Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf If 80% of the religions said murder was wrong, then I would see that as something universal among human religions See, that's where stretching definition gets us in trouble, even apart from semantic drift. Some of us take universal to mean "a behavioral convention or pattern characteristic of all members of a particular culture or of all human beings", or "a proposition that asserts something of all members of a class", to use the dictionary definitions. Thus, the misunderstanding. One party was using a dictionary definition, another party was using their private definition. It is generally a good thing to be precise, given that there are several non-native speakers on the board, and some pedantics- like me- who tend to think what people intended is found by interpreting the words they said in their usual sense, organized according to the syntax of the language, and then transposed into the context that has been built up to that point. This process breaks down when there is a token in there that looks like a familiar word, but is a symbol for something else. quote:
The two above statements are attributed to Jesus and Lao Tzu. And can be interpreted in very different ways. In the Viking faiths, dying by the sword was basically the only way to avoid Hel. Hence, I do not think we can say with any confidence that the premise was the same. Except, of course, that both involve an awareness of cause and effect. Anyway... feel free to mail the paper in question. It would be very interesting, since the absence of time-invariant culture-invariant points of reference in human morals is a thing that has been asserted as factual in the past, something I subscribe to the correctness of. quote:
Again I remind you that I did not use the word divine. The reading can add whatever they wish. ~nod~ Which is basically what was said. Reality is reality, regardless of paradigm. Whether one views it as oxytocin being released as a physical representation of a spiritual event, or the other way around, or as only one of the two being part of reality, does not matter. If there really was a burning bush, an atheist would see it, though he might not be very inclined to ascribe G*d as a cause, whereas Moses would. The interpretation varies, but not what is being interpreted. quote:
I have had these discussions with aethiest before, and the topic was enjoyable to discuss, because I put it in terms they could relate to. ~nod~ I prefer a similar methodology, quite often. That bit is an absolute prerequisite to debating with most atheists, it seems, like with most other religious people, really: avoiding the taboos proscribed by their religion. For atheists, that seems to be the notion of debating something using words that are usually employed outside of their frame of reference without explicitly defining them, for instance. Other much vaguer terms and concepts are usually not taboo, and some form the core tenets of their faith. Seems we agree, in general.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind. From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way. We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|