The irrelevance of God
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Shit talk. Could you try making some sense for a change?
Oh my God, are you truly that dumb? There are political power games all over the earth, there are religious power games, there are power games in love, marriage, social interactions between friends and between enemies,... One could even make the argument that God plays power games on humans.
I can't believe there are atheists on this website who think that you are the enlightened one and the example for them, because you call it like you see it. But really, you are proof that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
The next thing we'll see is atheists denying the existence of their butts because they have their heads so far up...
It truly is amazing how shit talk can pile up so high and so quickly.
All I did was ask wynn to dust off a dictionary so he can communicate more effectively, and it ended up with silly comments about power games. Hilarious. :roflmao:
@wynn - I get it, I got it the first time you made this point, if not the second or fifth or tenth time. I know the discussions are not entirely clean, yes, sometimes there is very little clean at all, but it isn't just all bs either. Of course it is valid to keep pointing that out, to remind what the focus can or should be.
I am pointing out the definitions need to be stricter, not looser. Anybody who asks whether a pink elephant really was ridden in a dream is being sloppy, trying to attach empirical data to someone talking about their experience of god and thereby derail serious conversation about philosophy. Anybody who says they don't understand the phrase, "real and not real", in the context of my description of a dream about an actual physical situation, is either lying or too stupid to discuss philosophy properly, or doesn't have a good grasp on the English language. I am not saying someone who has an experience of god, but won't describe what they mean, is being helpful in avoiding the sloppiness either though, definitely contributing.
Well I am not the one conflating or being sloppy. When a person asks another person if they actually rode a hippo to a bank robbery, I think there is a problem with definitions. I would also suggest that most people, when they say they saw or heard God, are talking about philosophically perceiving a situation that could be given a different description. They say, "god showed me he cared about me," when they could describe it some other way. But since there is no philosophical imperative for them to describe it differently, they use "god said." They don't mean there was an actual audible voice. Of course there are also people who will think their experiences in dreams are more "true" than their thoughts awake, and Freud and Jung would both agree that what we are conscious of is not always the best descriptor of what is "really" going on in a person's life. In the same way, a hippo may describe something very real without leaving footprints by the bed, I am confused as to why that is difficult to understand. It is basic.
There's nothing sloppy about it. The person made the claim that he accepts every experience as real. I asked a necessary corollary about how that person reconciles dreams, or imaginings, or anything else that no one in their right mind would accept at face value as being valid. This person's whole basis for accepting the existence of God is that they experienced it. Well, I want to know where they draw the line, if at all, and it's an important question, whether you like it or not.
And please, don't start in about "serious conversation" unless you're being ironic. Your clownish behavior in this thread has been noted.
There was nothing intuitive about your usage of the word real in that context. When you said "Real but not real," there was nothing about it that would have lead anyone to believe you were talking about its importance. And that's leaving aside the fact that your fatuous point was entirely off-topic, as I was discussing the actual nature of the experiences had by this member, not their placement on a scale of importance to them. Clearly, if a person has what they perceive to be a divine experience, it would be a pretty major event in their lives, even if that event is ongoing, as arfa has alluded to. So nowhere was the importance of the matter ever in question. You just jumped in blind and acted like you had something "real" to say.
How magnanimous of you. No, seriously, thanks for begrudgingly acknowledging the very epidemic that was plaguing this thread before you came along and killed it with your semantic pedantry.
"It's not real, but it's real." No context, no explanation.
A wall of text about 1real and 3real and 2real.
Yeah, you're incredibly sloppy, and attempting to derail a conversation that was clearly over your head from the start. Next time the discussion is too high-minded for you, sit back and let the adults talk.
I think you have a problem with context. Whether this is due to ignorance or just plain laziness, I really couldn't say.
You're very easily confused, I've noticed. There's really nothing difficult about my question regarding dreams, and I think I've fleshed it out enough that even you could understand it (though I won't hold my breath).
As for what arfa experienced, all he has to do is tell us. But he, like you, isn't secure enough in his faith to share in a place where it might be criticized.
Oh, it's not bs, not even remotely! It is of vital importance that one learns how the game is played. Otherwise, one will be mauled. Spirituality is a gladiator sport.
Some people try to live up in some ivory tower, refusing to stoop so low as to get involved in power games. Yet, to borrow from Clooney's "The Ides of March" -
You're right, this is exactly what
the Republicans do, and it's about
time we learned from them. They're
meaner, tougher and more
disciplined than we are. I've been
in this business for twenty five
years and I've seen way too many
Democrats bite the dust because
they wouldn't get down in the mud
with the fucking elephants.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Since God is de facto a childish concept to begin with, I can't imagine an adult description doing much justice to it. Perhaps you can try your hand at it. Every theist so far in this thread has refused to offer one.
Bs. Why not ask them the question in context instead of building a straw hippo?
I pointed out a dream may reflect some physical situation, and thereby be real and not real. So sad that a basic phrase that has been used and understood a million times, even by children, can't just be acknowledged.
i am sure a small child would also see a quote from the dictionary and a short paragraph as a "wall of text". Perhaps I could use grunts instead if that would be easier for you.
The question is not difficult, the difficulty is understanding how someone could complain about two different uses of the word real, used in order to clarify what type of real anybody here is talking about, meaning representing something actual, meaning meaningful, or meaning empirically verifiable. That is really basic language usage.
You literally just quoted me giving an example of how religious experience is described, a few words before your complaint here that nobody will share about religious experience, and i have been discussing my perception of what is generally classified as religious experience, and why and how it is classified as such here, and everywhere else one this forum. So sad. I have also already mentioned parts of my personal religious ideology all over this forum, and described it in short overview form. I believe I even mentioned some of it here, but it could be in the other thread I am posting in. I have yet to see any of it criticized or to see my many claims that empirical data is insufficient for philosophy, an a priori idea for my personal religious belief, critiqued or refuted. Just vague name-calling and straw-manning. You may as we'll call me a little green man as say I am afraid to discuss my personal beliefs. Sad.
Gee, I wonder why? When you pronounce "God is de facto a childish concept to begin with" there is very little likelihood that you will accept ANY other definition than the one you operate on. I have not read this whole thread (and do not intent to), but it would not be a bad bet that most alternate definitions of god will be dismissed with the usual tripe about either how any concept with such an array of possible definitions is flawed for that reason alone or that any definition that could possible satisfy you is not the majority definition.
If you can honestly cede these two, then we can talk. Otherwise it is foolishly useless.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Your comments certainly do reflect the fact that you haven't read the thread.
We haven't rejected any definitions of God or of anyone's experience. No one will actually describe their experience.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
More exasperating prevarication. You'll fit right in here...
Another pointless post, as I admitted as much and I am waiting to hear from MR (as that is who I was talking to).
I am more than happy to provide you with an "adult description" if you can simply agree not to dismiss it. Since Seattle already said none have so far been dismissed, that really should not be a huge concession (unless you fully intend to, of course).
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You mean only if I agree your description is a valid description of a real being will you give me one? No..Ofcourse I'm not going to agree to that. Why would I do that? I'm atheist..
I never said, nor implied, anything of the sort. I only asked that you not dismiss it (whether you agree with it or not) by saying it was any less valid a description than the childish one you use. I never said that that description must unequivocally describe an actual being.
You claim you want a more useful description of god, even though that is obviously disingenuous coming from an atheist and completely justified in assuming you only seek it as fuel for the fire. But when you get an honest offer of one (with only the modest request that you afford it the same validity you afford your current notion, that you do not believe, mind you) you immediately start hedging about just like you complain of others doing.
I mean, really? You cannot even manage to afford any other notion of god the same merit you afford the ONE you claim you do not even believe in? What makes this ONE disbelief any more worthy than any other? You are sounding much more anti-religion or anti-Christian than atheist.