[quote author=“skeptic griggsy naturalis”]Doug, nothing does alright and that is why I find the term meaningless! I am playing with words perhaps.! Your point is so well taken that I hope you will adumbrate it .How can theists show limited or unlimited attributes for thier God?How do they claim all those attributes .
I’m not sure what you’re asking the theist here ... all I want to say is that there is a difference between a concept, word, phrase or sentence being meaningless and it being empty or false.
So if I said “I believe in the xulrabor” and then only said “The xulrabor is ineffable”, you would have every right to say that what I said was essentially meaningless. There is no concept there, and no real meaning to the word ‘xulrabor’.
But if I say “I believe in an all powerful, etc., being”, that does have a meaning, we understand the words involved, we can make some (at least preliminary) sense of it. We can even go about constructing arguments to show it does or doesn’t exist.
We agree that the theist can’t show that such a being exists. But that’s different from there being no concept there ... there is a concept, and it’s by looking at the concept that we can tell it almost certainly doesn’t exist.
Again, think of unicorns or dragons. These aren’t meaningless, they are just not instantiated.
[quote author=“skeptic griggsy naturalis”] I also hope Free Inquiry takes to heart the suggestion of advertising this forum. And I hope that Kurtz would put in an appearance here! I wish Dawkins could make comments here as he will at his own site on reviews of his new book. All those shallow reviews!
I expect Dawkins will be extremely busy with his own work and website, although of course it would be nice to have him over anytime. :wink: Paul Kurtz would be great too ...
Re. reviews of these books, I have been quite dismayed at how credulous even the more intelligent press is for religious nonsense, and how unwilling they are even to review fairly a book by someone who takes a critical view. About the only good review I’ve seen thus far for Dawkins’s book was in The Economist. At least the NYTimes review wasn’t as shameful as the one they did for Dennett’s book on religion ... faint praise I know ...