Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2018 23:11:21 GMT
That's okay, I'm used to it. What would it take to get you to change your avatar? A remotely compelling reason to do so. I'm open to suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 4, 2018 23:15:00 GMT
Do you know what irks me even more than fundamentalist Christians trying to convert me? It is fundamentalist Christians telling me what I think. BTW I am even less interested in Trump and his followers than Jesus. Here's the deal. Yes, I respect your definitions. Yes, I understand your need and indeed right to use them. There are lots of people like I am, so your definitions are safe. Here's the problem. We can't work with six billion different definitions. We can't work with five hundred different definitions. We have to narrow down the categories to a manageable number, in fact as few as serve some useful, immediate purpose. If you ever decide to do the type of work I do you will understand this. You are free to be an "agnostic atheist" or whatever. I can't work with that though. If you are ever asked to participate in a survey you might be asked to pick one group from four or five or so groups and "agnostic atheist" might not be an available choice. You might have to redefine yourself in order to address some immediate concern in the news. Your attitude about definitions is wrong as I have explained to you many times. You continue to believe that your definitions "exist" outside you. They do not. All definitions are arbitrary and yours are no more or less arbitrary. No definitions are "right" or "wrong." Some definitions serve a useful purpose in communication others are less useful or not useful at all. In my work if I say an "atheist" is a person that believes there is no god, then that is exactly what an atheist is. I have narrowed the choices to three, however much that irks you. Those who believe there is a god, those who believe there is no god, and those who fit neither of the first two categories. Having more than those three categories is not useful. I cannot depend on you to put people in them in a consistent manner. My categories are realistic and less difficult to identify. The term "hard atheist" serves no useful, immediate purpose unless it means exactly what I mean by the simpler term "atheist." The only purpose I can see for "hard atheist" is to confuse people about the scientific evidence for objects of worship and agencies apparently outside nature. Although you do not consider Jesus a god, and perhaps neither care for Jesus the man, I believe you have argued for your version of the philosophy of life in the New Testament. Yes or no? If yes, that would make a "Christian Atheist." That's life. I think you are conflating my views with Film Flaneur. I never mentioned hard atheist. Tough titties, that is my choice of definition that is most apt to what I believe and NOT what you think I might believe. Hence I am also NOT a Christian atheist. That would be a contradiction in terms.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 4, 2018 23:26:22 GMT
Vlad the Impaler was a military Christian. 😲 How'd that work out? He was decapitated by Muslims.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 4, 2018 23:39:24 GMT
He was decapitated by Muslims. Died in battle against the Ottoman's and was decapitated and cut into little pieces. His head being a trophy.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 4, 2018 23:41:05 GMT
Here's the deal. Yes, I respect your definitions. Yes, I understand your need and indeed right to use them. There are lots of people like I am, so your definitions are safe. Here's the problem. We can't work with six billion different definitions. We can't work with five hundred different definitions. We have to narrow down the categories to a manageable number, in fact as few as serve some useful, immediate purpose. If you ever decide to do the type of work I do you will understand this. You are free to be an "agnostic atheist" or whatever. I can't work with that though. If you are ever asked to participate in a survey you might be asked to pick one group from four or five or so groups and "agnostic atheist" might not be an available choice. You might have to redefine yourself in order to address some immediate concern in the news. Your attitude about definitions is wrong as I have explained to you many times. You continue to believe that your definitions "exist" outside you. They do not. All definitions are arbitrary and yours are no more or less arbitrary. No definitions are "right" or "wrong." Some definitions serve a useful purpose in communication others are less useful or not useful at all. In my work if I say an "atheist" is a person who believes there is no god, then that is exactly what an atheist is. I have narrowed the choices to three, however much that irks you. Those who believe there is a god, those who believe there is no god, and those who fit neither of the first two categories. Having more than those three categories is not useful. I cannot depend on you to put people in them in a consistent manner. My categories are realistic and less difficult to identify. The term "hard atheist" serves no useful, immediate purpose unless it means exactly what I mean by the simpler term "atheist." The only purpose I can see for "hard atheist" is to confuse people about the scientific evidence for objects of worship and agencies apparently outside nature. Although you do not consider Jesus a god, and perhaps neither care for Jesus the man, I believe you have argued for your version of the philosophy of life in the New Testament. Yes or no? If yes, that would make a "Christian Atheist." That's life. I think you are conflating my views with Film Flaneur. I never mentioned hard atheist. Tough titties, that is my choice of definition that is most apt to what I believe and NOT what you think I might believe. Hence I am also NOT a Christian atheist. That would be a contradiction in terms. I'm not confused. I address the board as these are not really private messages. Notice that my three categories cover the "universe" (set theory) of possibilities. A person with your beliefs (or any others) must fit one of those three. Another "agnostic atheist" (not you) had the following "universe" of possibilities; agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist and gnostic theist. Notice that two of those can't both exist. If there are any gnostic atheists, then there can't be any gnostic theists, or the other way around. Speak of contradictions in terms. Notice my three categories disregard what anyone might "definitely know" about a god. The good reason for that has been explained many times, the concept of a god is too abstract in modern times. Whether or not you are a Christian atheist there is strong evidence of their presence on the board. Atheists here often try to tell Christians that they interpret the new Testament incorrectly and require their atheist interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 4, 2018 23:54:52 GMT
I think you are conflating my views with Film Flaneur. I never mentioned hard atheist. Tough titties, that is my choice of definition that is most apt to what I believe and NOT what you think I might believe. Hence I am also NOT a Christian atheist. That would be a contradiction in terms. I'm not confused. I address the board as these are not really private messages. Notice that my three categories cover the "universe" (set theory) of possibilities. A person with your beliefs (or any others) must fit one of those three. Another "agnostic atheist" (not you) had the following "universe" of possibilities; agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist and gnostic theist. Notice that two of those can't both exist. If there are any gnostic atheists, then there can't be any gnostic theists, or the other way around. Speak of contradictions in terms. Notice my three categories disregard what anyone might "definitely know" about a god. The good reason for that has been explained many times, the concept of a god is too abstract in modern times. Whether or not you are a Christian atheist there is strong evidence of their presence on the board. Atheists here often try to tell Christians that they interpret the new Testament incorrectly and require their atheist interpretation. I am me, Goz. I am an agnostic atheist. I am not a Christian anything. My only opinion on the Bible is that it is bollocks (whilst having a few interesting phenomenon historically and philosophically) IMHO, variably translated interpreted and followed by those who do mistakenly believe in what they think it says.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 5, 2018 0:09:21 GMT
I'm not confused. I address the board as these are not really private messages. Notice that my three categories cover the "universe" (set theory) of possibilities. A person with your beliefs (or any others) must fit one of those three. Another "agnostic atheist" (not you) had the following "universe" of possibilities; agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist and gnostic theist. Notice that two of those can't both exist. If there are any gnostic atheists, then there can't be any gnostic theists, or the other way around. Speak of contradictions in terms. Notice my three categories disregard what anyone might "definitely know" about a god. The good reason for that has been explained many times, the concept of a god is too abstract in modern times. Whether or not you are a Christian atheist there is strong evidence of their presence on the board. Atheists here often try to tell Christians that they interpret the new Testament incorrectly and require their atheist interpretation. I am me, Goz. I am an agnostic atheist. I am not a Christian anything. My only opinion on the Bible is that it is bollocks (whilst having a few interesting phenomenon historically and philosophically) IMHO, variably translated interpreted and followed by those who do mistakenly believe in what they think it says. I have no intention of invading your agnostic atheist meetings. I doubt there are any agnostic atheist meetings, but I don't say that to slight you. Start some if you can. I still won't invade or otherwise oppress them. You don't believe in Jesus, I got that. You don't even like Jesus, I got that. You interpretation of scriptures varies from what many Christians think, but that doesn't mean you like your interpretation any better. Did I get that right?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 5, 2018 0:36:04 GMT
I have no intention of invading your agnostic atheist meetings. I doubt there are any agnostic atheist meetings, but I don't say that to slight you. Start some if you can. I still won't invade or otherwise oppress them. You don't believe in Jesus, I got that. You don't even like Jesus, I got that. You interpretation of scriptures varies from what many Christians think, but that doesn't mean you like your interpretation any better. Did I get that right? If she doesn't believe in something, how can goz like or dislike them?
If goz interprets something, what do you mean that she doesn't like her interpretation any better? If it's her interpretation, how doesn't she like it any better? You aren't making any sense Arlon. Did I get that right?
I was especially curious about that myself.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 5, 2018 0:58:12 GMT
I am me, Goz. I am an agnostic atheist. I am not a Christian anything. My only opinion on the Bible is that it is bollocks (whilst having a few interesting phenomenon historically and philosophically) IMHO, variably translated interpreted and followed by those who do mistakenly believe in what they think it says. I have no intention of invading your agnostic atheist meetings. I doubt there are any agnostic atheist meetings, but I don't say that to slight you. Start some if you can. I still won't invade or otherwise oppress them. You don't believe in Jesus, I got that. You don't even like Jesus, I got that. You interpretation of scriptures varies from what many Christians think, but that doesn't mean you like your interpretation any better. Did I get that right? In a nutshell, for all to see, your lack of understanding here Agnostic Atheism is not an 'anything'. It is not a belief, merely a lack of belief, clarified in a certain semantic way. Hence there are and could never be any kind of meeting. So save yourself the trouble of whatever problem you have with the concepts. Do you EVER get anything right? No. I don't believe in Jesus so I don't have an opinion on the subject except for 'his' non-existence. I don't have an interpretation of the Bible, I just dismiss others' on logical and historical grounds.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 5, 2018 0:59:53 GMT
I have no intention of invading your agnostic atheist meetings. I doubt there are any agnostic atheist meetings, but I don't say that to slight you. Start some if you can. I still won't invade or otherwise oppress them. You don't believe in Jesus, I got that. You don't even like Jesus, I got that. You interpretation of scriptures varies from what many Christians think, but that doesn't mean you like your interpretation any better. Did I get that right? If she doesn't believe in something, how can goz like or dislike them?
If goz interprets something, what do you mean that she doesn't like her interpretation any better? If it's her interpretation, how doesn't she like it any better? You aren't making any sense Arlon. Did I get that right?
Guess what? I can and have spoken for myself.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 5, 2018 3:50:40 GMT
I have no intention of invading your agnostic atheist meetings. I doubt there are any agnostic atheist meetings, but I don't say that to slight you. Start some if you can. I still won't invade or otherwise oppress them. You don't believe in Jesus, I got that. You don't even like Jesus, I got that. You interpretation of scriptures varies from what many Christians think, but that doesn't mean you like your interpretation any better. Did I get that right? In a nutshell, for all to see, your lack of understanding here Agnostic Atheism is not an 'anything'. It is not a belief, merely a lack of belief, clarified in a certain semantic way. Hence there are and could never be any kind of meeting. So save yourself the trouble of whatever problem you have with the concepts. Do you EVER get anything right? No. I don't believe in Jesus so I don't have an opinion on the subject except for 'his' non-existence. I don't have an interpretation of the Bible, I just dismiss others' on logical and historical grounds. I have gotten most things right most of my life and I have documentation in real life. I have attended atheist meetings and engaged them in philosophical discussion. Whatever you call yourself, you agree with Christian Atheists on every issue. Don't worry though. I will write it down so I never forget that it is merely a coincidence and not because you are a Christian Atheist.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 5, 2018 3:55:13 GMT
In a nutshell, for all to see, your lack of understanding here Agnostic Atheism is not an 'anything'. It is not a belief, merely a lack of belief, clarified in a certain semantic way. Hence there are and could never be any kind of meeting. So save yourself the trouble of whatever problem you have with the concepts. Do you EVER get anything right? No. I don't believe in Jesus so I don't have an opinion on the subject except for 'his' non-existence. I don't have an interpretation of the Bible, I just dismiss others' on logical and historical grounds. I have gotten most things right most of my life and I have documentation in real life. I have attended atheist meetings and engaged them in philosophical discussion. Whatever you call yourself, you agree with Christian Atheists on every issue. Don't worry though. I will write it down so I never forget that it is merely a coincidence and not because you are a Christian Atheist. Nope, on every thought.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 5, 2018 4:11:46 GMT
I have gotten most things right most of my life and I have documentation in real life. I have attended atheist meetings and engaged them in philosophical discussion. Whatever you call yourself, you agree with Christian Atheists on every issue. Don't worry though. I will write it down so I never forget that it is merely a coincidence and not because you are a Christian Atheist. Nope, on every thought. "Nope, on every thought" is not logic or evidence. It is spunk though, congratulations. You (plural) continue to cling to your obviously wrong ideas because the television has never told you that you're wrong or that I'm right. You won't change your mind until the television tells you. When it does, and it will, you will not argue with it because you can't. It's like your "god" (stretching terms) in that way.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 5, 2018 7:50:54 GMT
"Nope, on every thought" is not logic or evidence. It is spunk though, congratulations. You (plural) continue to cling to your obviously wrong ideas because the television has never told you that you're wrong or that I'm right. You won't change your mind until the television tells you. When it does, and it will, you will not argue with it because you can't. It's like your "god" (stretching terms) in that way. Strangely in all my posts ( which you answered) I NEVER mentioned television.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2018 8:43:36 GMT
No definitions are "right" or "wrong" Given that scripture defines morality all the way through, and indeed people go out of their way to live by such proscriptions as if they were "right", this is strange comment indeed from one who purports to be a Christian...
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 5, 2018 10:57:15 GMT
No definitions are "right" or "wrong" Given that scripture defines morality all the way through, and indeed people go out of their way to live by such proscriptions as if they were "right", this is strange comment indeed from one who purports to be a Christian... The Bible was not written in English originally. Surprised? Some people are. When it was originally written in whatever languages the various parts of it were, those were also human languages though, not the "angelic" ones of glossolalia. Therefore there is an attempt to convey meanings which might have no words at all. This should remind you of the exercise whereby you are asked to describe the color green to a blind person. It should also remind you that interpretation of scriptures is not possible without guidance from the Holy Spirit. Words like "love" and "murder" still appear to have no universal meaning even after years of wrangling. There are a few words that are exceptions. They do have meanings outside themselves. Onomatopoeias, the words that are just imitations of sounds in the world of course mean the sound they make which is inherent in those words. I probably will regret letting this out but some letters like l, n and r have a sound like animals make when they are angry. Of the five letters in my first name are all three of those but not the 'g' of grrrr. The vowels are from the sacred syllable aum (or om). The 's' or hiss sound (some animals make) in my last name has a "stop" in that it is followed by a 't' sound. Right, neither here nor there, so back to what I was saying before.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 5, 2018 11:04:45 GMT
Given that scripture defines morality all the way through, and indeed people go out of their way to live by such proscriptions as if they were "right", this is strange comment indeed from one who purports to be a Christian... ...and yet claims that he is right also, yet there are no right or wrongs. Must be that fuzzy and selective white noise that Arlon keeps tapping into from the t.v. He told goz he has gone to atheist meetings to engage them in philosophical discussions. I don't think engage is the appropriate term, perhaps enrage. I do answer your charges. You seem to overlook the answers most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2018 11:07:37 GMT
Given that scripture defines morality all the way through, and indeed people go out of their way to live by such proscriptions as if they were "right", this is strange comment indeed from one who purports to be a Christian... Arlon:The Bible was not written in English originally. Surprised? Some people are. I know of no one who is so surprised. More surprised are those who are told that the Gospels were most likely first written in Greek, and at increasing intervals after supposed events. The time when I made the obvious point to you that 'god' and 'good' are easy to explain (if not to agree on, just as with the sighted), since easy to understand, even to a blind person? I guess the Holy Spirit has some explaining to do then lol. Fascinating I am sure but, as you admit, neither here nor there to the original observation that for one who 'does not do' definitions you have been busy at it in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 5, 2018 11:12:02 GMT
He told goz he has gone to atheist meetings to engage them in philosophical discussions. I don't think engage is the appropriate term, perhaps enrage. This has come up before and what it amounts to is that Arlon has been in school debating societies, or something.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 5, 2018 11:21:17 GMT
I guess the Holy Spirit has some explaining to do then lol. Oh no, we clearly agree on something. I never said I don't do definitions. I can't guess where you got such an impression. My work on definitions is rather extensive, obvious and disciplined.
|
|