Religion Vs God

[iceaura]

I think we missed the part where you established that measuring all things by the standards of physics (or even your particular infatuation with the 19th century version of it) is reasonable.

LGR1. (Deflection based personal attack, irrelevancy).

The part where you deign to speak to the thread topic is still in our future.

It might have been interesting, after all, to have an ordinary-person, casual, kick around discussion about the influence of deity on religion and vice versa.

 

[lightgigantic]

LGR1. (Deflection based personal attack, irrelevancy).

I don't see why you think that.

You say its reasonable to discuss god through norms that are applicable to physics (even though there are arguably issues of physics that step outside your working definition - such as perceived contradictions in matter)

The part where you deign to speak to the thread topic is still in our future.

That's because you dismiss all contributions that step outside your working definition of the problem

It might have been interesting, after all, to have an ordinary-person, casual, kick around discussion about the influence of deity on religion and vice versa.

Then why introduce the norms of (19th century) physics as the level playing field?
And why insist that such discussion revolve around the premise that there is no assumption of god's existence? (An assumption that is obviously a key element in all atheistic discourse)

 

[iceaura]

LGR1. (Deflection based personal attack, irrelevancy).
”
I don't see why you think that.

I don't see why I should believe you.

The part where you deign to speak to the thread topic is still in our future.
”
That's because you dismiss all contributions that step outside your working definition of the problem

No, I don't. I dismiss your attempts to deflect the discussion into personal accusations irrelevant to the attempted topic.

Then why introduce the norms of (19th century) physics as the level playing field?

I don't. I observe the existence of the norms of reason and evidence inherent in the thread topic and our common language, and your attempted denial of them.

And why insist that such discussion revolve around the premise that there is no assumption of god's existence?

Because an assumption of some particular believer's deity's existence - not a hypothetical explicitly considered but an assumption framing the questions and establishing the context of the answers - prevents discussion of the influence of deity on religion and vice versa.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't see why I should believe you.

You don't see why you should believe that I don't see why you think that?
sheesh

I would have thought that would have at least been something we could agree on ....

No, I don't. I dismiss your attempts to deflect the discussion into personal accusations irrelevant to the attempted topic.

The accusation is only personal in the sense that you are bringing your own assumptions to the table (or rather you are personally representing the assumptions of a particular camp). Ordinarily this wouldn't be a problem (in fact its a necessary contribution of argumentative dialogue). What makes it awkward however is that you deem that your assumptions are the only valid ones on nothing more than hot air and trumped up charges of foul play.

I don't. I observe the existence of the norms of reason and evidence inherent in the thread topic and our common language, and your attempted denial of them.

On the contrary its your values that dictate there be no assumption about the existence of god. There is nothing with the thread topic or common language that warrants such an arbitrary requirement.
Trying to steer the argument down such a pathway simply frames the discussion for atheistic dialogue and its incumbent assumptions (such as holding the question of god before ideals of 19th century physics, discrediting the normative issues that frame the claim of god, etc etc)

Because an assumption of some particular believer's deity's existence - not a hypothetical explicitly considered but an assumption framing the questions and establishing the context of the answers - prevents discussion of the influence of deity on religion and vice versa.

What on earth makes you think that?
There are literally scores of religious pathways that frame the nature of god in a particular fashion ... much like there are literally scores of medical applications that frame the health of an individual in a particular fashion.

An assumption about a particular understanding of god reduces a discussion of religion in no necessary way ... much like an assumption about massage doesn't necessarily discredit something to do with bone casting or the application of pharmaceuticals .