|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2729 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 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Yes the Greek and Norse mythology has the same and actually fat better continuity than the Bible. 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
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. Regardless of who accepted what at any given time, the themes of those will be practically the same in content
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. 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 point Secondly and on topic the scriptures themes of meaning and purpose conform more to reality that any nonsense in greek mythology You 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 purposes Since 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 Bible In 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 mormon Anyone that cannot see a vast distinction between the Bible and those writings is not paying very close attention 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 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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. 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
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. 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 joke Please 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 Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
You seem to be getting pretty worked up about this. Please chill out and learn to recognize neutrality when you see it. Not at all. What of my verbage would suggest 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. ok
You obviously aren’t understanding what the heuristic I referred to is. wrong, I do
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. Thats why its faulty. One can easily and lgically demonstrate the existence of God
Tentative rejection of something is not a claim of the absence of that something. 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?
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? 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 THEN I 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 it Dawn Bertot ----- Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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. 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 God At 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
This is why people with different canons also have different religions. 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
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". 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 writer Dawn bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Oh boy! Oh boy! Oh boy! Finally, after all these miserable failures!!!!!
Let's see it! I really would like to see this!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Oh boy! Oh boy! Oh boy! Finally, after all these miserable failures!!!!! Let's see it! I really would like to see this! Your excitability is premature because its preceeded by an assumed and possibly false presuposition. Arent you assuming they were failured attempts. Give me an example of one of these failed attempts in argument form and lest see if its a failure, before I rehash old stuff Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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? When did I or others fail to demonstrate in logical and rational form against reality itself, the existence of God. Your starting from a false presuppositon and then trying to conclude that my insistence that you demonstrate why it is a false claim and why the evidence it is based on is not sound, is not a rational way to proceed. demonstrate the evidence is not sound, then you can claim the positive positon has no valid reason for making and maintainig the claim. not seeing God directly, is not the same as demonstrating the evidence is not sound., it is Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
sorry pouble dost
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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? When did I or others fail to demonstrate in logical and rational form against reality itself, the existence of God. Your starting from a false presuppositon and then trying to conclude that my insistence that you demonstrate why it is a false claim and why the evidence it is based on is not sound, is not a rational way to proceed. demonstrate the evidence is not sound, then you can claim the positive positon has no valid reason for making and maintainig the claim. not seeing God directly, is not the same as demonstrating the evidence is not sound., it is
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. And it doesnt make sense to to say someone is not making a claim when they spent countless hours and argumentation trying to refute what positive evidence is clearly presented. Come on Bluejay grow up mentally, dont buy into that sort of nonsensical lack of reasoning. Ill try againI dont mean to be cruel but this type of resoning is whyi believe you are where you are at in your thinking Bluejay Never in my days have i see such simple things twisted to the point of absurdity. Rejection of a claim is still a claim, its has an obligation to demonstrate the deficiency in any sound logical argument that pits its self against reason and reality itself Saying its not a claim doesnt make it not a claim. developing some nonsensical verbage to make it not a claim, does not make it not a claim. its claim is not that the being does not exists, but that the positive side has failed to demonstrated it. Yet the arguments and evidence are as valid as ever. yet on your line of reasoning about claimsand on this premise alone we may reject any so-called evidence to support evoluion or its tenative conclusions, because they have falied to demonstrate it you dont follow that line of reasoning for evolution, why would you interject it in any other logical argument Dawn Bertot Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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? When did I or others fail to demonstrate in logical and rational form against reality itself, the existence of God. Your starting from a false presuppositon and then trying to conclude that my insistence that you demonstrate why it is a false claim and why the evidence it is based on is not sound, is not a rational way to proceed. demonstrate the evidence is not sound, then you can claim the positive positon has no valid reason for making and maintainig the claim. not seeing God directly, is not the same as demonstrating the evidence is not sound., it is
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. And it doesnt make sense to to say someone is not making a claim when they spent countless hours and argumentation trying to refute what positive evidence is clearly presented. Come on Bluejay grow up mentally, dont buy into that sort of nonsensical lack of reasoning. Ill try againI dont mean to be cruel but this type of resoning is whyi believe you are where you are at in your thinking Bluejay Never in my days have i see such simple things twisted to the point of absurdity. Rejection of a claim is still a claim, its has an obligation to demonstrate the deficiency in any sound logical argument that pits its self against reason and reality itself Saying its not a claim doesnt make it not a claim. developing some nonsensical verbage to make it not a claim, does not make it not a claim. its claim is not that the being does not exists, but that the positive side has failed to demonstrated it. Yet the arguments and evidence are as valid as ever. yet on your line of reasoning about claimsand on this premise alone we may reject any so-called evidence to support evoluion or its tenative conclusions, because they have falied to demonstrate it you dont follow that line of reasoning for evolution, why would you interject it in any other logical argument. You believe evolution is true and demonstrateable based on what you consider evidence, yet cannot show any person the actual past evenst of the actual so-called events that you believe took place But according to your line of reasoning about evidence, it would amount to no evidence and it not being demonstratable. its seems this line of reasoning almost forces you to take a side, not about atheism or theism but this strawman of and argument about evidence, claims and meaning Dawn Bertot Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Are you ducking my request? 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 Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Hi, Dawn. You'll notice that I was actually responding to EMA. sorry for the confusion I am EAM/DAWN BERTOT
This is, of course, all moot if you are actually EMA using a different name now (which I’m pretty sure is against forum policy). That was not intentional. When I go to use my lab top at another location, I couldnt get my password to work and when i requested my password to it said it was sent but I could never find it or it wouldnt work. I have very little patience with technical nusances db Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
EMA has, since the beginning of this thread, avoided any attempts to demonstrate this, and has simply insisted that his opponents demonstrate the contrary. In fact, as far as I can tell, you haven’t attempted to demonstrate it yet, either. So, I’d say that both of you have failed for at least the duration of this thread to demonstrate the existence of God or of a God-given meaning of life. True, this doesn’t justify my comment about decades of failure (that was me once again inappropriately linking this debate with the Intelligent Design debate), so you can disregard the "decades" part. yowe are fine with presenting evidence to support the existence of God if the same rules are applied to that line of reasoning which is applied say to the concept of biological evolution. To demonstrate my point i will ask you a simple question.Is biological evolution a demonstratable fact, yes or no. if yes, what rules of evidence would you put forth to suggest it is actually a demonstratable fact, since we did not and cannot see it actually happening lets see what your rules of evidence are, notice i did not say evidence but rules of evidence. How will you proceed to demonstrate to me that which you absolutley believe and believe you can demonstrate. i submit you dont understand what rules of proceeding or what constitutes actual evidence My point is that we are not avoiding answering or demonstrating anything, but to demonstrate that you have a whole set of rules for yourself and then one for us, in a weak attempt to show we can not demonstrate our points first things first Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024