A Question of Order
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-11-2012, 05:57 PM
RE: A Question of Order
(14-11-2012 03:26 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Am I the only one who noticed that rainbow icon, indicating either a joke or some kind of troll physics?
Is there a legend explaining the meanings of such symbols? Or is it part of some unwritten code?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2012, 06:18 PM
RE: A Question of Order
(14-11-2012 04:20 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(14-11-2012 01:07 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  It's kinda hard to say that something at the beginning of time had a preceding reason for it, but I'll move past that to my bigger complaint. God, as a figure of religious worship in the Abrahamic tradition (and, really, that's what we're talking about), is almost universally regarded as having some degree of sapience and sentience. Thinking, feeling (wrath, anyone?) having A Plan, so on and so on. That's the difference between a Creator versus a hitherto unknown stage in the history of the physical universe. So if you're going from a hypothetical cause preceding the big bang (which, as I said, I hold some skepticism regarding) to said cause having that additional quality of sapience... well, you'll have to come back and fetch me, because I'm not nearly athletic enough to leap that far.

Also, if anything (like the Big Bang) must have a cause, you have to address why some First Cause doesn't abide by that rule, or I get to scoff. I don't think you've used those words, but you are recycling the argument. Actually, you know what? Go ahead and let that slide. I'm good at scoffing, and it's fun.

And, hey, if we're just naming things we're pretty sure are there God just because we want God to exist, you are working WAY to hard for it. You want a proof that God exists? Here it is. Imagine I just got a rescue puppy home from the pound, who has now proceeded to paw, prance, and play a path into my pulsing pulmonaries. (And if you think that's too much of the letter "p", you should see the stains.) In a fit of dyslexia, I name this piddling pooch God. LO, GOD EXISTS! PROOF BY EXAMPLE! As a new convert, I shall present a daily tithe of kibble to my new household God, and sacrifice all my furniture on the altar of the Lord Puppy.
My argument is simply that any source that initiated the Universe, as prime mover, could be called God in terms of its creative power. Why not? As for the Abrahamic religion, the god in this instance was given its characteristics by the desert dwellers.
Your puppy analogy may work for you but it doesn't for me.
A mystical creative cosmic force, good, bad, or indifferent would belong to an entirely different domain to a piddling puppy, the likes of which are not rare by any means.

If you don't want a creative force, of some kind to have existed (exist) you would not be here. I am not obliged to give this force any characteristics, other than initial motivator, so why get upset and assume I am trying to?
I was trying to cover three bases there. You're sliding in for base 3, wherein we don't fret ourselves about qualities (such as spaience and sentience) and simply give something a name which is already in use elsewhere. (It's similar to base 1, where you are actually taking the God-concept, and attempting to prove it by discarding essential elements of it which the proof doesn't cover.) So I'll expand on the canine covering third base.

In general, when we use a word (especially such a historically divisive and inflammatory word as "God", and no, I'm not talking about atheists getting prissy over it), we want to use it only in a context in which it would be understood and where it conforms to general usage. We could, if we wished, one day decide to call anything made of wood "tree", even if it's actually, say, a bookshelf, or a table, or a billiard cue. This would be inadvisable, because (1) no one would have the first clue what we're talking about, and (2) they'd be pretty irked at us for confusing them once they figured it out.

Now, when I see God written as such -- singular, caps, no article -- I think of the monotheistic creator-deity of Judaism and its descendents, especially when that idea is linked to some Creator or prime mover. Go ahead, poll just about any audience on the subject, and if they're English-speaking most of 'em will figure the same thing. The problem is that this creator-deity concept is regarded as more than JUST prime mover. It already has characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, sentience, sapience, on and on ascribed to it. If you just decide that ANYTHING with the one quality of prime-mover (leaving aside the question of whether that quality exists in anything) should be called God, it's like calling a wooden spoon a tree. Yes, they're both made of wood, but that's not the only distinction to be drawn. My piddling pooch has different attributes (other than Creator) similar to the God-concept: receiving tribute and having the same letters in its name. And possibly emotional immaturity and wanton destruction. Calling that puppy God is JUST as silly as calling a non-sentient prime cause God, or calling a desk a tree.

I'm not saying you have to stop believing in some initial motivator. But I will suggest that you not call that thing God, unless you want to confuse the heckfire out of everyone. And then they'll get mad, because people get mad when they're confused without reason, and you'll have confused them by making a very bad word choice. Language is meant to communicate, so don't pick a word that confuses more than it communicates. At least, not unless you've got a very, VERY good reason for doing so... and if you do, you'll want to be quick to produce it in order to head off the mad.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2012, 10:29 PM
RE: A Question of Order
(14-11-2012 06:18 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(14-11-2012 04:20 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  My argument is simply that any source that initiated the Universe, as prime mover, could be called God in terms of its creative power. Why not? As for the Abrahamic religion, the god in this instance was given its characteristics by the desert dwellers.
Your puppy analogy may work for you but it doesn't for me.
A mystical creative cosmic force, good, bad, or indifferent would belong to an entirely different domain to a piddling puppy, the likes of which are not rare by any means.

If you don't want a creative force, of some kind to have existed (exist) you would not be here. I am not obliged to give this force any characteristics, other than initial motivator, so why get upset and assume I am trying to?
I was trying to cover three bases there. You're sliding in for base 3, wherein we don't fret ourselves about qualities (such as spaience and sentience) and simply give something a name which is already in use elsewhere. (It's similar to base 1, where you are actually taking the God-concept, and attempting to prove it by discarding essential elements of it which the proof doesn't cover.) So I'll expand on the canine covering third base.

In general, when we use a word (especially such a historically divisive and inflammatory word as "God", and no, I'm not talking about atheists getting prissy over it), we want to use it only in a context in which it would be understood and where it conforms to general usage. We could, if we wished, one day decide to call anything made of wood "tree", even if it's actually, say, a bookshelf, or a table, or a billiard cue. This would be inadvisable, because (1) no one would have the first clue what we're talking about, and (2) they'd be pretty irked at us for confusing them once they figured it out.

Now, when I see God written as such -- singular, caps, no article -- I think of the monotheistic creator-deity of Judaism and its descendents, especially when that idea is linked to some Creator or prime mover. Go ahead, poll just about any audience on the subject, and if they're English-speaking most of 'em will figure the same thing. The problem is that this creator-deity concept is regarded as more than JUST prime mover. It already has characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, sentience, sapience, on and on ascribed to it. If you just decide that ANYTHING with the one quality of prime-mover (leaving aside the question of whether that quality exists in anything) should be called God, it's like calling a wooden spoon a tree. Yes, they're both made of wood, but that's not the only distinction to be drawn. My piddling pooch has different attributes (other than Creator) similar to the God-concept: receiving tribute and having the same letters in its name. And possibly emotional immaturity and wanton destruction. Calling that puppy God is JUST as silly as calling a non-sentient prime cause God, or calling a desk a tree.

I'm not saying you have to stop believing in some initial motivator. But I will suggest that you not call that thing God, unless you want to confuse the heckfire out of everyone. And then they'll get mad, because people get mad when they're confused without reason, and you'll have confused them by making a very bad word choice. Language is meant to communicate, so don't pick a word that confuses more than it communicates. At least, not unless you've got a very, VERY good reason for doing so... and if you do, you'll want to be quick to produce it in order to head off the mad.
Why not call the prime motivator God? My word choice is the problem of readers who don't have to read what I say unless they want to. There is no comparison with calling a desk a tree. You are simply trying to trivialize what I say or just don't understand.

The issues debated in this forum, to my knowledge, relates to considerations pertaining to the God concept and all of the complexities relating to such. It is not about someone wanting to call a hat a chair or a bike a mouse, of something else ridiculous as you try to pretend.

Are you also adverse to members posting about the gods of Hinduism, Zarathusianism, Mazda, Baal, , Ahriman et al. There are many facets to atheism other than rubbishing Christianity

As the whole of humanity, as we know it, within our ability to reason, came from a seminal source, with many linking 'God' to nature......see Thank God for Evolution by Michael Dowd which is highly recommended by evolutionists and cosmologists. I will not change my terminology to suit you, even though this particular post is apparently seen fit for ridicule (the rainbow motif) by the moderators.

Argue over your own views to the varying types of morals directed gods, as espoused by theologians, but don't try and coerce people with oblique references, to play you at your game, whatever that might be, as it won't work with me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2012, 10:57 PM
RE: A Question of Order
(14-11-2012 05:42 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(14-11-2012 04:50 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  I think it is a mistake to restrict arguments relating to God to a strictly Judaeo/Christian perspective.

The OP believes in Jesus, ergo confining the god concept to YHWH is topical.
It is topical but by no means all embracing in terms of the big picture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2012, 07:53 AM
RE: A Question of Order
(14-11-2012 10:29 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(14-11-2012 06:18 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  I was trying to cover three bases there. You're sliding in for base 3, wherein we don't fret ourselves about qualities (such as spaience and sentience) and simply give something a name which is already in use elsewhere. (It's similar to base 1, where you are actually taking the God-concept, and attempting to prove it by discarding essential elements of it which the proof doesn't cover.) So I'll expand on the canine covering third base.

In general, when we use a word (especially such a historically divisive and inflammatory word as "God", and no, I'm not talking about atheists getting prissy over it), we want to use it only in a context in which it would be understood and where it conforms to general usage. We could, if we wished, one day decide to call anything made of wood "tree", even if it's actually, say, a bookshelf, or a table, or a billiard cue. This would be inadvisable, because (1) no one would have the first clue what we're talking about, and (2) they'd be pretty irked at us for confusing them once they figured it out.

Now, when I see God written as such -- singular, caps, no article -- I think of the monotheistic creator-deity of Judaism and its descendents, especially when that idea is linked to some Creator or prime mover. Go ahead, poll just about any audience on the subject, and if they're English-speaking most of 'em will figure the same thing. The problem is that this creator-deity concept is regarded as more than JUST prime mover. It already has characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, sentience, sapience, on and on ascribed to it. If you just decide that ANYTHING with the one quality of prime-mover (leaving aside the question of whether that quality exists in anything) should be called God, it's like calling a wooden spoon a tree. Yes, they're both made of wood, but that's not the only distinction to be drawn. My piddling pooch has different attributes (other than Creator) similar to the God-concept: receiving tribute and having the same letters in its name. And possibly emotional immaturity and wanton destruction. Calling that puppy God is JUST as silly as calling a non-sentient prime cause God, or calling a desk a tree.

I'm not saying you have to stop believing in some initial motivator. But I will suggest that you not call that thing God, unless you want to confuse the heckfire out of everyone. And then they'll get mad, because people get mad when they're confused without reason, and you'll have confused them by making a very bad word choice. Language is meant to communicate, so don't pick a word that confuses more than it communicates. At least, not unless you've got a very, VERY good reason for doing so... and if you do, you'll want to be quick to produce it in order to head off the mad.
Why not call the prime motivator God? My word choice is the problem of readers who don't have to read what I say unless they want to. There is no comparison with calling a desk a tree. You are simply trying to trivialize what I say or just don't understand.

The issues debated in this forum, to my knowledge, relates to considerations pertaining to the God concept and all of the complexities relating to such. It is not about someone wanting to call a hat a chair or a bike a mouse, of something else ridiculous as you try to pretend.

Are you also adverse to members posting about the gods of Hinduism, Zarathusianism, Mazda, Baal, , Ahriman et al. There are many facets to atheism other than rubbishing Christianity

As the whole of humanity, as we know it, within our ability to reason, came from a seminal source, with many linking 'God' to nature......see Thank God for Evolution by Michael Dowd which is highly recommended by evolutionists and cosmologists. I will not change my terminology to suit you, even though this particular post is apparently seen fit for ridicule (the rainbow motif) by the moderators.

Argue over your own views to the varying types of morals directed gods, as espoused by theologians, but don't try and coerce people with oblique references, to play you at your game, whatever that might be, as it won't work with me.
I am not trying to do anything except point out that using the word 'God' for something doesn't resemble other people's meaning of the same term doesn't aid your communication.

If that makes you all huffy, so be it. I suggest you take constructive criticism for what it is and not throw a hissy fit.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2012, 10:55 AM
Rainbow RE: A Question of Order
(14-11-2012 10:29 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  I will not change my terminology to suit you, even though this particular post is apparently seen fit for ridicule (the rainbow motif) by the moderators.
You do realize that the rainbow motif that people were talking about is the one of the OP and you also realize that Egor put it there himself, right?

Look, I can do it too.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
15-11-2012, 11:53 AM
RE: A Question of Order
(15-11-2012 10:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(14-11-2012 10:29 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  I will not change my terminology to suit you, even though this particular post is apparently seen fit for ridicule (the rainbow motif) by the moderators.
You do realize that the rainbow motif that people were talking about is the one of the OP and you also realize that Egor put it there himself, right?

Look, I can do it too.
I realized that. I would just like to know if there are explanations about their meanings written somewhere, or if their meanings are simply understood by everyone (but me).

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2012, 11:55 AM
RE: A Question of Order
(15-11-2012 11:53 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I realized that. I would just like to know if there are explanations about their meanings written somewhere, or if their meanings are simply understood by everyone (but me).
Huh

My post was a response to Mr. Woof.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
15-11-2012, 11:57 AM
RE: A Question of Order
(15-11-2012 11:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(15-11-2012 11:53 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I realized that. I would just like to know if there are explanations about their meanings written somewhere, or if their meanings are simply understood by everyone (but me).
Huh

My post was a response to Mr. Woof.
I realized that too. Big Grin Sorry, I'm still trying to get an answer...out of anyone! How did you guys know the meaning of the rainbow? Huh

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2012, 01:56 PM
Information RE: A Question of Order
(15-11-2012 11:57 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  
(15-11-2012 11:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Huh

My post was a response to Mr. Woof.
I realized that too. Big Grin Sorry, I'm still trying to get an answer...out of anyone! How did you guys know the meaning of the rainbow? Huh
It has no intrinsic or defined meaning. None of the Post Icons do. Make of them what you will.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: