|
Author
|
Topic: The meaning of "meaning"
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 7 of 152 (572382)
08-05-2010 2:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by nwr
08-05-2010 1:47 PM
|
|
nwr writes: When marc9000 suggests that atheism is a philosophy of meaninglessness (in several of his posts in Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.), he seems to be going with the use of "meaning" as "purpose." And seems to be suggesting that he is so handicapped that he is unable to give his own life any purpose or meaning. It is sad and pitiful, but does seem to be a common handicap.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by nwr, posted 08-05-2010 1:47 PM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 08-05-2010 2:10 PM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 33 of 152 (572657)
08-06-2010 10:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 32 by marc9000
08-06-2010 10:46 PM
|
|
And what is it that keeps atheists from giving their lives meaning?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by marc9000, posted 08-06-2010 10:46 PM | | marc9000 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: What is the meaning of whatever EMA is saying?
EMA writes: If a specifc revelation is made in the form of Christ and scripture (Gods word), what would not be specific enough in its meaning and purpose for meaning overall If a specific revelation is made in the form of Mowgli and Kaa's Hunting (Kipling's word), what would not be specific enough in its meaning and purpose for meaning overall? If a specific revelation is made in the form of the Red Queen and Alice in Wonderland (Dodgson's word), what would not be specific enough in its meaning and purpose for meaning overall?
quote:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 55 of 152 (573534)
08-11-2010 7:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 53 by sac51495
08-11-2010 7:20 PM
|
|
Re: Purpose
sac51495 writes: Well let me first answer the question that you asked in the first place: the purpose of the universe is to bring glory to God as its Creator, through the power of His Word; and as humans, our purpose is to bring glory to God: What a pitiful purpose and even more pitiful god. What a small picayune god that it requires humans to bring it glory.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by sac51495, posted 08-11-2010 7:20 PM | | sac51495 has seen this message but not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: What is the meaning of whatever EMA is saying?
EMA writes: jar writes: If a specific revelation is made in the form of Mowgli and Kaa's Hunting (Kipling's word), what would not be specific enough in its meaning and purpose for meaning overall? If a specific revelation is made in the form of the Red Queen and Alice in Wonderland (Dodgson's word), what would not be specific enough in its meaning and purpose for meaning overall? The actual evidence of course Back to ground zero. What would the specific and exhaustive evidence suggest. Would it suggest or indicate that the characters you present are actual and should be trusted as real or believable in any serious way, I doubt it. On the other hand there is nearly every reason to suggest that the scriptures are what they say they are, or atleast we dont start with a belief that such things are just made up after an examination of the evidence at hand. Any thinking person could see the difference EAM What evidence at hand? How is the Bible different than The Jungle Books? How is the Bible different than Alice in Wonderland? One answer is that those two, the Jungle Books and Alice in Wonderland, at least do have a known author while with the possible exception of Paul (a person totally undocumented outside the Bible itself) there are no known authors, editors or redactors for the Bible. Can we not learn meaning from the Jungle Books? I know that I did. Can we not learn meaning from Alice in Wonderland? I know I did. Is there some reason I should trust the meaning and lessons learned from Alice and Mowgli any more or less than the lessons learned from Peter or Paul? Scripture does not mean the Bible; it means Inspired writings. Is there some reason to think that the Jungle Books and Alice in Wonderland are not inspired?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-12-2010 12:31 PM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: What is the meaning of whatever EMA is saying?
Dawn Bertot writes: jar writes: What evidence at hand? How is the Bible different than The Jungle Books? How is the Bible different than Alice in Wonderland? Youll understand if I dont entertain, nonsensical statements and comments I'll understand why you don't answer questions.
Dawn Bertot writes: jar writes: Is there some reason to think that the Jungle Books and Alice in Wonderland are not inspired? Where in thier works do they claim inspiration from God. that should be your first clue 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!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 63 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-14-2010 11:05 AM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: What is the meaning of whatever EMA is saying?
Dawn Bertot writes: 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. Which author. Which story? What truth? Those are all pretty much unknowns right now. But those same questions apply to all literature.
Dawn Bertot writes: 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 God Does 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 point 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!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-14-2010 11:43 AM | | Dawn Bertot has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: What is the meaning of whatever EMA is saying?
Dawn Bertot writes: 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. 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.
Dawn Bertot writes: 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 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!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 68 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-14-2010 12:13 PM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 87 of 152 (574692)
08-17-2010 10:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 82 by sac51495
08-17-2010 12:39 AM
|
|
Re: What is the meaning of whatever EMA is saying?
sac51495 writes: Consider this (and please do consider it): is a clay vessel defined by its potter, that is, is the vessel's shape and form determined by the potter? If so, can the potter define the vessel in such a way that the vessel (which the potter defined) can redefine the potter himself?...Answer these questions honestly, and then move on down.... nwr gave you a great answer but to show how absolutely irrelevant the question is, I will take the other side and say "Yes, what is created defines the creator." When we think about Titian or Degas or De La Tour what defines them is what they produced. When we think of Bartok or Bach or Jobim what defines them is what they created.
sac51495 writes: Are you not a creation of God: shaped, formed, and defined by His power, and His will? Can we then even hope to attempt to redefine God? Is not the endeavor hopeless? Will we then think that our human reasoning (which is a creation of God, NOT a creator of God) is powerful enough to define the very God who created us? Here you begin to approach the position I have been espousing for many decades. Let's see if you really understand what you are saying.
sac51495 writes: How does this relate to the topic? If God is nothing more than a creation of man, God cannot be the Creator of man. If God is not the Creator of man, then what is? Ultimately, it must be chance that "created" us. And, by definition, if chance created us, there can be no purpose, meaning, or significance to life (think about it for a little bit...consider...can chance bring a purpose? What are the characteristics of a purpose? Do these characteristics include origins-of-chance?...). Sadly, as I feared, you don't get it, you cannot even follow through with the line of logic and just wander off into nonsense and fallacies.
quote:
If God is not the Creator of man, then what is? Ultimately, it must be chance that "created" us.
Nonsense. That is like saying it was chance that makes salt form cubes or mica form plates. This is what science has taught us, that it is not simply chance that causes salt to make cubes and mica to form plates. Man too is not simply a matter of chance, but rather the evolution of life forms.
quote:
And, by definition, if chance created us, there can be no purpose, meaning, or significance to life (think about it for a little bit...consider...can chance bring a purpose?
Why couldn't chance bring a purpose? But even if what you said was true, why can't man give man a purpose?
sac51495 writes: But do you believe that God created us? If so, you must also believe that God defines man, not vice versa. You either believe that man defines God, or that God defines man. If God created man, then He gets to define man, and man cannot define God, that is, God's nature is not decided by our subjective experiences. I believe that GOD is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen. But I also know that man constantly and throughout history defines God. Just look at all the different gods man created in the just the Old Testament alone.
sac51495 writes: Or will you respond by saying that God is merely a myth, and that man creates God? If so, ask yourself: if God has not defined the universe, what has, if anything? If nothing has defined the universe, then what purpose can their be?... Again, you conflate issues. The universe is. It has no purpose. But that of course has nothing to do with me. I can have a purpose even though the universe has none.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 82 by sac51495, posted 08-17-2010 12:39 AM | | sac51495 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Purpose
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!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-20-2010 11:48 AM | | Dawn Bertot has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Purpose
Evolution is a fact. But you still did not answer the question. What should the rules of evidence be? Edited by jar, : hit wrong key
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Purpose
So once again you do not tell me what the rules of evidence should be.
But i did explain what those rules were, they are that which are reasonably and viably demonstratable, that which no real fact when all the information is in can reasonably refute, or show to be contrary I'm sorry but there are no rules of evidence in that statement.
How did you come to the conclusion thatevolution (biological macro evolution) and its claims, evidences and so-called evidence was a fact? I looked at the evidence that is the earth we live on. The oldest layers show no life, then simple life, then as we move to increasingly younger layers we find different life forms. Those are facts.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Purpose
when I say YOUR CONCLUSION concerning evo, i dont mean all the physical data, but the method of reasoning for its conclusions Yawn. I physically handled much of the evidence and it is the physical evidence that led to my conclusions. I laid out the data above.
Can I use the same rules and perponderances you did for my claims? how do my claims differ from your rules. LOL When you present some idea of what the rules should be we can discuss them but as of now you have avoided present what you think the rules of evidence should be.
But i did explain what those rules were, they are that which are reasonably and viably demonstratable, that which no real fact when all the information is in can reasonably refute, or show to be contrary Yes, you have repeated that word salad many times but there is no content or rules laid out in that statement.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Purpose
You really havent been doing this very long have you? Are you familiar with the term 'Wave of the hand debating', you cant simply assert there are no rules in my above statement, wave your hand and makeit go awayyou need to demonstrate why they are not obvious rules You would be laughed out and probably carried out of the polemic arena, were you in an actual live public debate Yawn.
Great now we are getting somewhere, so you used a rule of evidence, that made you conclude that a process may have happened in a certain way, but not knowing absolutley and conclusively, yet you still believe it happened in that way never actually having seen the actual events No, it did not use a rule of evidence. I just held a rock in my hand.
secondly, what does it do to your theory if these facts as you present them are contested in any serious fashion by other experts? are your facts then not facts? No, my facts would remain facts. Should someone present an alternative explanation then I would of course have to reexamine my conclusion but the facts would still remain facts.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Purpose
secondly, think deeper at present than any any physical aspect of what we are discussing, not the data but the method of reasoning in you logic that allowed your conclusions Deeper? Yawn. I held the evidence in my hands. The data is what drives the conclusions. It is the data. It really is that simple. Oldest rocks ---> no signs of life. Younger rocks ---> simple life still younger rocks ----> greater diversity of life forms as we move to younger and younger rocks we find life forms change, evolve. Data. Simply data. It really is that simple. Bring me the physical data.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
™ Version 4.2