Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 5:48 pm
That's only half accurate. The other half is that "Allah" refers to a very particular conception of God.
Oh. Do you mean just like "God" does when you use the word?
But of course.
Whenever ANYBODY uses that word, they have a particular conception in mind. There are people who know that, and people who are not mindful of it. But it's true of all of them, anyway.
Even the relativist conception of "god" is actually quite specific. The purported "gods are anything you want them to be" view is of a kind of god-jellyfish, something remoldable to any human desire -- a projection of human wishes or belief, rather than a concrete entity. And thus, the relativist himself is exclusivist about all concrete ideas about God. He insists they are wrong, because in his mind, "god" is his jellyfish, his plastic and pliable concept, rather than an entity with specific characteristics.
Nils X. Nihilo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 5:40 pm
Not sure if I maybe missed posting in the right forum or maybe my post is being quarantined, but please have a look:
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 9:10 pm
Why be disappointed? The fault is inherent to Atheism itself.
Atheism doesn't say which "god" it doesn't believe in. It refused to believe in ANY of them, as if every conception of God were the same, and all were false anyway. So be disappointed with Atheism, I guess.
Huh? Atheism's "fault" is that it doesn't believe in 10,000 gods but theism escapes the same fault because it doesn't believe in 9,999? Illogical.
I don't believe the "fault" you claim is any "fault" at all, actually. It's not wrong to deny the validity of other people's "gods." In fact, how can a person be said to "believe in a god" at all, if he or she doesn't also think contradictory views of that god must therefore logically be mistaken?
So I think your original objection isn't at all valid. But I am pointing out that if it were, then Atheism would not escape your own condemnation. For it denies the existence of ALL gods.
If it's bad for one Theist to insult another god-belief, then it's bad for Atheist to insult ALL god-beliefs. Simple fairness covers that.
You got the point backwards.
If a twist is not bad to reject 9999 gods, then an atheist is not bad to reject just one more.
Huh? Atheism's "fault" is that it doesn't believe in 10,000 gods but theism escapes the same fault because it doesn't believe in 9,999? Illogical.
I don't believe the "fault" you claim is any "fault" at all, actually. It's not wrong to deny the validity of other people's "gods." In fact, how can a person be said to "believe in a god" at all, if he or she doesn't also think contradictory views of that god must therefore logically be mistaken?
So I think your original objection isn't at all valid. But I am pointing out that if it were, then Atheism would not escape your own condemnation. For it denies the existence of ALL gods.
If it's bad for one Theist to insult another god-belief, then it's bad for Atheist to insult ALL god-beliefs. Simple fairness covers that.
You got the point backwards.
If a twist is not bad to reject 9999 gods, then an atheist is not bad to reject just one more.
That wouldn't follow, logically speaking. If it's wrong to say that 2+2 = 5, 6,7 or 9, it does not follow that it's better to say it's 8, or wrong to say it's 4.
If God is real, then disbelief is no kind of protection against being wrong; just as if there is no God, then belief will not produce one. Logic is logic. Fair is fair. It's the same for both Atheists and Theists.
Except that Atheists have nothing to gain, since they have to think that believing delusions isn't a particularly bad or wrong strategy for getting through life...and that Atheists have no grounds for a moral condemnation of anybody's belief of anything. But let that be.
Whenever ANYBODY uses that word, they have a particular conception in mind. There are people who know that, and people who are not mindful of it. But it's true of all of them, anyway.
No it's not. I have many conceptions, as do polytheists. Zeus, Hades, and Poseiden are all gods, but uniquely so. They differ from the Christian God, too. That doesn't mean I can't refer to all of them as "gods".
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 6:32 pm
Whenever ANYBODY uses that word, they have a particular conception in mind. There are people who know that, and people who are not mindful of it. But it's true of all of them, anyway.
No it's not. I have many conceptions, as do polytheists. Zeus, Hades, and Poseiden are all gods, but uniquely so. They differ from the Christian God, too. That doesn't mean I can't refer to all of them as "gods".
Yeah, it is. Even when you say "No, it's not," what can you mean but, "Your conception of God is wrong"? And this is typical of so-called "inclusive" views of god -- they insist on excluding any and all of the exclusive views of God. So in that way, these putatively "tolerant" and "inclusive" view all turn out to be exclusive, themselves.
Clearly, you do have some limiting conceptions of what you consider "god," and as you say, all your conceptions "differ from the Christian God." That's exactly what I'm saying.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 7:58 pm
Yeah, it is. Even when you say "No, it's not," what can you mean but, "Your conception of God is wrong"? And this is typical of so-called "inclusive" views of god -- they insist on excluding any and all of the exclusive views of God. So in that way, these putatively "tolerant" and "inclusive" view all turn out to be exclusive, themselves.
Clearly, you do have some limiting conceptions of what you consider "god," and as you say, all your conceptions "differ from the Christian God." That's exactly what I'm saying.
All words are "exclusive". If they include everything in their definition, they would be meaningless. I do not mean your conception of God is wrong; I mean the word "God" can correctly refer to a variety of supposed entities.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 7:58 pm
Yeah, it is. Even when you say "No, it's not," what can you mean but, "Your conception of God is wrong"? And this is typical of so-called "inclusive" views of god -- they insist on excluding any and all of the exclusive views of God. So in that way, these putatively "tolerant" and "inclusive" view all turn out to be exclusive, themselves.
Clearly, you do have some limiting conceptions of what you consider "god," and as you say, all your conceptions "differ from the Christian God." That's exactly what I'm saying.
I do not mean your conception of God is wrong; I mean the word "God" can correctly refer to a variety of supposed entities.
Then you're taking Atheism to be correct, assumptively. You're excluding the idea of "a God who actually exists." And unfortunately for the relativist view, that means that you're also excluding what Jews, or Muslims, or Christians think of, when they use the word "God."
My concept is of the One True God, the only One that actually exists, when I say "God." Thus, how can it be that you "do not mean that [my] conception of God is wrong"?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 7:58 pm
Yeah, it is. Even when you say "No, it's not," what can you mean but, "Your conception of God is wrong"? And this is typical of so-called "inclusive" views of god -- they insist on excluding any and all of the exclusive views of God. So in that way, these putatively "tolerant" and "inclusive" view all turn out to be exclusive, themselves.
Clearly, you do have some limiting conceptions of what you consider "god," and as you say, all your conceptions "differ from the Christian God." That's exactly what I'm saying.
I do not mean your conception of God is wrong; I mean the word "God" can correctly refer to a variety of supposed entities.
Then you're taking Atheism to be correct, assumptively. You're excluding the idea of "a God who actually exists." And unfortunately for the relativist view, that means that you're also excluding what Jews, or Muslims, or Christians think of, when they use the word "God."
My concept is of the One True God, the only One that actually exists, when I say "God." Thus, how can it be that you "do not mean that [my] conception of God is wrong"?
Huh? I'm not excluding anything. You are. Words have meanings. "Thor is a Norse god" is a coherent statement, whether Thor exists or not. How do you want to describe Thor?
Jesus (Christ) is a proper name referring to an individual. God is a generic term referring to many real or fantastic beings.
You are free to believe there is "One True God", but it would be reasonable to say, "Zeus was king of the Greek gods." You could even omit the capital "G".
Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 8:06 pm
I do not mean your conception of God is wrong; I mean the word "God" can correctly refer to a variety of supposed entities.
Then you're taking Atheism to be correct, assumptively. You're excluding the idea of "a God who actually exists." And unfortunately for the relativist view, that means that you're also excluding what Jews, or Muslims, or Christians think of, when they use the word "God."
My concept is of the One True God, the only One that actually exists, when I say "God." Thus, how can it be that you "do not mean that [my] conception of God is wrong"?
Huh? I'm not excluding anything.
So you believe that my concept, "The One True God who exists" is included in your concept? Then you're not an Atheist. You are just admitting you have no idea whether God exists, or whether it's gods, or what it is...you're just saying you're confused.
Jesus (Christ) is a proper name referring to an individual.
Well, Christians say He's God. Are you excluding them?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 8:15 pm
Then you're taking Atheism to be correct, assumptively. You're excluding the idea of "a God who actually exists." And unfortunately for the relativist view, that means that you're also excluding what Jews, or Muslims, or Christians think of, when they use the word "God."
My concept is of the One True God, the only One that actually exists, when I say "God." Thus, how can it be that you "do not mean that [my] conception of God is wrong"?
Huh? I'm not excluding anything.
So you believe that my concept, "The One True God who exists" is included in your concept? Then you're not an Atheist. You are just admitting you have no idea whether God exists, or whether it's gods, or what it is...you're just saying you're confused.
Jesus (Christ) is a proper name referring to an individual.
Well, Christians say He's God. Are you excluding them?
I'm not excluding any being whom native speakers refer to as a "god". Also, atheists are fully capable of using the word "god". Why wouldn't they be? One need not believe in unicorns or fairies to talk about them.
So you believe that my concept, "The One True God who exists" is included in your concept? Then you're not an Atheist. You are just admitting you have no idea whether God exists, or whether it's gods, or what it is...you're just saying you're confused.
Jesus (Christ) is a proper name referring to an individual.
Well, Christians say He's God. Are you excluding them?
I'm not excluding any being whom native speakers refer to as a "god". Also, atheists are fully capable of using the word "god". Why wouldn't they be?
Well, because they can only use it to mean "fictional character." And if God were "fictional," then that would be just fine...no better or worse than anything else.
But then, you're excluding anybody who believes in a real God. And if there is a real God, then you're also excluding belief in Him. You're certainly not using the word "God" the way they understand it to be.
And, assuming you're hoping to present as a rational person, any non-Atheist has a perfect right to ask you to provide the evidence you have that God is fictional. And if you have none, then where are you? What's the basis of your assumption that God is fictional?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 5:31 pm
If it's bad for one Theist to insult another god-belief, then it's bad for Atheist to insult ALL god-beliefs. Simple fairness covers that.
Seriously, though, if the stakes here revolve around objective moral commandments on this side of the grave, as well as immortality and salvation for all of eternity on the other side of the grave, what could possibly be more crucial than worshipping and adoring the right God?
Well, perhaps, other than actually being able to demonstrate that He does in fact exist.
And again, just for the record, if there is a "loving, just and merciful" God out there that anyone at all here believes in then by all means provide me with what you deem is the most solid evidence to back this up.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 10:40 pm
[
Well, because they can only use it to mean "fictional character." And if God were "fictional," then that would be just fine...no better or worse than anything else.
But then, you're excluding anybody who believes in a real God. And if there is a real God, then you're also excluding belief in Him. You're certainly not using te word "God" the way they understand it to be.
And, assuming you're hoping to present as a rational person, any non-Atheist has a perfect right to ask you to provide the evidence you have that God is fictional. And if you have none, then where are you? What's the basis of your assumption that God is fictional?
That's ridiculous. When we talk about fairies or sasquatches we are making no claim about their reality or about whether we or others believe in them. Same with God. Are we really to say, "Zeus was a fake Greek god"? Zeus is a God in Greek Mythology. "God" is a word describing that reality.
I have to head to the Temple of Baal now, to gnash my teeth over the dead at Sennacherib.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 10:40 pm
[
Well, because they can only use it to mean "fictional character." And if God were "fictional," then that would be just fine...no better or worse than anything else.
But then, you're excluding anybody who believes in a real God. And if there is a real God, then you're also excluding belief in Him. You're certainly not using te word "God" the way they understand it to be.
And, assuming you're hoping to present as a rational person, any non-Atheist has a perfect right to ask you to provide the evidence you have that God is fictional. And if you have none, then where are you? What's the basis of your assumption that God is fictional?
That's ridiculous. When we talk about fairies or sasquatches we are making no claim about their reality or about whether we or others believe in them. Same with God.
Except that Atheists don't just talk about gods. They declare that no gods or God exist.
Are we really to say, "Zeus was a fake Greek god"?
Why not? It's perfectly true.
I have to head to the Temple of Baal now, to gnash my teeth over the dead at Sennacherib.
Well, not to be too picky, but Sennacherib wasn't a place. He was a person. And Baal, like Zeus, is another fake god. But it doesn't mean that there isn't a real God. It just means there are a lot of fakes. And both Theists and Atheists agree on that much; they just don't agree on the existence of the one true God.
