How many different versions of God are there?

It certainly lessens the importance of the belief that there is only one absolute morality everyone subscribes to.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. Look, you've asserted a truism. Truisms don't prove anything.

That goes only for things whose very existence depends on consensus. Such as words.

Only in the minds of people who are epistemologically entirely dependent on consensus (or at least pretend to be).


* * * *

No, that is just your inference.

My question was not rhetorical, as evidenced by the request - "But beyond that, what does it matter that people have different ideas about "God"? Can anyone explain why this variety is somehow problematic?"

Why would we need to reach a consesus on it? Can you explain?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And a question that only an atheist would ask, so the inquiry is biased from the onset.

Again -
"But beyond that, what does it matter that people have different ideas about "God"? Can anyone explain why this variety is somehow problematic?"

Do define the underlined term.

Surely if you assume that "God doesn't exist," then you must mean something by the term "God."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

May be, but it is somewhat evident in your words.

Aren't we always trying to do so?

 

Actually no. It goes for anything that has a known objective existence. Things that already exist and so don't depend on consensus to exist all. Take the Eiffel Tower for instance. There is a universal consensus on what this object is and what its properties are. Does this mean the existence of the Eiffel Tower DEPENDS on this universal consensus? No. The consensus is an effect of it's objective existence, not its cause. What if there is an alleged objective thing/person upon which there is no universal consensus? Then it is very likely that thing/person doesn't actually exist.

 

I will not subject myself to what I would consider atheist preaching (requiring people to view videos, 30 mins in total, to discern if you have any point at all). No doubt these are only propaganda pieces which use non-typical or unrelated instances to make hasty generalizations about all religious people.

You have not established anything as delusion, you have only proclaimed it as a bare assertion.

 

By that reasoning, "it is very likely that" a person born homosexual "doesn't actually exist" because "there is no universal consensus".

 

In my view, reality is subjective. Human minds encounter and perceive the divine in different ways, because we each have different experiences and perceptions. Each has their own frame of reference. So, even if the gods are some objective station or anchor-point, our way to conceptualise them and explain them is something that will vary from person to person. Groups might agglomerate around certain ways of explaining it, but their experiences are all going to be different.

 

There's no universal consensus on what a homosexual is? That's a weird assertion..

 

Only if you infer I meant them rhetorically.

Not at all. Can you elaborate on the need for consensus? I've asked this question before, but nobody took it up.

 

How did you calculate that such is "very likely"?

 

Just the way it is. Do you have some argument against it?

 

There is very quickly developing a universal consensus about your comprehension skills when it comes to ignoring elements of discussion that inconvenience your POV.

Try reading his response again and see if you can pick up a key word in the quotation marks that you left out.

"it is very likely that" a person born homosexual "doesn't actually exist"

:shrug:

 

If you can't explain how you come to use the word "likely", then no, there is no need to.

Critiques for arguments that don't exist are not required.

:shrug:

 

Because you said so?

That's some magical realism indeed!

 

IOW, homosexuals, which are ALL born that way, don't exist. Sounds delusional to me.

:shrug:

"There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation; however, biologically-based theories for the cause of sexual orientation are favored by experts, which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, or both in combination. There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation; when it comes to same-sex sexual behavior, shared or familial environment plays no role for men and minor role for women. While some hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural, research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects. Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

 

No..because you have no counterargument to it.

 

very difficult to provide a counterargument to something that doesn't exist.


:shrug:

 

LG could parse the meaning of my post just fine. So either you were being intentionally obtuse or his assessment is correct.

 

Thank you for so readily providing support for exactly what I said:

By that reasoning, "it is very likely that" a person born homosexual "doesn't actually exist" because "there is no universal consensus".​

And if that is delusional, remember, it was your own reasoning:

:roflmao:

I never said such reasoning was sound. I only made an example of your reasoning that you are now saying "sounds delusional". I would agree.