature that is not or cannot be precisely described" or can be read as saying "creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated" or can be read as implying "creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated and precisely described."

I think you're reading it the last way.. but I'm suggesting it can be read the first way.

Quote:
"Precisely described"

Note that the example supports this perfectly: there's something on the stick that the observer doesn't know how to describe, other than to say it's brass. The brass object is not, in reality, a 'thing'; that's merely the temporary, ignorant label. Further inspection might reveal it's true nature (a brass bell, perhaps, or a brass ornament).

OR, the observer knows exactly what it is and merely DOES NOT precisely describe it.  It has nothing to do with ignorance, he merely says "look at this thing (that I know exactly what it is.. an assumes people that see it will know exactly what it is)."

 

Quote:
Your second point is a straw man. Your ignoring the categorical description of 'thing' as presented in the dictionary, favoring one topic it presents for no reason.

Do you not understand what the word "or" means when given a list of requirements.  It meants "one or the other" or could mean "both."

 

There was no strawman there.

If not specific OR not precisely described => thing

If not a thing => specific AND precisely described.

Quote:
I could put a picture of anything and then merely comment "look at this thing," and people would fill in their own definition based upon what is shown. The use of the word in a certain context is what gives it definition--much like the word God

Quote:
And again, you're wrong. Context has little to nothing to do with it; attributes are what people use to form their descriptions of things ('This is red' 'This is mechanical' 'This has four legs' etc).

Really?  I didn't know that...

Pfft.

I never said attributes are not what people use for their descriptions.  But it can be inferred from the use of the word that the person knows what it is (its attributes) and has merely not described its attributed any further.

Context.

"Look at this thing" (points at picture) [it has now been defined as what I am pointing at]

"Ah.. its optimus prime." [and this person now understands]

 

Quote:
So, take a look at these things. Every single one is completely fictitious - yet they're so well defined, all you have to do is ask, for example, 'Who's Master Chief?' - nevermind any context - and most gamers will be able to easily pick him out by examining the attributes all of the things above.

Can you do the same for God? Can you draw me a picture of God, that anyone would readily accept as a somewhat accurate rendering of what God looks like?

What the heck?  How did we jump to this?

We were speaking about "thing" being a word that is undefined unless attached to something... in arguing that, I was suggesting that your assertion that something that IS NOT defined CANNOT exist.

Now we're talking about pictures and whether people can agree on the pictures application to the word God?

Well then.. let me say... no probably not.. I cannot draw a picture of God that EVERYONE accepts.. although, possibly that some people accept.

But whether there is a categorical acceptance of the particular picture I draw isn't really the point of this argument... but rather whether someone can say that the "thing" does not exist because there is no categorical acceptance of a particular representation.

Quote:
...You mean evidence, I assume? And yes, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Example:

No.. I meant proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Quote:
How does my bank know that I haven't deposited one million dollars into my bank account, if I go to them tomorrow and allege that I have? Simple: I'll have no evidence to support my claim. Moreover, the bank will have lots of consistent counter-evidence that I haven't made any such deposit. If you're drinking a beverage, how do you know when your glass no longer has any fluid in it? How can you tell that there aren't monsters lurking under your bed?

In either of these cases, the person would have "proof" of the counter-fact.

Not the same here.

Quote:
Quote:

 

    The fact that we would recognize the myths as erroneous, but not the figure central to them, is borderline lunacy (...at least it's not total lunacy).

Quote:
i.e., that the "figure central to them" is not real.

Your contention is that they did not exist.  Do you have some proof of this that I am not aware of in the same way a bank would have 'proof' that you have no funds?

In which case.. I restate what I did earlier.

Quote:
I could go on, but you get the idea. Of course absense of evidence is evidence of absense[/i];

Of course this is true.. but that's not what I said.. and this statement is so broadly applicable its not even worth saying.

The lack of evidence I have that I my brother went to the bathroom today is evidence that he did not.

It's not proof that he did not, IMO.. which is all that I was saying.

And the statement you made "that the figures central to them [are erroneous" suggests an absolute.. not merely a slight leaning towards the conclusion (which is all "absence-evidence" should support IMO).

Quote:
that's not to say it's evidence that can't be cpuntermanded, simply that it's a solid piece of evidence (like any other), and you look for consistency with other evidence to validate or invalidate it.

Solid piece of evidence? I'm not so sure about that.. but okay.

Quote:
Of course 'science' is interested. As long as even a single person is interested in exploring it through the scientific method, that's 'science being interested'. Science isn't some big family of people wearing labcoats out to get religion; it's a collective body of work made by anyone interested in contributing.

Alright.. perhaps I'm mistaken then.

Quote:
Wrong again.

Whatever..

Quote:
First, if it was God making everything, your first sentence is gibberish. There is no 'nature of the beast' that God wouldn't have had control over.

I said God made everything "in some way." He could of just had his hand in starting off the process (e.g., the big bang) and then taken a step back.

Quote:
Second, evolution is neither good nor bad. It's simply a fact.

I would have to disagree... maybe from some perspective one can say that it is neither good nor bad.. but when evolution has led to a species that routinely kills one another for land, because of different beliefs, for fun, I would say that is bad.. from my perspective.

Which is why I said "in some senses."

Quote:
Whether or not selection pressure leading to speciation is 'unidealistic' is a matter of opinion;

Really? Maybe that's why I said "in some senses."

Quote:
evolutionary science doesn't make the judgement either way. It simply defines the mechanisms.

Good point.

 

Here are some things you didn't respond to.

you

Quote:
If it cannot be defined, it doesn't exist.

me

Quote:
Um.. there is a difference between "cannot be defined" and "not defined."  One defines practical impossibility.. the other.. a mere failure to do so.

"I cannot cross the road" is different than "I have not crossed the road."

 

you

Quote:
    We have to at least have some idea of what it is (See: Definition) before we can fairly say, 'It might exist', because otherwise we're always running around and doing the same circle-jerk (See: Falsifiability).

me

Quote:
Okay....

 

you

Quote:
It definately does not exist if you can't define it.

me

Quote:
Once again.. you're changing the argument you started off with.  "Can't" and "is not," are different phrases with different implications.

Quote you earlier:

Quote:
There no way it could possibly exist; it isn't even defined.

 

you

Quote:
    And if everyone took your lazy approach?

    'Ah, whatever. Probably God did it.'

    How could you possibly argue that this wouldn't be an impediment to progress?

me

Quote:
Because I could still ask the question "how?"

?

 

you

Quote:
Moreover, presuppositions break one of the foundational rules of the scientific method; their inclusion in scientific study invalidates the entire process.

me

Quote:
If God is merely the person that fills in the "fuzzy areas".. there is no reason why the "presupposition" could not be suspended for the purpose of the study (assuming it need be in order to not "invalidate[] the entire process."

 

you

Quote:
The subtext to what you wrote was that 'normal' Christians 'don't believe that Jesus = crackers'.

me

Quote:
Um.. there was no subtext like that at all.  I would never suggest that Catholics are not "normal" christians.

Pfft.

 

you

Quote:
This is a No True Scotsman fallacy;

me

Quote:
And this is a Strawman argument?

 

you

Quote:
you have no idea what the majority of Christians believe,

me

Quote:
Tis true, I do not.

 

you

Quote:
and certainly the orthodoxy (whom we miht refer to as the 'experts' of sort) support the claim that the crackers have large significance.

me

Quote:
Whose orthodoxy? The Catholic? Or other denominations?

 

you

Quote:
It's the weakest of apologetics; because you've cherry-picked this particular piece of insanity out of your view, you think the overall scheme (which includes it) is reasonable, because any true Christian would do the same.

me

Quote:
Um.. no, I never said that.  I merely responded for myself and other Christians that think like me.  No more or less.  Many denominations, however, do profess, I believe, a "non transubstantiation" perspective on the aforementioned act.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Views_of_other_Churches_on_transubstantiation



 

 


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:...And

Kevin R Brown wrote:
...And to many others, it's a serious enough offense to nail a cracker to some paper that they feel they should senddeath threats to people and insist that persons be fired.

While I quite agree, Kevin, that death threats are excessive, Professor Myers has left himself liable to sanction under the provisions of the University of Minnesota Code of Conduct.  This document clearly states that university employees "must be committed to the highest ethical standards of conduct" (II:2) and that "Ethical conduct is a fundamental expectation for every community member. In practicing and modeling ethical conduct, community members are expected to: act according to the highest ethical and professional standards of conduct [and] be personally accountable for individual actions" (III:1)."

The code of conduct continues that members must "Be Fair and Respectful to Others. The University is committed to tolerance, diversity, and respect for differences. When dealing with others, community members are expected to: be respectful, fair, and civil . . . avoid all forms of harassment . . . [and] threats . . . [and] promote conflict resolution."

Professor Myers obtained the Eucharist through deceit, with the full knowledge of its symbolism for members of a certain faith with the intent of causing insult to the adherents of that faith.  The surrpetitious procurement of the Communion host diplays an inability to act ethically, an act for which he must be held accountable.

He further demonstrated an inability to be repectful of others (forget the "frackin cracker), he failed to display tolerance of views other than his own, he harrassed Catholics with prolonged and numerous announcements of his intent to insult a central tenet of their faith, and rather than resolving conflict, publicly incited to promote outrage and insult.

Professor Myers actions fall into the category of bias as defined by the University of Minnesota Campus Procedures for Reporting and Responding to Bias Incidents/Bias Incidents of a Criminal Nature.  This policy states that bias incidents are "Expressions of disrespectful bias, hate, harassment or hostility against an individual, group or their property because of the individual or group's actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, gender identification, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status and/or sexual orientation can be forms of discrimination.  Expressions vary, and can be in the form of language, words, signs, symbols, threats, or actions that could potentially cause alarm, anger, fear, or resentment in others, or that endanger the health, safety, and welfare of a member(s) of the University community, even when presented as a joke."

 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Which can be read two

Quote:

Which can be read two ways..

No, it can't.

The reason dictionaries give you different definitions is that each one it provides is specific. See: Grade 1 English.

Quote:
OR, the observer knows exactly what it is and merely DOES NOT precisely describe it.  It has nothing to do with ignorance, he merely says "look at this thing (that I know exactly what it is.. an assumes people that see it will know exactly what it is)."

It has everything to do with ignorance. The 'brass thing' remains a total unknown to you or I. You can speculate about the observer all you want; because the object was not described in detail, we don't know what it is (hence the label 'thing').

You're trying to twist a definition to your own ends.

Quote:

Do you not understand what the word "or" means when given a list of requirements.  It meants "one or the other" or could mean "both."

Wrong again.

'Or' always means one or the other. 'And' would be what we use wen being all inclusive. Using 'or' when trying to be all inclusive leads to different connotations.

Example:

'Zebras are black and white,' (Suggesting both colors are present)

'Zebras are black or white,' (Suggesting Zebras can be one color or the other)

Quote:

What the heck?  How did we jump to this?

We were speaking about "thing" being a word that is undefined unless attached to something

No, we weren't. Go look at the OP, and my title post.

What we're supposed to be dicussing is my statement with regards to your imaginary friend (that I'm absolutely certain he's not there).

Of course, you're a dishonest twat, so you decided to derail the discussion into a semantics argument about the word 'thing'.

 

Quote:
Here are some things you didn't respond to...

I didn't repond to them because they're semantics word games you're using to derail the topic further, because (as I already pointed-out) you're a dishonest little twat.

EDIT (Because I simply can't let this last one go. I really, really tried...)

Quote:
No.. I meant proof.

See? You're just a fucking moron.

There's your problem right there. Smiling

 

'Proof' is a mathematical term. It doesn't apply outside mathematics at all. Unless your dealing with numbers, asking for a 'proof' of anything is spouting gibberish.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Kevin R

totus_tuus wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:
...And to many others, it's a serious enough offense to nail a cracker to some paper that they feel they should senddeath threats to people and insist that persons be fired.

While I quite agree, Kevin, that death threats are excessive, Professor Myers has left himself liable to sanction under the provisions of the University of Minnesota Code of Conduct.  This document clearly states that university employees "must be committed to the highest ethical standards of conduct" (II:2) and that "Ethical conduct is a fundamental expectation for every community member. In practicing and modeling ethical conduct, community members are expected to: act according to the highest ethical and professional standards of conduct [and] be personally accountable for individual actions" (III:1)."

The code of conduct continues that members must "Be Fair and Respectful to Others. The University is committed to tolerance, diversity, and respect for differences. When dealing with others, community members are expected to: be respectful, fair, and civil . . . avoid all forms of harassment . . . [and] threats . . . [and] promote conflict resolution."

Professor Myers obtained the Eucharist through deceit, with the full knowledge of its symbolism for members of a certain faith with the intent of causing insult to the adherents of that faith.  The surrpetitious procurement of the Communion host diplays an inability to act ethically, an act for which he must be held accountable.

He further demonstrated an inability to be repectful of others (forget the "frackin cracker), he failed to display tolerance of views other than his own, he harrassed Catholics with prolonged and numerous announcements of his intent to insult a central tenet of their faith, and rather than resolving conflict, publicly incited to promote outrage and insult.

Professor Myers actions fall into the category of bias as defined by the University of Minnesota Campus Procedures for Reporting and Responding to Bias Incidents/Bias Incidents of a Criminal Nature.  This policy states that bias incidents are "Expressions of disrespectful bias, hate, harassment or hostility against an individual, group or their property because of the individual or group's actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, gender identification, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status and/or sexual orientation can be forms of discrimination.  Expressions vary, and can be in the form of language, words, signs, symbols, threats, or actions that could potentially cause alarm, anger, fear, or resentment in others, or that endanger the health, safety, and welfare of a member(s) of the University community, even when presented as a joke."

 

 

Totus,

I have no kind or even sort-of polite words I can respond with here:

 

You're crazy. You're a fucked-up lunatic. You should be put in a straight jacket and heavily medicated for the rest of your life.

 

Just so everybody is clear; you actually agree; putting a rusty nail through a cracker (it is not a 'host', 'Eucharist', anything other than a flour and water based wafer, and I don't give a shit if you have 'faith' it's anything else. It isn't, and such can be empirically evidenced) is an offense worthy of terminating someone's career.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
accomplice

Quote:
No, it can't.

The reason dictionaries give you different definitions is that each one it provides is specific. See: Grade 1 English.

You fail to understand that when I said "two ways," I was not suggesting that the dictionary's definition was not specific, but rather that it intentionally used the disjunctive "or" as to make the word apply to two very specific scenarios (or three, if you count "both" as one).

See: Grade 5 English.

Quote:
It has everything to do with ignorance. The 'brass thing' remains a total unknown to you or I. You can speculate about the observer all you want; because the object was not described in detail, we don't know what it is (hence the label 'thing').

You fail to understand that what we are arguing is whether "thing" is merely a "categorical label" or whether it is a word that has can be used to refer to something that is specific or defined.

e.g., this thing, (points to a picture of optimus prime), will destroy us all.

I have not "precisely described" what I am referring to when I point to optimus prime.. that does not mean that "thing" has not been defined as optimus prime within the context I used it.

Quote:
You're trying to twist a definition to your own ends.

You're ignoring the argument.

Quote:
Wrong again.

Whatever..

Quote:
'Or' always means one or the other. 'And' would be what we use wen being all inclusive. Using 'or' when trying to be all inclusive leads to different connotations.

Example:

'Zebras are black and white,' (Suggesting both colors are present)

'Zebras are black or white,' (Suggesting Zebras can be one color or the other)


Example:
I cannot teach english or math.

So I guess that means that I can't teach english.. or I can't teach math.. since obviously "or" requires one at the exclusion of the other.

Quote:
No, we weren't. Go look at the OP, and my title post.

There were multiple issues in your op ("I Am Absolutely Certain that 'God' Does Not Exist).. but at the time of which I was referring to we were discussing a minor issue, e.g., how "thing" can be used, and whether it can be said as to not exist without further definition.

Quote:
What we're supposed to be dicussing is my statement with regards to your imaginary friend (that I'm absolutely certain he's not there).

Once again.. one of the major issues.. but not the only issue.  I had no interest in defending my particular definition of God.. my main focus was your statement "There no way it could possibly exist; it isn't even defined"--which, IMO, make no sense.

Quote:
Of course, you're a dishonest twat, so you decided to derail the discussion into a semantics argument about the word 'thing'.

And you're a petulant ignoramus.

?  Did that aid the discussing in anyway  ?

As for your statement that followed the personal attack, I didn't derail anything.

One of the major issues, original issue:

"There no way it could possibly exist; it isn't even defined."

Response:

"Something that is not defined cannot be said to not exist.  See: Thing."

Your response:

"Thing is a categorical label, it does not exist."

My response:

"Thing may be a categorical label, but it can be used to refer to something specific, although not precisely described, therefore, how can you say that it doesn't exist without further context?"

Hypothetical conclusion:

"You're right, thing can refer to something specific that does exist, although that is not precisely described.  Therefore, I cannot have said that "thing" does not exist without further definition or reference as to what thing I was talking about.  In the same way, I cannot say "God" does not exist without referring to a particular definition of God."

Or, you could have just corrected your original statement:

"God CAN'T be defined."

Which would be a different argument entirely.. but not what you said.

Quote:
I didn't repond to them because they're semantics word games you're using to derail the topic further, because (as I already pointed-out) you're a dishonest little twat.

And as I showed above.. you're obviously of too little mind to follow the simple progression of an argument.  (Once again.. just responding in kind, I have no animosity towards you.. nor do I presume to know of what caliber your intellect is.. nor about what sort of motives you have for your argumentation).

There was no derailing of the argument, I responded to multiple statements in the original post.. you responded to those with counters.. and I responded to those.
 

Quote:

See? You're just a fucking moron.

There's your problem right there. Smiling

 

'Proof' is a mathematical term. It doesn't apply outside mathematics at all. Unless your dealing with numbers, asking for a 'proof' of anything is spouting gibberish.

Check a dictionary next time...

proof     Audio Help   /pruf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proof] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.    evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.    anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3.    the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4.    the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5.    Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6.    the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7.    an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
8.    Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.

You're using definition 8 and 7.. I'm referring to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Argh... Kevin, I'm sorry,

Argh... Kevin, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree on a number of these.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
[Semantics] Are important. :P

If your interest is in playing word games in favor of arguing, I suppose you're right.

Semantics are important any time you want a common frame of reference. If you wish to establish that both parties are, in fact, able to communicate concepts between one another, semantics matter, because how you use language matters.

 

Quote:

...Are you kidding me? Did you even read what you just pasted?

"2.    some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described: The stick had a brass thing on it."

See the emboldened part, which you apparently missed? According to the dictionary defintion, a 'thing' is something that can't be specifically designated or precisely described.

Actually, Kevin, you need to re-read that embolded part: It contains the word 'or', which means the sentence retains its value if the 'or' clause is removed. Removing it would give us:

'some entity, object, or create that is not specifically designated...'

It doesn't need to be something that cannot be specifically defined, it simply has to be something that either cannot be, or currently is not specifically defined.

This is why semantics are important.

Quote:

Note that the example supports this perfectly: there's something on the stick that the observer doesn't know how to describe, other than to say it's brass. The brass object is not, in reality, a 'thing'; that's merely the temporary, ignorant label. Further inspection might reveal it's true nature (a brass bell, perhaps, or a brass ornament).

It might. It does not, however, in any way alter that 'thing' is a perfectly correct label for it.

 

Quote:

Quote:
The absence of proof is not proof of absence.

...You mean evidence, I assume? And yes, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Example:

How does my bank know that I haven't deposited one million dollars into my bank account, if I go to them tomorrow and allege that I have? Simple: I'll have no evidence to support my claim. Moreover, the bank will have lots of consistent counter-evidence that I haven't made any such deposit. If you're drinking a beverage, how do you know when your glass no longer has any fluid in it? How can you tell that there aren't monsters lurking under your bed?

A)The bank's 'counter-evidence' is evidence of absence. Your lack of evidence to support your claim is absence of evidence. These two things are not equivalent.

B)When you stop getting liquid out of your glass, that is evidence of absence. It is not absence of evidence.

C)One would presume you look under the bed, which, once again, provides evidence of absence. Prior observation of this state, combined with no new evidence to contradict it, means that when you looked under your bed at 3 years old, there was the evidence of absence that is still valid today.

Again, this is why semantics matter. Absence of evidence is simply no evidence to support a claim. It is NOT evidence to disprove a claim.

Until one was caught in the 1930s, there was no evidence that coelacanths continued to exist as anything more than fossils. At that point, there was an absence of evidence. There was not, however, evidence of absence, as was made abundantly clear when one was caught in a fishing net.

Evidence of Absence is something that actively shows something is not presence. Example: A litmus test that would show the presence of acid not doing so. Fire suddenly going out when placed in atmospheric conditions where the presence of oxygen is questionable.

Absence of Evidence is simply a lack of anything that actively shows that something is present. Example: Nobody spotting a certain type of fish.

Absence of Evidence, combined with conjecture and inference, can give us high enough probability of absence that we need not presume presence, but it is not, and never will be, evidence of absence.

Quote:

I could go on, but you get the idea. Of course absense of evidence is evidence of absense[/i]; that's not to say it's evidence that can't be cpuntermanded, simply that it's a solid piece of evidence (like any other), and you look for consistency with other evidence to validate or invalidate it.

You could, but you'd be wrong. Absence of Evidence != Evidence of Absence.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Totus,I

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Totus,

I have no kind or even sort-of polite words I can respond with here:

 

You're crazy. You're a fucked-up lunatic. You should be put in a straight jacket and heavily medicated for the rest of your life.

 

Just so everybody is clear; you actually agree; putting a rusty nail through a cracker (it is not a 'host', 'Eucharist', anything other than a flour and water based wafer, and I don't give a shit if you have 'faith' it's anything else. It isn't, and such can be empirically evidenced) is an offense worthy of terminating someone's career.

A)It is, in fact, a 'Eucharistic host', just as some crackers are Triscuits(tm), and some are Saltines(tm). It's a wafer (not a cracker, strictly, as it's not made quite the same way) manufactured to specific standards for a specific marketing purpose. The name applied to it for that purpose is still applicable.

B)Actually, I don't think the cracker is the core point at all. It's that the University has a conduct policy for its employees which indicates that conduct which is intended to offend specific people (note: not 'conduct which is intended to surprise and provoke reaction in unspecified observers') is prohibited. An employee has violated that policy in a manner some people feel to be exceedingly flagrant, and they are calling for his removal as a disciplinary action.

My place of business has a policy that says I can't insult the customers or the potential customers who come in, but have not yet made a purchase and may decide not to. If I do, I will be fired. Same concept: his place of employment says, "The terms of your employment state you cannot do X". He did X. People want him fired for doing X. That's not crazy. If he wants to shock and offend people, great. I wholeheartedly support his exercising his Right to Free Speech in that manner. That doesn't mean there are no consequences for doing so. It just means the government can't arrest him for it.

It's like a guy who voluntarily signs up for Army ROTC, accepts the Army's money to pay for the remainder of his college, and when he graduates, tells them 'I oppose the Iraq War on moral grounds. I feel it is illegal, and will not carry out my orders to report for duty in Iraq.' Wonderful! Oppose the order you feel is illegal! You're still going to prison.

You made the commitment, you honor the commitment, either by behaving in accordance with the policies you agreed to upon taking the job, or by accepting whatever disciplinary action results from violating those policies. Period. It's a simple question of growing the fuck up and accepting responsibility for your own actions.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
If it's a State University

If it's a State University then it is in effect the government.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:If it's a

MattShizzle wrote:

If it's a State University then it is in effect the government.

Correct. But dismissal from his position is not the same as criminal arrest. If he's agreed to the terms of employment set forth by the university, then while he is free to exercise his Freedom of Speech, violation of those terms of employment is still legitimate grounds for disciplinary action, potentially including dismissal from his position.

Edit to add: He made a commitment. If he cannot hold to his end of it, then why should he receive full benefit from it? I don't care if someone who is a lying, cheating, dishonest asshole is on my side of a fight or not, he's still a lying, cheating, dishonest asshole, and deserves what's coming to him.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
This is a whole other issue

This is a whole other issue - how employees can regulate their employees lives outside of work. I don't think they should be allowed to at all. Terms of employment should not be applicable to anything outside of work. If they dismiss someone for this, they should immediately lose all federal and state funding and have to pay him his salary until he gets a new job and pay back every cent they got from the state and federal government in the last year.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I'd say that depends

I'd say that depends entirely on how vague the policy he agreed to was. If he agreed to it, he should be bound by that agreement. I had to suspend my own fiction writing while I was working as a tech in the telecom industry because the employment terms claimed that anything I invented or created during the period of my employment would belong to the company. I don't think Periphonics (since purchased by Nortel) would have tried to claim ownership of non-work-related efforts, but when I realized the scope of the terms, I consulted with both counsel of my own, and the HR department, and both told me that while it was unlikely to come up, strictly speaking they could do so.

If you put your name on the paper, know what the hell it says. If you agreed to it, you're bound by it.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I disagree. I would say

I disagree. I would say those parts  the contract (in both the cases) should be considered null and void and they should get a big fine for even having you/him sign it - or maybe even prison time for whoever put it out. I think they shouldn't be able to make any sort of policy without government approval. I would say if in an interview they even put out a contract like that they should be fined several million and automatically be forced to pay everyone they interviewed at least 10 years salary.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Disagree all you like, but

Disagree all you like, but that's not how the law stands now.

Moreover, Myers identifies himself prominently on his blog as a Professor at the University of Minnesota. This has the effect of using his position, and thus the credibility of the position, as part of establishing the credibility of the blog. That then lends the appearance that he is, even on his blog, a representative of the University, and the things said thereon have the tacit support of the University, which makes even his blog subject to the University's codes of employee conduct.

Don't get me wrong, I like PZ Myers. I think he's smart, funny, writes well. I'd love to see a hundred more of him across the net and in our colleges. But if you break the rules that you've agreed to, then you take the hit. Again, it's a simple matter of taking responsibility for your actions, and not insisting that the contract you choose to bind yourself to carries with it no obligations.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I'm saying the law needs to

I'm saying the law needs to be changed to disallow them from puting those sort of contracts out. Imagine if they had a contract that said you had to attend church every Sunday and you couldn't obtain employment there without signing. That would be totally wrong. I find those ones where they own anything you create utterly hideous and another reason capitalism needs to be destroyed.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team