Undecided

[sandwiches]

No, to really fix it you would have to include both groups, something I did just a bit ago...it's about having a fair assessment of not only ourselves, but the people we identify with. Goes back to the nature of us human beings and our fear of questions and answers.

Then you should've included Christians in the original paragraph or simply used the word 'people.'

that is one definition, look, I have talked to bunches of atheists, even have one atheist that came to our sons funeral. Each one has a slightly different definition to offer, a defintion that reflects their own personal bias...it is no different than when we ask a christian for details of what they believe. Because we are all individuals, the more people in a specific group, the harder it is to find 100% common ground on every aspect of that belief. It is sociology 101, have you taken it? You would also deal with it in most phycology classes....It is an interesting phenomina and one that scripture addresses even though an incredibly few christians accept the biblical teaching on it. A vast number of which will testify to knowing the scripture but not being willing to accept it.

Now I'm curious. What other definitions have you seen or heard for 'atheist?'

I don't know about Gawron, all I know is about what I said, and what I said is about definition of what an atheist is....

Point taken.

what does that have to do with sociology 101? If I thought I knew it all, I would go well beyond sociology 101, now wouldn't I...I also would be arguing with you throughout this entire thread.

???

I never mentioned anything about sociology 101.

In fact, I prefer to ask questions and learn from those answers than to teach anything, something I did with you until you refused to answer any more questions....hum, what does that say about where the questions were taking you within yourself?

I guess you missed my answers because I answered your questions. I simply said I didn't want to keep arguing semantics.

 

[razzelflabben]

Then you should've included Christians in the original paragraph or simply used the word 'people.'

actually, I started out with atheists because it was consistent with the discussion, and added christians and other people later because it was consistent with the idea being presented...in other words, there was a literary purpose to the way it was written, a literary purpose that was consistent with the point/points being made.

Now I'm curious. What other definitions have you seen or heard for 'atheist?'

it runs a gammet of anything from I don't know, to there is no god and everything and anything in between, IOW's the only thing eliminated is those that do believe absolutely that there is a god. If there is any doubt, (even if practicing religious rituals) you can call yourself atheist. If you are angry with "god" you can call yourself an atheist. If you don't believe in god, you can call yourself an atheist. If you are a skeptic, you can call yourself atheist, etc. etc. etc. Even those who think they have no belief at all in a supernatural being, can call themselves atheist. Anything but pure belief can be labeled atheist, which reduces it's meaning to pretty much a word without significant meaning.

Point taken.

???

I never mentioned anything about sociology 101.

no, you responded to my post about sociology 101 with comments about thinking one knows everything...if I thought that with sociology 101 I knew it all, that would be unbelievably sad...so the real question is why would you bring up the comment about thinking one knows everything when all I offer is sociology 101 comments? How are the two connected? Why would you comment about know it all's just because I present some basic knowledge about sociology? Would it make you feel better if I sounded like an idiot that never studied anything in school? Or would you also think that was sounding like a know it all? Just because someone speaks of things they have studied, doesn't mean they think they know it all. Ah well, moving on...

I guess you missed my answers because I answered your questions. I simply said I didn't want to keep arguing semantics.

I remember that answer, and I showed you how it is much more then semantics, in fact, I went into detail about how it was definitions and intent, not semantics that were intended to stump and confuse. To which you had no reply. You didn't even try to show that it was semantics, you just ignored my argument so that you could content yourself with the semantics argument and miss the force of what I was saying...of which I find lacking in your ability to be fully enjoyed in a discussion like this, but not so lacking that I can't continue to enjoy discussion with you....in fact, I just mark it up to you not having an argument and move on.

 

[sandwiches]

actually, I started out with atheists because it was consistent with the discussion, and added christians and other people later because it was consistent with the idea being presented...in other words, there was a literary purpose to the way it was written, a literary purpose that was consistent with the point/points being made. it runs a gammet of anything from I don't know, to there is no god and everything and anything in between, IOW's the only thing eliminated is those that do believe absolutely that there is a god. If there is any doubt, (even if practicing religious rituals) you can call yourself atheist. If you are angry with "god" you can call yourself an atheist. If you don't believe in god, you can call yourself an atheist. If you are a skeptic, you can call yourself atheist, etc. etc. etc. Even those who think they have no belief at all in a supernatural being, can call themselves atheist. Anything but pure belief can be labeled atheist, which reduces it's meaning to pretty much a word without significant meaning.

I haven't seen that, myself, but if true, I might be wrong. How do you feel about the word Christian, then? It's also used in many many different ways from people to believing what the Bible says literally to those who think the Bible is merely allegorical.

no, you responded to my post about sociology 101 with comments about thinking one knows everything...if I thought that with sociology 101 I knew it all, that would be unbelievably sad...so the real question is why would you bring up the comment about thinking one knows everything when all I offer is sociology 101 comments? How are the two connected? Why would you comment about know it all's just because I present some basic knowledge about sociology? Would it make you feel better if I sounded like an idiot that never studied anything in school? Or would you also think that was sounding like a know it all? Just because someone speaks of things they have studied, doesn't mean they think they know it all. Ah well, moving on...

Read my post again but I responded to Michael not you. So, I have no idea what you're talking about.

I remember that answer, and I showed you how it is much more then semantics, in fact, I went into detail about how it was definitions and intent, not semantics that were intended to stump and confuse. To which you had no reply. You didn't even try to show that it was semantics, you just ignored my argument so that you could content yourself with the semantics argument and miss the force of what I was saying...of which I find lacking in your ability to be fully enjoyed in a discussion like this, but not so lacking that I can't continue to enjoy discussion with you....in fact, I just mark it up to you not having an argument and move on.

When you're trying to convince me that joy, love, and peace are not feelings, it's semantics. You can mark it up however you'd like, however, you never had a good argument as to why love, joy, and peace shouldn't be considered emotions when they obviously are. First, show me that you're right and not just by giving vacuous statements such as 'they're beyond feelings' or other nonsense.

 

[Michael]

See my sig. As long as you can admit that you can still learn more and that you ideas might be wrong, you're on the right path. The moment you believe you have ultimate knowledge, is the moment you stop learning and growing.

FYI, I agree.

 

[AV1611VET]

FYI, I agree.

You'd think with education being such a sought-after commodity, it would be inexpensive; what with the Law of Supply & Demand and all.

 

[The Lady Kate]

You'd think with education being such a sought-after commodity, it would be inexpensive; what with the Law of Supply & Demand and all.

You mean, with the demand so high, it should be cheaper?

Do you even know what supply and demand means?

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean, with the demand so high, it should be cheaper?

Do you even know what supply and demand means?

That's true -- got that backward, didn't I?

 

[The Lady Kate]

That's true -- got that backward, didn't I?

Very much so... education doesn't come easy, and as such, doesn't come cheap.

 

[Gracchus]

You'd think with education being such a sought-after commodity, it would be inexpensive; what with the Law of Supply & Demand and all.

Most people don't want an education, though they might want a degree.

Some persons on this forum, for instance, will never study science, and refuse to even consider what science is presented to them, although they like to make authoritative pronouncements about science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some persons on this forum, for instance, will never study science, and refuse to even consider what science is presented to them, although they like to make authoritative pronouncements about science.

-- What's this world coming to???

 

[razzelflabben]

I haven't seen that, myself, but if true, I might be wrong. How do you feel about the word Christian, then? It's also used in many many different ways from people to believing what the Bible says literally to those who think the Bible is merely allegorical.

that was the point, words like atheist and christian have been reduced to all but meaningless...how is it that every belief, every variation as long as it includes something about God and Jesus is christian, heck, some don't even need to include Jesus to be considered christian...when we reduce words so much by watering down their meaning it is for the purpose of hiding truth from those who seek to know. IOW's, if we allow these words to once again have a definate meaning, then communicates make truth easier to see. Bottom line, I hate the way people have reduced both names (and some others) into meaningless notions designed to hid truth.

Read my post again but I responded to Michael not you. So, I have no idea what you're talking about.

sorry, I keep forgetting that when someone responds to another poster, a public forum requires the private discussion where no one else is permitted to comment.

When you're trying to convince me that joy, love, and peace are not feelings, it's semantics.

what I said is that the translation of the words are more than feelings but there are no appropriate words translations in English...thus it isn't about semantics, but rather about translation. But that is okay, I have no interest in going backwards. I just wonder why you didn't respond to what I said, rather than just ignoring that it was said.

You can mark it up however you'd like, however, you never had a good argument as to why love, joy, and peace shouldn't be considered emotions when they obviously are.

wow, since we have two solid points, 1. attitude is part of the emotional nature of a thing and 2. translation issues can get in the way of real understanding, and you had no argument against either, I wonder what you would consider a good argument...I would think a good argument would be one that has no contrary response, as you did not have. But, as I said, I have no interest in going backward...

First, show me that you're right and not just by giving vacuous statements such as 'they're beyond feelings' or other nonsense.

did, and you ignored my posts, so no worries, move on into the current discussion.

 

[sandwiches]

that was the point, words like atheist and christian have been reduced to all but meaningless...how is it that every belief, every variation as long as it includes something about God and Jesus is christian, heck, some don't even need to include Jesus to be considered christian...when we reduce words so much by watering down their meaning it is for the purpose of hiding truth from those who seek to know. IOW's, if we allow these words to once again have a definate meaning, then communicates make truth easier to see. Bottom line, I hate the way people have reduced both names (and some others) into meaningless notions designed to hid truth.

Words don't have to have absolute meaning for them to be meaningful in a conversation. The meanings can be defined in the context of the current conversation. Just make sure you're on the same page as the person you're speaking to.

sorry, I keep forgetting that when someone responds to another poster, a public forum requires the private discussion where no one else is permitted to comment.

First off, you said that I responded to YOUR post. I didn't. Second, you're permitted to comment but make sure when you do, that your answer makes sense in the context of the quote. I never mentioned or said anything about sociology 101. I have no idea where it came from, where you mentioned it, or how it's relevant to what I said.

what I said is that the translation of the words are more than feelings but there are no appropriate words translations in English...thus it isn't about semantics, but rather about translation. But that is okay, I have no interest in going backwards. I just wonder why you didn't respond to what I said, rather than just ignoring that it was said. wow, since we have two solid points, 1. attitude is part of the emotional nature of a thing and 2. translation issues can get in the way of real understanding, and you had no argument against either, I wonder what you would consider a good argument...I would think a good argument would be one that has no contrary response, as you did not have. But, as I said, I have no interest in going backward...
did, and you ignored my posts, so no worries, move on into the current discussion.

I did answer your posts concerning those emotions. You might want to read them again. Also, all your definitions for those words that you claim have no translation in English involved emotions.

Here's a little excerpt:
"Peace is an inner calm that comes from a perfect trust. In other words the "feelings" associated from peace are really rooted in the attitude and action of trust.

Joy likewise is an inner attitude of confidence in that thing that we take joy in, an inner confidence so great that it spurs us to have a joy when the world says we should not.

Love also is one of these things that transcend both emotions and actions and attitudes if you will. It is an action in which one puts others above self, and cannot be done unless the condition of the heart is in line with scripture."

Every single one of your definitions evokes more emotions. However, to make them more esoteric and cryptic, you added words like "perfect trust" and "transcend," which are the kinds of vacuous statements I was talking about.

 

[razzelflabben]

Words don't have to have absolute meaning for them to be meaningful in a conversation. The meanings can be defined in the context of the current conversation. Just make sure you're on the same page as the person you're speaking to.

a good point, but one that still leaves a problem in discussions like this...for example, if I say to you that I am a christian, and you apply that to the context, what do you understand about me and my beliefs? Am I catholic, brethren, Luthren, methodist, maybe I'm Jehovah witness, or Mormon...based on the context of this thread, what does it mean when I say I am Christian?

First off, you said that I responded to YOUR post. I didn't.

previously, apparently context leaves huge gaps in understanding when words are used that are not clear in meaning.

Second, you're permitted to comment but make sure when you do, that your answer makes sense in the context of the quote. I never mentioned or said anything about sociology 101. I have no idea where it came from, where you mentioned it, or how it's relevant to what I said.

I was responding to your comments of my post in which you suggested I "knew it all" because I presented information relavent to the discussion.

I did answer your posts concerning those emotions. You might want to read them again. Also, all your definitions for those words that you claim have no translation in English involved emotions.

no, they involved attitudes, emotions, and actions, but as I said, your getting defensive means that I struck a nerve, and it is time to move on so that that nerve doesn't get out of control.

Here's a little excerpt:
"Peace is an inner calm that comes from a perfect trust. In other words the "feelings" associated from peace are really rooted in the attitude and action of trust.

Joy likewise is an inner attitude of confidence in that thing that we take joy in, an inner confidence so great that it spurs us to have a joy when the world says we should not.

Love also is one of these things that transcend both emotions and actions and attitudes if you will. It is an action in which one puts others above self, and cannot be done unless the condition of the heart is in line with scripture."

notice that all of them are attitudes that spur emotions and actions...in other words, it isn't just about emotions....

Every single one of your definitions evokes more emotions. However, to make them more esoteric and cryptic, you added words like "perfect trust" and "transcend," which are the kinds of vacuous statements I was talking about.

so, you really don't get what I said at all, awesome, let's move on before you allow your emotions to trigger things that are not showing the "emotions" you claimed to have.

 

[sandwiches]

a good point, but one that still leaves a problem in discussions like this...for example, if I say to you that I am a christian, and you apply that to the context, what do you understand about me and my beliefs? Am I catholic, brethren, Luthren, methodist, maybe I'm Jehovah witness, or Mormon...based on the context of this thread, what does it mean when I say I am Christian? previously, apparently context leaves huge gaps in understanding when words are used that are not clear in meaning.

I was responding to your comments of my post in which you suggested I "knew it all" because I presented information relavent to the discussion.

You said "no, you responded to my post about sociology 101 with comments about thinking one knows everything..." Regardless of how you want to spin this, I DID NOT respond to you post about anything and I suggested nothing about you knowing it all or whatever else. I responded to Michael's post is all. In fact, I just went back and checked Michael's post to see what it was that he responded to and this is it: "we are scared of questions because questions and the corresponding answers reveal things about ourselves that we don't want to deal with...things hidden so deeply within us, that we refuse to go there anymore, refuse to think it through, refuse to accept that we might just be wrong." Where in there is sociology 101 mentioned and how in the world did you take my comment so personal that you think I was insinuating that you "knew it all," which is a phrase I never even said?

I think at this point, you should admit that you misunderstood my statement and move on.

no, they involved attitudes, emotions, and actions, but as I said, your getting defensive means that I struck a nerve, and it is time to move on so that that nerve doesn't get out of control. notice that all of them are attitudes that spur emotions and actions...in other words, it isn't just about emotions....so, you really don't get what I said at all, awesome, let's move on before you allow your emotions to trigger things that are not showing the "emotions" you claimed to have.

So, now you're evading by projecting your feelings of frustration. So much for facing the tough questions, huh, razzel?

I can understand that it's tough having to face that atheists can actually feel, behave, and be, in every measurable way, exactly like Christians think only they can be, act, or feel. I'm guessing now would be the time to use your 'peace in the storm that transcend emotions' or whatever.

 

[razzelflabben]

You said "no, you responded to my post about sociology 101 with comments about thinking one knows everything..." Regardless of how you want to spin this, I DID NOT respond to you post about anything and I suggested nothing about you knowing it all or whatever else. I responded to Michael's post is all. In fact, I just went back and checked Michael's post to see what it was that he responded to and this is it: "we are scared of questions because questions and the corresponding answers reveal things about ourselves that we don't want to deal with...things hidden so deeply within us, that we refuse to go there anymore, refuse to think it through, refuse to accept that we might just be wrong."

sounds exactly like the words I typed, maybe you should check again.

Where in there is sociology 101 mentioned and how in the world did you take my comment so personal that you think I was insinuating that you "knew it all," which is a phrase I never even said?

sociology 101 came up later...but I really don't care, it's okay to move on, really...

I think at this point, you should admit that you misunderstood my statement and move on.


So, now you're evading by projecting your feelings of frustration. So much for facing the tough questions, huh, razzel?

what makes you think I'm frustrated? I told you what I said, I acknowledged your reply and showed how it did not address what I said, and suggested we move forward rather than backward. That doesn't sound like frustration to me...but hey, what do I know, you took my above words and attributed them to another poster, and that didn't frustrate me either, in fact, I don't care who you attribute them to, they stand and have meaning and are important words to understand...I am far from a glory hound.

I can understand that it's tough having to face that atheists can actually feel, behave, and be, in every measurable way, exactly like Christians think only they can be, act, or feel. I'm guessing now would be the time to use your 'peace in the storm that transcend emotions' or whatever.

Well, first, I love the atheists I know, one in particular was very supportive and loving during our resent loss...but secondly, you have still failed to show that an atheist can actually have the same evidence as a believer living in the Spirit. Notice the difference, a believer living in the Spirit. In fact, before you could show me that an atheist can have the same evidence, you left the discussion because of what you call semantics and what I call translational definitions.

I expected no different if the truth be known, in that I have been on this exploration before and it always ends the same way. I can't figure out why someone claiming the same evidence would just bow out of the challenge without contest, but it happens every time. In fact, it usually comes down to the other person getting upset and aggravated and saying things they shouldn't and then it deteriorates further from there...to this point, I have found this discussion stimulating and interesting and do not wish it to deteriorate as others threads have where this challenge was issued, which is why I am quite happy to leave it right here. Me having shown translational definitions, you calling it semantics and the discussion ends. I'm good with that, maybe we can further the discussion if we leave you with the last word....