It doesn't matter if their interpretations are diametrically opposed and cannot co-exist. They are simply arguing over the intricacies and subtleties of the God of Abraham. It is because of their differences that warring has gone on over who's interpretation is correct.

But they are all about the same God. It would be like arguing over the appearance of a tree. Three people could describe it in three completely different ways, but they are all arguing about the same tree. They could then go on and tell others about their interpretation of the tree, and anyone they tell would think they can't possibly be talking about the same tree, or that only one interpretation is correct, or none at all - but the fact still remains, they are talking about the same thing.

To echo Heraclitus ("No man ever steps in the same river twice"), is it the "same tree" if viewed as a sapling, a young adult, and when it's fallen following a storm?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

xclusive, if this guy does not have a place in a discussion about populations as a whole, who else's behaviour does not have a place in a discussion about populations as a whole? And I would venture to say I haven't met enough "well decided/well meaning atheists" because there just aren't that many around.

Well, I often see people from your end of the spectrum leaving out the behavior of religious fanatics from discussions about religious populations as a whole.
And how do you know there's no well meaning atheists around? Sources? Opinion? I assume you must live in a somewhat rural area if you haven't met decent people of non-religious persuasion?

---

#resist

It doesn't matter if their interpretations are diametrically opposed and cannot co-exist. They are simply arguing over the intricacies and subtleties of the God of Abraham. It is because of their differences that warring has gone on over who's interpretation is correct.

But they are all about the same God. It would be like arguing over the appearance of a tree. Three people could describe it in three completely different ways, but they are all arguing about the same tree. They could then go on and tell others about their interpretation of the tree, and anyone they tell would think they can't possibly be talking about the same tree, or that only one interpretation is correct, or none at all - but the fact still remains, they are talking about the same thing.

To echo Heraclitus ("No man ever steps in the same river twice"), is it the "same tree" if viewed as a sapling, a young adult, and when it's fallen following a storm?

When I said that analogy, I was thinking that they all viewed it at the same time.

But I would say that its still the same tree in all three instances. Just like I am the same physical human being despite my personality being completely different from childhood and teenage years, and despite my having facial hair and a receding hairline.

I understand where you are coming from. I am not arguing against your opinion. I am just suggesting that others, such as myself, are not discussing differences of appearance, we are discussing difference of substance. In the analogy you are providing of the tree, you use the phrase "appearance of the tree".

A better example of how I am thinking is that a Muslim and Christian are looking at a tree. They may argue about its appearance, but more importantly they are arguing about what the tree is made of. What is the substance or the essence of the tree. The Christian claims there are tree fundamental forces that form the tree... the Muslim only one(albeit with 99 attributes).

I will concede they are referring to the same "tree", as it relates to the world of appearances. But when it comes to the fundamental forces which make up the tree, they are so radically different, that it could be argued they are not arguing about the same tree at all.

I understand where you are coming from. I am not arguing against your opinion. I am just suggesting that others, such as myself, are not discussing differences of appearance, we are discussing difference of substance. In the analogy you are providing of the tree, you use the phrase "appearance of the tree".

A better example of how I am thinking is that a Muslim and Christian are looking at a tree. They may argue about its appearance, but more importantly they are arguing about what the tree is made of. What is the substance or the essence of the tree. The Christian claims there are tree fundamental forces that form the tree... the Muslim only one(albeit with 99 attributes).

Its not an opinion, though. It is fact. I used the specific analogy because I know that the perceptions of God are all different, but that doesn't change that they all describe the same God.

I will concede they are referring to the same "tree", as it relates to the world of appearances. But when it comes to the fundamental forces which make up the tree, they are so radically different, that it could be argued they are not arguing about the same tree at all.

I don't think it can be argued very well. Are the different perceptions of the God of Abraham so radically different that they are more similar to the Hindu Gods? The Greek or Roman Gods? The philosophy of Gaia? The Light Side of The Force?

Would the religions of Muslim or Christianity even exist if it weren't for Abraham?

Forgive me I must be a little slow here. I thought your frame of reference is that God is not a real entity. If God is a mere fiction and we have two versions of the fiction I fail to see how they could be the same thing.

If person 1 states - God is x, y, z and not b

And person 2 states - God is a, b, c and not y

If God is merely a mental construct, without having any part of objective reality, how can it be said that they are talking about the same thing? You have two conceptual subjects sharing a name but with a vastly different set of predicates some of which exclude the predicates of the alternate definition. A recent reference to Siddhartha comes to mind…

Now let’s say person 1 and person 2 both heard about God from Fred. Just because they heard about it from Fred does it mean it is the same God object if the subject referred to does not contain the same predicates. Again I apologize, but I am having a hard time finding intelligibility in this line of reasoning.

Or did I get this completely wrong and are you asserting that God is a real entity, and that all attempts to perceive him fall short, but all references to these attempts refer to the same object out in the real world?

If I have misunderstood please clarify.

And no, there would not be a Christianity and Islam as we know it today without Abraham. But per the above it does not mean the same God is being referred to. Further, according both Christianity and Islam the Logos, (Christ) and the Message (The Quran) precede Abraham and creation itself.

When I reference Superman, is it not the same fictional Superman that everyone is familiar with? Sure, there's the Golden Age Superman, the Silver Age Superman, the New 52 Superman, but they're all the same fictional person. The same applies to the Abrahamic God.

When I reference Superman, is it not the same fictional Superman that everyone is familiar with? Sure, there's the Golden Age Superman, the Silver Age Superman, the New 52 Superman, but they're all the same fictional person. The same applies to the Abrahamic God.

you do know Superman was based on Moses, right?

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Now you have changed the frame of reference from others specific definitions of what they might be talking about, to how you use a general reference to include many specific descriptions.

But you have just made my argument. I have been saying all along, it is not wrong for people to refer to Superman in this way. But there are Superman fans of certain Superman universes, that when they they refer to Superman, they are referring to the Superman of a specific universe, and they may loath certain other Superman universes and never refer to them. This is not even hypothetical, it is actually true... I have seen some downright pissing matches about this sort of thing. The same is true for Trekkers, Dr. Who, and James bond faithful

And If you are going to keep insisting that when I refer to the Captain of the Enterprise I am including that punk bitch Picard ,that is the height of arrogance. Captain Kirk could kick his unitarded ass with one judo chop any time, any day… any episode… even with his half Klingon freak security dude and that wuss of a tard he calls number one… Captain of the Enterprise… no way… no way…

And besides.. everyone knows Thor is stronger than Superman…

When I reference Superman, is it not the same fictional Superman that everyone is familiar with? Sure, there's the Golden Age Superman, the Silver Age Superman, the New 52 Superman, but they're all the same fictional person. The same applies to the Abrahamic God.

you do know Superman was based on Moses, right?

LOL Actually, Superman was based on Joe Shuster's father who died while he was a child.

But you have just made my argument. I have been saying all along, it is not wrong for people to refer to Superman in this way. But there are Superman fans of certain Superman universes, that when they they refer to Superman, they are referring to the Superman of a specific universe, and they may loath certain other Superman universes and never refer to them. This is not even hypothetical, it is actually true... I have seen some downright pissing matches about this sort of thing. The same is true for Trekkers, Dr. Who, and James bond faithful.

Agreed, but regardless of their own rabid fandom, it is still the same Superman.

And If you are going to keep insisting that when I refer to the Captain of the Enterprise I am including that punk bitch Picard ,that is the height of arrogance. Captain Kirk could kick his unitarded ass with one judo chop any time, any day… any episode… even with his half Klingon freak security dude and that wuss of a tard he calls number one… Captain of the Enterprise… no way… no way…

And besides.. everyone knows Thor is stronger than Superman…

Which proves my point about senseless fighting over fictional characters.

Which proves my point about senseless fighting over fictional characters.

Ouch, thats a little below the belt, but I agree 100%.

Yet here we are... where I belive God is not a fiction and you do... hmmmmm

Yet here we are... where I belive God is not a fiction and you do... hmmmmm

The way you started out this thread is outstanding.


[smile] Perhaps a touch of metaphysics?

Schopenhauer's formula for all that exists is:
the world = will + representation

[smile] Mach and Einstein would be impossible without Kant. The Kantian principle of separating elementary facts of sensations and organizing these facts into a theoretical scheme. I reckon it sounds like science to me. [snicker]

But, then again Im just a country hick.....
...talks weird and a poor speller, what the hell can I know?

Kirk kicks ass. Just sayin.....;-}

Appreciate the kind words ID.

Metaphysics... yea just a little ;-) My education is primarily in Philosophy. Initially Religious Studies but that ended up morphing into Western Philosophy, with emphasis if the Philosophy of Science and Cog Sci .

As much as Kant is a genius... how depressing. After his Critique it kind of took the fun right out of the whole deal. And yes, one of its many unintended consequences resulted in the appearance of upstart science minded fellows who may have little understanding of how science came to be, and little regard for the context in which it was allowed to blossom.

The evil Spock was pretty kickass too... the gotee was a keeper...

Me; I take my philosophy from DesCartes' "Cogito ergo sum"

"You think there is a god, therefore she exits". (for you, in your mind)

Sorry to pollute this otherwise erudite thread. I just couldn't help myself.

Yet here we are... where I belive God is not a fiction and you do... hmmmmm

You requested clarification on my views of God as a fictional character. I answered your question, rather sufficiently I believe.

Sufficient yes. Valid no. You continue to be caught in the fallacy of Category Mistake at the sub-category and refuse to acknowledge the importance of particulars. I do however appreciate the clarification of your position and if you are up for it we can move to midgame.

I assume you would not make this mistake for groups you consider real, if we have an expert on humans and another on chimpanzees you are not going to tell them that "yea that is all nice but they are all just apes". i.e. that there are really no differences.

I can understand why you might believe that differences in fictions are distinctions without a difference and do not matter. That is your prerogative. But to the theist and trekker alike these distinctions are important and valid statements can be made about them that may not correspond to reality. They are still valid, however unreal they may be. A round square is both round and square... regardless of its existence. And it cannot be a round triangle... and yes they would both be under the category of imaginary shapes. And this follows for the whole of mathematics, where imaginary objects (not imaginary if you are a Platonist I would wager), of all types have all sorts of properties that distinguish sets and particulars one from the other.

That said you still have a pretty large problem. It appears you are surrounded by billions of deluded people. As inferred on the outset of this thread, this being the case one could only observe that there is some evolutionary advantage given to those believing in delusions. As they appear to be the ones being selected... But not just any delusions. In the cases of other types of delusions where they are deluded about their surroundings or even their own identity, we call this psychotic and would consider them at a disadvantage for selection. But the delusion concerning the objects of religion, this is rampant throughout history into the present day. It would seem a very successful set of delusions.

Why is that?

I think it comes down to lack of education, lack of public knowledge, and lack of public understanding. (The very thing that many religions/governments in history have made sure continues to happen, to thus perpetuate the lack of knowledge indefinitely.)

We are only now, moving into a world where people can be free to learn. (Some countries anyways, I'm very aware there are many societies which still limit knowledge to it's people, and surprisingly this is all about control, as I'd argue religion is also).

But as we evolve into a world where we have a great understanding of the phenomena that makes us us, and makes the universe what it is, there is less need for seeking understanding in the form of religion. Knowledge is power, and in the modern world of free knowledge and inter-connectivity, I do not feel religion is necessary to instill values in people, or to teach "history" or mythological explanations of origin as "science".

Real science, offers much more plausible explanations that are backed by ten, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of years of historical findings, geology and physics knowledge. As such I don't see why religion is needed anymore, except for personal spiritual reasons.

---

#resist

But not just any delusions. In the cases of other types of delusions where they are deluded about their surroundings or even their own identity, we call this psychotic and would consider them at a disadvantage for selection.

I cut and pasted just this part of your post.

People have been psychotic since the dawn of man. If its such a disadvantage then why do we still have psychotics still in exsistance?

It seems to me that individuals who have no morals or the so called soul would have the edge when it came to a dog eat dog world. I do need to research the bubonic plaque. A complete soceity collapse. Folks did what they had to do to survive.

---

[/quote]

Old James