putting religion in it's proper place

[Immanuel Can]

The onus is on you to prove something, not me.

Interesting. So you haven't actually read any Theists.

I see. Why not try? How about just one?

You first!

As I said, I already have read a whole bunch of Atheists. I'm just suggesting you could benefit from having read one book from one rational Theist.

Wait, ...are you NOT a 'theist'?

Of course.

Now if you are a 'theist', tell me what a "theist" is.

Sure. It just means somebody who believes there IS a God.

And I suggested you might look at Anthony Flew's book, but if you don't like that one, try something else, like R. Zacharias, "Can Man Live Without God," or maybe Mittelberg et al, "The Reasons for Faith," or, though it's a bit dated now, C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity." You can get any of those through any bookseller.

I am 'agnostic' here and now:

Good to know. If that's right, you're not somebody who's closed your mind on a subject you never yet studied. Your mind is open to new evidence, should such ever appear, yes?

[Scott Mayers]

Now if you are a 'theist', tell me what a "theist" is.

Sure. It just means somebody who believes there IS a God.

What is this...."God"?

And I suggested you might look at Anthony Flew's book, but if you don't like that one, try something else, like R. Zacharias, "Can Man Live Without God," or maybe Mittelberg et al, "The Reasons for Faith," or, though it's a bit dated now, C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity." You can get any of those through any bookseller.

Someone close to me sent me "Mere Christianity" and I read it long ago. I don't recall what it said now but it is somewhere one set of 5 shelves dedicated to 'religion' or in boxes now, given I had rearranged them at a point so that I could prioritize space for many other books that had more significance to me. But I do recall it was among many of the others of the Evangelical apologetics with similar markups and post-it notes everywhere. I recall, Spong as a liberal author of a few books I thought interesting. I've got a 'contemporary' reading set of shelves that holds reference books, like the Bible, the Torah, and possibly others that I haven't looked at for a while.

I'm not interested in OTHER people's works though for this discussion. I'd have to re-read what I tend to forget on things I've determined closure on. I prefer to keep the ten shelving units available for mostly science and technology texts that I use more often lately. Let's just stick to what you can tell me. I mean, if you are qualified, you should be able to remember them better than I and can raise particular arguments you found so significant about them. After all, those are things that I can read (or re-read) on my own. I even have those of Plantinga from a brother-in-law who works with him and has his own contributions there. [He's in Purdue University, the last time I heard. ? Philosophy professor and apologist, and all. He too sent me a lot of his and other works too, probably of some of those names you dropped above.]

I am 'agnostic' here and now:

Good to know. If that's right, you're not somebody who's closed your mind on a subject you never yet studied. Your mind is open to new evidence, should such ever appear, yes?

Well, 'new' is probably just a guess on your behalf, don't you think?

[Immanuel Can]

What is this...."God"?

You want a synonym? "Supreme Being"? "First Cause?" "Creator"?

But I have to assume your question's not quite serious. After all, the concept's not exactly unusual...the exact nature of God is a little more controversial, but the basic concept is fairly clear.

Let's just stick to what you can tell me. I mean, if you are qualified, you should be able to remember them better than I and can raise particular arguments you found so significant about them. After all, those are things that I can read (or re-read) on my own. I even have those of Plantinga from a brother-in-law who works with him and has his own contributions there. [He's in Purdue University, the last time I heard. ? Philosophy professor and apologist, and all. He too sent me a lot of his and other works too, probably of some of those names you dropped above.]

Purdue has a very pretty campus. Not an entirely nice town, though.

Well, 'new' is probably just a guess on your behalf, don't you think?

Of course.

[attofishpi]

Well done IC. I don't think there has been a post on the forum of that size that I have not flashed through on a speed read. Good points. Not sure about the 96% stat though.

And for you, a case in point, your avatar is both a creation of a well-known atheist and friend of MY community, Seth McFarland, AND his character, Brian is also, contrary to the fact that he's on Fox, is also Seth's own 'avatar' for athiesm, and left-wing activism. So you are dressed up to appear contradictory to him. Perhaps you might ask him permission for your use of it in direct opposition to his own views?

Oooh. Hey, I am so impressed you managed to string more that one sentence together.

What community are you talking about? Are you suggesting atheism is a community!

I know full well that Brian is an atheist, apart from that he is a LOT like me - perhaps we are just creations in some parallel universe where I have gnosis (my name is Brian) and Brian (the cartoon dog) is short-sighted (like all atheists).
We have so much in common, we have both written a book, we both like casual whores, we both like drugs, we both like taking the piss out of blatant stupidity - like U thinking you have some allegiance with Seth, be careful you fucking DUMB c^nt - I bite.

Sure - GO TELL "Seth McFarland" whoever the fuck that is - may I suggest telling this dude:- SETH MACFARLANE that attofishpi - one that is not a dumb c^nt atheist that he is using Brian for his avatar.

DO IT U FUCKING IMBECILE.

[Scott Mayers]

What is this...."God"?

You want a synonym? "Supreme Being"? "First Cause?" "Creator"?

But I have to assume your question's not quite serious. After all, the concept's not exactly unusual...the exact nature of God is a little more controversial, but the basic concept is fairly clear.

I didn't ask for another term that you find is 'analogous' to it. You already dissed my effort at using an expanded synonyms that an analogy is used for in depth. You already think that I should get straight to the point with you. So I want you to give me the same respect. Tell me directly what this, "God" is. Define it so that we can I might be able to understand what the term refers to. "De-fine" comes from "of finite". "Finite" means something that has 'ends', like how the French/Latin term, "fin", means "the end". And so "define" means to give a clear and concise meaning to the symbol or word one uses to refer to something that can be understood. If you own a yard or other property that you like to be confidently clear where your boundries are, you mark it out to show where your property's boundaries are so that others can clearly KNOW which is yours from which isn't.

So tell me, please, how do YOU define the term, "God"? How can even you determine if I can follow you properly if I don't even have a clear idea of what the major concept of "theism" is all about?

I at least hear you hint at it to be synonymous with "supreme being", "first cause", and "creator". But these are different terms with distinct meanings that do not assert with closure THAT you mean these are all the same. I can say that you and are are synonymous with "human being" as something generally inclusive of both of us. But then if we opt to use the term, "human being", it means "you or I", not to mention possibly other things that could be included and it would be odd for me to then just use the term, "I" when I want to refer to the meaning, "human" if they are synonymous. Using "I" doesn't exhaustively cover what is properly meant by "human" in the same way we wouldn't define your land ownership as a "square inch", given this may at least be true, but isn't sufficient to exhaustively express your intended definition of "your yard".

I am not trying to come across as making fun of you. My intent is the sincere logical approach to clarify this philosophically. I cannot proceed without understanding your terms clearly and concisely. The term "God" requires definition, as will be the other terms, "Supreme", "Being", "Supreme Being", "First Cause", and "Creator" independently, if you choose to include these as essential properties synonymously of your definition of "God".

[Scott Mayers]

Well done IC. I don't think there has been a post on the forum of that size that I have not flashed through on a speed read. Good points. Not sure about the 96% stat though.

And for you, a case in point, your avatar is both a creation of a well-known atheist and friend of MY community, Seth McFarland, AND his character, Brian is also, contrary to the fact that he's on Fox, is also Seth's own 'avatar' for athiesm, and left-wing activism. So you are dressed up to appear contradictory to him. Perhaps you might ask him permission for your use of it in direct opposition to his own views?

Oooh. Hey, I am so impressed you managed to string more that one sentence together.

What community are you talking about? Are you suggesting atheism is a community!

I know full well that Brian is an atheist, apart from that he is a LOT like me - perhaps we are just creations in some parallel universe where I have gnosis (my name is Brian) and Brian (the cartoon dog) is short-sighted (like all atheists).
We have so much in common, we have both written a book, we both like casual whores, we both like drugs, we both like taking the piss out of blatant stupidity - like U thinking you have some allegiance with Seth, be careful you fucking DUMB c^nt - I bite.

Sure - GO TELL "Seth McFarland" whoever the fuck that is - may I suggest telling this dude:- SETH MACFARLANE that attofishpi - one that is not a dumb c^nt atheist that he is using Brian for his avatar.

DO IT U FUCKING IMBECILE.

Seth MacFarland is the creator and owner of the copyright and trademarked images of his show, "Family Guy". Even he knows that when he had to use a distinctly unique drawing of that famous Disney character, "Mickey Mouse" in his show, he had to pay Disney a copyright fee before it finally ran out, especially considering he was using it in a derogatory contrary meaning for the episodes in question.* [see https://alj.artrepreneur.com/mickey-mou ... right-law/ for an article explaining the legal issues of the use of Mickey Mouse images and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_MacFarlane for who Seth is.]

I was even prevented from similar 'artistic' expressions online before on a science discussion forum that was very peculiar about us using non-formal copyrighted images that I myself created. While I didn't approve their censorship in context to my own creation, they were actually just looking for anything to prevent potential legal charges against them that the University crowds are accustomed to who go there. I'm not saying you shouldn't have this right of expression. But in the context of my comments to you about it, this was appropriate on my point about 'deceptive' behavior as a case in point for the prior posts you were insulting me above for.

So you fell right into that. I don't know if this site disapproves but they tend to block us with restrictions on images and video possibly to avoid infringement issues. I was barred from using a popular cartoon image for an avatar I used on a Facebook account years ago just for this very reason.

[Note * Disney bought Fox with Family Guy included as a likely ploy to prevent further damage to their reputation. Now the show may use it given Disney lost its right to perpetually keep it out of the public domain. But now they own the show and so have power to restrict new shows to use Mickey Mouse to reference Walt Disney's racist support of the Nazis. Copyright issues by Disney is known for the litigousness on suing people using their characters BY ANYONE without their approval. So be warned.]

[Greatest I am]

Jesus said:

"But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment." (Matthew 12:36)

You spoke of...

You spoke of your own judgment. As Jesus said, "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

And that I may not induce you to make it worse for yourself than it already is, I will speak to you no more.

Strange that you think you will be saved, even as you honor a genocidal p**** and his homophobic and misogynous religion.

I judge you fit for hell, given that your god is satanic.

Thanks for ignoring me, but have you noted that your type is almost silent in these places due to your own vile moral sense and evil religion.

Nice to see another one hit the road.

Regards
DL

[Scott Mayers]

You spoke of...

You spoke of your own judgment. As Jesus said, "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

And that I may not induce you to make it worse for yourself than it already is, I will speak to you no more.

Strange that you think you will be saved, even as you honor a genocidal p**** and his homophobic and misogynous religion.

I judge you fit for hell, given that your god is satanic.

Thanks for ignoring me, but have you noted that your type is almost silent in these places due to your own vile moral sense and evil religion.

Nice to see another one hit the road.

Regards
DL

I don't want to gang up them and see that you seem to respect the same by being independent of your voice. But I wanted to note that I think I've pissed them off for being very specific and hope that if they are 'ignoring' you (or myself) that they change their minds in time. I think they can both take the heat as they give normally. I prefer NOT to be overtly harsh as it only escalates tension when it need not exist. So just give it some time and be patient with them as I will try where I am reacting harshly, even though it can be hard. Sometimes time is all that is needed after we make each of our arguments. Convincing arguments aren't always enough when emotions get involved and needs the time to run it through our heads as well as to time for our heads to relieve the stress.

[Greatest I am]

You spoke of your own judgment. As Jesus said, "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

And that I may not induce you to make it worse for yourself than it already is, I will speak to you no more.

Strange that you think you will be saved, even as you honor a genocidal p**** and his homophobic and misogynous religion.

I judge you fit for hell, given that your god is satanic.

Thanks for ignoring me, but have you noted that your type is almost silent in these places due to your own vile moral sense and evil religion.

Nice to see another one hit the road.

Regards
DL

I don't want to gang up them and see that you seem to respect the same by being independent of your voice. But I wanted to note that I think I've pissed them off for being very specific and hope that if they are 'ignoring' you (or myself) that they change their minds in time. I think they can both take the heat as they give normally. I prefer NOT to be overtly harsh as it only escalates tension when it need not exist. So just give it some time and be patient with them as I will try where I am reacting harshly, even though it can be hard. Sometimes time is all that is needed after we make each of our arguments. Convincing arguments aren't always enough when emotions get involved and needs the time to run it through our heads as well as to time for our heads to relieve the stress.

I hear you and constantly seek the right words to use.

It is likely a bit tougher for me as I focus on morals as I think that those should be a religions first priority. The moment morals are at issue, the religious head for the hills or hide behind their supernatural shield.

Religions are tribes, and tribes, to be successful, would have to have decent morals and ethics.

Religions have rules for their in group to live in harmony, but theists are sure hard on those in the out groups, and those are many when a religion is homophobic and misogynous, which are immoral traits.

I like your style and hope you have success with it.

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

"De-fine" comes from "of finite". "

You've just answered your own question, Scott. For if you want "finite" definitions for an infinite being, you can't have them; not because the Entity in question does not exist, or cannot be partially described, but because nobody has the ability to put strict limits on any infinite.

The same is true of "pi." There IS a real ratio between the radius of a circle and it's diameter. Circles and diameters both exist, and can be quite stable and well-defined; but the ratio between them is infinite: and no mathematician since the dawn of time or into eternity will ever be able to tell you what the finite limits of "pi" are: they'll all stop with "3.14....something." They may give you a very long list, but they will never, never give you the total list.

So you can't have definitions of the infinite. But that does not imply either that "pi" is not real, or that "pi" is nothing useful to us. It is both. So your objection...

How can even you determine if I can follow you properly if I don't even have a clear idea of what the major concept of "theism" is all about?

...is a non-sequitur. It's not logically the right conclusion, in other words. I can make true statements about the Atlantic Ocean, even though its span is greater than I can comprehend. And I can make true claims about God, even though his "span" is vastly greater, in every direction, than the Atlantic Ocean will ever be.

That's one problem with human beings: they want everything dragged down to the level at which they can "de-fine" it in the very strict sense you interpret the term, Scott. They want "control." They want parameters, dimensions and boundaries that reduce everything to being fully understandable, manipulable and manageable by an individual human, themselves. But if they can't demand that of the world's oceans, then how do they think they can justly demand it of the Eternal God? Would He even be God if He gave it to them?

One thing we're all going to have to accept if we want to know God: that WE are not in control of the entire process. We may understand aspects, nuances and some possibilities that relationship affords; we will not be in comprehensive control of it. As the Bible says, "Without faith, it is impossible to please God."

I at least hear you hint at it to be synonymous with "supreme being", "first cause", and "creator". But these are different terms with distinct meanings that do not assert with closure THAT you mean these are all the same.

I do. But I admit that they are all just aspects of God, not the totality of Him. But again, this sort of difficulty is routine. If I were trying to describe "Scott" I would have exactly the same problem. I could say he's "male," and "younger than I," and "a professing agnostic." Would those three points give anybody the total "Scott" experience? Could they thereafter say that they "know Scott"? Or could they claim that the whole idea of "Scott" is simply incoherent, because it's made up of mere aspects, so no "Scott" can possibly exist?

You can see the situation, I'm sure. The requirement that God be reduced to finite terms is itself, simply arbitrary, and not at all commensurate with the nature of the Entity being claimed. We don't even insist on such an incommensurable requirement in reference to Scott. For Scott is a real person, and cannot simply be reduced to his finite elements -- without us utterly failing to grasp Scott in all his Scottness.

[Advocate]

Reality is that which we can most agree on and that, whether empirically or logically, rests in turn on replication - does the same input always result in the same results? The act of measurement is the act of Creating reality in one sense, because it establishes that which can be verified. Any concept must be defined into being before it can be empirically measured, if it is in fact the kind of thing that can be empirically measured. Some concepts, like god or consciousness do not, at least currently admit of sufficient enough description to measure. Consciousness at least we can describe in relation to our own experience which we presumably share. If god is the kind of thing that cannot be measured, it cannot be "known" with any definition of knowledge, because it cannot be verified. If it can be measured, then we can say exactly how it can be measured and know exactly what would be needed to do so. Unverifiable things are literally indistinguishable from fiction. They can only become "real" when they are Actually verified by replicable measurement; for all intents and purposes.

[Immanuel Can]

Any concept must be defined into being...

I sometimes wonder if linguistic relativists even read the sentences they write.

"Defined into being"? Nothing is ever "defined into being."

This is simply the old confusion postmodernists had between what we know and what exists. What we know, or what we humans recognize, is not capable of producing existence. For anybody who thinks it can, they should try defining a precipice away, then throw themselves over one, or go into a room with a hungry tiger, insisting that "tiger" is a construct, and as such, cannot exist until we linguistically give it permission to.

Then, at least, we'd have a lot less twaddle about things being "defined" in and out of "being."

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=482656 time=1606838609 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482653 time=1606836291 user_id=15238]
Any concept must be defined into being...[/quote]
I sometimes wonder if linguistic relativists even read the sentences they write.

"Defined [i]into being[/i]"? :shock: [i]Nothing[/i] is ever "defined into being."

This is simply the old confusion postmodernists had between what we know and what exists. What we know, or what we humans recognize, is not capable of producing existence. For anybody who thinks it can, they should try defining a precipice away, then throw themselves over one, or go into a room with a hungry tiger, insisting that "tiger" is a construct, and as such, cannot exist until we linguistically give it permission to.

Then, at least, we'd have a lot less twaddle about things being "defined" in and out of "being."
[/quote]

Everything is always defined into being, regardless of whether it has an external correlate. It wouldn't be a concept without attributes or boundary conditions. We define external things according to our understanding of external constraints. That the stuff is still there regardless of whether we perceive it has nothing to say about the cognitive process that happens through perception and definition.

[Immanuel Can]

Everything is always defined into being

See if you can define cancer out of being.

Calling it "whiffle" will not make it better, nor any less likely to kill anyone.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=482660 time=1606843427 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482658 time=1606840977 user_id=15238]
Everything is always defined into being[/quote]
See if you can define cancer out of being.

Calling it "whiffle" will not make it better, nor any less likely to kill anyone.
[/quote]

The stuff is still there, but "cancer" is a specific set of stuff according to specific attributes, which we choose according to purpose. In other words, where the line is between cancer and anything else is entirely the invention of a mind. The limits of anything aren't out there a pre-existing delineations. There are no Platonic forms.