God’s real modern name is Gap. So says religions and science.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

The word Superman is not a label. It is a know fictional character

Wow.
You fail English.

the word is not a fictional character.
The word is the label for the fictional character.

Furthering the point that words have meaning. You should only use them if you know what to do with them.

Semantics.

You must not have a life.

Regards
DLi

 

[Elixir]

The word Superman is not a label. It is a know fictional character

Wow.
You fail English.

the word is not a fictional character.
The word is the label for the fictional character.

Furthering the point that words have meaning. You should only use them if you know what to do with them.

Semantics.

You must not have a life.

Regards
DLi

He certainly does have a life. And that life has Meaning. And Purpose!
....something about putting blowhards in their place, I think.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Thanks all.

Regards
DL

 

[funinspace]

Semantics.

You must not have a life.

Regards
DLi

He certainly does have a life. And that life has Meaning. And Purpose!
....something about putting blowhards in their place, I think.

Meaning....life...
"Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations. And, finally, here are some completely gratuitous pictures of penises to annoy the censors and to hopefully spark some sort of controversy, which, it seems, is the only way, these days, to get the jaded, video-sated public off their fucking arses and back in the sodding cinema. Family entertainment? Bollocks. What they want is filth: people doing things to each other with chainsaws during tupperware parties, babysitters being stabbed with knitting needles by gay presidential candidates, vigilante groups strangling chickens, armed bands of theatre critics exterminating mutant goats. Where's the fun in pictures? Oh, well, there we are. Here's the theme music. Goodnight."

 

[Keith&Co.]

Semantics.

You must not have a life.

Dude, pick a side and stick to it.
You were trying to lecture Tom on the proper use of the word 'label,' in the same thread where you insist that you can just make up meanings for words, and it's not your fault if others can't follow your made-up-shit.
Now you're complaining that insisting on the proper use of words is merely 'semantics.'

Not sure if this makes you look crazy, stupid or simply hypocritical.
I mean, that would be applying labels, and you appear to lack understanding of their usage...

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I am not here to discuss words.

If you guys cannot allow linguistic variables, especially when even dictionaries do not define words the exact same way, then I will either start ignoring stuff or just not bother with discussions here.

No skin off my nose either way.

Regards
DL

 

[abaddon]

God’s real modern name is Gap. So says religions and science.

No. Theists look for gaps where they may insert God. No one else does.

Have all free thinkers and the religious settled for a Scientific and divine God of the Gaps?

Religions are now recognizing evolution as part of their God of the Gaps ideologies. Science seems to fail to recognize their own God of the multiverse Gaps, before the Big Bang, where their laws break down.

Trying to reframe scientific hypotheses as gap-arguments is sophistry.

Humankind is the God of the Gap. Humans have filled the Gap, and God is best defined as a human being. Do you agree or as Jesus asked, have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?

The best way to valorize nature's beings is forget references to any nonexistent shit beyond it, like God.

We are all driven by our instinct to be the fittest human beings possible. We do so, through laws and rules of conduct which are all man made. God is redundant and remains a drain on the progress of our civilizing ourselves.

So drop the word then.

We all have the same God of the Gaps.

Bullshit.

God is a label or title that describes nothing.

So describe nothing with it then.

Give this link a listen. I like the way he expresses the word God but then unfortunately shows himself to be a lousy idol worshiper himself.

He starts off wrong and seems intent on staying stupidly wrong, so I didn't listen to it all.

But, from what I saw, someone's taking a metaphor and treating it literally. I guess holding money dear is analogous to religious worship in a way. The mistake is failing to see it's a metaphor so it's not literal. Treating something vaguely similarly to how believers act towards god doesn't make that something into a god.

If there's a point to be made, why obscure it with jargon? Christians do that as a tu toque. Is that it's role in your argument?

I am not here to discuss words.

Whatever it is you want to discuss is obscured by how you mangle language.

You asked this in the OP: "We all have the same God of the Gaps. So why are we fighting?"

I, for one, have no idea what you're talking about unless you will use the conventions of language better than you're doing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I am not here to discuss words.

Then why did you correct Tom on his use of 'label?'

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I am not here to discuss words.

If you guys cannot allow linguistic variables, especially when even dictionaries do not define words the exact same way, then I will either start ignoring stuff or just not bother with discussions here.

No skin off my nose either way.

Regards
DL

Every post you made was about discussing words, all the way from the OP you started.

It's not a case of linguistic variables, it's a case of you using a word incorrectly and then getting snitty when people pointed out your incorrect usage.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No. Theists look for gaps where they may insert God. No one else does.

No, wait, isn't that Occam's razor? Jam gods into any slit you can find, or make, and call it good?

 

[abaddon]

If all this inserting and jamming god in holes results in parsimony, I won't disapprove.

And maybe redefining virtually anything into "God" will water it down enough it'll evaporate.

 

[Elixir]

If all this inserting and jamming god in holes results in parsimony, I won't disapprove.

The deeper the better, IMHO.
The only "gods" that ever did any good for man or beast are 100% internal. As soon as they are given objective existence - or human expression - they become genocidal maniacs.

 

[Hermit]

I define God as the best rules and laws to live by.

Your innovation will not be taken up by the public, but don't let that spoil your fun of creating your very own, private redefinition of the word.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

No. Theists look for gaps where they may insert God. No one else does.


Trying to reframe scientific hypotheses as gap-arguments is sophistry.

Humankind is the God of the Gap. Humans have filled the Gap, and God is best defined as a human being. Do you agree or as Jesus asked, have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?

The best way to valorize nature's beings is forget references to any nonexistent shit beyond it, like God.

We are all driven by our instinct to be the fittest human beings possible. We do so, through laws and rules of conduct which are all man made. God is redundant and remains a drain on the progress of our civilizing ourselves.

So drop the word then.

We all have the same God of the Gaps.

Bullshit.

God is a label or title that describes nothing.

So describe nothing with it then.

Give this link a listen. I like the way he expresses the word God but then unfortunately shows himself to be a lousy idol worshiper himself.

He starts off wrong and seems intent on staying stupidly wrong, so I didn't listen to it all.

But, from what I saw, someone's taking a metaphor and treating it literally. I guess holding money dear is analogous to religious worship in a way. The mistake is failing to see it's a metaphor so it's not literal. Treating something vaguely similarly to how believers act towards god doesn't make that something into a god.

If there's a point to be made, why obscure it with jargon? Christians do that as a tu toque. Is that it's role in your argument?

I am not here to discuss words.

Whatever it is you want to discuss is obscured by how you mangle language.

You asked this in the OP: "We all have the same God of the Gaps. So why are we fighting?"

I, for one, have no idea what you're talking about unless you will use the conventions of language better than you're doing.

Yes. This one is a bit tougher as some do not want to accept the metaphor.

We all have some kind of ideal ideology regardless of where we got it. Some from religion, some science and some political. That ideal is God to us, in a metaphorical way, as we place that ideal above all else.

I call it God you call it whatever you like, but all ideals of science and religion at5 this point in time are God's of the Gap, as they all stop at the big bang.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

If all this inserting and jamming god in holes results in parsimony, I won't disapprove.

And maybe redefining virtually anything into "God" will water it down enough it'll evaporate.

That was/is the hope but the O.P. might not be as clear as I wanted.

If an O.P. is too long or detailed it tends to be ignored.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

If all this inserting and jamming god in holes results in parsimony, I won't disapprove.

The deeper the better, IMHO.
The only "gods" that ever did any good for man or beast are 100% internal. As soon as they are given objective existence - or human expression - they become genocidal maniacs.

I agree and think that those reasons are why Jesus said to closet yourself to pray and not display your religiosity in the public places.

France is pushing that type of legislation and are taking a lot of flack for it. I hope they stick to their guns and the rest of the world is bright enough to follow suit.

Regards
DL

- - - Updated - - -

I define God as the best rules and laws to live by.

Your innovation will not be taken up by the public, but don't let that spoil your fun of creating your very own, private redefinition of the word.

Time will tell.

If all the Gods took that definition, we would have a hell of a lot less war and strife. Right?

Regards
DL

 

[ruby sparks]

I define God as the best rules and laws to live by.

If our friend would have asked, instead of telling me who I was talking about, all this confusion would not have come to pass

I see. So a set of rules is a who. Or something.

Have another go.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I define God as the best rules and laws to live by.

If our friend would have asked, instead of telling me who I was talking about, all this confusion would not have come to pass

I see. So a set of rules is a who. Or something.

Have another go.

An ideal, ideology to you and I perhaps, a God to a believer.

Regards
DL

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But why do you want to personify this ideology by giving it a proper name?

If you don't want to personify it, why not just call it an ideology, since that introduces much less confusion and obfuscation into whatever you're trying to say.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

But why do you want to personify this ideology by giving it a proper name?

If you don't want to personify it, why not just call it an ideology, since that introduces much less confusion and obfuscation into whatever you're trying to say.

I chat with everyone from right wing literalist fundamentalists to atheists.

If I argued the meaning of words with the various minds, I would not do any chatting at all.

If anyone cannot allow a bit of semantics or linguistic leeway, that is their problem and not mine.

Philosophers say that the discussion on the meaning of words comes after a general discussion, not before, because if people cannot accept general terms, they will never be able to agree on the meaning of words.

I use the word evil sometimes and have word nuts say evil does not exist and they will not use the word but do use the word bad.

I have no time for such, to me, idiots.

Regards
DL