David Mo
Philosopher
And you thought I thought you were literal. You didn't realize I was playing with the metaphor. See who is obtuse.
And you thought I thought you were literal. You didn't realize I was playing with the metaphor. See who is obtuse.
JesseCuster
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 4, 2016
- Messages
- 2,159
Yes, you're very clever. Well done.
JesseCuster
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 4, 2016
- Messages
- 2,159
That doesn't happen.
I wasn't asking about your opinion of hermeticism. I was asking about whether or not you practice a specific ritual, and you answered that you do not. To the same extent you're claiming a teetotaler decides not to drink, or an atheist decides not to worship, you continually decide not to perform that ritual. You're the one who seems to think that such vacuous "decisions" are significant in some way.
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, you're very clever. Well done.
He is very clever, isn’t he. (In the opinion of only one poster here).
The Common Potato
Muse
David, Will they? Really? Your inability to read and comprehend is not the rest of the worlds' fault. IMO, you are massively dumb or are trolling. I'd bet on an arrogant, dumb troller.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
What attribute beyond "god = a spiritual entity" do I need to know to reject the concept? Nothing. What about a believers concept of god matters beyond that that I need to consider? Nothing. ETA: Anything beyond "god = a spiritual entity" is derived from dogma.
Last edited:
David Mo
Philosopher
Your question was answered: I can't make decisions about what I don't know. In any case, I decide that the cult of which you speaks does not deserve to be informed about him. That is also a choice.
Of course. Throughout the day I make decisions about unimportant things (what shirt I wear) and decisions that are relevant and concern me. Sometimes it depends on the circumstances that are more or less important. The decision to adopt atheism, to join the communist party or to declare my love to a woman are important. And, although I don't realize it and am often unconscious, the daily renewal of that choice is also important.
What happens to our friend Jesse who says is an alcoholic but has no temptations to drink seems to me to be either an autodeceit or to say some nonsense so as not to have to give in.
David Mo
Philosopher
Before going on to reject the concept of "spiritual" because it is an empty concept, we will have to understand what the one who uses it means, and then we will be able to criticize.
But the definition of spiritual does not enter into any dogma. The dogmas of the religions I know use the word as if it were significant. As you say, it rather seems that it is not, but that must be said after analyzing its meaning, which is the use that a believer makes of it.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
Utter nonsense.
You are moving the goal posts by weaseling about 'spritual' rather than 'god.' So, as I am sure you are quite aware, you are not arguing in good faith. NO, we won't get into what 'faith' means.
By definition 'theism' is a belief in god(s). It doesn't matter what else the theist believes the word 'theist' says they believe in god(s) that by definition an atheist doesn't. Look it up, we will wait... Notice the dictionary can make the distinction without worry about what the theist believes about their god. So can we.
You disagree? Write Funk, Wagnall, Webster, Oxford, or even M. Online. They will tell you that you are arguing nonsense.
David Mo
Philosopher
It was you who introduced the "spiritual" term into the debate. If it is nonsense, take credit for it.
If the theist is the one who believes in God and the atheist is the one who does not believe in God, we must first know what is that god in which the atheist does not believe. There are two ways to do this: either ask theists or ask the atheists. The atheists will say, except for those in this forum, that they are very rare, that they do not believe in the god of theists. In other words, their definition depends on what theists say they believe. Except for the ones in this forum, which are very rare.
This is what dictionaries usually do: they try to get a standard definition by looking for traits common to all or almost all religions. That's quite difficult, because the differences are many. That is why, in the debates, it is convenient to use a slightly more precise definition depending on what is presented in the debate.
Where do you think you got that kind of definition you gave yesterday 09:22 PM: "god = a spiritual entity"?
Jesus Goddamn Christ we're right back to the "We have to define God" nonsense and pretending that isn't manufactured nonsense from people.
Every goddamn "God" discussion goes the same way, drug down into the stupid lie that "God" is this vague thing we haven't defined well enough to discuss yet.
Every goddamn "God" discussion goes the same way, drug down into the stupid lie that "God" is this vague thing we haven't defined well enough to discuss yet.
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick.
You pulled a single word out of a definition and out of context and hang your hat on that?
The word god has a meaning. That meaning is used to define the words 'theist' and 'atheist'. PERIOD.
If someone says they believe in god(s), I take them at their word. If they are using some idiosyncratic definition of their creation, further discussion would be futile. Like your current nonsense, it would become a discussion of defining words.
You are pissing up a flagpole. Forgive me for delaying your task. It's a solitary endeavor, I'll leave you too it.
ETA:
No. Atheists don't believe in any god(s). We don't need to define it further.
Last edited:
Oh ho ho, but what if we define God as the nice feeling you get on a hot summer day when a nice cool breeze blows past and you have an ice cream? What if we define God as the guy that’s on the grill at Waffle House on Sunday night at 2am? Nonsense, you say? Obviously these are not within the scope or intent of the word? Are you so full of hubris as to say you don’t know God but you know what it isn’t? As to deny God without taking into account all of these possible definitions?? I am very intelligent.
(I like reading Mo but it’s true that it can be a chore to figure out what he actually meant and it feels more than a bit like tail-chasing when it turns out to be something that could have been said in like one clear sentence. But I have problems expressing myself sometimes so I don’t mind being charitable enough to figure he’s not that good at getting his concepts out in actual words for the consumption of other posters, rather than that he’s being intentionally florid about it. I think he’s just writing as comes naturally to him.)
Just because I’m feeling pedantic:
You can sit down and have a discussion about nailing down a definition for God or for gods, you can remove some things that a few idiosyncratic folks might want to call God but nobody else does, you can outline some properties that are common to most seriously followed pantheons, etc etc, sure. But you don’t have to do that to listen to someone say “I don’t think it looks like there are actually any gods,” and know, certainly for the purposes of the discussion they are actually trying to have, what they mean.
Most regulars, I think, don’t want to start over from first principles unless it’s a thread about first principles.
You can sit down and have a discussion about nailing down a definition for God or for gods, you can remove some things that a few idiosyncratic folks might want to call God but nobody else does, you can outline some properties that are common to most seriously followed pantheons, etc etc, sure. But you don’t have to do that to listen to someone say “I don’t think it looks like there are actually any gods,” and know, certainly for the purposes of the discussion they are actually trying to have, what they mean.
Most regulars, I think, don’t want to start over from first principles unless it’s a thread about first principles.
David Mo
Philosopher
We need to define how we use words because if you are using a word in a sense and I use this word in a different sense we have a good mess about nothing.
Dictionary aids to have a common definition, but what truly matters is the living use of a word. Dictionaries only treat to synthesize it, but this is only approximate. Therefore "what do you mean with X?" is a necessary question when we suspect that there is a conflict between different uses of a word (X). And this is a clue question in a debate about God because atheism is the opposite of theism, but theisms are very different. An atheist only is someone that doesn't believe (or denies) that the god that theist claims exists. He needs to know what god the theist believes in the same way that an apostate needs to know what religion is refuting or we need to know what is justice to say that something is unjust.
Last edited:
David Mo
Philosopher
There are very few things that can be said in one sentence. Things are complex in themselves and need considerable effort to be minimally clarified. But sometimes I can't understand why people refuse to recognize that white is white.
I'm an atheist because I don't believe in something that believers say is God. If there was no theist in the world the word atheist would not make sense because no one would talk about something called "god". Therefore, I need to understand what theists call "god. It's that simple! Nothing to do with justifying belief in God or defining the burden of proof. It's just a matter of understanding what we're talking about.
Of course, I need to clarify my concept of atheism: I am an atheist with regard to some definitions of God that I consider accurate. Vague definitions of God such as "the breeze through the poplars" or "the truth that I have in my heart" are so vague that I cannot deny it. They are confusing because they are unusual. I would not call it "god" because they refer to something too different from what is normally called "god" and cause confusion rather than clarity.
David Mo
Philosopher
"Accurate" as definitions. Not a description of a real thing.
Of course, to affirm that all definitions of "god" are vague or confuse and therefore meaningless is an interesting philosophical position. I am inclined to concede it some degree of plausibility. We can discuss it if you want.
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
The people making the claim should supply the definition as well as the evidence / argument.
I would suggest that, as a bare minimum, any God hypothesis would have to include "necessarily existing intelligence which is the ultimate creator of all contingent things" which is the basic theological.definition and the definition has been around long enough for it to considered a standard.
I would suggest that, as a bare minimum, any God hypothesis would have to include "necessarily existing intelligence which is the ultimate creator of all contingent things" which is the basic theological.definition and the definition has been around long enough for it to considered a standard.
David Mo
Philosopher
Yes.
And the definition must be clear and distinct in order that the opposite side can understand it.
This is the first step.
Second step: the proponent gives reasons or evidence and the opponent criticizes it. The opponent offers counter argumentation (if possible).
Third step*: The opponent begins to insult and claims that the proponent is dishonest and doesn't deserve any respect.
....................
Umpteenth step*: one year after the opponents continue debating if you said this, absolutely not it was you, you don't understand, you don't read, this is ******, you are dishonest.. etc.
*) Typical step in this forum.
