|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2725 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The meaning of "meaning" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You ask me to grow up while flinging childish insults at me? What did I do that could be construed as such a personal insult to you, Dawn? please dont view these as insults. view me as say a drill instructor trying to get you to think for yourself. Your using borrowed, concepts, ideologies, points that are not sound. here is an example:
Atheism is defined by what it lacks (i.e. a belief in god/s). As such, it has no grand claims to defend. Let me try to explain this: No it is not. Atheism has no definition that can be measured, like just about any other word. Atheism is defined by what type of person is using it and for what purposes they are using it Your usage and definiton of what atheism is ori s not is only a part of the REALITY of what atheism is or can be. Thus by limiting a word to a strict definition or one that suits your purposes, one flies into false idea of what is actually required of that class of person Words are measured by physical realities, we dont measure reality by words Thus you have built your whole premise about whatanyone needs to defend or not defend on a false concept, definition and idea. Its not sound to begin with
Let’s say you present a claim (e.g. that life has a purpose), and cite evidence for this claim (e.g. a spiritual confirmation that life has a purpose). Then, let’s say that I reject the evidence by claiming that no such spiritual confirmation occurred. I may then claim that your alleged spiritual confirmation was the result of a mental illness, and not a spiritual confirmation at all.Or, I may claim that your spiritual confirmation was misinterpreted, and wasn’t actually saying directly that your life had a purpose. Or, I may claim that your spiritual confirmation was a trick played by the devil. Or, I may claim that your spiritual confirmation was the result of years of indoctrination. Any of these things would be a legitimate claim, and would require me to present evidence in support of it. But, none of these is a claim that your life has no purpose: they are only claims about the nature of the evidence you use to support your claim. Do you understand the difference there? Of course I undertand the difference, but you are doing again what i was speaking about above. This distinction is really no distinction at all, since you are claiming and trying to refute the evidence anyone puts forward in an argument form This slight distinction or as I would call it evasion, avoids the reality of simple point counter point So there is a certain amount of ambiguity and evasion in trying to point out that atheism makes no claims and has nothing to defend. Your using concepts terms and ideas to avoid the REALITY, that if they insist it is false, they are obligated to demonstrate why in a logical form This why I said in the previous post. Show and define what your RULES of proceeding and RULES of evidence are. Evidence for the existence of God are or should be as simple as the rules for establishing the fact of evolution, correct? Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
No it is not. Atheism has no definition that can be measured, like just about any other word. But contrapuntally the shy watermelons leapfrog the pallid gesture. In tandem the bellwether decries the nude eggplant, and all the stale misanthropes swim in the disingenuous marmalade.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
But contrapuntally the shy watermelons leapfrog the pallid gesture. In tandem the bellwether decries the nude eggplant, and all the stale misanthropes swim in the disingenuous marmalade Come on dont be a coward, tell me what your rules of evidence are simpleton Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Come on dont be a coward, tell me what your rules of evidence are simpleton And I thought my post was a non sequitur! I bow before the master.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3401 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
I think anyone that knows me here knows I do not dodge answering questions, but so I dont rehash old stuff you think is failed, go ahead and present and example of a failed attempt since you ASSUME they are all failures i dont think you understand the difference in failure and absolute proof. lets see I assume nothing. What I meant to convey is that the so-called proofs of god(s)'s existence that I have encountered so far have all been contemptible. I am hoping you will provide something I have not seen before. Perhaps you would like to provide a list I can choose from. Absolute proof is only available in mathematics. If you insist on an example, let`s try Anselm`s ontological proof. That is just silly wordplay and category error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I assume nothing. What I meant to convey is that the so-called proofs of god(s)'s existence that I have encountered so far have all been contemptible. I am hoping you will provide something I have not seen before. Perhaps you would like to provide a list I can choose from. But I am trying to do that very thing The meaning of meaning. Ill try it another way to see if you get the point I am striving for in an attempt to show you they are not contemptible, simply that you may not understand the proper way to proceed in establishing truths or fact Rules of evidence. Do you believe in evolution, do you believe it actually happened, Yes or No? Now watch. When and until you do demonstrate from your own perspective why you believe these "attempts" are contemptible then, you will demonstrate two things. 1. That your method for deciding what is factual and believeable may be different than mine. You may have a whole set of rules that apply to others but not yourself 2. Unless you can demonstrate why you should be able to firmly believe in something as a fact, without ever having seen it happen, you may need to revaluate whether these attempts are actually contimptible failures So, is evolution true and demonstratable as a fact? Dawn Bertot (EAM)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3401 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
But I am trying to do that very thing The meaning of meaning. Ill try it another way to see if you get the point I am striving for in an attempt to show you they are not contemptible, simply that you may not understand the proper way to proceed in establishing truths or fact Rules of evidence. Do you believe in evolution, do you believe it actually happened, Yes or No? Now watch. When and until you do demonstrate from your own perspective why you believe these "attempts" are contemptible then, you will demonstrate two things. 1. That your method for deciding what is factual and believeable may be different than mine. You may have a whole set of rules that apply to others but not yourself 2. Unless you can demonstrate why you should be able to firmly believe in something as a fact, without ever having seen it happen, you may need to revaluate whether these attempts are actually contimptible failures So, is evolution true and demonstratable as a fact? More dodging. I was under the impression that you had claimed to have proof of the existence of god(s) and asked you to provide it, preferably something not already refuted a thousand times over. Evolution is not on the table. The proofs I have seen failed by either flawed reasoning or false matters of fact, or both. Either is sufficient to invalidate any argument. I am not impressed by your introduction of the idiotic "if you didn't see it happen, you can't know anything about it" dodge. If your house is burgled, do you call in the police? Let's see some meat here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2725 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Dawn Bertot.
Dawn Bertot writes: please dont view these as insults. view me as say a drill instructor trying to get you to think for yourself. Thanks for the thought, but I really am thinking for myself here, Dawn. Just because I came to a different conclusion than you doesn't mean I've been brainwashed. And, as a friendly side note, most people view patronization as a insult. -----
Dawn Bertot writes: ...Atheism has no definition that can be measured, like just about any other word. Atheism is defined by what type of person is using it and for what purposes they are using it. I don't really care to discuss with you the semantics of the word "Atheist."I don’t really care to discuss with you any meaning of the word Atheism other than the one I provided you (i.e., "lack of belief in god/s"). I don’t really care to discuss with you the claims of other kinds of Atheists than the kind I defined for you. I restricted the definition thus because this is the way most self-described Atheists use the term Atheist. It makes sense to me to use their own definition when debating about them. These are my terms. If you cannot accept these terms, I kindly request that you stop participating here. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Atheism is defined by what type of person is using it and for what purposes they are using it So I am in cohorts with Josef Stalin? I am an Atheist and he was an Atheist,. The only thing we had in common was the fact that we don't believe in sky daddies. Other than that I detest him amd all like him Atheist or not such individuals as Adolph Hitler (Christian), Tojo (Shintoist), Osama Bin Laden (Muslim). There is nothing that irks me more than the assumption that because a person is an Atheist, he is evil, pure bullcrap. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2877 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
53 everything which has a purpose, necessarily has a cause...
I AM that I AMso the point is God is purposeless? Is that what you're meaning? (gotta love a good argument) OT do not respond.. OP
I’ll grant that, from the Atheist’s perspective, religious meaning is also just a feeling or sense of meaning. But, from the Theist’s perspective, this amounts to a denial that Theistic meaning exists, accompanied by a redefinition of the word meaning to reflect that denial. Having been in both camps I think the meaning of the word is the same.It's just applied to different scopes. The atheist denies the scope that the theist accepts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
More dodging. I was under the impression that you had claimed to have proof of the existence of god(s) and asked you to provide it, preferably something not already refuted a thousand times over. Evolution is not on the table. The proofs I have seen failed by either flawed reasoning or false matters of fact, or both. Either is sufficient to invalidate any argument. I am not impressed by your introduction of the idiotic "if you didn't see it happen, you can't know anything about it" dodge. If your house is burgled, do you call in the police? Let's see some meat here! Im trying to get to the meat, but you wont let me Your unwillingness to proceed to the evidence or factual evidence by any means but your own demonstrates the weakness of your position and possibly yourself Establishing how rules of evidence should be administered is of NO LITTLE IMPORTANCE. The reason you wont answer the question as to whether evolution is a fact and can be factually demonstrated, is because, it will throw your whole position about evidence and how it is obtained into to disaray I am more than willing to demonstrate the existence of God and meaning as soon as we see if we are on the same rule sheet for what is actually evidential and considered factual Do you believe biological evolution happened and do you believe the EVIDENCE supports it enough to accept it as fact. Come on now, these are simple questions with simple answers,correct? I am not impressed by your introduction of the idiotic "if you didn't see it happen, you can't know anything about it" dodge. If your house is burgled, do you call in the police? Ill take this as an indirect somewhat evasive way of you indicating that it is possible to know something without having actually seen it happen. Thus we have now removed the so-called FAILURES up to distinct possibilities The question was not, can you know anything about it. It is, is it acceptable as a fact having not seen it. is there enough evidence to suggest it is highly probable. I know you see this distinction, whether you want to admit it or not EAM/DB Edited by EMA, : No reason given. Edited by EMA, : No reason given. Edited by EMA, : No reason given. Edited by EMA, : No reason given. Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
So I am in cohorts with Josef Stalin? I am an Atheist and he was an Atheist,. The only thing we had in common was the fact that we don't believe in sky daddies. Other than that I detest him amd all like him Atheist or not such individuals as Adolph Hitler (Christian), Tojo (Shintoist), Osama Bin Laden (Muslim). There is nothing that irks me more than the assumption that because a person is an Atheist, he is evil, pure bullcrap. I dont even know what this blathering is about, I called no one evil and you you missed the point totally of my post. Get in the spirit of this post and thread, then perhaps you will see what is being discussed
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dawn Bertot writes: Establishing how rules of evidence should be administered is of NO LITTLE IMPORTANCE. So tell us how rules of evidence should be administered. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3401 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
I am more than willing to demonstrate the existence of God and meaning as soon as we see if we are on the same rule sheet for what is actually evidential and considered factual Still dodging, I see. Have you been spending too much time with the bumper cars at the carnival? Come on, let's see your proofs. Then we can discuss whether they hold water and whether we can agree on any evidence you advance. Evolution is irrelevant to this discussion.
Ill take this as an indirect somewhat evasive way of you indicating that it is possible to know something without having actually seen it happen. Thus we have now removed the so-called FAILURES up to distinct possibilities Mere gibberish! Let's see something specific!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
I called no one evil and you you missed the point totally of my post. Maybe, but it appears you are calling me evil because I am an Atheist. From your earlier post
Atheism is defined by what type of person is using it and for what purposes they are using it My point is this is not so. Atheism is simply a non-belief in supernatural or other type sky-daddies, nothing else. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024