The personal introduction part is probably over. Yes, on to theistic evolution or the lack thereof, and probably wherever else the topic goes. Somewhere along the line I'll get a better topic title on it.
Please re-open. My reply to Straggler's message, Message 371 is as follows. I've been on the road, and still am and will continue to be, and things move really fast here... Please just paste my reply there if and when if gets re-opened:
Well it has been an uphill struggle but DA tipped it over the point of no return.
Because he's exposing your position as the untenable one?
Then you will be delighted to hear that this is not what I am doing.
Huh? Or is that right because your's is the "independent" one?
Hmmm. Whose classification are you imposing?
The generally accepted one that everyone else is using who is trying to tell you how retarded your's is.
Explain to me why it is "stupid" to suggest that we can apply a religion-independent use of the term "god" when objectively analysing the beliefs of biblical Christians? A religion-independent use of the term god that you yourself have applied on numerous occasions.
Because I'm using a super-set and you're using a sub-set. Its stupid because you're using your sub-set to encompasss the super-set, while I'm using the super-set to encompass the sub-set, like its supposed to be.
I guess that makes your responses "frivolous" then. For once it seems that we agree.
When has being frivolous ever stopped me? Examples please
Bob, delighted with his self defined atheist status (all the cool kids at school are atheists). takes you at your word and goes off to one of Dawkin's atheist camps full of confidence.
There he confidently reveals his belief in the one true glod knowing that he will find common conceptual ground with his fellow atheists.
Needless to say things don't work out too well for Bob.......
Well that's just a big old fat non-sequitor, now isn't it?
After Bob's initial "not working out", he finds solice with the animist, the Buddihist and all the other spiritual atheists, then he realizes that the camp wasn't an "atheist" one after all, but a "materialist" one instead.
Then he sends his spirit guide to bitch-slap Straggler for being such a tard... lulz
Whoops, sorry for stepping on your toes. I thought you might have just briefly checked in when you posted a little while ago, and since I have a meeting coming up and couldn't stick around I reopened it. I'm stepping aside, please carry on.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?control=msg&m=571741 I would have thought that the point was that it is simply not possible because it relies on a subjective judgement of real and fake. There is no empirical yardstick available to measure validity in matters of faith. Indeed faith is belief without or even inspite of evidence, so it follows that no religious faith can be validated or classified as 'genuine' or 'fake', because evidence is not an accepted measure and any other measure is inevitably subjective or arbitrary or both. Religion is inherently non-rational or irrational and to attempt to apply a rational measure of validity to such is a category error. Any non-rational measure is, by definition, not subject to validation.
My case is this, since Bluejay has abandoned the thread it was my attempt to demonstrate meaning by purpose of evidence available, and the rules of evidence, which guides ones decisions in determining what is reasonable and acceptable as factual
I think we are proceeding along that line, if it is possible to reopen it, we can work twords that goal
My case is this, since Bluejay has abandoned the thread...
I would like to point out that I didn't actually abandon the thread: I refused to respond to your proposed off-topic discussion about the meaning of the word "Atheist."
I sent you an ultimatum (Message 98) about the topic I wanted to discuss, and you failed to respond and got distracted by other discussions with other posters. So, from my perspective, it rather feels like you abandoned it.
If you would like to resume the original discussion, I will be happy to rejoin you in a few weeks, after my qualifying exams are over and I will be able to spend some time on it.
To make the moderators' job easier, here is a link to the thread--- The meaning of "meaning"---just in case you decide to reopen it (though I submit that EMA's proposed line of discussion should be taken up on a new thread).
Since Bluejay has not abandoned the thread and agrees that your line of discussion is not in line with the thread topic, I'm not inclined to reopen the thread so that you can continue your own line of discussion.
I suggest if you wish to continue that line of discussion, you propose a new thread.
The thread will stay closed unless someone does make a case for reopening it to discuss the meaning of meaning as presented in the thread's OP.