Of stampcollectors and atheists

greenberg said:
A devotee.
Click to expand...
That would suffice for no other field or topic. Are standards that low ?

greenberg said:
On the other hand, people who themselves do not yet believe in God but who discuss about God, they too
have the responsibility to maintain a certain high level of discussion in terms of common decency and logical discourse.
Click to expand...
That's seldom possible, in discussions with dogmatic theists. How does one handle the "not yet believe in God" form of "logical discourse", for example, on a high level ? The high road is silence - which is not a bad idea, but doesn't do much for maintaining the discussion.
 
iceaura said:
That would suffice for no other field or topic. Are standards that low ?
Click to expand...

If we wish to discuss geology with someone has a qualification in geology, but not in other fields, do we think of the other person having a qualification only in geology to be a low standard? Do we think that in order to be qualified to discuss geology, the other person also needs qualifications in other fields?


That's seldom possible, in discussions with dogmatic theists. How does one handle the "not yet believe in God" form of "logical discourse", for example, on a high level ? The high road is silence - which is not a bad idea, but doesn't do much for maintaining the discussion.
Click to expand...

A lot depends on why one wants to discuss to begin with. Is it because one is actually interested in the topic; or because one wants to berate the other person; or because one is just generally confused; or bored; or has some hidden agenda?

There are all sorts of intentions present in our minds for why we do something, and the intentions behind why we engage in discussion about God can be quite versatile as well. One would do good to make an effort to pay attention to what really goes on in one's mind -this can require some practice- and not unnecessarily be in denial about one's true intentions.

But being aware of one's true intentions, it is easier to streamline one's actions. Presenting one's intentions truthfully to the other person also helps them to shape their input.


How does one handle the "not yet believe in God" form of "logical discourse", for example, on a high level ?
Click to expand...

A question: What do you think about how I discuss matters of God?
 
greenberg said:
That would suffice for no other field or topic. Are standards that low ?
”
If we wish to discuss geology with someone has a qualification in geology, but not in other fields, do we think of the other person having a qualification only in geology to be a low standard? Do we think that in order to be qualified to discuss geology, the other person also needs qualifications in other fields?
Click to expand...
We're back to square one. What would a "qualification" be, for expertise in a Deity ? You offered "devotee", and I pointed out that would be a unique qualification of expertise, and a very low standard. It wouldn't do for "expert" status in geology, for example.

greenberg said:
A question: What do you think about how I discuss matters of God?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen enough discussion of such topics from you to form an opinion.
 
iceaura said:
What would a "qualification" be, for expertise in a Deity ?
Click to expand...

Eventually, it takes an expert to know one.
However, one must begin somewhere - and getting to know the scriptures that the theist is referring to seems like a good start. In those scriptures, information may be contained about what is necessary to be qualified in the field of theism. One can then use that information to asses other people's qualification, and more importantly, one's own.

- Surely, this is self-referential, in the sense that the field defines itself and what is relevant in it: but all fields of knowledge do that.


You offered "devotee", and I pointed out that would be a unique qualification of expertise, and a very low standard.
Click to expand...

Why would that be a very low standard?


It wouldn't do for "expert" status in geology, for example.
Click to expand...

To have expert status in geology, what is needed is that one has a degree from a recognized institution, considerable publications, a good reputation among the community of geologists, is referred to as an authority by other people in the field.

I think similar can be said for devotees in their field, in accord with the specific requirements of their field.
 
greenberg said:
- Surely, this is self-referential, in the sense that the field defines itself and what is relevant in it: but all fields of knowledge do that.
Click to expand...
Not really. Fields in which expertise exists normally answer to standards of reason and performance recognizable by, and persuasive to, outsiders - competence and incompetence is not only recognized in the field, but can be explained to others outside the field.

greenberg said:
However, one must begin somewhere - and getting to know the scriptures that the theist is referring to seems like a good start. In those scriptures, information may be contained about what is necessary to be qualified in the field of theism.
Click to expand...
But we were not asking about the field of theism. We were asking about the field of expertise in a God, not the field of expertise in scriptures, etc.
 
John99 said:
"Your analogy just does not hold."

Oh yes, i am certain it does.

"So, just as we did not know bacteria existed we do not know god exists."

But bacteria do exist.
Click to expand...

By the same token so do leprechauns, tooth-fairies and anything else you care to imagine.
 
Last edited:
Iceaura
“
Originally Posted by greenberg
- Surely, this is self-referential, in the sense that the field defines itself and what is relevant in it: but all fields of knowledge do that.
”
Not really. Fields in which expertise exists normally answer to standards of reason and performance recognizable by, and persuasive to, outsiders -
Click to expand...
so exactly how is, say, a geologist persuasive to outsiders?

competence and incompetence is not only recognized in the field, but can be explained to others outside the field.
Click to expand...
similarly one can explain things in the field of theism, but only to an audience willing to offer a submissive aural reception (which is what I would argue is the same standard with any other field of knowledge)
“
Originally Posted by greenberg
However, one must begin somewhere - and getting to know the scriptures that the theist is referring to seems like a good start. In those scriptures, information may be contained about what is necessary to be qualified in the field of theism.
”
But we were not asking about the field of theism. We were asking about the field of expertise in a God, not the field of expertise in scriptures, etc.
Click to expand...
even though there may be a distinction between the field of geology and the field of expertise in geology books, it still remains that referring to books on geology is a good way to reference a qualified geologist
 
A "submissive aural reception" is not required to learn geology. Field work provides abundant evidence of the veracity of what one is being told. Not so with religion; we are told of miracles but never get to witness any.
 
John99 said:
"Your analogy just does not hold."

Oh yes, i am certain it does.

"So, just as we did not know bacteria existed we do not know god exists."

But bacteria do exist.
Click to expand...

Oh no, your analogy does not hold.
Bacteria obey all the natural rules, God does not.
 
Myles said:
That's because God made the rules,. ha bloody ha. Therein lies the strength of John's irrefutable argument.
Click to expand...

Well, if he made the rules there was such a time at which there was a God but no rules. Hence God is completely free of any natural rules and cannot exist in nature.
This basically means he doesn't exist at all.
 
Last edited:
LG said:
so exactly how is, say, a geologist persuasive to outsiders?
Click to expand...
Argument, reason, successful prediction, provision of examples, coherency with repeatable experience available to any questioner with access to rock, etc etc.

Like most anyone.
 
Enmos said:
Well, if he made the rules there was such a time at which there was a God but no rules. Hence God is completely free of any natural rules and cannot exist in nature.
This basically means he doesn't exist at all.
Click to expand...

NO , no, no. Thr rules were made by god the father; we're talking of god the son. Gotcha
 
Myles said:
No. In celestial aritmmetic 1/3 = 1.

If there was only one than when Jesus ascended into heaven he'd have had to sit on his own right -hand side.
Click to expand...

Well.. I can't argue with celestial arithmetic. lol
 
iceaura said:
Argument, reason, successful prediction, provision of examples, coherency with repeatable experience available to any questioner with access to rock, etc etc.

Like most anyone.
Click to expand...
so IOW it is not really possible without an outsider participating in the practical application side of things?
 
Myles said:
A "submissive aural reception" is not required to learn geology. Field work provides abundant evidence of the veracity of what one is being told. Not so with religion; we are told of miracles but never get to witness any.
Click to expand...
once again, practical application it is, eh?
:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top