Random and doppelgänger; Theism/Atheism (ritual, reject, Creator, salvation)

[Random]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Who says they don't have representative values attached to them? They just don't have the same ones you do, maybe.

Maybe, but that is different from objectification though.

Originally Posted by Dopp

And you project that it is unbearable to them as well? You understand that they may associate transcendent experiences with some other set of symbols, right? Ones that you don't "believe in" but that resonate with them.

Possibly. It depends what depth you attribute to, or invest in, a particular belief.

Originally Posted by Dopp

That's all anyone ever says? Or you just use this as an excuse not to engage in a discussion?

It's a way of exchanging the intangible, ineffable Mystery for a more mundane tangible one, that's all. I call it avoiding the issues.

Originally Posted by Dopp

So are your canned metaphors for "transcendence" and "God," Conor.

They are not mundane or ordinary or boring to me.

I don't regard "God" as "limitless." That's an idea you keep falsely attributing to me. I regard "God" as a word. In our language it's represented in a fixed medium through a string of letters, and spoken as a string of noises. "God", my dear Conor, is a word. It has all the limitations and limitlessness of any word. One of those is that it marks a meaning. Now "God" can be discussed as the word itself, i.e. the noises or characters that make up the word and make it recognizable as "God." And then "God" would be both the sign and the thing signified. But a word, even "God" is not the same thing as the meaning attached to it. Do you deny that my neighbor had a dog named "God"? Because by your reasoning, where meaning is one with the word (it's necessarily intrinsic, in other words), then it must be the case that my neighbor's dog is the cause of your spiritual experiences. Don't limit "God," Conor. Let it be limitless.

Yes, you were going well there for a while, but now you've veered off. This is not the first time you've contradicted yourself on this, either. You assert then, that God as sign and sign only is limitless, but when considered one and the same as the signified thing, is limited? Yet you say I impute God's limitlesness upon you and that is not what you infer? No messing now, which is it?

Originally Posted by Dopp

Or D) all of the above or E) None of the above.

Could be both in a specifice sense (or linguistic tense?), but only one is constant.

Originally Posted by Dopp

You seem very confused about this, as just above in this same post you're arguing just the opposite.

Point out, if you will, where I was arguing the opposite.

Of course not. That's because words, like "God" and "floor tile", don't have intrinsic meanings. The sign is not the thing signified.

OK, so the sign is not the thing signified. What now?

[Random]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

I don't have any delusion that I can convince you to perceive anything about your life in a way you don't want to, and I assume the same is true about someone trying to convince me.

I listen to "atheists" and I listen to "theists" and I try to understand why and how they both find meaning. It's in their stories, it seems to me, and not in how they regard ultimately meaningless abstractions. I think people are more than their theology (or lack thereof). Much more.

I think you're right about that, certainly.

Originally Posted by Dopp

Take care, Conor.

I see. Do you wish to end the one-on-one thread here?