Christianity

[Janoah]

But, I have absolutely NO idea NOR clue what you are talking about and/or referring to.

I have already told you what exactly you did not understand, and if you did, do you agree with what I said?
We'll probably end the discussion if you can't answer.
bye

[uwot]

Well, instead of me writin' an essay (I really don't wanna), let me ask: where in our physicality does mind originate? Why should any man feel outrage at bein' property? Why should good and evil concern man when good old utilitarianism ought be enough? Why, in an apparent cause & effect world, does it seem man can choose, often for reasons that have nuthin' to do with with prior circumstances (the causal chain he's mired in)?

Nah, I don't want to write an essay either. The short answer to each of those questions is I don't know. So I can listen to people who are convinced they do know, based on the claims made in some holy book or their version of such claims. Or I can listen to those who don't claim to know, but are trying to find out. As a rule I prefer the latter, because they don't threaten me with eternal torture if I don't live my life the way they think I should.

[henry quirk]

holy book

I don't have one.


eternal torture

as far as I know: there ain't any.

[henry quirk]

WHY do you refer to "your" God as a "he"?

convention and preference: if I were a chick I'd probably call Him, Her.

[uwot]

holy book

I don't have one.

No, but you have your own version of a creator of the universe.

eternal torture

as far as I know: there ain't any.

Which is why your god is less objectionable than Mr Can's.

[henry quirk]

Which is why your god is less objectionable than Mr Can's.

cuz He leaves you alone.

[Belinda]

uwot,

Great that they work for you. Is that any reason they should work for others?

That they work for me is no reason at all. That mind, free will, ownness, and conscience are real and have no source in the matter of man, that -- seems to me -- is a reason for others to mebbe consider they're more than a peculiar arrangement of materials and that Reality may not be a rudderless affair.

What sort of person do you imagine doesn't?

Guy, this place, for example, is lousy with folks who think mind is just a process of the brain, morality is just opinion, free will is an illusion, and the universe is a rudderless affair.

That sort of person.


...and that Reality may not be a rudderless affair.

Well it is if you're a deist, but I take your point



I'm a deist, I don't see it as a rudderless affair. Quite the opposite, actually.

Serious question: why would I, as a deist, see Reality as a rudderless affair?

Henry, deism is the belief that God did indeed create it all and set it all in motion, and then left it all to get on with what it does without His intervening ever again.

Yep, that's what vanilla deism sez.

(I'm havin' deja vu, B: seems to me, we -- you and me -- talked about the strains of deism before.)

You are at liberty to call yourself whatever you like but if you want others to understand you need to use the conventional meanings of words, e.g. the conventional meaning of 'deism'.

[uwot]

Which is why your god is less objectionable than Mr Can's.

cuz He leaves you alone.

It's not so much 'He', it's more the meddling busybodies who see fit to tell me what their god wants me to do.

[henry quirk]

Which is why your god is less objectionable than Mr Can's.

cuz He leaves you alone.

It's not so much 'He', it's more the meddling busybodies who see fit to tell me what their god wants me to do.

Then why ask about why my God is less objectionable? Go beat up on the theists.

And: my God gave us conscience (He obviously has preferences about what He'd like us to do); but He also made us free wills (so what we do is on us).

-----

oops, I done fucked up, uwot!

you wrote: Which is why your god is less objectionable than Mr Can's.

I read: why your god is less objectionable than Mr Can's.

I saw question when there was only statement.

Sorry, guy.

[henry quirk]

Henry, deism is the belief that God did indeed create it all and set it all in motion, and then left it all to get on with what it does without His intervening ever again.

Yep, that's what vanilla deism sez.

(I'm havin' deja vu, B: seems to me, we -- you and me -- talked about the strains of deism before.)

You are at liberty to call yourself whatever you like but if you want others to understand you need to use the conventional meanings of words, e.g. the conventional meaning of 'deism'.

Or, if you're curious, you could web search it: you'd find vanilla ain't the only flavor.

see, I think your education is on you, not me.

[henry quirk]

oops, I done fucked up, uwot!

you wrote: Which is why your god is less objectionable than Mr Can's.

I read: why your god is less objectionable than Mr Can's.

I saw question when there was only statement.

Sorry, guy.

[Belinda]

Yep, that's what vanilla deism sez.

(I'm havin' deja vu, B: seems to me, we -- you and me -- talked about the strains of deism before.)

You are at liberty to call yourself whatever you like but if you want others to understand you need to use the conventional meanings of words, e.g. the conventional meaning of 'deism'.

Or, if you're curious, you could web search it: you'd find vanilla ain't the only flavor.

see, I think your education is on you, not me.

But varieties of god belief are not flavours. If I want orange flavour but ask for apple flavour I would not be understood

[henry quirk]

You are at liberty to call yourself whatever you like but if you want others to understand you need to use the conventional meanings of words, e.g. the conventional meaning of 'deism'.

Or, if you're curious, you could web search it: you'd find vanilla ain't the only flavor.

see, I think your education is on you, not me.

But varieties of god belief are not flavours. If I want orange flavour but ask for apple flavour I would not be understood

me: I like sherbet

you: so you like dairy

me: sherbert is non-dairy

you: you shoulda told me that from the start

your education is on you, not me

'nuff said

[Age]

But, I have absolutely NO idea NOR clue what you are talking about and/or referring to.

I have already told you what exactly you did not understand, and if you did, do you agree with what I said?
We'll probably end the discussion if you can't answer.
bye

What I do not understand is why you did not answer my clarifying question posed to you in the first place, but you seem to expect me to answer your clarifying question posed to me.

Also, what do you mean by "we'll probably ..."? Either 'you' will end this discussion or 'you' will not. I have not ended it.

[Belinda]

Or, if you're curious, you could web search it: you'd find vanilla ain't the only flavor.

see, I think your education is on you, not me.

But varieties of god belief are not flavours. If I want orange flavour but ask for apple flavour I would not be understood

me: I like sherbet

you: so you like dairy

me: sherbert is non-dairy

you: you shoulda told me that from the start

your education is on you, not me

'nuff said

I agree it's best to define the terms right at the beginning. This is a philosophy website and so one presumes people use standard and precise philosophical words for philosophical ideas, or at least try to do so.