Thomas Eshuis wrote:

BWE wrote:There's something about taking a label that makes people nutty. Whether it's xian, atheist, whatever, the urge to discuss why that particular model is 'right' seems too strong for many to pass up. If you really want to have a discussion, DLH, I might be willing. I am definitely not a theist. But I'm also not really an atheist so I might not have what you're looking for.

BWE, do you believe a god or gods exist?

He's just refusing to go "nutty" about the label.

I think definitions make the notion of existence far less concrete than most people would like.

hackenslash wrote:

I didn't read the first six pages. My apologies if this has already been done.

BWE wrote:I think definitions make the notion of existence far less concrete than most people would like.

Here's what you are saying, however:

BWE wrote:I would start by simply saying that I've yet to see a coherent definition of God. If you can produce one that isn't a self-contradiction somewhere, and that isn't simply in conflict with experience, I would be willing to go ahead and accept it.

Do you mean that, if we just put our thinking caps on, we can take a concept invented by ignorant goat roasters and turn it into a proposition that everyone of intelligence and critical ability can get behind? Is that it?

You see, it's not about 'existence' at all. It's about construction. By and for the people, as the saying goes.

BWE wrote:My apologies if this has already been done.

You sound as if you have tiny speculations that it has not already been done.

BWE wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

I didn't read the first six pages. My apologies if this has already been done.

Two things: First, that's not about the thread topic at all, it's about the done-a-thousand-times atheist/theist true dichotomy. Second, the only excuse for posting on-topic in a thread you haven't read all of is that it's a long thread, and this isn't.

BWE wrote:I think definitions make the notion of existence far less concrete than most people would like.

More importantly, definitions have no impact whatsoever on the concreteness of notions of existence, because such activity is well beyond their remit. It's always nice to have something that sounds deep but says fuck all though, so well done you. Deepity Chakra would approve.

hackenslash wrote:

BWE wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

I didn't read the first six pages. My apologies if this has already been done.

Two things: First, that's not about the thread topic at all, it's about the done-a-thousand-times atheist/theist true dichotomy. Second, the only excuse for posting on-topic in a thread you haven't read all of is that it's a long thread, and this isn't.

I am not a true atheist. This thread is long by my standards. I read the first page.

hackenslash wrote:

BWE wrote:I think definitions make the notion of existence far less concrete than most people would like.

More importantly, definitions have no impact whatsoever on the concreteness of notions of existence, because such activity is well beyond their remit. It's always nice to have something that sounds deep but says fuck all though, so well done you. Deepity Chakra would approve.

How concrete is a notion of existence? This post looks like word salad to me. Can you explain what you mean?

Oh, a true atheist. What are you then, a false one?

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:I think definitions make the notion of existence far less concrete than most people would like.

Here's what you are saying, however:

BWE wrote:I would start by simply saying that I've yet to see a coherent definition of God. If you can produce one that isn't a self-contradiction somewhere, and that isn't simply in conflict with experience, I would be willing to go ahead and accept it.

Do you mean that, if we just put our thinking caps on, we can take a concept invented by ignorant goat roasters and turn it into a proposition that everyone of intelligence and critical ability can get behind? Is that it?

Interesting. I do leave that door open, I guess, though I hadn't ever put it in those words.

You see, it's not about 'existence' at all. It's about construction. By and for the people, as the saying goes.

No. I don't see. I have no idea what you are saying there.

BWE wrote:My apologies if this has already been done.

You sound as if you have tiny speculations that it has not already been done.

How do you determine the size of a speculation? And, again, I don't know what you mean. Pronouns are the devil's work. By 'this', I meant asking whoever the OP was to define god.

Fallible wrote:Oh, a true atheist. What are you then, a false one?

I am probably closer to a Pantheist. After being asked to articulate a third position once, I wrote this and the follow up posts if you are actually interested in how I articulate my own position.

BWE wrote:How concrete is a notion of existence?

How concrete is any notion?

This post looks like word salad to me. Can you explain what you mean?

Certainly. I mean:

This post looks like word salad to me.

BWE wrote:I am probably closer to a Pantheist.

So a theist, then.

After being asked to articulate a third position once, I wrote this and the follow up posts if you are actually interested in how I articulate my own position.

My eyes glazed at the first line, because once you've read 'Theism and atheism are both misguided attempts to translate the epic poem of reality into a language of limits, the universe to an Upanishad, the unknown and unexpected cuisine of eternity into bite sized morsels of processed food by-product', you know that what follows is going to be total fucking cock.

And then, because when I went back to close the tab and wasn't quick enough, my eyes fell upon this:

Both theism and atheism are attempts to lay claim to a truth value relating (without warrant) to a cause-effect relationship humans affectionately ascribe to a place we nominally call 'out there'.

And I realised that I should probably just call it a day, since if that's what you think, you don't really think. Nice to be accused of word-salad by somebody who could write such vapid fucking drivel, though. You should get a job writing scripts of the pomo generator, because that's an awful lot of words just to talk bollocks. I mean 'we nominally call'? A screaming tautology in only three words?

I'm impressed at just how fucking stupid that is.

thank you. It's a gift.

but, no. not a theist.

BWE wrote:but, no. not a theist.

No, indeed, but the dichotomy is still a true one. Is you is or is you ain't a fuckwit.

I gues then it really doesn't matter since I clearly couldn't change a basic reality by wishing.

BWE wrote:

Fallible wrote:Oh, a true atheist. What are you then, a false one?

I am probably closer to a Pantheist. After being asked to articulate a third position once, I wrote this and the follow up posts if you are actually interested in how I articulate my own position.

I read half of that post, soldiered on past a couple of bum-clenching assertions but finally stopped where you define atheism as the rejection of God, and say that atheists make a counter-claim. To which I am minded to reply cool story, bro.

That's a serious display of fortitude there, Fall.

Hey, I've read Ulysses to the end.

BWE wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:I think definitions make the notion of existence far less concrete than most people would like.

Here's what you are saying, however:

BWE wrote:I would start by simply saying that I've yet to see a coherent definition of God. If you can produce one that isn't a self-contradiction somewhere, and that isn't simply in conflict with experience, I would be willing to go ahead and accept it.

Do you mean that, if we just put our thinking caps on, we can take a concept invented by ignorant goat roasters and turn it into a proposition that everyone of intelligence and critical ability can get behind? Is that it?

Interesting. I do leave that door open, I guess, though I hadn't ever put it in those words.

You hadn't? Why the fuck not? Lack of words? Not something you suffer from, on the face of it. The way it appears to me is that you are pretending to have thought things through.

BWE wrote:

You see, it's not about 'existence' at all. It's about construction. By and for the people, as the saying goes.

No. I don't see. I have no idea what you are saying there.

Try this:

BWE wrote:There's something about taking a label that makes people nutty.

Do you think the labels aren't constructed? That means somebody wanted to put them to use. It's not taking the label that makes people nutty. It's labeling stuff imprecisely. Sometimes, there's no point; you showed up anyway, to beat a dead horse.

BWE wrote:

BWE wrote:My apologies if this has already been done.

You sound as if you have tiny speculations that it has not already been done.

How do you determine the size of a speculation? And, again, I don't know what you mean. Pronouns are the devil's work. By 'this', I meant asking whoever the OP was to define god.

The fact that you haven't seen what you consider a worthy definition may be what's holding you back from continuing your search. On the other hand, perhaps you've simply hit what the oilmen call a 'dry hole'. You could quickly have determined that from reading what DLH himself had written here.