What "-isms" are these a definition of?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-04-2012, 10:34 AM
RE: What "-isms" are these a definition of?
(11-04-2012 07:25 AM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  
(11-04-2012 05:00 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The fact that a word, "godlike" exists means nothing. It has as many meanings, as there are sets of brain chemistries, (brains), using it, and are ALL anthropomorphic projections of either human qualities, or exaggerated human qualities.
Quote:Godlike could also mean, has a throne and command of a nation...

All common definitions of god, and more importantly the characteristics and abilities of gods portrayed in their books are the gods being discussed. We are presented with concepts surrounding them, and abilities attributed to them.


When people say chair, a normal persons knows very well what they mean, and know they don’t mean a lamp, or a sandwich. Some chairs are different than others, but they share attributes that can be generalized. But if you'd like to approach each chair individually, so be it. The out come is the same. US Santa, or Icelandic Santa...

Please comment on the Terms, and provide labels, since this is the purpose of the thread.

Quote:
A-Satan
Ha, Freudian slip or mistake? I kid. Would it be the same or would it be more akin to agnosticism?
Yes you are right, the facts point to exactly what you are saying. I'm seeing arguments against it but most of those are based on philosophy and philosophy hasn't contributed to science in a very long time.
Damn near useless if you ask me, but whatever. Don't worry I'll be straight forward with you. Smile

We all know each and every argument for the existence of a deity. We all know one common denominator that all deities share. We all know some of the special abilities they all have. Basically the nonsense spewed from the religious about these fictitious claims is just that, nonsense.

If a definition is needed then apparently it's going to be made up, then someone won't agree and make up another version. It's nonsense to begin with so no matter which definition you use it'll still be nonsense reworded.

I call moving the goal post when someone mentions "no clear definition." Tongue

Idiot: : a foolish or stupid person
— idiot adjective
See Republican Candidates.

Keeping realism alive, one honest offensive comment at a time!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2012, 04:30 PM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2012 06:38 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What "-isms" are these a definition of?
(11-04-2012 07:25 AM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  
(11-04-2012 05:00 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The fact that a word, "godlike" exists means nothing. It has as many meanings, as there are sets of brain chemistries, (brains), using it, and are ALL anthropomorphic projections of either human qualities, or exaggerated human qualities.
Quote:Godlike could also mean, has a throne and command of a nation...

All common definitions of god, and more importantly the characteristics and abilities of gods portrayed in their books are the gods being discussed. We are presented with concepts surrounding them, and abilities attributed to them.


When people say chair, a normal persons knows very well what they mean, and know they don’t mean a lamp, or a sandwich. Some chairs are different than others, but they share attributes that can be generalized. But if you'd like to approach each chair individually, so be it. The out come is the same. US Santa, or Icelandic Santa...

Please comment on the Terms, and provide labels, since this is the purpose of the thread.
Quote:A-Satan
Ha, Freudian slip or mistake? I kid. Would it be the same or would it be more akin to agnosticism?
Sorry, that's not gonna fly. Asserting there are "common" definitions of gods does not make it so. YOU asserted that the term "godlike" was an argument to the second post. Your premise is false. There are countless gods, and they are all different. Again, which god are you talking about ? What "books", exactly, are you talking about ? The analogy to a chair is false, for obvious reasons.

Are you comparing god to Santa ? (speaking of Freudian slips)..

"I have to disregard your "unreasonable" comment on that basis that we do have a basis for comparison because the term "godlike" exists."

Are you talking about Yahweh, the Trinity, Baal, Elohim, Allah, Isis, or what ? The fact that a concept of Santa exists, does not mean Santa exists, whatever his qualities, or how they are "manifest". That argument is silly.

I asked you to explain how god's qualities are "manifest" if spacetime is not required for her. You have not answered any question. Your two definitions are meaningless. Who cares what little box you want to put people in ? Every concept is dependant on the thinker. There are no absolutes. It's all relative, and a worthless enterprise. It's not going to prove your god concept. I repeat, an absence of belief, is not a belief in absence. There is no sense making assertions is you can't explain the premises that underly them. So far you can't.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2012, 04:47 PM
RE: What "-isms" are these a definition of?
Sorry, poolboy, but I don't believe there are philosophical "ism"s attached to these ideas. I think it's always fair to accept the second definition because there's no logical way to prove "godlike" abilities (as defined commonly --- omnipotence and omniscience) can't exist... in fact a lot of philosophers will tell you that "you can't prove a negative". There's debate about this, but even if you think it's possible to prove a negative statement, it would be incredibly hard to prove that omnipotence and/or omniscience is impossible.

"Skepticism" would encapsulate the second definition, but that is only a part of skepticism... I don't think there's a word specifically for that definition.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2012, 07:49 PM
RE: What "-isms" are these a definition of?
Some points of difficulty a user or two is having is: there are too many definitions of gods and godlike abilities. And the statement in both Terms are too vague. Some people think conjuring matter out of empty space is a godlike ability, and some think a sandwich cut into perfect wedges is a godlike ability.

Again, I can’t stress how disengiounious this is. As I said, god as is the most common, and most described in books written in their respective religions. If you’d like to use the King James bible, again, go forward. We can note each special ability, and each charactersitic from one version of the holy book to the next, across religions. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY powers and abilities as far as the person proclaiming the statement is concerned with. Is there a term that describes definition 1, and definition 2?

The foundation of Term 1 is that the person was presented with a set group of powers and abilities, which there is no evidence for. No evidence of it ever occurring, or will occur. “Conjuring a global flood through will power?” No evidence of it having occured, and no evidence of the mechanisms that would allow for it to occur. That person would be correct in their mind to say "This being hasn't existed or cannot exist".
Quote:I think it's always fair to accept the second definition because there's no logical way to prove "godlike" abilities (as defined commonly --- omnipotence and omniscience) can't exist...
The foundation of Term 2 is “well, I read a study that psychic/electric/magnetic brain waves exist, and can manipulate objects or perhaps liquids, so maybe??” The person was presented with a specific deceleration, and specific piece of evidence (as far as they're concerned, the evidence is reliable). With respect to Term 1, no credible evidence was presented. "These psychic trials are a farce, because of these X revelations and X pieces of evidence.." It would not be correct to accept it in that case.

Quote:Sorry, poolboy, but I don't believe there are philosophical "ism"s attached to these ideas.
Would users care to a stab at creating their own terms to describe those definitions? I'm thinking ... Evidentialism?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2012, 08:00 PM
RE: What "-isms" are these a definition of?
(11-04-2012 07:49 PM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  “Conjuring a global flood through will power?” No evidence of it having occured, and no evidence of the mechanisms that would allow for it to occur. That person would be correct in their mind to say "This being hasn't existed or cannot exist".

I see I misjudged where you were going with that. Sorry.
BTW, the flood was a myth, (in Genesis). No scholar takes it literally. It was appropriated from Tablet 11 of the Gilgamesh Epic, (also a myth).
http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/meso...gilgamesh/
There were countless floods.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2012, 08:37 PM
RE: What "-isms" are these a definition of?
Quote:The ONLY issue here is coming up with a definite agreement on what those
abilities include and what to discard, and how those powers are
manifested.

Exactly we need an example which we don't have. As such there can be a million definitions for god. It's unreasonable to assert either term in light of this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2012, 03:40 PM
RE: What "-isms" are these a definition of?
Quote:The ONLY issue here is coming up with a definite agreement on what those
abilities include and what to discard, and how those powers are
manifested.



Exactly we need an example which we don't have. As such there can be a million definitions for god. It's unreasonable to assert either term in light of this.

Let us remedy this:

Term 1 = There is no evidence of a god, MOST POPULARLY DEFINED, as having existed, currently existing, or can exist in the future. There is no evidence for mechanisms that would allow for godlike abilities.

Term 2 = There is no evidence of a god, MOST POPULARLY DEFINED, as having existed, or currently existing. HOWEVER, there is evidence that a god could exist. There is evidence for mechanisms that would allow for godlike abilities.


If the person says, "oh, but wait. God to me is the joy people feel in their hearts, despite it being put there by magic, or through biological mechanisms" then their definition can be exempted. But that is in no way the definition in any popular holy book.

BUT AGAIN, i'm looking for Term for both definitions. The only consensus is that "there is no definition" or that it's "atheist". However that's saying that atheism is purely evidence based. Is it? If it is, then it would have to cover the second term as well. If there was evidence for a God, and they accepted it, would they still be "atheist"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2012, 10:16 PM
RE: What "-isms" are these a definition of?
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace
John Lennon


Imagine there's no god
It's quite simple to do
No divine properties to consider
and no reason to
Imagine all the people with just human wisdom

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thomas's post
18-04-2012, 12:53 PM
RE: What "-isms" are these a definition of?
(13-04-2012 03:40 PM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  
Quote:The ONLY issue here is coming up with a definite agreement on what those
abilities include and what to discard, and how those powers are
manifested.



Exactly we need an example which we don't have. As such there can be a million definitions for god. It's unreasonable to assert either term in light of this.

Let us remedy this:

Term 1 = There is no evidence of a god, MOST POPULARLY DEFINED, as having existed, currently existing, or can exist in the future. There is no evidence for mechanisms that would allow for godlike abilities.

Term 2 = There is no evidence of a god, MOST POPULARLY DEFINED, as having existed, or currently existing. HOWEVER, there is evidence that a god could exist. There is evidence for mechanisms that would allow for godlike abilities.


If the person says, "oh, but wait. God to me is the joy people feel in their hearts, despite it being put there by magic, or through biological mechanisms" then their definition can be exempted. But that is in no way the definition in any popular holy book.

BUT AGAIN, i'm looking for Term for both definitions. The only consensus is that "there is no definition" or that it's "atheist". However that's saying that atheism is purely evidence based. Is it? If it is, then it would have to cover the second term as well. If there was evidence for a God, and they accepted it, would they still be "atheist"?
That's why I stated, They both lead one to believe they are statements of a person who is atheist and agnostic. Really, they aren't actually atheist in a sense that they don't answer what they believe.

Atheist is in no way an evidence based position. It is a default position. If one does not belief in a deity of some significant form, they are an atheist.

I've heard people before state they know there is no evidence for God, but they believe in god. Although it seems that their statement is untruthful since they use the Bible or other holy-book as evidence... They just don't use the word evidence.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: