The meaning of "meaning"

Hi, EMA. It feels like this part of your post was written to preclude any chance for me to respond.Does this mean you don’t want me to respond, that you want the discussion to end here?It would certainly be easier for me if this is what you want, because I really have no idea what else I can write in response.I mean, you say that my inability to see what is so obvious to you doesn’t mean you’re wrong.
It would be pretty stupid of me to disagree with that, wouldn’t it? Obviously, my incredulity has nothing to do with the veracity of anything.Do you think scientists and evolutionists derive their conclusions from incredulity?
I’m pretty sure we don’t.There is a heuristic* that we follow. That heuristic is to disregard the existence of X until the existence of X can be demonstrated.Actually, I argue that most people use this heuristic routinely in their daily lives. But, for whatever reason, the theistic position is that this heuristic is not useful for things outside of daily life (such as philosophical questions), while the non-theistic position is that this heuristic should be applied equally in all situations.I think the consistency of the non-theistic position gives it the edge in this case.
For that reason, I submit that there is no need to demonstrate a negative claim: the negative claim must be assumed until the positive claim can be demonstrated (this is the principle on which the legal system is built: no guilt until guilt can be demonstrated). *A heuristic is a mental guideline that is used to make decisions when empirical evidence can’t differentiate the possibilities.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

I know - asking for someone to support their position is grotesquely unfair. Forgive me. That's fine - but I didn't do that. No. I'll take that as a "no - I can't prove it." And when you decide to comprehend my posts - you'll realize I need not avoid the conclusion that there is meaning since I accept the conclusion. My entire point in this thread has been that there is as much meaning in 'atheism' as there is in 'theism'. It wasn't a statement, it was two questions. You can, but you won't? If only there was a thread on these boards about 'meaning' where you could do that upon request... Again, the grammar is incomprehensible. Are you saying there is only entity in existence? Are you trying to say that objective meaning means whatever God desires it to be? In which case it is surely subjective (ie., God's desire). Don't keep me in suspense any further! Tell me what this meaning is, the meaning that we atheists are missing out on!

Youll understand if I dont entertain, nonsensical statements and comments Where in thier works do they claim inspiration from God. that should be your first clueEAM

Not at all, I was just making an observation, as it appears yopu have abandoned something you once believed. And much to amazement What does evolution have to do with the logical proposition that God exists and there is meaning in and about reality On the contrary, philosophical questions are driven by reality and logical propositions. the existence of God is easily established to imply and demonstrate meaning. His specific revelations simply drive the MEANING home.Why do you think I would be afraid of your methodology. My conclusions is that its the atheist when forced to the conclusions of your heuristic, covers thier eyes and ears and says, oh well we cant be confident about that proposition And lo and behold if you dont turn right around and demonstrate my point.Just like there is no such thing as reverse descrimination, there is no such thing as a NEGATIVE CLAIM, its just a claim and you are bound to demonstrate it is not true or CANNOT be true.The counter claim must hold itself to the same standard it applies to the one making the claim, that is to demonstrate that the evidence being presented cannot and is not true. If you insist that proof is needed in my instance, it would be required of yourself to demonstrate that the evidence pEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

I'll understand why you don't answer questions. So it is not the actual content of the work that is important to you but rather the claims made by the author in the stories. So the Vedas and Greek Myths and Norse Mythology and the Tales of Coyote and other such fables you would accept because they claim to come from inspiration from god.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Not at all, I just try and avoid answering stupid questions and assertions. To demonstrate that point. Ill ask you a question. Does the Bible have anything in it evidence wise that can be used to verify, that possibly the author was telling the truth. Any evidence at all. There you go again, half cocked. Your question was, is there any reason we should not believe Mogli and the such like are not inspired? I asked you a question about them. Ill ask it again. Do they claim inspiration from GodDoes the greek mythology and Norse myth tout the same continuity of theme and purpose, over a 1600 year period by numerous writers without contradiction. Theres you a good starting pointsecondly the Bibles discription of God conforms to that which stands to reason and logic, eternal, omniscienent, etc. It conforms to reality iteself.Not the nonsensical Gods posed by mythologyDawn BertotEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Which author. Which story? What truth?Those are all pretty much unknowns right now.But those same questions apply to all literature. Yes the Greek and Norse mythology has the same and actually fat better continuity than the Bible. Hell, there is not even such a thing as "The Bible"; Canons vary in size form the tiny Samaritan Canon that only accepts the first five books as canonical to the Ethiopian Orthodox Long canon with over 80 books.The Bible is an anthology of anthologies, filled with contradictions and simply false material, with fantasy and fable, stories and songs, wisdom and humor. But we can learn from those stories just like we learn from the Jungle Books and Alice in Wonderland.The fact that some unknown author claims that his inspiration is God is really not a very strong reason to think it is inspired. The contents though can most definitely show such inspiration.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

By just a few writers in a small period of time. Perhaps you could demonstrate this so-called continuity over a variety of topics and moral themes. My guess is that you cannot Regardless of who accepted what at any given time, the themes of those will be practically the same in content I agree and that is why right off the bat, the Bibles discription of God is consistent over the long passage of time as to his nature character and make-up. eternal, omniscient, etc.The Bibles idea of God confroms to reason and logic and that is just the starting pointSecondly and on topic the scriptures themes of meaning and purpose conform more to reality that any nonsense in greek mythologyYou will be hard pressed to find any writings or revelations that have more specific purpose that that which claims inspiration from a logical God of existence, than the bibles God and purposesSince you brought it up, ill present this point. Why dont we spend any time here talking about the gods of mythology or the so-called meaning in those writings? Here's why, because we all know them to be myth to begin with, that is why. Not so with the BibleIn modern times we dont discuss the events in the book of Mormon, because we know they did not happen, neither are the characters, places and peoples valis or real.we dont discuss them in detail because we know they were myth. Not sowith the Bible, because there is much reason and evidence to assume those evenst actually happened and took place.If you truely thought they were myth you would not be spending alot of time trying to refute it, as i would not the book of mormonAnyone that cannot see a vast distinction between the Bible and those writings is not paying very close attentionEdited 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.

Utter nonsense.For example the description of god in Genesis 1 is entirely different than the description of god in Genesis 2&3. In the former (written much later and by a far different people) we find an overarching, competent, sure God creating simply by an act of will, yet cold, distant, aloof, not connecting or interacting with that which is created. The much earlier God found in Genesis 2&3 though is entirely different, human, personable, fumbling, unsure, a hands on tinkerer, sometimes fearful and not quite truthful yet warm, personable, directly interacting with what is created. Of course I can. The Greek stories extend back even further than most of the Bible stories, and definitely deal with a variety of topics and moral themes, from Aesop's fables to the stories of Pandora and Hector and the birth of Apollo.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi, EMA.You seem to be getting pretty worked up about this. Please chill out and learn to recognize neutrality when you see it. I’m sorry that I misled you. I used the word evolutionist out of habit, because a lot of non-evolutionists and theists get worked up when I use the word scientist to refer to people on one side of the debate, and not the other; and I certainly wasn’t going to say atheists, because that generally results in my being mistaken for an atheist myself.----- There must be some miscommunication here, because what you just wrote is not contrary to what I just wrote before that.----- You obviously aren’t understanding what the heuristic I referred to is.
The heuristic can only be used to tentatively accept the non-existence of something. It is only used when the existence of something cannot be demonstrated.Tentative rejection of something is not a claim of the absence of that something.It’s true that, if, after a long time, the side with the positive claim still fails to demonstrate their claim, then the side tentatively rejecting the claim may become less and less tentative about their rejection, but why should you expect anything different from that?----- So, you believe that, since you have failed for decades to produce evidence for your claim, that the burden of proof is somehow lifted from you and transferred to your opponents, all because your inability to demonstrate your claim has led to their becoming less and less tentative about rejecting your claim?Does this really make sense to you, EMA? Honestly?I’ll give it another try, but, since this is getting farther from our topic, I will either not pursue it further or attempt to rein it back into the topic with any subsequent responses:A negative claim is actually no claim at all.The sides look like this: Theist: I propose that God is responsible for X. Atheist: I don’t propose that God is responsible for X.That’s what I’ve erroneously referred to as a negative claim: it’s the complete lack of a claim.Science makes all kinds of claims that are meant to explain some particular phenomenon X, but Atheism does not make any claims at all. Atheism is defined by its rejection of a claim, not by any claim that it has actually made itself.So, rejection of a claim that has failed to be demonstrated does not amount to a claim in the opposite direction.It doesn’t make sense to ask somebody to support a claim that they never made.Edited by Bluejay, : "the their" is not acceptable grammar

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

But this is manifestly not the case. For example, the Samaritan canon does not include any of the Gospels, which some might think quite important.This is why people with different canons also have different religions.To take another example, the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is said to be based on a proof-text from the Apocrypha: "he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin". Er ... no.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Ill resate my case again and maybe this time you will pay attention to it.The God of the Bible is described and follows what logic would dictate concerning his make-up. The things you describe are from your imagination.it stands to reason that inspiration would reveal him as such.perhaps you could defend your case with scripture instead of assertion Yes by a few writers not dealing withthe same issues, even the ones concerning the nature of God. The are riddled with inconsistency and stupidity concerning morals. the Gods themselves of that nonsense are a logical andmoral jokePlease try again or be specific.I think you know why we dont discuss that nonsense. atleast the book of Mormon attempts legitimacy but it fails in historicity and thats why we discuss neither here.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Not at all. What of my verbage would suggest it ok wrong, I do Thats why its faulty. One can easily and lgically demonstrate the existence of God I know. Evolution follows this same principle. You can only demonstrate the probable reality of it, you cant show me evolution, yet you believe firmly that it happened, correct? Diddo. thats why I accept a old universe and earth and reject biological evolution. Or perhaps you would like to show me what happened 10 to 60 million years ago. Now remember Im not looking for tentative deducted information, I wont to see it HAAPENING BACK THENI think you see your ugly ass delimma, correct?What you speak so confidently about in your methodology, falls prey to the same limitations. You couldnt actually demonstrate biological evolution from the begining, but you believe it without question.Why?My method of demonstrating the existence of God, his word and his MEANINGS is just as acurate and you know itDawn Bertot-----Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Oh boy! Oh boy! Oh boy! Finally, after all these miserable failures!!!!!Let's see it! I really would like to see this!

Ah, you have to love the neophite. while it is true that the bible was not always in one place all together at the same time, the knowledge contained in the Gospels, acts and epistles was made known by verbal inspiration, oral tradition and gifts of inspiration.Until such time as inspiration brought that knowledge into one canon.Secondly, a person does not need to have and possess every moral principle set out in the Word of God, to be a child of GodAt times some had more than others, but that is not the point. The point is that it is consistent in its teachings and meanings, idicating inspirational involvement wrong. as the prolific Guy N Woods demonstrates, there was a time in the past when a group or groups of people rejected Gods initial words and decided to go thier own direction. This sets in motion and opens the door for misrepresentation and confusion.there was a time when the truth or morals were known from God absolutley, rejection of that knowledge set up the confusion and discord Inspired or not, that passage when taken into consideration with what the entire scriptures says will demonstrate that the writer is not speaking about an imaginary place called prugatory. he doesnt even suggest that idea.Notice that catholicism extrapolates that idea from the writerDawn bertot