Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* - - - - 1 votes

'It's just my opinion'


  • Please log in to reply
133 replies to this topic

#121    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,696 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 08 September 2013 - 02:23 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 08 September 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

If pointing out the inconsistency in the subjects analogised is sufficient, then I'm happy to consider the analogy "busted".

So would I, but I don't believe you've done so.  You've pointed out a difference, class vs specifics, but not explained specifically why this invalidates the analogy; as I said, it's like pointing out that leprechauns are Irish whereas the class of divinity is not, that difference in Irishness does not invalidate the analogy so you can't just point out a difference and leave it at that.

Quote

Really, so you would give the Deist "unconcerned being" the definition you follow with, being...

Deism is the belief that a god exists but he does not interfere with the world and can be ascertained through reason and evidence.  That doesn't sound undefined to me.

Quote

So, 'undefined' divine beings are actually defined as "being divine"? That is about as specific as my "anything, everything and nothing" definition, wouldn't you agree?

Does 'divine' have no definition?  'Anything, everything and nothing' is not the definition of divine, it is a statement about what may actually be divine in reality.

Quote

I do believe I used the exclusive conjunction "or" when including "nothing" in the list I provided as a definition. I did not simply say, "the definition of divinity is nothing".

No, the definition of divine is not 'everything, anything or nothing'.  Check your dictionary.  I asked you a specific question above about whether my fleshing out of your statement was correct, where I split out the definition from the class from the question of whether they actually exist, you didn't say whether you agree or not.

Quote

Because, as I have already explained, the leprechaun is a specific instance of a being (allegedly), while divinity is a whole class of objects with no 'set' description, definition, etc. To analogise your analogy, it is the same as saying arguing against the existence of giant flying, fire-breathing dragons is equal to arguing against the existence of all alleged mythological beings. It's not equal at all.

What is being compared in any analogy are never fully equal, otherwise it wouldn't be an analogy.  At what point when we start adding to a class does it become inarguable?  You seem to agree that specifics can be 'refuted', such as cyclops.  If I expand to 'all Greek mythological beings' and now have a class that includes cyclops and pegasi and cerberus, have I now done something to make that class inarguable?  What is it specifically and why?  Obviously if I expand it further to 'all mythological beings' than you think it does invalidate the analogy?  Why?  Is it that there are some mythological beings that I don't personally know about and thus I can't be sure my analogy applies to or that doesn't have the same problem as leprechaun belief?  Name them. Is it that there might be mythological beings that no one has ever specified or imagined and thus I can't argue against them?  If they are not defined with some attribute then you can't say I even disagree that they exist and thus can't say that the analogy is illogical.  If this is as deep as it goes and this position is largely your opinion that is entirely fine, but when you use the word 'illogical' and 'false' I thought, perhaps mistakenly, there was more reasoning to be provided to justify it, but the same statement just seems to be provided: the analogy is false and illogical because what you are comparing are not equal.  Explain specifically how their inequality invalidates the analogy.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#122    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,534 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 08 September 2013 - 07:24 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 08 September 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

Deism is the belief that a god exists but he does not interfere with the world and can be ascertained through reason and evidence.  That doesn't sound undefined to me.

That seems a fine definition for deism, but what about a definition of "divinity"? Do you have one to promote? One that isn't "a divine being"?


Quote

Does 'divine' have no definition?  'Anything, everything and nothing' is not the definition of divine, it is a statement about what may actually be divine in reality.

Well, I'm not a professor of language, but it seems to me a "definition" is a "statement about what something might be." Maybe you'd like to correct me on that, as well?


Quote

No, the definition of divine is not 'everything, anything or nothing'.

Then what is it? I, at least, have fronted up with a definition. If you wish to say it's wrong, then provide us with an alternative that is substantially different to mine.


Quote

What is being compared in any analogy are never fully equal, otherwise it wouldn't be an analogy.  At what point when we start adding to a class does it become inarguable?  You seem to agree that specifics can be 'refuted', such as cyclops.  If I expand to 'all Greek mythological beings' and now have a class that includes cyclops and pegasi and cerberus, have I now done something to make that class inarguable?  What is it specifically and why?  Obviously if I expand it further to 'all mythological beings' than you think it does invalidate the analogy?  Why?  Is it that there are some mythological beings that I don't personally know about and thus I can't be sure my analogy applies to or that doesn't have the same problem as leprechaun belief?  Name them. Is it that there might be mythological beings that no one has ever specified or imagined and thus I can't argue against them?  If they are not defined with some attribute then you can't say I even disagree that they exist and thus can't say that the analogy is illogical.  If this is as deep as it goes and this position is largely your opinion that is entirely fine, but when you use the word 'illogical' and 'false' I thought, perhaps mistakenly, there was more reasoning to be provided to justify it, but the same statement just seems to be provided: the analogy is false and illogical because what you are comparing are not equal.  Explain specifically how their inequality invalidates the analogy.

Quote

So would I, but I don't believe you've done so.  You've pointed out a difference, class vs specifics, but not explained specifically why this invalidates the analogy; as I said, it's like pointing out that leprechauns are Irish whereas the class of divinity is not, that difference in Irishness does not invalidate the analogy so you can't just point out a difference and leave it at that.

The degree of difference is what makes the analogy false. Forgive me if that seems rather obvious, but to me it was. I appreciate an analogy, by definition, has to be of something 'different' than what is being compared with, but the object of good analogy is to get that degree of difference as small as possible - to make the comparison reasonable.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#123    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,696 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 08 September 2013 - 10:46 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 08 September 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

That seems a fine definition for deism, but what about a definition of "divinity"? Do you have one to promote? One that isn't "a divine being"?

Do you not have access to a dictionary?  Eight bits above provided a good definition also, I guess he also must not realize that the definition of divinity is 'everything, anything, and nothing', seems to be a prevalent problem.  I'm an atheist because I don't believe in gods.  I define gods as actual theists define 'gods'.  You define 'divinity' as 'everything, anything, and nothing'; that's great, you have that right, but the disbelief in 'everything, anything, and nothing' is not the definition of atheism, is it?  That's the problem with defining 'divinity' that way, that is not the definition that atheism rejects.  We seem to be playing word games.

Quote

Well, I'm not a professor of language, but it seems to me a "definition" is a "statement about what something might be." Maybe you'd like to correct me on that, as well?

I'm no professor either, but I don't like your definition of 'definition'.  Bigfeet sightings and footprints may be actually be accounted for as mis-identifications of bears, 'the something that bigfeet might be' then is bears, but no one would say that the 'definition' of bigfoot is a bear, a bigfoot is a tall hairy humanoid creature, with I agree has lots of variation, but none of those variations result in the 'definition' of bigfoot actually being bear, the definition of bigfoot, what he is claimed to be, is not and doesn't include 'bear'.  No one would be justified using the term 'bigfoot' interchangably with 'bear', which you could if that was truly the definition.  Likewise the definition of 'divinity' is not just a vague 'everything, anything, and nothing', because if I really meant to use the phrase 'everything, anything, and nothing' in some context, I can't just use the word 'divinity' instead, which I could if that was actually the definition.  Now please, feel free to disagree with me on this and point out what you don't agree with, but I've written a lot about 'definitions', parsed out statements of yours into what I think are more precise explanations, and you don't respond to it at all.  Please, I'm all for being corrected here, but you're not even acknowledging that I'm typing all this stuff justifying what a definition is, all of which to me shouldn't really need explaining and is actually very obvous.

Quote

Then what is it? I, at least, have fronted up with a definition. If you wish to say it's wrong, then provide us with an alternative that is substantially different to mine.

My definition of 'divine' is god-like, I said this earlier.  If that is not specific enough, then consult what actual theists define as 'god-like', since that is actually what atheism disagrees with.  Or alternatively, provide your own definition or proposition of divinity to be argued against, you don't even have to believe it, but right now you are saying my argument is illogical while simultaneously refusing to say with any specificity what your definition of the conception of divinity that atheism is being illogical about actually is.  It is an empty claim.  And like you I'm not meaning this as hostile or anything, but I'll remind you that it was just a few posts ago you suggested I was purposely being obtuse and that I knew my argument was a failure; I've provided repetitive detail and you do not do the same or really even acknowledge its existence, which is pretty much the definition, ha, of being obtuse, right?

Quote

The degree of difference is what makes the analogy false. Forgive me if that seems rather obvious, but to me it was. I appreciate an analogy, by definition, has to be of something 'different' than what is being compared with, but the object of good analogy is to get that degree of difference as small as possible - to make the comparison reasonable.

If it was truly 'obvious' as you claim, then shouldn't it be a simple matter to explain how this difference that exists invalidates the analogy I'm making?  You instead have just flat out restated it in several consecutive posts and then immediately skipped to 'therefore' as I pointed out.  Actually, no the simple 'degree' of difference, however you are proposing to measure that, does not necessarily make the analogy false, it depends if the difference is something that is relevant to what is being analogized and the argument being derived from it.  I can make an analogy between worms and humans because we both need oxygen to survive, and the degree of difference is pretty sizable despite the analogy still being valid.  So you can't just say the degree of difference makes it false without saying why, nice try though.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#124    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,534 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 09 September 2013 - 02:06 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 08 September 2013 - 10:46 PM, said:

My definition of 'divine' is god-like, I said this earlier.

Yes, I know, I read it.

And what does "god-like" mean? It's not at all descriptive, and it's no less ambiguous a definition than the one I provided. It is my opinion that your definition and mine have the same essential meaning.

So, since you are so upset about me providing a definition "anything, everything or nothing", please clarify what "god-like" means - and please include all the descriptions of what you imagine "god-like" can be, because we are talking about a class object here, not a specific being or beings but all possible, imaginable divine beings (or non-beings since divinity is alleged to be ineffable, then it might defy rational description.)

Edited by Leonardo, 09 September 2013 - 02:10 AM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#125    Asadora

Asadora

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts
  • Joined:06 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:TN -> Leeds, UK

Posted 09 September 2013 - 10:20 AM

After doing some simple research, it would appear that the use of the word Divine and Divinity is defined on -how- it is used and in what context. Below I share my findings, as I utterly love words.

Google definition:
Google search: define divine

Divine
Adjective: Of, from, or like God or a god.
Noun: A cleric of theologian
Verb: Discover (something) by guesswork or intuition: 'his brother usually divined his ulterior motives.'

Synonyms:
- adjective: heavenly, godlike, celestial, supernal
- noun: theologian, clergyman, ecclesiastic, priest
- verb: foretell, predict, prophesy, augur, prognosticate

Oxford Dictionaries:
http://oxforddiction.../english/divine http://oxforddiction.../english/divine

Adjective: (1) of or like God or a god: heroes with divine powers, paintings of shipwrecks being prevented by divine intervention
* devoted to God; sacred: divine liturgy
(2) informal very pleasing; delightful: he had the most divine smile

Noun: (1) (dated) a cleric of theologian.
(2) (The Divine) providence or God.

Divinity
Google definition: Google search: define divinity

Noun: (1) The state of quality of being divine: 'Christ's divinity'.
(2) The study of religion; theology: 'A doctor of divinity.'
Synonyms: deity, godhead, god, theology

Oxford Dictionaries:
http://oxforddiction...nity?q=divinity

Noun (plural divinities)
[Mass noun] (1) The state or quality of being divine.
[count noun] A divine being; a god or goddess: busts of Roman divinities
(The Divinity) God.
(2) The study of religion; theology: A doctor of divinity.

Origin: Middle English: From old French divinite, from Latin divinitas, from divinus 'belonging to a deity' (see Divine (1) ).


Bonus word!  --> Kenotism  -   doctrine that Christ rid himself of divinity in becoming human (http://phrontistery.info/isms.html)  

Examples of quotes using the word divine/Divine:

Study the past, if you would divine the future - Confucius

To err is human; to forgive, divine - Alexander Pope

All men's souls are immortal, but the souls of the righteous are immortal and divine - Socrates

Human beings must be known to be loved; but Divine beings must be loved to be known. -Blaise Pascal

No one was ever great without some portion of divine inspiration - Marcus Tullius Cicero

To err is human, but it feels divine - Mae West


Kind Regards:)

Edited to add: This isn't my opinion, by the way. I'm just passing on some well grounded knowledge!

Edited by Asadora, 09 September 2013 - 10:22 AM.

"From time to time there appear on the face of the earth men of rare and consummate excellence, who dazzle us by their virtue, and whose outstanding qualities shed a stupendous light. Like those extraordinary stars of whose origins we are ignorant, and of whose fate, once they have vanished, we know even less, such men have neither forebears nor descendants: they are the whole of their race."  -- Jean de la Bruyere 1645-1696.

#126    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,534 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 09 September 2013 - 12:35 PM

View PostAsadora, on 09 September 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

After doing some simple research, it would appear that the use of the word Divine and Divinity is defined on -how- it is used and in what context. Below I share my findings, as I utterly love words.

I agree, and that is why I suggest the concept the word is used to depict, in the context of "divine being(s)", is itself completely undefined. It's all very well saying "it's a god or god-like being", but what is a "god or god-like being", except "god-like"?

It's only definition/description is itself. It can't be analogised, because nothing else is "god-like". It's everything or anything anyone imagines such a thing to be, which includes the possibility it may be nothing.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#127    Kaa-Tzik

Kaa-Tzik

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,021 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2013 - 12:48 PM

In my opinion, the phrase "I hear what you're saying" is more interesting in that it is similar to IMO, but reverses it onto the person you are conversing with, and with the added zest that it is also a bit of an insult while IMO is not.


#128    Asadora

Asadora

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts
  • Joined:06 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:TN -> Leeds, UK

Posted 09 September 2013 - 01:35 PM

When I use the word 'divine' it relates to something of which I hold high, or something that I like above something else. Like my homemade pizzas are divine compared to the store bought ones.
When I use the word 'divinity' it relates to something that I -perceive- is that of the beyond, that which can not be reached with possible certainty.  

I will agree that everyone has their own personal usage for that which is divine and from divinity.
I'm thankful that there are those that can realise this.

:clap:

"From time to time there appear on the face of the earth men of rare and consummate excellence, who dazzle us by their virtue, and whose outstanding qualities shed a stupendous light. Like those extraordinary stars of whose origins we are ignorant, and of whose fate, once they have vanished, we know even less, such men have neither forebears nor descendants: they are the whole of their race."  -- Jean de la Bruyere 1645-1696.

#129    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,696 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 09 September 2013 - 01:42 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 09 September 2013 - 02:06 AM, said:

Yes, I know, I read it.

And what does "god-like" mean? It's not at all descriptive, and it's no less ambiguous a definition than the one I provided. It is my opinion that your definition and mine have the same essential meaning.

I have provided all kinds of detail critiquing your definition that you have not responded to, asked you straight questions that garner no response.  Your definition is not the same as mine; my definition of divinity, nor of any theist that I know of, is not 'blue' or 'mammalian', which might be a definition of yours since yours includes 'anything' and 'everything'.  But I've already said all this.  Have you bothered to actually ask any theists what their definition of divinity is, which is what atheism actually disputes?  Any of them say it is 'everything, anything, and nothing'?  I find it doubtful.

Quote

So, since you are so upset about me providing a definition "anything, everything or nothing", please clarify what "god-like" means - and please include all the descriptions of what you imagine "god-like" can be, because we are talking about a class object here, not a specific being or beings but all possible, imaginable divine beings (or non-beings since divinity is alleged to be ineffable, then it might defy rational description.)

Ha, I'm not upset, I'm just weary of the repetition and I'm apparently wasting my time trying to detail my position and respond in detail to yours with criticisms, because you don't acknowledge it and keep saying the same thing.  How about you take the reins and steer if you'd like to on this discussion, it is ultimately your claim that is being disputed.  You said that atheists are being illogical in their disbelief of divinity, because it's a general class.  You can have any definition you want, but for the nth time you can't then say that an atheist disputes Leo's version of divinity, they dispute things that actually do have some definition, and almost every theist I know of does not struggle in providing at least some attributes and qualities that their gods possess, and I know of none that agree with you and your definition.  Again, I invite you to provide me a link to anyone else who makes this argument you are trying to make, maybe reading their explanation will help.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#130    Asadora

Asadora

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 677 posts
  • Joined:06 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:TN -> Leeds, UK

Posted 09 September 2013 - 01:50 PM

Mmm, I see there is a back and forth going on here. I don't want to intrude; however, I do want to contribute:  Can't we all just say 'It is my opinion' and be happy with that? That at least is more apt for the topic of this thread.

Who knows, maybe if during one of these back and forth exchanges between two members, if someone were to say, 'It is my opinion' then we wouldn't have had a lesson on D/divine and D/divinity. I had to remind myself the topic of this thread by scrolling up to view it.  

Haha, sorry, I do say this in light fun and of course this is -just- my opinion ;)


:tsu:

"From time to time there appear on the face of the earth men of rare and consummate excellence, who dazzle us by their virtue, and whose outstanding qualities shed a stupendous light. Like those extraordinary stars of whose origins we are ignorant, and of whose fate, once they have vanished, we know even less, such men have neither forebears nor descendants: they are the whole of their race."  -- Jean de la Bruyere 1645-1696.

#131    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,534 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 09 September 2013 - 01:55 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 09 September 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

I have provided all kinds of detail critiquing your definition that you have not responded to...

That is a baseless accusation. I have responded in great length to your "critiques". That you haven't understood my responses may be my fault, but it may also be your own. I believe I have been reasonably clear in explaining my position, so my opinion is that your lack of understanding is of your own making.

Quote

Your definition is not the same as mine; my definition of divinity, nor of any theist that I know of, is not 'blue' or 'mammalian', which might be a definition of yours since yours includes 'anything' and 'everything'.  But I've already said all this.  Have you bothered to actually ask any theists what their definition of divinity is, which is what atheism actually disputes?  Any of them say it is 'everything, anything, and nothing'?  I find it doubtful.

And why would a theist, who probably believes in a very specific divine being, have to agree with me for my definition to be 'correct'? Of course, if that theist is able to entertain a thought without necessarily accepting it, they quite possibly might agree with me that my definition is suitable for "divinity".

And atheism does not dispute "a theist's definition of divinity" which is, in all likelihood and as I just stated, probably going to be based on a specific divine being. Atheism denies that anything that is alleged to be divine, exists. It disputes all theists everywhere, simultaneously.

Edited by Leonardo, 09 September 2013 - 01:56 PM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#132    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,696 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 09 September 2013 - 02:42 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 09 September 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

That is a baseless accusation. I have responded in great length to your "critiques". That you haven't understood my responses may be my fault, but it may also be your own. I believe I have been reasonably clear in explaining my position, so my opinion is that your lack of understanding is of your own making.

I'm more than willing to accept my responsibility in not understanding you, but my accusation is not baseless.  Refer to your post #122 above and specifically at all the question marks including italicized questions, in what you quoted from me before your final response.  You responded with a three sentence restatement of almost exactly the same thing you've been saying for days, and addressed none of my questions.  I have no problem in you ignoring my questions as long as you explain why you are doing so and why they are not relevant.  And as I've given you multiple examples refuting the notion, it is not merely because there is a difference in what is being analogized.

Quote

And why would a theist, who probably believes in a very specific divine being, have to agree with me for my definition to be 'correct'? Of course, if that theist is able to entertain a thought without necessarily accepting it, they quite possibly might agree with me that my definition is suitable for "divinity".

They don't have to agree with you, but divinity means something and that something is determined by consensus; you don't get to just come up with a brand new personal non-standard definition of 'divinity' that I can find no reference to nor support for, and expect that atheists must or should disagree with it.  We might or we might not, but you certainly can't say logically that we are being illogical because you won't provide any meaningful specificity to your 'divinity' definition.  I've said this a billion times:  atheists do not dispute the idea that 'everything, anything, or nothing' exists, how is that even possible, so your definition of divinity does not appear to be something that atheists reject.

Quote

And atheism does not dispute "a theist's definition of divinity" which is, in all likelihood and as I just stated, probably going to be based on a specific divine being. Atheism denies that anything that is alleged to be divine, exists. It disputes all theists everywhere, simultaneously.

Correct, but it does not necessarily reject non-standard definitions of divinity.  You might as well say that 'divinity' is defined as 'life' and 'thus' say the atheists are being illogical because they reject 'life' because they reject 'divinity'.  Atheists don't accept 'everything, anything, or nothing' as a definition of divinity, and that is also supported by the majority of theists themselves who would not accept and don't conceptualize it like this with no attributes whatsoever, so your notion that there is some illogic involved with our rejection is false.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#133    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,696 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 09 September 2013 - 02:46 PM

And yes, that is all my opinion, ha, just so I'm more on topic.  But it is not merely 'just an opinion', I've provided my reasoning, very specific ones, why I believe my opinion is actually correct.  Leo, thanks for the conversation of course, but I'll let you have the last word unless there's something new provided, I have led this thread off-topic and others want to discuss the nature of opinions, which is the purpose of the OP, here.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#134    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,993 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • Dysfunctional you can fix, ******** can't be.

Posted 09 September 2013 - 04:02 PM

View Posteight bits, on 08 September 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

I assent to the rationality of prioristic belief formation, as is obligatory for Bayesians (I am not one, but I agree with the admissibility of what they hold to be obligatory).


You know what I do? We've met? You remind me of a story, which illustrates what I would do.

I was walking down the street in the Big City at sunset, and a goshawk flew low and crisp over the traffic. Nobody else sees her - she's dark, the light is low, Big City traffic demands attention. So, I follow her on foot, and she perches atop a building, out of sight. And I wait below, because she will soon show off on the building ledge. Meanwhile, a mother and her young daughter go to their car, parked near where I'm standing. Mom gets busy, her head and arms in the back seat, her feet outside, fixing the child seat, while her daughter waits on the sidewalk.

The goshawk struts out onto the ledge for her audience of two, the little girl and your obedient servant. The little girl calls out "Mommy, there's a really big bird here." Mommy, busy with the seat, grunts back, doesn't look. I'd give odds that what she heard was "Mommy, Big Bird is really here," or some such. (Big Bird is a famous Jim Henson character.)

Well, OK, Big Bird wasn't really there, but a really big bird was. Now, maybe Mom wouldn't have appreciated the beauty of the goshawk anyway. But after the goshawk flew off into the sunset, I gave the girl a thumbs-up as I walked away. She did well to tell Mom to come look.

I  tell this story as an illustration of the downside of "default rules" that "automatically" eliminate inexpensive opportunities  to learn. So, if your daughter talked to me about two-headed men, I'd hear her out. If I didn't already know, and that woman's daughter told me "Look, Big Bird is here," I'd have looked. And I'd win, no Big Bird, but something better, a goshawk showing off.


You need to get out more, Frank.


No, whatever I imagine is a hypothesis. We can't test (expose to the possibility of belief change) any hypothesis with any of the same data we used to formulate it, e.g. that we did formulate it.

Well said Eighty,  I have a lot of opportunity to commune with all kinds of perspectives and I have to tell you the greatest liberation for me is to be able to listen without a need to be invested in the others perspective being right, first. What ever 'right' means in the context of divine.. None of my friends are Atheist; they all know I am though and we have conversations that encourage each other to be who we are, perceive how we perceive, and I learn a lot!  IMO







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users