Bible - Fiction?

[mjw47]

For someone who "detests" being labelled, you don't half mind labeling others. Some may even find it irritating.

That is the effect you get from people mincing words, using one sentence in place of another, with different meanings, rather than making correct use of language

 

 

If meanings aren't explained, how is a specific, clear and understandable point to be made?

The whole reason the explaining began is because the label (detested so much by yourself) you were giving people was based on the wrong meaning. Since that point you've swung between claiming I'm wrong and also admitting that you understand the difference but think it's better to ignore it.

 

There's a word for that, one which MrSmith/Maxmaximus/Angos likes to label people with often.

 

---------- Post added 21-12-2013 at 23:17 ----------

 

 

You don't have to take my word for it, you can draw your own conclusion on the matter, there's not that much to it.

 

You appear unable to converse in a normal manner, in which ordinary people carry out their day to day communications.

 

In a post above I referred to the Government, which then allowed another poster to have a joke at my expense, which I enjoyed.

 

Pedantically I was incorrect, but in reality anyone with any sense knew exactly what I meant. They also got the joke.

 

Your ongoing quest to impose strict rules of interpretation on everyone is annoying/amusing in equal parts, & doomed to failure.

 

And the real amusing thing - to me anyway - is the subject which you are wanting to impose your strict rules upon.

 

Religion or lack thereof.

 

On the last occasion I became involved on a similar thread, some comedian suggested, apparently in all seriousness, that I could learn a lot if I ' Take note of what other posters were trying to tell me, as they were 'extremely well informed & erudite in their knowledge.'

 

Priceless, this poster seemed oblivious to the fact that it is impossible to learn anything from religious or anti religious people because the only Fact available is that there are no Facts.

 

Religious/Atheist, & all shades of other combinations of either have no facts to offer.

 

All they have are beliefs, positive or negative. Makes no difference, it's all conjecture.

 

So all you can 'learn' is an assortment of myths, legends, assertions, denials, claims, counter claims & total figments of assorted imaginations stretching back over thousands of years. Most of it served up by people who would fall on their knees & worship a television should they ever see one.

 

All of which does not prove that a Creator does not exist. Just that if there is one it's beyond our comprehension to understand it.

[Lockjaw]

Well yes, the halo slipped for a moment, could have been worse.

 

That was then, this is now.

Have a good Christmas.

 

Same to you Janie. Hope it's the best one yet.

[angos]

You appear unable to converse in a normal manner, in which ordinary people carry out their day to day communications.

 

In a post above I referred to the Government, which then allowed another poster to have a joke at my expense, which I enjoyed.

 

Pedantically I was incorrect, but in reality anyone with any sense knew exactly what I meant. They also got the joke.

 

Your ongoing quest to impose strict rules of interpretation on everyone is annoying/amusing in equal parts, & doomed to failure.

 

And the real amusing thing - to me anyway - is the subject which you are wanting to impose your strict rules upon.

 

Religion or lack thereof.

 

On the last occasion I became involved on a similar thread, some comedian suggested, apparently in all seriousness, that I could learn a lot if I ' Take note of what other posters were trying to tell me, as they were 'extremely well informed & erudite in their knowledge.'

 

Priceless, this poster seemed oblivious to the fact that it is impossible to learn anything from religious or anti religious people because the only Fact available is that there are no Facts.

 

Religious/Atheist, & all shades of other combinations of either have no facts to offer.

 

All they have are beliefs, positive or negative. Makes no difference, it's all conjecture.

 

So all you can 'learn' is an assortment of myths, legends, assertions, denials, claims, counter claims & total figments of assorted imaginations stretching back over thousands of years. Most of it served up by people who would fall on their knees & worship a television should they ever see one.

 

All of which does not prove that a Creator does not exist. Just that if there is one it's beyond our comprehension to understand it.

 

I agree until you got to the bold bit, you state that as if its a fact when in fact it just your belief that it's beyond our comprehension to understand it.

 

---------- Post added 22-12-2013 at 08:34 ----------

 

You don't have to take my word for it, you can draw your own conclusion on the matter, there's not that much to it.

 

In that case, if I ever say,

"I don't believe that God exists"

what I am saying is,

"I believe that God doesn't exists"

or

"I don't think that God exists"

or

"I believe that God is just a figment of other people imagination"

or

"I think that God is just a figment of the imagination"

 

 

There are many ways of saying the same thing, but they all fundamentally mean the same.

 

So when anyone says any of those things I understand them to mean they don't that think God exists.

[RootsBooster]

You appear unable to converse in a normal manner, in which ordinary people carry out their day to day communications.

 

In a post above I referred to the Government, which then allowed another poster to have a joke at my expense, which I enjoyed.

 

Pedantically I was incorrect, but in reality anyone with any sense knew exactly what I meant. They also got the joke.

 

Your ongoing quest to impose strict rules of interpretation on everyone is annoying/amusing in equal parts, & doomed to failure.

 

And the real amusing thing - to me anyway - is the subject which you are wanting to impose your strict rules upon.

 

Religion or lack thereof.

 

On the last occasion I became involved on a similar thread, some comedian suggested, apparently in all seriousness, that I could learn a lot if I ' Take note of what other posters were trying to tell me, as they were 'extremely well informed & erudite in their knowledge.'

 

Priceless, this poster seemed oblivious to the fact that it is impossible to learn anything from religious or anti religious people because the only Fact available is that there are no Facts.

Well, you say all that but then you go on to say this...

 

Religious/Atheist, & all shades of other combinations of either have no facts to offer.

 

All they have are beliefs, positive or negative. Makes no difference, it's all conjecture.

 

...you've already claimed several times that you understand the difference between belief and absence of belief, yet you choose to ignore this and label many atheists on this thread as 'believers', then you wonder why we correct you?

 

Then, you somehow think it's me/us that are the problem...

You appear unable to converse in a normal manner, in which ordinary people carry out their day to day communications.

 

---------- Post added 22-12-2013 at 10:12 ----------

 

 

In that case, if I ever say,

"I don't believe that God exists"

what I am saying is,

"I believe that God doesn't exists"

or

"I don't think that God exists"

or

"I believe that God is just a figment of other people imagination"

or

"I think that God is just a figment of the imagination"

 

 

There are many ways of saying the same thing, but they all fundamentally mean the same.

 

So when anyone says any of those things I understand them to mean they don't that think God exists.

 

Except that some beliefs and the implications of holding or not holding those beliefs can be important to some people.

 

In daily life, if I was asked about it I wouldn't explain that I'm an apatheistic, agnostic atheist and go into detail explaining it, I'd just say "I don't believe in God".

Personally I wouldn't say that "I believe there is no God" though, because I know the difference and it wouldn't be a true statement.

I also wouldn't start quizzing the details of someone who said that they believe there is no God.

If they tried telling me that I believe there is no God though, of course I'm going to correct them, as would most people.

 

In the case of the frog, it might not be important to state whether you believe it will die or don't believe it will survive. When someone is telling you that you believe something though, simply because they (by their own admission) choose to ignore the difference of detail, then it can be important to clarify.

 

From the sounds of it mjw47 is simply an agnostic atheist who doesn't want to accept the atheism part of it. He "detests" being labelled with what he thinks is a negative term, when in fact it's not.

[angos]

 

Except that some beliefs and the implications of holding or not holding those beliefs can be important to some people.

 

In daily life, if I was asked about it I wouldn't explain that I'm an apatheistic, agnostic atheist and go into detail explaining it, I'd just say "I don't believe in God".

Personally I wouldn't say that "I believe there is no God" though, because I know the difference and it wouldn't be a true statement.

I also wouldn't start quizzing the details of someone who said that they believe there is no God.

If they tried telling me that I believe there is no God though, of course I'm going to correct them, as would most people.

 

In the case of the frog, it might not be important to state whether you believe it will die or don't believe it will survive. When someone is telling you that you believe something though, simply because they (by their own admission) choose to ignore the difference of detail, then it can be important to clarify.

 

From the sounds of it mjw47 is simply an agnostic atheist who doesn't want to accept the atheism part of it. He "detests" being labelled with what he thinks is a negative term, when in fact it's not.

 

To me the question is difficult to answer without making some assumptions, I would automatically assume they mean the biblical God as described by Christians, because this is the God I was told about. If I didn't make this assumption I could only answer with, what is God?

 

Different people have different opinions on the nature of God, and whilst I think some of these Gods are impossible, I also believe some are possible but unlikely.

[Ryedo40]

You appear unable to converse in a normal manner, in which ordinary people carry out their day to day communications.

 

I get that impression from you, not Rootsbooster.

 

Your ongoing quest to impose strict rules of interpretation on everyone is annoying/amusing in equal parts, & doomed to failure.

 

Language is degenerate and prone to semantic blunder. This is why, in any serious discussion or debate, we have to be clear in our definitions and use of words. We do this to help avoid misunderstanding or misuse of words.

 

There are always going to be those who are incapable or who fail to understand - or, perhaps like yourself, who refuse to accept the terms and definitions used. So you are partly correct about it being doomed to failure.

 

And the real amusing thing - to me anyway - is the subject which you are wanting to impose your strict rules upon.

 

Religion or lack thereof.

 

I don't see why that's any more amusing than any other topic that is up for serious discussion. You've still got to be clear or explain your use of language when, or if, someone doesn't understand - or when they misunderstand.

 

On the last occasion I became involved on a similar thread, some comedian suggested, apparently in all seriousness, that I could learn a lot if I ' Take note of what other posters were trying to tell me, as they were 'extremely well informed & erudite in their knowledge.'

 

Priceless, this poster seemed oblivious to the fact that it is impossible to learn anything from religious or anti religious people because the only Fact available is that there are no Facts.

 

And that is a fact is it? It's a fact that many religious peoples beliefs are based on faith: faith being contrary to the facts showing that many of their beliefs are in error. It's a fact that religious people hold all sorts of beliefs that stem from their religion. It's also a fact that many atheists, and anti-religious people, dispute a myriad of claims made by the religious; usually because those claims are baseless.

 

Just to be clear with the above, I'm not just talking about their god premise here.

 

Religious/Atheist, & all shades of other combinations of either have no facts to offer.

 

All they have are beliefs, positive or negative. Makes no difference, it's all conjecture.

 

All of which does not prove that a Creator does not exist. Just that if there is one it's beyond our comprehension to understand it.

 

As an atheist, I'm not in the business of disproving the existence of a creator. If someone claims a creator exists, the onus is on them to substantiate that claim with tangible facts. If they can't, then I've no reason to believe their claim.

[mjw47]

I agree until you got to the bold bit, you state that as if its a fact when in fact it just your belief that it's beyond our comprehension to understand it.

 

---------- Post added 22-12-2013 at 08:34 ----------

 

 

In order to understand the nature of God ( assuming there is one ) we would need to arrive at a point in human knowledge where every scientist in every discipline would be able to push their chairs back, put on the kettle & declare 'Well that's that then, we now know every conceivable thing there is to know about the subject.'

 

Could it happen? Maybe, but not in my lifetime, so not worth worrying about.

 

Consider that all objects are composed of atoms, & that if you were to scale an atom up so that the nucleus was the size of a football the electron's would be orbiting at almost a mile away it means that 99% of an atom is nothing.

This means that, in effect, everything is made virtually out of nothing, but very tightly packed.

 

Seems to me if there is a Creator it will take some figuring out.

[angos]

In order to understand the nature of God ( assuming there is one ) we would need to arrive at a point in human knowledge where every scientist in every discipline would be able to push their chairs back, put on the kettle & declare 'Well that's that then, we now know every conceivable thing there is to know about the subject.'

 

Could it happen? Maybe, but not in my lifetime, so not worth worrying about.

 

Consider that all objects are composed of atoms, & that if you were to scale an atom up so that the nucleus was the size of a football the electron's would be orbiting at almost a mile away it means that 99% of an atom is nothing.

This means that, in effect, everything is made virtually out of nothing, but very tightly packed.

 

Seems to me if there is a Creator it will take some figuring out.

 

That's just your belief though, some people already believe they know the nature of God, just because its beyond your comprehension doesn't mean its beyond the comprehension of everyone.

All you have to do is open your heart to God and God will allow you to know the nature of God.

[mjw47]

Rootsbooster.

 

The point is that language changes, & for better or worse, common usage trumps original meaning.

 

Should a news report state that a group of paramilitaries ' decimated ' a village, people imagine a massacre took place, with indiscriminate killing.

 

They would not assume that the paramilitaries lined the villagers up & then proceeded from a random point to execute every tenth person would they?

 

Despite many knowing the origins of the word, they accept it no longer applies.

 

That is all I'm saying, ask people what an atheist is, & most will probably reply 'someone who doesn't believe in God.

What they mean is the existence of God(s).

 

Should you say to them what do you call someone who doesn't believe in God but accepts that it is not impossible for one to exist, most people would say agnostic. Common usage trumps etymology.

 

As to labeling atheists believers, I maintain that anyone who holds a point of view, which they cannot provide proof of, has precisely that, 'a point of view'.

 

Presumably, they would not hold that point of view without some measure of belief in it?

Therefore, in my opinion it is perfectly correct to refer to them as 'believers'.

 

And I truly believe that.

 

---------- Post added 22-12-2013 at 15:51 ----------

 

That's just your belief though, some people already believe they know the nature of God, just because its beyond your comprehension doesn't mean its beyond the comprehension of everyone.

All you have to do is open your heart to God and God will allow you to know the nature of God.

 

Didn't realize you were born again angos. Do you have two bellybuttons?

 

As you say, some people BELIEVE they know the nature of God. These are the same people who can't actually prove the existence of this God they know so well.

 

You will have to excuse me not getting too overexcited about the possibility of the second coming.

[angos]

 

Didn't realize you were born again angos. Do you have two bellybuttons?

 

As you say, some people BELIEVE they know the nature of God. These are the same people who can't actually prove the existence of this God they know so well.

 

You will have to excuse me not getting too overexcited about the possibility of the second coming.

 

They can't prove it to you because you haven't opened your heart and mind to the possibility of knowing God. Being agnostic prevents you ever knowing the love of God because you believe that the nature of God is unknowable. Atheists on the other hand haven't closed the minds and hearts to the possibility of ever knowing God.