Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The meaning of "meaning"
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 91 of 152 (574771)
08-17-2010 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Blue Jay
08-17-2010 9:52 AM


Re: Purpose
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Blue Jay, posted 08-17-2010 9:52 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-17-2010 7:56 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 98 by Blue Jay, posted 08-18-2010 11:40 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 99 by bluescat48, posted 08-18-2010 2:28 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 92 of 152 (574779)
08-17-2010 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dawn Bertot
08-17-2010 7:25 PM


Re: Purpose
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-17-2010 7:25 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-17-2010 8:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 93 of 152 (574782)
08-17-2010 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dr Adequate
08-17-2010 7:56 PM


Re: Purpose
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-17-2010 7:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-17-2010 8:04 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 94 of 152 (574783)
08-17-2010 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Dawn Bertot
08-17-2010 8:01 PM


Re: Purpose
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-17-2010 8:01 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 95 of 152 (574785)
08-17-2010 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Dawn Bertot
08-17-2010 6:22 PM


Re: Purpose
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-17-2010 6:22 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-18-2010 10:45 AM Woodsy has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 96 of 152 (574904)
08-18-2010 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Woodsy
08-17-2010 8:19 PM


Re: Purpose
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Woodsy, posted 08-17-2010 8:19 PM Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Woodsy, posted 08-18-2010 11:26 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 97 of 152 (574911)
08-18-2010 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Dawn Bertot
08-18-2010 10:45 AM


Re: Purpose
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-18-2010 10:45 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-20-2010 11:48 AM Woodsy has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 98 of 152 (574913)
08-18-2010 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dawn Bertot
08-17-2010 7:25 PM


Re: Purpose
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-17-2010 7:25 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 99 of 152 (574941)
08-18-2010 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dawn Bertot
08-17-2010 7:25 PM


Re: Purpose
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-17-2010 7:25 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-20-2010 12:03 PM bluescat48 has replied

shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 100 of 152 (575459)
08-20-2010 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blue Jay
08-05-2010 2:37 AM


53 everything which has a purpose, necessarily has a cause...
I AM that I AM
so 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blue Jay, posted 08-05-2010 2:37 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 101 of 152 (575538)
08-20-2010 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Woodsy
08-18-2010 11:26 AM


Re: Purpose
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Woodsy, posted 08-18-2010 11:26 AM Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by jar, posted 08-20-2010 12:40 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 104 by Woodsy, posted 08-20-2010 12:44 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 102 of 152 (575543)
08-20-2010 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by bluescat48
08-18-2010 2:28 PM


Re: Purpose
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by bluescat48, posted 08-18-2010 2:28 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by bluescat48, posted 08-20-2010 5:33 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 103 of 152 (575550)
08-20-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dawn Bertot
08-20-2010 11:48 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-23-2010 8:32 PM jar has replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 104 of 152 (575551)
08-20-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dawn Bertot
08-20-2010 11:48 AM


Re: Purpose
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-20-2010 11:48 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-23-2010 8:59 PM Woodsy has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 105 of 152 (575657)
08-20-2010 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Dawn Bertot
08-20-2010 12:03 PM


Re: Purpose
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Dawn Bertot, posted 08-20-2010 12:03 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024