Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,642 Year: 4,899/9,624 Month: 247/427 Week: 57/103 Day: 1/14 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheists can't hold office in the USA?
Straggler
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 751 of 777 (751677)
03-04-2015 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 750 by New Cat's Eye
03-04-2015 6:49 PM


Re: Genericness
You aren't accepting an alternative definition if you are objecting to its use.
Look up the term duende on wiki re the genericness of leprechaun concepts to which Sam is suggesting you should apply the blind man and the elephant approach (as you say should be done to gods)
If you honestly have no idea about the properties this thing you believe in has how do you know it is a "god"? Why does your belief in this thing make you a theist rather than a something-ist?
Wouldn't it be fucking ironic if you had spent an entire thread admonishing someone for applying a definition of "atheist" that is not the most common one whilst simultaneously basing your own theistic defence on your own personal definition (or denial of any definition at all) of the term "god".....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 750 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-04-2015 6:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 752 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-04-2015 11:27 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 752 of 777 (751697)
03-04-2015 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 751 by Straggler
03-04-2015 7:06 PM


Re: Genericness
You aren't accepting an alternative definition if you are objecting to its use.
Only if through my objection I do not permit its use.
I've always accepted the alternative, I've been saying that I think there is a better way.
When someone says that my way can't be better because it is wrong and can't be that way, then that is what you should be calling insisting.
Earlier when I admitted that I was objecting, I meant in the sense of arguing for a better way rather than refusing to accept the alternative. I've even wrote that explicitly a few times beforehand.
So drop it.
Look up the term duende on wiki re the genericness of leprechaun concepts to which Sam is suggesting you should apply the blind man and the elephant approach (as you say should be done to gods)
Okay, I can see where he's coming from.
I wouldn't rule out the concept of the duende as describing something that is actually an effect of something that is real. I'm not convinced that it is, but I kinda think that there might actually be something funny going out there that people are noticing.
It doesn't have to be supernatural. It could even be technological, or extra-dimensional, or paranormal, etc.
I certainly won't agree that all those cultures that have this concept of some thing that can be described as a duende are describing an effect of something that is not real or that solely sprang from their imagination.
So which label does that get me?
If you honestly have no idea about the properties this thing you believe in has how do you know it is a "god"? Why does your belief in this thing make you a theist rather than a something-ist?
It is a "god" because that is the word we use to describe the concept I'm considering. I am convinced that there is a god (unlike the duende).
I don't know what qualities make something count as a god, but I'm pretty familiar with the qualities of the god that I believe in.
As the properties become more detailed and less generic, I find it easier to determine if I reject them or not. You sorta whittle away at it until you've got a (admittedly) shitty representation of a god. You're not too sure about the finer details, but you're starting to get a general idea.
Hell, I whittled it down to nothing many years ago. But over those years I kept noticing more wood growing up, I've keep whittling away at it more, but I gotta admit that there's something there. There's some weird shit that goes on, and some of it is pretty convincing.
Sometimes you realize that we're not really on to everything, and other times you think that maybe those ancient people were on to something.
So as you add more qualities to the duende, it makes it easier for me to reject it. Like I've done with the leprechaun. That ain't right, those aren't real. Those guys might be on to something that is, but they're wrong that it has the properties of a leprechaun.
If I saw one I'd figure it was some alien technology, or something like that. I know they don't sit at the end of rainbows ('cause those don't touch the ground).
Wouldn't it be fucking ironic if you had spent an entire thread admonishing someone for applying a definition of "atheist" that is not the most common one whilst simultaneously basing your own theistic defence on your own personal definition (or denial of any definition at all) of the term "god".....
Admonishing? For applying a definition?
Not at all. I did strongly deny an insistence.
And my "personal definition" can be accurately described with the term god.
Edited by Cat Sci, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 751 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2015 7:06 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 753 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2015 9:53 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 753 of 777 (751736)
03-05-2015 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 752 by New Cat's Eye
03-04-2015 11:27 PM


Re: Genericness
CS writes:
Only if through my objection I do not permit its use.
Neither you nor anyone else are in any position to permit other people from using whatever terminology they want. What the hell are you going to do if they refuse to adhere to your preferred definition? Admonish them? So permit is a rather stupid qualification. But saying you accept an alternative definition whilst simultaneously objecting to it’s use in all practical instances is no different in any practical sense from insisting that your preferred definition is used. You are splitting hairs in order to sound reasonable whilst actually being entirely stubborn.
If you want to see what genuine acceptance of the different uses of terminology looks like you could do worse than look at AZPaul’s posts in this thread.
Anyway — None of that semantic waffle is half as interesting as this notion of genericising we are slowly moving onto.
CS writes:
.. something that is not real or that solely sprang from their imagination..
For the record — The things humans invent are invariably based on something. Myths don’t spring forth from imagination alone. Nobody is claiming that. But what people do undeniably do is extrapolate and mystify their experiences. It's not so much pure invention as embellishment, misinterpretation and wishful thinking over-laden on top of relatively mundane observations and perceptions. E.g. A bear sighting gets reported as an encounter with the abominable snowman. That sort of thing.
CS writes:
I certainly won't agree that all those cultures that have this concept of something that can be described as a duende are describing an effect of something that is not real or that solely sprang from their imagination. So which label does that get me?
That is Sam’s approach and he unashamedly describes himself as a leprechaun-ist. Personally I would suggest that a something-ist might be more appropriate
CS writes:
It is a "god" because that is the word we use to describe the concept I'm considering.
Well is it? That is the question here isn’t it? If the thing in question becomes so generic and so undefined and so ambiguous that it fails to comply with any common definition of god, or leprechaun for that matter, then can belief in that something really qualify one as a leprechaun-ist or a theist?
CS writes:
And my "personal definition" can be accurately described with the term god.
What definition of god are you applying and how does the concept you believe in comply with that definition such that it can claim to be accurately described by that definition?
If the concept you have in mind doesn’t match any common definition of god then it’s difficult to see how you are a theist by any common definition either.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 752 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-04-2015 11:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 755 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2015 12:00 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 754 of 777 (751744)
03-05-2015 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 750 by New Cat's Eye
03-04-2015 6:49 PM


Re: Genericness
Straggler writes:
You seem to have completely ignored the generic evidence that pertains to the made-up-ness of generic gods. Namely the evidence that humans are inclined to invent such concepts in general rather than the specific reasons that specific entities are invented (which you seem to largely accept).
CS writes:
What makes it seem that way?
This:
quote:
I don't reject the Easter Bunny just because it is unevidenced. I reject it because of all the evidence that we have that shows that it is not real.
Not all gods are in that exact same category - where we have a bunch of evidence showing that they are not real.
My point being that you seem very selective in your acceptance of evidence in favour of human invention as pertaining to whether things are real or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 750 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-04-2015 6:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 756 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2015 12:02 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 755 of 777 (751750)
03-05-2015 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 753 by Straggler
03-05-2015 9:53 AM


Re: Genericness
CS writes:
It is a "god" because that is the word we use to describe the concept I'm considering.
Well is it?
Yes. There's enough details to my personal concept of god for you to rationally reject it.
You'd certainly be an atheist to my version of god, and for good reason. I don't have a problem with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 753 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2015 9:53 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 757 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2015 12:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 756 of 777 (751752)
03-05-2015 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 754 by Straggler
03-05-2015 11:20 AM


Re: Genericness
My point being that you seem very selective in your acceptance of evidence in favour of human invention as pertaining to whether things are real or not.
The selection criteria depends on the details that I can extract from the concept.
Without much info, its hard to determine that it was human invention.
As you get more details, it gets easier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 754 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2015 11:20 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 760 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2015 2:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 757 of 777 (751754)
03-05-2015 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 755 by New Cat's Eye
03-05-2015 12:00 PM


Re: Genericness
CS writes:
There's enough details to my personal concept of god for you to rationally reject it.
Such as?
At the moment I can't see how anything other than ignosticism can be applied, because so far there is no concept to consider and any expression of belief or disbelief, from either of us, in such a non-concept is incoherent, non-cognitive and entirely meaningless.
At the moment you might as well express your belief in the existence of something and classify yourself as a something-ist.
CS writes:
I don't have a problem with that.
Here is the problem I do have. You have spent an entire thread protesting against a use of the term "atheist" that doesn't adhere to common usage. Apparently in the name of clarity. Yet when it comes to describing yourself as a "theist" common usage and clarity go out the window and you apparently qualify by your belief in something which is only a "god" by virtue of your own private definitions.
The hypocrisy burns!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 755 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2015 12:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 758 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2015 12:55 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 758 of 777 (751757)
03-05-2015 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 757 by Straggler
03-05-2015 12:19 PM


Re: Genericness
Yet when it comes to describing yourself as a "theist" common usage and clarity go out the window and you apparently qualify by your belief in something which is only a "god" by virtue of your own private definitions.
If you really care that much about my views on god, then you can just use the Christian God as a adequate surrogate. Although, when pressed on the finer details, I'll probably back off a bit. It depends.
But don't take my reluctance to share my personal beliefs as an indication of those details not existing.
They're there, I'm just not willing to be that open about them.
The hypocrisy burns!!!
You're trying awefully hard to make me out to being hypocritical, even going so far as to saying that I'm taking positions that I never have.
Stop lying about me, dick.
At the moment I can't see how anything other than ignosticism can be applied, because so far there is no concept to consider and any expression of belief or disbelief, from either of us, in such a non-concept is incoherent, non-cognitive and entirely meaningless.
That's fine. This hasn't ever been about my own personal beliefs in god. What made you think that it was?
At the moment you might as well express your belief in the existence of something and classify yourself as a something-ist.
But I do believe in god, I just don't care to share the particulars of those beliefs with you.
I've be approaching this topic on the concept of god in general, not on my own specific beliefs about god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 757 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2015 12:19 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 759 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2015 2:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 759 of 777 (751762)
03-05-2015 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 758 by New Cat's Eye
03-05-2015 12:55 PM


Re: Genericness
CS writes:
But I do believe in god, I just don't care to share the particulars of those beliefs with you.
In terms of common usage and clarity - The things you have insisted upon with regards to defining the term "atheist" - This is a an incredibly weak and hypocritical position.
It amounts to saying that you define yourself as a "theist" because you believe in something that you personally define as a "god". And that everyone else should just accept those definitions.
CS writes:
I've be approaching this topic on the concept of god in general, not on my own specific beliefs about god.
Then tell us about this "god in general".
What properties does it possess?
What qualities does it have such that it qualifies as a "god"?
What does one have to believe in to qualify as a "theist"?
If you the object of your belief does not meet those criteria on what basis are you are "theist"?
You wanted common usage and clarity to be the overriding factors in defining the term "atheist". All I am doing is requiring the same of the term "theist".
Apparently you don't like that approach....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 758 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2015 12:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 761 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2015 2:59 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 760 of 777 (751763)
03-05-2015 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 756 by New Cat's Eye
03-05-2015 12:02 PM


Re: Genericness
CS writes:
The selection criteria depends on the details that I can extract from the concept.
My criteria depends on the evidence in favour of a concept being a human invention.
Tell me where I am going wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 756 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2015 12:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 762 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2015 3:00 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 761 of 777 (751767)
03-05-2015 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 759 by Straggler
03-05-2015 2:34 PM


Re: Genericness
CS writes:
But I do believe in god, I just don't care to share the particulars of those beliefs with you.
In terms of common usage and clarity - The things you have insisted upon with regards to defining the term "atheist" - This is a an incredibly weak and hypocritical position.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
What does my critique of the usages of the term "atheist" have at all to do with sharing the particulars of my beliefs in god?
We haven't been talking about the god that I believe in. We've been talking about the usage and definition of the term "atheist".
You're really grasping at straws to make me look like I've done something wrong here and you're being a real prick about it.
It amounts to saying that you define yourself as a "theist" because you believe in something that you personally define as a "god". And that everyone else should just accept those definitions.
Where have I said anything remotely close to that?
And why are you making up bullshit about me? I'm just about ready to blacklist your ass. You'll notice when I go from replying to acknowledging.
CS writes:
I've be approaching this topic on the concept of god in general, not on my own specific beliefs about god.
Then tell us about this "god in general".
What properties does it possess?
What qualities does it have such that it qualifies as a "god"?
What does one have to believe in to qualify as a "theist"?
For considering what is a god in general, I don't really know the answers to those questions.
And how would anyone know, anyways?
Or are you just talking about how the word should be defined? Aren't you on the internet? Look that shit up:
quote:
In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[1] The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, while in deism, God is the creator, but not the sustainer, of the universe. Monotheism is the belief in the existence of one God or in the oneness of God. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. In atheism, God is purported not to exist, while God is deemed unknown or unknowable within the context of agnosticism. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1] Many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers have developed arguments for and against the existence of God.[2]
Geez.
If you the object of your belief does not meet those criteria on what basis are you are "theist"?
The object of my belief has properties in common with what the term "god" is used to describe.
That's the word that people use to describe the thing that I'm talking about.
You wanted common usage and clarity to be the overriding factors in defining the term "atheist".
As I explained, I think that my usage works better. It describes all the different positions better, and it doesn't leave out a group of people like the alternative did.
All I am doing is requiring the same of the term "theist".
Not in the slightest. How is what you are doing anything like what I have done in this thread?
Apparently you don't like that approach....
What I don't like is you lying about me. Stop it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 759 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2015 2:34 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 764 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2015 6:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 766 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2015 6:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 767 by dronestar, posted 03-06-2015 10:42 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 762 of 777 (751768)
03-05-2015 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 760 by Straggler
03-05-2015 2:36 PM


Re: Genericness
CS writes:
The selection criteria depends on the details that I can extract from the concept.
My criteria depends on the evidence in favour of a concept being a human invention.
Tell me where I am going wrong?
You lost me. What are you talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 760 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2015 2:36 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 765 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2015 6:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 763 of 777 (751778)
03-05-2015 3:49 PM


Where is bluegenes?

- xongsmith, 5.7d

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 764 of 777 (751787)
03-05-2015 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 761 by New Cat's Eye
03-05-2015 2:59 PM


Re: Genericness
So from all of that we can conclude that you are a "theist" because you believe in a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent eternal being who is the creator and sustainer of the universe. As per the definition of "god" you have supplied.
If you are going to argue that "common usage" should define the term "atheist" then surely the term "theist" and the term "god" should subject to the same criteria.
So Lets abandon this "generic" nonsense shall we?
CS writes:
We haven't been talking about the god that I believe in
You put yourself forward as an example of a theist in this thread. Message 132
You put yourself forward as an example of a theist in a conversation where the terms atheist, theist and god are being defined and now you are protesting when the definitions in question are applied to you.....?
Don't play the personal-belief-hurt-sensibilities card.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 761 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2015 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 765 of 777 (751788)
03-05-2015 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 762 by New Cat's Eye
03-05-2015 3:00 PM


Re: Genericness
Tell us what evidence you have that the Easter Bunny is not real.
Then tell us if you accept that there is any evidence that "generic" gods are not real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 762 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-05-2015 3:00 PM New Cat's Eye 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