Spirituality
13 Apr 12
21 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe meanings in the bible are irrelevant, the only meanings that are relevant are the ones Dawkins was using,
You are now just spouting nonsense.
The meanings in the bible are irrelevant, the only meanings that are relevant are the ones Dawkins was using.
The only meanings that are relevant are the ones being conveyed in the argument.
As the meanings Dawkins was using are the standard ones that we generally use means that his words make
sense and co ntellectually and should just give up.
My arguments here are emphatically not fallacious.
no its not, what Dawkins believes, assumes, wishes to term, define as jealous, have
no relevance on the validity of whether the Biblical God actually is jealous in the
sense that he wishes to convey. If Dawkins states that the moon is made of green
cheese then the moon really must be made of green cheese, according to your
reasoning. Not only that, according to your reasoning if everyone by popular
opinion endorses Dawkins view that the moon is made of green cheese by definition
of the the term green cheese then this validates his statement, really? i dont
think so. Not only that, after having examined the characteristics of the moon from
a third party source we find that its not made of green cheese at all, but of solid
rock, this still does not invalidate Dawkins statement, even though he needs to
ignore this data in order to validate his own, i dont think so.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
21 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo you buffoon that is not it at all.
If Dawkins states that the moon is made of green cheese then the moon really must be made of green cheese,
according to your reasoning.
If Dawkins stated that the moon was made of green Cheese then I am not saying that that means
that the moon is made of green cheese. I am saying that you argue whether or not the moon is made
of green cheese based on the meaning of green cheese that Dawkins was using when he made the
claim and not some other meaning of green cheese that you happen to prefer.
Your problem is that you are not arguing that the moon isn't made of green cheese.
You are arguing that green cheese doesn't mean green cheese it means suit pudding.
And because the moon isn't made of suit pudding Dawkins is wrong.
Dawkins wasn't claiming that the moon was made of suit pudding.
Your argument is thus logically flawed.
If you don't think that Dawkins is right then argue against what Dawkins said.
Don't try to redefine all the words Dawkins used to mean something different from what he intended and
then argue against that.
Because that is a variant of the straw man argument.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you are talking about the "validity" of whether the Biblical God actually is jealous in the
The meanings in the bible are irrelevant, the only meanings that are relevant are the ones Dawkins was using,
no its not, what Dawkins believes, assumes, wishes to term, define as jealous, have
no relevance on the validity of whether the Biblical God actually is jealous in the
sense that he wishes to convey. If Dawkins states that the moon i ...[text shortened]... ement, even though he needs to
ignore this data in order to validate his own, i dont think so.
sense that he (Dawkins) wishes to convey. Do you agree or disagree that Dawkins is using the word in one of its accepted meanings -- when it is applied to humans? Do you agree that he is using it in on of the ways that most people, will most likely think of, when they think of jealous humans?
My point is not about God per se. It is about whether we should adopt a different mind-set about word meanings when we talk about God. Some theists here and some theologians and writers say as much -- CS Lewis comes to mind -- they say we must approach such matters with faith in hand (or in heart.) They say that we must pray to God for guidance on such matters. They say that the mindset that rejects God will not have His guidance and will naturally fail to see the truth. They say that if the inspired writers of the Bible were faithful believers, then they had this guidance, and expressed it in their choice of words, and so with faith, we will be able to read these words in the manner intended. Without faith, they say these errors are understandable. I think it would be refreshing to hear more theists say this , because I think it is a widely held belief that is inherent but not always expressed.
21 Apr 12
Originally posted by JS357It's that word "faith" again. Whenever Christians are challenged about God their received response is to say you can't prove him, you just have to have "faith" in him. Balony. Why? I could have "faith" in the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster. That doesn't prove he exists - it just shows I am unhinged, deluded and insecure. Just like theists. Theists hallucinate that there is a God. Their drug, Christianity or whatever religion they're slaves to, has made them addicts, and like all addicts they become slightly unhinged whenever the prospect that their line of addiction is questioned.
So you are talking about the "validity" of whether the Biblical God actually is jealous in the
sense that he (Dawkins) wishes to convey. Do you agree or disagree that Dawkins is using the word in one of its accepted meanings -- when it is applied to humans? Do you agree that he is using it in on of the ways that most people, will most likely think of, when t ...[text shortened]... y this , because I think it is a widely held belief that is inherent but not always expressed.
21 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Pianoman1Because God is faithful.
It's that word "faith" again. Whenever Christians are challenged about God their received response is to say you can't prove him, you just have to have "faith" in him. Balony. Why? I could have "faith" in the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster. That doesn't prove he exists - it just shows I am unhinged, deluded and insecure. Just like theists. Theists hallucin me slightly unhinged whenever the prospect that their line of addiction is questioned.
Because faith leaves nothing for man to boast about in himself.
Because it was mistrust that plunged man into the fall to begin with.
Because the most powerful personality in human history, Jesus of Nazareth, spoke so much about faith.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Apr 12
Originally posted by Pianoman1While I lack belief in deity, my question of Robbie is meant without that particular opinion driving it. I am not asking him rhetorically.
It's that word "faith" again. Whenever Christians are challenged about God their received response is to say you can't prove him, you just have to have "faith" in him. Balony. Why? I could have "faith" in the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster. That doesn't prove he exists - it just shows I am unhinged, deluded and insecure. Just like theists. Theists hallucin ...[text shortened]... me slightly unhinged whenever the prospect that their line of addiction is questioned.
21 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357So you are talking about the "validity" of whether the Biblical God actually is jealous
So you are talking about the "validity" of whether the Biblical God actually is jealous in the
sense that he (Dawkins) wishes to convey. Do you agree or disagree that Dawkins is using the word in one of its accepted meanings -- when it is applied to humans? Do you agree that he is using it in on of the ways that most people, will most likely think of, when t ...[text shortened]... y this , because I think it is a widely held belief that is inherent but not always expressed.
in the sense that he (Dawkins) wishes to convey.
thankyou yes, that's exactly what I am saying. Yes he is using the word in a generic
sense, that which is applied to humans and is akin to envy. Yes he is using it in a
way that most people understand the term as applied to jealous humans.
We should adopt a mindset with regard to the words that are actually used to
describe the entity which has formed the basis of our allegation from the context in
which it is found. For example, Dawkins makes reference to the Biblical God, he
ignores entirely the Biblical definition of jealousy while at the same time making
reference to the Biblical God.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
21 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillYou are talking about a different meaning of the word faith.
Faith in God is not in a vacuum and is not blind. One half of the equation is man's faith. The other is God's [b]faithfulness.[/b]
Belief in god [or anything else] without any evidence and despite evidence to the contrary is
a meaning of faith and it is the one being used here.
The only way to demonstrate that you don't believe in god based on blind faith is to demonstrate
that you have evidence that god exists.
As you don't have any and have thus not presented any you by definition believe based on blind faith.
The fact that the word faith has other meanings does not alter this fact.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
21 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDawkins has made the argument that the biblical god is a jealous god using the meaning of
So you are talking about the "validity" of whether the Biblical God actually is jealous
in the sense that he (Dawkins) wishes to convey.
thankyou yes, that's exactly what I am saying. Yes he is using the word in a generic
sense, that which is applied to humans and is akin to envy. Yes he is using it in a
way that most people understand the ...[text shortened]... iblical definition of jealousy while at the same time making
reference to the Biblical God.
jealousy commonly used and understood and not that found in the bible.
Do you have any arguments for why your god does not deserve the label of jealous as it is
commonly understood?
Because so far you have presented none whatsoever.
All you have said is that the definition of jealous is wrong which I have said before is not a
valid argument against what Dawkins was saying.
21 Apr 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou're evidence.
You are talking about a different meaning of the word faith.
Belief in god [or anything else] without any evidence and despite evidence to the contrary is
a meaning of faith and it is the one being used here.
The only way to demonstrate that you don't believe in god based on blind faith is to demonstrate
that you have evidence that god exists. ...[text shortened]... on blind faith.
The fact that the word faith has other meanings does not alter this fact.
You're blasphemies are truly evidence that we Christians are on the right track.
Continue to believe as you do. I'm through with you.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
21 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillSo any religion I dispute is true because I dispute it?
You're evidence.
You're blasphemies are truly evidence that we Christians are on the right track.
Continue to believe as you do. I'm through with you.
Wow, I didn't know I was so powerful...
You are off course free to leave in a huff, but that is not any sort of augment whatsoever.
There is nothing I [or anyone else] could do or say that could possibly be construed as evidence
for or against the existence of an omnipotent deity.
21 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywill
Because God is faithful.
Because faith leaves nothing for man to boast about in himself.
Because it was mistrust that plunged man into the fall to begin with.
Because the most powerful personality in human history, Jesus of Nazareth, spoke so much about [b]faith.[/b]
Because God is faithful
Not quite sure what you mean by this. Faithful to whom? He has not been faithful to me as far asI can judge.
Because faith leaves nothing for man to boast about in himself.
By putting all your faith in someone outside of yourself relinquishes you of ay responsibility. I agree it is good not to boast, but I don't need faith in someone outside of myself to archieve that. I just don't boast.
Because it was mistrust that plunged man into the fall to begin with.
This is pure hypothesis.
Because the most powerful personality in human history, Jesus of Nazareth, spoke so much about
A matter of opinion. Certainly JC was a good man, not perfect mind you as when he totally lost it and threw the merchants out of the temple, or when he blasted a fig tree. Buddha was a better man in my opinion, but then he did not have the unique advantage of being the boss's son!
21 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobiecompletely wrong. dawkins attributes jealousy to the biblegod and it has been conclusively demonstrated with scripture that biblegod fits the generally accepted definition of jealousy.
no its not irrelevant, its a projection of ignorance, why? because he is subjecting the
Biblical God to his own predefined criteria of what constitutes jealousy whether the
Biblical God actually fits this predefined generic definition or not and drawing inferences
from his own predefined criteria, which makes his statement an assumption and
p ...[text shortened]... s to fit the generic description that is assigned to it, not whether its
actually true or not.
your alternate understandings of the term are pure fantasy that do not apply to anything dawkins said or anything we've been arguing here. ergo, you have not disputed dawkin's accusation that the biblegod is jealous and proud of it.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe term for jealousy used and applied in the bible is also exactly the same as the term generally associated with jealousy. your understanding is incorrect. dawkins uses and understand the term jealousy as it is applied in the bible and as the general population understands the term.
no its not, he is utilizing a fallacy based upon an assumption. To term someone jealous
when they do not actually fit the definition we have assigned to them is what? Its
fallacious. You cannot escape this, whether Dawkins wishes to term the God of the
Bible as jealous based upon his own understanding of the term, based upon the
understandi ...[text shortened]... y ignored, hasn't
it. Thus his statement is simply fallacious and a projection of ignorance.
the only one who is having difficulty understanding the term is you as is evident by your torturous attempts to explain yourself without success.