'It's just my opinion'

[Leonardo]

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.

[Kaa-Tzik]

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.

[Asadora]

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.

[+Liquid Gardens]

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.

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.

[Asadora]

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

[Leonardo]

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.

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 September 9, 2013 by Leonardo

[+Liquid Gardens]

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.

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.

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.

[+Liquid Gardens]

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.

[+Sherapy]

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