"What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?

Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.

But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself. — Michael Ossipoff

You have yet to speak for yourself.

These aren't atheist definitions of God we are putting forth, that would be inconsistent with being an atheist! How can anyone define something for which they have no evidence that it exists? They are theists definitions of God. If you have a different one then show us and stop going around in circles.

The burden is upon those that claim such a thing exists to define it.

I have asked you numerous times to define the God that we are rejecting without reason, and you can't do it.

The fact is that every notion of God is either contradictory or just a label for something else for which we know that exists, like trees, statues and the universe.

When are you going to define the God that we are so unreasonable to reject the existence of?

But that's ought, not is. What is is that we consider ourselves apart from the rest of nature. Why do we do this, I wonder? Is it wrong of us to think this way? If so, in what way? Perhaps there's a good reason for us to act this way, although I can't think of one. Let's not just dismiss this attitude; let's try to understand it. Maybe then we can reach useful and helpful conclusions.... — Pattern-chaser

We consider ourselves apart from nature because we consider ourselves as specially-created by some omnipotent entity. It's like our belief that Earth was the center of the universe at one point in our history. Science has shown in both cases that Earth is not special, and humans are not special. Earth is one planet among an uncountable number of start, galaxies and planets, hidden away in a distant corner of the universe. We are just one species out of millions on the evolutionary tree that continues to grow new branches while pruning others.

We are part of nature - as is everything (even a god, if one existed). We are all interconnected by causation. I have defined meaning/information as the relationship between cause and effect. Meaning surrounds us and is created every moment. We create meaning. Meaning/information is everywhere and seems to be the very substance of reality (or maybe it's processes/relationships).

Nature is the same as reality. There is only one, and if there are others and they do not interact in some way with ours, then what really is the point in wondering about them? God and heaven/hell would be in a causal relationship with our universe. What we do here has an effect on what happens in heaven/hell and vice versa. It is all interconnected and therefore one reality. There is no supernatural because that term implies that nature comes prior to the supernatural, when theists claim that God existed prior to the universe (inconsistent). The universe is seen as something temporary within this reality, whereas God and heaven/hell are eternal, but it is all still part of the same reality. Even though the universe may disappear, what happened here will have an effect on what happens for the rest of eternity. So the universe can't be temporary when its effects continue to influence eternal time. We can even say the same about ourselves. Even though our "existence" is "temporary", we continue to exist through the effects we had on the world - for the rest of eternity.

At the end of the book, Childhood's End, one of the Overlords is trying to comfort Rodricks when he begins to contemplate his death. The Overlord says to him in a affirming tone, "You existed." - as if to say, "Take comfort that you got to take part in this and that nothing, not even the infiniteness of time, can deny the truth of your existence." That is kind of what it is like for me. That is how I alleviate my existential fears. I look to truth - not delusion.

God is about different things to different people. God is an impression, an inspiration, a role model, and so on. Religion is a belief system. It is not based in science, or on science, which is fine. God is not an Objective concept. Neither is religion. If it is important to you, or to anyone reading this, I (as a believer) am happy to agree with you that God and religion cannot be Objectively or scientifically justified. There is no such justification, as far as I know. And this does not devalue God or religion in the slightest. — Pattern-chaser

This is the same nonsense I read in the "Gender" Identity thread - that gender is subjective and means different things to different people. The problem is that no one is being consistent, which just means that concept ("god" or "gender") is meaningless. When there is no consistent definition of some term, then we have essentially defined that thing as nothing other than a "feeling".

I have inspirations, role models, experience wonder, etc., but I don't call those things "god". I call them "inspirations", "role models" and "wonder". All you and believers are doing here is taking a concept for which we already have an agreed-upon term and then making up your own term and using that instead for no reason other than to alleviate your own existential turmoil.

I know what you mean. I tend to think of the term as an established structure, whereby if significantly disturbed will throw the surrounding order out of balance. For instance, we have a natural craving for fat and sweetness. This craving is out of balance with the current availability of fat and sugar today, and our health suffers for it. If this continues we would eventually adapt to it, but for now things are out of balance and we might say the current availability of fat and sugar is unnatural. — praxis

Environments change. There is no established structure except that things change. Therfore it is natural for environments to change and species to adapt. That whole process is called NATURAL selection. So it would be inaccurate to call some part if that process, "unnatural".

Seems like you have faith in science. — Rank Amateur

"Faith" isn't an accurate term. Faith is for those where reason does not give the desired results. I used reason to come to the conclusion that science can provide the answers that religion hasn't been able to. Religion has had several thousand years to answer these questions and has only come up with inconsistent answers. Science, however, has only been around for a few hundred years and has already improved the lives of everyone, including people that follow different religions.

Faith is for those who have emotional attachments to their beliefs and where reason provides answers that are not consoling. Having faith is not much different from saying that you have a delusion.

Read the links I provided earlier. In the first one, it states:

Many people who have met all their deficiency needs do not self-actualize, instead inventing more deficiency needs for themselves, because to contemplate the meaning of their life and of life in general would lead them to entertain the possibility of their meaninglessness and the prospect of their own death and annihilation.

A person who begins to contemplate his bigger picture may come to fear that life is meaningless and death inevitable, but at the same time cling on to the cherished belief that his life is eternal or important or at least significant. This gives rise to an inner conflict that is sometimes referred to as ‘existential anxiety’ or, more colourfully, ‘the trauma of non-being’.

While fear and anxiety and their pathological forms (such as agoraphobia, panic disorder, or PTSD) are grounded in threats to life, existential anxiety is rooted in the brevity and apparent meaninglessness or absurdity of life. Existential anxiety is so disturbing and unsettling that most people avoid it at all costs, constructing a false reality out of goals, ambitions, habits, customs, values, culture, and religion so as to deceive themselves that their lives are special and meaningful and that death is distant or delusory. — Neel Burton, M.D. psychologytoday.com

I meant to say that I don't think it's natural to fear largeness or otherness, as Jake appeared to claim. If this were true then we'd have a natural fear of looking up at the sky, for example. We don't. Many look up at the sky with a yearning to explore the unknown. — praxis

But, I already said that in my previous post where I pointed out how I don't experience fear, rather I experience curiosity. I just didn't use the word "natural". I think a better word would be, "common". It isn't common to fear largeness or otherness. Some people can have a fear of largeness or otherness, and it would be considered a phobia.

Do you think science will be able to definitely answer how the universe was created one day ?? — Rank Amateur

If the universe has a cause, then yes, science should be able to explain that causal relationship.

I think that Jake may be generally referring to existential anxiety. I don’t see how it could be natural to fear largeness or otherness.

Existential anxiety could be a natural consequence of how our minds evolved and, in a sense, is caused by ‘thought’. Our ability to form concepts of self and death, combined with our ability simulate and anticipate future events may naturally lead to it. — praxis

It seems that your first and second paragraph contradict each other. If existential anxiety is a natural consequence of how our minds evolved, then existential anxiety is natural. Any attempt to separate human beings from nature would be a mistake. Every animal has it's own unique set of physical and psychological adaptations to its environment. Humans are no different.

Humans beings are the products of natural processes and therefore everything we do and create is natural. Separating the creations of man from other natural products (artificial vs natural) stems from the notion that humans are separate from nature. We aren't. Other animals create things and manipulate their environment and they are still considered natural. Stars create new elements in their cores and spew them out into the universe when they explode and they are considered natural. It is only humans that are somehow different. Religion has played a big role in how we see ourselves in relation to the rest of nature and has influenced this idea of separateness and it could be the implications of religion that is the cause of Jake's anxiety.

As for the existential anxiety that we experience from time to time, there are many non-religious methods for alleviating it. Take a look at these two links:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201509/philosophical-cure-anxiety

https://psychcentral.com/blog/existential-despair-a-deeper-cause-of-human-anxiety/

They both seem to indicate that many people attempt to coverup the causes of their anxiety with delusional thoughts. They don't want to face those questions, so they come up with an answer that allows them to keep going on with their lives. I think that they should be embraced and discussed, as it helps to provide real solutions, not delusional ones.

It seems to me that alleviating this anxiety is just a matter of changing your thoughts. It is also a matter of changing your view about meaning. It shouldn't be scary to discover that meaning is within your own power to create and not in the hands of someone else. It is empowering. The influence the world has on our decisions is just evidence that we are part of the world and we also have an influence on it. We do have the power to make change. Questioning prior decisions is a waste of time and should only be thought about to make better decisions in the future. Making mistakes isn't bad. It is how we learn and grow as individuals. We also shouldn't be looking at ourselves as victims of procreation, rather we should see ourselves as lucky to be here to experience the roller coaster of life.

First, we can observe in our own lives that we experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else". "Me" is very very small, and "everything else" is very very big. This is a perspective which naturally generates fear, which in turn generates inner and outer conflict and all kinds of related problems. — Jake

Speak for yourself.

It seems to me, thanks to the knowledge science is providing, that everything is interconnected. I don't experience a fear of everything else. I experience curiosity. If it is fear that you experience, then no wonder you turn to a delusion - to alleviate that fear.

He’s claiming that there’s no evidence for any of the wide variety of diverse beliefs of people who use the word “God”. He’d need to specify a particular belief, in order to speak of whether or not there’s evidence for it. — Michael Ossipoff

All of them. Now the ball is in your court to show evidence for just one.

The first definition listed in Merriam-Webster, for “evidence” is “outward sign”. One thing for Harry to understand is that evidence isn’t necessarily proof. — Michael Ossipoff

Exactly. It is a conglomeration of evidence that provides proof, and there isn't one bit of evidence for the existence of god that can't be explained better without invoking the word, "god". Again, the ball is in your court.

If you’d wanted to find out more about their beliefs, then you’d need to have approached them a lot more politely. No one’s obligated to talk to someone conceited, rude and aggressive. No one’s obligated to participate in an argument. Would it be surprising if Theists aren’t interested in conversation with the likes of you? — Michael Ossipoff

It is they that approach me, or create posts on this forum. I merely question their unfounded claims. I don't go around announcing my atheism. There is nothing to announce.

You have a problem specifying what you’re talking about.
If you don’t know what you mean by it, then maybe you aren’t in a position to rule, or decide for others, about it. — Michael Ossipoff

The burden to define god is on the person making the claim.

The rest of your post seems to attack the scientific method and to make a claim that there are things outside of "physical" science. Yeah, I've heard it all before. It comes down to answering this question:
Does god have a causal influence on reality? If it does, then why would science not be able to explain it and find evidence of it?

Everything is natural. There is no such thing as the supernatural. Everything is interconnected and therefore should be explainable by one consistent method - science. Religion is inconsistent to the point where people of different religions try to kill each other for believing in a different god. Science knows no contextual limitations. True science is open to new evidence for anything, all you have to do is provide it.

You aren’t being very clear with us about what kind of a reasonable and logical solution you have. What is your reasonable and logical solution? — Michael Ossipoff

Simple. Claims that are made without any evidence (like the claims of the existence of some god (like the god of the Jews)) are placed in the heap with all the other claims with no evidence (like the claims that some other god exists (like the god of the Muslims). They both carry the same amount of evidence - none. Which one should I believe in? Or should it be some other god? Please help me determine which claim with no evidence I should go with. Why would I choose one over some other? Isn't it the existence of evidence that drives us one way or the other?

If you can't answer that, then maybe we should just go with what we do have evidence for - that we exist and the universe exists. Why would we need to inject a god - something for which we have no evidence - as a solution for the the cause of our existence? Why could it not simply be that the universe just exists with us being a part of it? That is what theists claim about their god - that it just exists and has always existed.

Also, we have a problem in defining "god", no? I mean "god" could really be aliens that created this pocket universe with us in it, but does that really qualify them as "gods"? Aren't they just aliens with advanced technology? What is a "god"?

It is more complex than that. Allah chooses who He guides and Allah is Just. — Ram

Uh huh. If it is so complex, and Allah's intentions are beyond our understanding, how is it that you have come to understand? Are you not making similar claims that one with delusions of grandeur would make?

Just replace "Allah" with the name of some other god and you have what every theist claims - that their god is just and omniscient. Again, what is so different from other theists claim? What reason would I have to choose Allah over the god of the Jews, or the Hindus?

No, you don’t.
.
You know what some Theists believe.
.
You know what you used to believe, and what your acquaintances and co-worshippers, you pastor, and your Bible said. — Michael Ossipoff

After over 20 years of being a theist and then the next 26 years of being an atheist that interacted with theists, I have yet to meet one theist that didn't make the same kind of arguments and make the same mistakes in logic. You and Ram are making the same claims. They are no different than any other theist's claims.

Alright, if the Tooth-Fairy “has the same evidence and existence as” the God that you used to believe in, then speak for yourself when you talk about Theists.
.
As I’ve said many times, the aggressive Atheist’s God, his One True God that he fervently and loudly believes in disbelieving in, is always the God of the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists.
.
In that sense, it isn’t an exaggeration to say that the aggressive Atheist is a Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist. — Michael Ossipoff

So then you must be an Aggressive Atheist against the Greek and Norse gods, or the Hindu gods, or Egyptian gods, and Muslim gods, even Tooth Fairies and unicorns, elves, hobbits, dragons, demons, angels, etc., because you make claims of disbelief in such things, no? Strange that you seem to be an "Aggressive Atheist" yourself when it comes to all these other things. We both agree that those things do not exist. I am just declaring my disbelief in one more thing than you do - your particular god that you claim exists while rejecting all the others that have been claimed to exist. Why the particular preference for the god of the Jews? What does Ram say about the existence of the god of the Jews?

It is not fundamental to be open-minded to reasonable and logical solutions. You and Ram have yet to provide any.

If he could not signal, there would be no reason to conclude that he understood "sixty". — Banno

Knowing how to symbolize a concept for communication is different than knowing the concept itself. What about the fact that you can't use some foreign language that you haven't learned to communicate 60? Does that mean that you don't understand 60, or does it simply mean that you don't know the symbol in the foreign language for 60?

It would seem to me that his understanding of 60 has to do with his mathematical skills, not his skills in a particular language.

Furthermore, the whole concept that a theist has to be able to provide some sort of "proof" that other people can see is absurd.

I've never seen Alaska. Alaska exists whether I've seen it or not. — Ram

You could make the same arguments for the other religions, so you haven't yet differentiated yourself from any other religion.

The non-theists don't know why the theists believe. You don't know what the person has experienced to make them believe. I've read Bertrand Russell, Dawkins, Sagan, etc. I've studied the atheist side and I know it pretty well. — Ram

I used to be a theist. Now I'm an atheist. I know what theists believe because I used to believe. Knowing what I know now, it would be absurd for me to go back to believing it. Think about as trying to go back and believe in the Tooth Fairy - which has the same amount and type of evidence as the existence of any god.

We are not disembodied minds. We are people and we have experiences. Allah guides whom He wills — Ram

Then we believe what we believe based on his will and therefore are not responsible for own actions or beliefs. We believe what we believe because he wills it. You have no independence and are not in control of your own actions.

Epistemology from an Islamic perspective is totally different from most Western epistemology and Western-minded people will likely attack it because the epistemologies are alien to each other. My thinking won't necessarily fit into someone else's preconceived framework (frequently based on the presuppositions of the Enlightenment). — Ram

No. You haven't even made any argument that is any different from any other religious belief or the result of a delusion.

There is no God but Allah. Islam is the true religion, Allah is our Creator. — Ram

Most other monotheistic religions say the same thing about their god and religion.

How anyone can look at creation and believe it all just came out of nowhere, randomly- baffles me. — Ram

Who said that it came out of nowhere randomly? How anyone can believe that a universe can't just exist, but a god can, baffles me. What makes god so special that is doesn't need a creator, but the universe does?

People insult me for believing in God and act like I'm a neanderthal.... I am wary of posting here and think I'll be met with a bunch of belligerant liberals. But whether you agree with my views or not- I represent a viewpoint which might not be otherwise represented here. — Ram

But you have insulted us (our intelligence) with your incoherent post with no evidence or logic. When you do that, expect to be rejected and insulted yourself.

I also think you are misusing the term, "liberal". The people that are commonly called "liberals" in America are actually authoritarian socialists, not liberals at all. Libertarians are the only true liberals.

What do you think religion's purpose is & how does one interact with it? — MountainDwarf

Put simply: Religion is a method for dealing with the stresses of life (no inherent meaning to life, unfairness of society, worrying about death and dead loved ones, etc.), just as delusions help some people get through life. It allows them to cover up reality with a fake one that makes them feel more comfortable with themselves and their place in the world.

What sort of thing could a meaning be? Is it the dictionary definition? The intent of the speaker? The interpretation of the listener? — Banno

Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. In the case of language use, words mean what the speaker or writer intended to convey. If it were the dictionary definition then we couldn't use metaphors. If it were the interpretation of the listener then why do speakers say, "I didn't mean it that way.", "Or that isn't what I said." when listeners misinterpret what is said. Do listeners misinterpret? If they do, then obviously meaning cannot be how it is interpreted. What exactly is the listener interpreting if not the intent behind the speakers use of words? If meaning were the listeners' interpretation then many listeners can come up with different meanings to the same string of words, and then where would we be with meaning?

What of metaphor, where the word means something that is not the meaning of the word? — Banno

Yes, what of them? Metaphors are simply new ways we use symbols to refer to things based on our intent. We could say the same thing in a humorous or depressing way by using metaphors. So metaphors seem to add an extra layer of context beyond what the usual string of words that are used to say the same thing - all related to intent.

Words do not have meaning independent of their use. To use words (or to use anything for that matter), you need intent. Words can be used in many different ways, which is why intent is what the real meaning is - what they were used to convey (the users intent).

Ok, so in another thread I got into what felt like an interminable back and forth with a couple of users. After what must have been a few pages of mostly repeated points, I eventually realized it was in fact a disagreement in the meaning of the words involved (which just about sums up philosophical disagreement...). So my issue was that the conflict was about if some word crucially meant some particular thing irrespective of context. Screw it, I'll stop being vague about it. — MindForged

Words are arbitrary. We can use any string of symbols to refer to anything. Just look at all of the different languages humans use with different strings of symbols referring to the same thing ("tree" in English and "arbol" in Spanish).

Because of our limited minds, context needs to be established for us to know what some string of symbols mean. The universe does not need context. It is just the way it is and our minds try to symbolize that with language symbolizing what is in our minds. So language can refer to the things in the world via our minds. It's just that minds are inconsistent, subjective and illogical at times, so our words can be the same.

Meaning is essentially the relationship between cause and effect. What something means is what caused it. We usually associate the meaning of words with what the user intends to convey. When we can't agree on meanings of words, then we try to look at the logic of the meaning of the words that they are using. Is it consistent with the rest of what we know? If it isn't, you can safely ignore what they have said. Just look at the "gender" identity thread where many could not come up with a consistent definition of "gender" that made any sense other than "gender" is the same as "sex".

As for how so many people can be wrong: lots of people sometimes make an error. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Exactly. We can be wrong about who we are. I have provided evidence of this.

We don't have bodies which make us men or women, we are men/women with a body. We have manhood or womanhood not by having a bodily trait, but by having an objective feature of being a man or woman.We can always differentate the two: in itself, one man and the other is women. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The only way I can differentiate between man and woman is by body structure and behavior. This is the same circular BS you said before. It is meaningless. I think you owe me and the readers of this thread an apology for wasting our time in reading your nonsense.

It is hostile to proclaim someone claiming to be the vessel of God is delusional. When we dismiss, scoff, laugh at them, we are discriminationating against them as a group. We are holding a position their understanding of themselves is incoherent, wrong and deserves no place of respect in society.

The difference in this case is not in the fact a discrimination occurs, but in that discrimination in this case is justified. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'm not discriminating against the person. I'm discriminating their beliefs because they are inconsistent. It IS okay to dismiss incoherent dribble, like what you, Moliere and Banno are posting. All three of you do it on this forum, and it isn't hostile. It seems hostile if you are delusional - which is a symptom of a delusion.

All you three have done is propagate this mass delusion of transgenderism as if it were a religion. The incoherence and ill-formed arguments are no different from those that attempt to defend their own delusions. It is obvious by the mental gymnastics you all performed that you simply don't want to admit that you are wrong. We all have to accept that we are wrong sometimes to grow as individuals - to evolve your identity.

The objective feature is being a man or woman, that someone is of womanhood or manhood. My point issuing a man or woman is itself a feature of a person, a property of them as an existing being. We can pick it out and describe the presence like anything else-- e.g. just as we understood the presence of red hair, someone with six fingers, which one of us is John, that I belong to The Philosophy Forum, we understand the feature of belonging to manhood or womanhood through the concept which understands its a future of a person — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is this a question of individual preference or feeling. So long as you are man, anyone who thinks you are not a man will be factually wrong. — TheWillowOfDarkness

These two statements contradict each other. If we can pick out what it is to be a man or woman because it is objective, then how can so many people be wrong and only the transgenders are right?

Manhood and womanhood have to do with those objective features that differentiate the two, like in their physical structures the behaviors allowable by those structures. If you can't differentiate the two, then it becomes arbitrary, which is to say that is isn't objective at all.

Preferring a certain sort of ice cream does not fall under manhood/womanhood. In any case, since you are a man, you will always be a man who likes the given flavour of ice cream. You will be a man no matter which flavour of ice cream you like, until such time (if any) it no longer a fact you are a man. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But if my individual preference is that preferring chocolate ice cream is a feature of manhood, then you'd be wrong - factually wrong (as you put it). Do you see where your argument is contradicting itself?

When you get up and claim their identities are nonsense, it forms a social environment hostile to them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Then why is it not considered hostile to tell a someone who believes themselves to be a special creation of "God", that they aren't?

Alright, so if there were a law, say, that people could declare their gender-identity and it was written down then you'd accept the claims being made? — Moliere

Now we're getting back to those arbitrary cultural rules I was talking about before. Culturally, nephewhood could be anything. Biologically, it is only one thing. Cultures emulate "newphewhood " by creating laws. Cultures can create "gender roles" by creating certain laws that men and women are suppose to abide by, even though both women and men can physically engage in any of those behaviors, cultures will limit those behaviors to certain groups. Again, all we are talking about is how cultures differ, not how the genders/sexes differ.

Re-read my post above because I edited while you were replying.

I'll add in response to to your latest post that nephewhood can be measured by either genetic or legal relationships. While many might consider "legal" something non-physical, I would just fall back on my previous explanation of my dislike in using the terms, "physical" and "non-physical". Let's just say that they are measurable and categorical. Nephewhood still falls into the category of "son of your sibling", which could be biological or legal.

Aren't we getting off topic here? I did say time and the types of things people do for each other and genetic relationships are what make your identity. I also said that we have many different identities. Some identities are measured by one or more of those three features, while some are measured by just one. Nephew, for instance, is of the genetic type. Friend could probably be measured by time and the things people do for each other.

Stop creating red herrings and get back on topic.

I don't see how any of this is any different from the post I responded to, so my previous post stands. Your whole post is circular. You simply state that there is some objective feature that is called either "manhood" or "womanhood", but fail to actually point out what that objective feature is. If it is objective, then we can all see it.

Does the fact that I prefer chocolate ice cream fall under "manhood" or "womanhood"?

And if the notion of "manhood" and "womanhood" are of an individual preference or feeling, then how can you call someone who has a different notion of what "manhood" and "womanhood" are a "bigot"? You people just keep contradicting yourselves. Can you please filter your thoughts a bit more for consistency before posting them?

The important thing here is that these aren't measurable quantities that you can independently verify. — Moliere

Of course they are. Time is measurable and the things people do for each other are categorical.

The "manhood" or "womanhood" (or the "manhood and womanhood") is never going to be another's. In any case, it's a feature of an individual. I can no more have another's "manhood" or "womanhood" than I can be another person. Each person's "manhood" or "womanhood" is only ever their own. No "manhood" or "womanhood" is ever the same.

They aren't made arbitrary by this feature either. In any case, the "manhood" or "womanhood" is its own unique feature of the world (and can be understood by others; I can know who is a man, who is a woman, that the manhood and womanhood of each are different, how they are different, etc.), a feature which stands on its own as a presence in world ("the manhood/womanhood of..."), rather than being some sort of membership granted by having some sort of organs or behaving the right way.

Rather than "manhood" and "womanhood" being traits achieved by following a rule, they are a primary feature of individuals themselves, a significance of the given individual which occurs with their various traits (whatever those might be).

One is a man/women not because of specific biological or behavioural traits, but rather because they are a man/woman in the first instance.

The "arbitrariness" is a misunderstanding drawn from thinking that womanhood or manhood is granted in conforming to some rule of traits which make someone a man/woman. For any man or woman, we are already past any "arbitrariness" because their manhood or womanhood is already who they are. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is just more nonsense. All you are talking about is our own individual preferences, not anything that can be called "manhood" or "womanhood". If anything and everything falls under some umbrella term, then that makes the term meaningless, as everything and anything could be that thing (manhood) and it would be inconsistent to call those things by another, opposite term (womanhood).

Does one's preference for chocolate or vanilla ice cream fall under manhood or womanhood? As a matter of fact, I don't see most of my actions or preferences as falling into any gender/sexual category. My preference for chocolate ice cream is not a representation of my manhood or womanhood. If it is different for everyone, then why call it manhood or womanhood? Why call it anything other than individual preference?

You people are simply pulling out these arguments from your nether regions without even processing them for coherence and consistency. This is getting boring. Your arguments are no different in structure than those made my religious people vehemently holding on to their irrational beliefs to the point where they become incoherent.

This is closer I think. But what differs here is that these aren't physical quantities which are measured. — Moliere

The amount of time and types of things you do for each other can be said to be physical quantities. I could even say that feelings are physical as well, but I don't like to use those incoherent terms, "physical" and "mental". Everything is information. Your feelings inform you of the state of your body and can say that they are the relationship between mind and body. Relationships are a process. Nothing is either physical or mental. It is all process/information.

At some point you just have to ask people and believe them. — Moliere

In other words, you need to have faith that people's judgements of their own feelings are accurate - even though experience tells us that that isn't always the case. How - religious.

There was a lot more to my post that would keep us on topic, but you don't seem interested in facing tough questions.

The closest that would come to would be to say that this man is claiming to be a woman without knowledge of the qualia of womanhood. But I don't think it works that way at all. We don't have knowledge of the male's (to use Banno's language) internal experience. So we can't say that this male does or does not experience what it is to be a woman.

It's as if you want to acknowledge that females have womanhood, and males and manhood, but since this male is claiming womanhood and you know that all males feel malehood they couldn't possibly know womanhood. But, since you aren't a male with womanhood, you yourself wouldn't know that either. — Moliere

And the male who claims to have "womanhood" wouldn't know what "womanhood" is to say that he has it. You are attributing special powers to transgenders that they don't have. Why would one man know what "womanhood" is like and another not know what it is like?

But then we have to ask -- how do you determine these relationships? It's not a measurable, physical entity. Biological relationships barely scratch the surface here. So your talk of biological relationships doesn't really explain relationship. What other physical entity would you propose to designate a son who is not a biological son? — Moliere

Did I not say that it is a legal relationship? Are relationships not established over time, with more time implying a deeper relationship? And what about the actions taken to maintain the relationship? Caring for a child that you adopted is what makes it a relationship as well. Just look at all the things that define your relationship with the people in your life, and how each relationship is different, and they are different as a result of the amount of and kind of things you do for each other. It has to do with the amount and types of actions you do with someone else, along with any physical relationship that might exist.

Your latter supposition is trans-historical, whereas mine is not. What it means depends on circumstance -- micro-circumstance, in some cases, because even between individual families in the same culture these things can differ. — Moliere

In other words, it is arbitrary - like "god". Someone's "manhood" could be someone's "womanhood" and then where do those definitions that you and Banno seem so fond of stand? Doesn't that mean that gender is undefinable - non-existent? It's meaningless. Nonsense. Your own definitions and explanations defeat themselves.

Yes, and a male-oriented brain running a female body might explain gender dysphoria as something other than a delusion. — Pattern-chaser

Is this not what I have been saying all along - that this is the result of a defect in the brain (physical and/or psychological)?

What does it even mean to even say that there is a male-oriented brain running a female body when the brain cannot exist independently of the body and is considered part of the body?

What about the hormones testosterone and estrogen? Are they present in the body/brain in the same ratios as the opposite sex? Does the male body claiming to be a woman have a brain with the wiring for handling menstrual cycles? Your claim seems to expose a lack of understanding in basic biology. It is more accurate to call it a physical defect, or a psychological delusion, and there is nothing offensive about that. Just as it isn't offensive to say that it is a physical/psychological defect for anorexics to feel as if they are obese.

Science, having an objective methodology, is not suited to explain the subjective. — Marchesk

What about psychology and the impact pharmacology has on the "subjective"?

The very fact that I can drive down the road on autopilot while I daydream about a day off at the beach is testament to the objective/subjective split. My hands, eyes and ears and nervous system are all still perceiving the road, but I'm experiencing something else, something not out there, but something generated by me. — Marchesk

This is an example of your ability to multitask. You could not drive and daydream at the same time had you not gone through the effort of focusing your consciousness into learning how to drive. Learning anything is a conscious effort (and maybe an explanation as to why it evolved) and is another great example (along with pharmacology) of the causal link between the "external" and the "internal".

And yes, there is an out there and in here, in the sense that out there is the public, empirical space, and in here is the stuff created by my mind, even though both are part of the same, larger world. We can quibble over "out there" and "in here" being misleading metaphors, but it doesn't change the fact that my mind produces experiences which are not part of the public space, and thus there is a subjective world, and an objective one of our experience, however we wish to denote them. — Marchesk

From my perspective, your "in here" is "out there"" - part of that empirical space you mentioned - but, so are wavelengths of EM energy. I experience colors, not wavelengths. I experience your body and behaviors, not your mind.

If there really is a causal link, which I think the evidence is clear that there is, then why wouldn't science not be able to eventually explain the link?

This is just a metaphysical puzzle. What does it matter that we count them as qualia or not? Either way we know what it is to feel, and we know that our feelings are specific to ourselves. You don't feel like I feel at the moment. It's this interiority that's important to the discussion at hand, and not the metaphysical status of feelings. — Moliere

I was pointing out another one of your inconsistencies when I asked you that question, but you didn't seem to get it.

My physical relationship doesn't make me a niece, son, father, and so forth. What physical quantity would we measure to establish nephew-hood? Genes? But this is a filial relationship established in social practices. Kinship groups vary significantly between cultures. And it is possible to be someone's son while not being their biological child -- such as the case of adoption. It's also possible to be disowned by your family, and find a new group of people who you call family and said family is just as real as those who have physical genetic relationships with one another.

The relationship between persons is what counts, though. The physical, measurable quantities don't. — Moliere

I was talking about biological relationships. Sure, people can adopt and that would make the child their legal son/daughter, and that still supports my claim that relationships define your identity.

In the bright and gloroius gay space luxury communist future this will be superseded with SCIENCE!

:D — Moliere

It wouldn't be bright and gay. It would be rather dull and boring with everyone being genetically and behaviorally the same, or modified for specific tasks for Big Brother. There would be no individual identities.

In all sincerity, it depends to what extent you identify with your physical capacities. Identity is a mental phenomena. There is a social side to identity, but that's not what we're talking about when talking about gender-identity. — Moliere

I already pointed out (and you keep ignoring it (the only thing you are consistent on)) that, if gender-identity is as you have defined it as the feeling and/or need to behave like the opposite sex, then what does it mean to behave like the opposite sex when all sexes can and have historically engaged in those behaviors? The only difference lies in how societies define how certain sexes should behave. And how does one sex know what it feels like to be the other to claim that they identify as the other?

Qualia are symbolic systems.

Qualia are language, they have the same logical structure as language.

Qualia are to reality as language is to semantic content.

The sematic value blue is is not the utterance blo͞o. Rather, the utterance blo͞o signifies the semantic value.

By the same relation, 470nm light is not the qualia blue. Rather, blue the qualia is a sign that signifies 470nm light. — hypericin

This is something I have argued for many times on this forum.

After considering these responses I would like to weaken my claim. — hypericin

That isn't necessary. Observe:

Smelling vanilla is an existential state. It might indicate the presence of vanilla extract, vanilla beans, good vanilla ice cream, etc. — Dfpolis

In other words, it indicates the presence of vanilla in some form. You would need context, like what your visual system provides, to be more specific as to what the smell actually is. This is no different from language use. You derive the meaning of some sounds or scribbles from the context.

Dogs might be able to make the distinction between vanilla beans and vanilla extract with their noses, but our human noses are so sophisticated. We can make those distinctions with our eyes.

Since it can indicate many things, intrinsically, it indicates no one thing, including the presence of vanilla molecules. For thousands of years, people smelled vanilla and never thought of vanilla molecules. So, intrinsically, the quale of vanilla does not signify the presence of vanilla molecules. (It does not necessarily make us think of them.) — Dfpolis

Words can indicate anything as well. We simply agree on what symbols to use to refer to other things.

We interpret words as much as we interpret qualia. As a matter of fact, you could say that language is a kind of qualia. The title should actually be: "Language is qualia." You cannot learn a language unless you experience the sounds and visual scribbles of some language and are taught what they refer to.

We can misinterpret words just like we misinterpret our other qualia. It is experience that allows us to fine-tune our interpretations over time to eventually symbolize the world accurately. It is no surprise that our first interpretations of the world were preliminary and inaccurate, just as our preliminary understanding of a language we don't know that we are reading or listening to is.

I see applicability, but I don't think that qualia is the best tactic for understanding identity. Nagel highlights the problem of consciousness, but I don't think the problem of consciousness elucidates interiority or identity as well as others. What I've been drawing from here is mostly Levinas's exposition on interiority in Totality and Infinity. — Moliere

You said that feelings are best measurement for understanding identity. What are feelings if not a kind of qualia?

That's not what I have been proposing, so I guess my answer, in turn, is that these things do not determine identity. Physical relationships and physical differences do not determine identity. Your physical relationship in a family doesn't either. Your physical relationship with others doesn't determine identity with respect to marriage, friendship, or coworker-hood.

Species-hood, yes -- physical differences are what makes one a part of the species. And physical differences do not enable participation -- at least at the individual level -- in procreation, especially with human beings. Being a k-selected species makes it so that the purely physical facts don't stop an individual from participating in child-rearing, which is actually more prominent with humans than the mere facts of gestation.

And physical development only determines whether you are a physical child or physical adult. The transition from childhood to adulthood is determined by mental development and social structures -- so that adulthood can be gained as early as 13 or up to 18, in the legal sense. What counts as a mature person varies significantly, though the physical facts remain the same among persons. — Moliere

You are inconsistent again, and it's getting old. So, your relationship with your family doesn't make you a niece/nephew, son/daughter, father/mother, etc.? You are aware that we take on different identities and none of them contradict each other?

I never said physical differences enable participation in procreation. I said that our differences allow us to participate in our own unique way in propagating the species. You cannot procreate with just females. You need males as well, and each one contributes in it's own unique way to the propagation of the species. Those differences are what make up one of your identities.

Yeah, definitely. I imagine that it what the trans experience might be like, something I simply can't understand because the feelings are outside of my experience — Pseudonym

And the trans-person claims that they understand the feelings that are outside of their experience (ie. a man claiming that he understands what it is to be a woman in order to make the claim that he is a woman.) How is it that the transperson has access to experiences that you don't when you are both same sex?

The bigotry isn't a question of specific intention. It's in the very concepts Harry is using. In taking a position trans people are deluded, they's taken a position trans people are mistaken, trans identities aren't real and values they ought to be rejected in favour of "telling the truth."

It's simalir to if I were to say: "Anyone named Pseudonym was deluded in claiming to be a member of The Philosophy Forum. The person targeted is rejected, they are positioned as a danger to trust or respect, they are set-up as a target, etc. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That is not at all similar to what I'm saying. If you want to address what I've been saying, then READ what I've been saying.

There are cases where people are mistaken about their identity as a result of some physical defect, or psychological defect - like what results from your parents treating you like the opposite sex while they raised you. Take schizophrenics and anorexics. You don't seem to have a problem telling them that they are wrong, or mistaken about their identity or their bodies. You don't seem to have a problem questioning other's beliefs on this forum. I've been called a "hater" for questioning the beliefs of god-believers, so your tactics are no different than those who make claims and then engage in ad homimem attacks when those beliefs are questioned.

We should be able to question any claim, especially when it isn't consistent with our own experiences and especially when you cannot give a clear, consistent explanation of your argument and would rather commit ad hominem fallacies. Your line of thinking is what leads us down the road to authoritarianism.

As for Nagel -- Eh, it's just a manner of speaking. There are more tools in the toolbox than hammers, and not everything is a nail. My world-view is not architectonic, but piece-meal and always changing. — Moliere

What does this even mean? How is what Nagel is saying not applicable to the present discussion? This is so typical of you. You disagree, but you don't offer any clear explanation of how or why you disagree.

Your world-view is always changing? You say that, but in this thread, you have yet to show it.

What ruler would you accept with respect to determining anyone's identity? — Moliere

Does not your physical relationships and your physical differences determine your identity? Does not your relationship with your family make you a parent, grandparent, sibling, etc.? Does not your relationship to others make you a friend or co-worker? Does not your relationship with others make you married or single? Does not your differences from others species make you a human being? Does not your physical differences that enable you to participate in procreating your species make you a male/female (man/woman)? Does not your physical development determine whether you are and adult or a child?

Another question:
Do you admit that others can influence someone into believing that they are someone that they are not? For instance, do you agree that there are cases where parents treat their son as a girl, which then creates an expectation of norms the child must adhere to and adopts? In this case, the child is not choosing their identity. The child is given their identity, a false one, by their misguided parents.

Children don't choose their identity. They simply acquire and understanding of how they are suppose to behave based on the rewards and punishments they receive from their care-givers, and that influences how they view themselves later in life.

If a man claims to feel like a woman, how does he know what being a a woman feels like, and why would they need hormone therapy to feel like a woman? It all comes down to what Nagel described as "what it feels like". It is strange to see this well-known philosophical explanation of Nagel's is not being used in this discussion.

In his article, “What is it like to be a bat?” Thomas Nagel argues that there are facts about the conscious experience that are subjective and can only be known from that subjective perspective. Even if we know all the objective facts about bats, we may not actually know what it would really be like to be a bat. We might be able to imagine what it would be like to hang upside down, fly through the night, or use echolocation to track prey, but Nagel argues that we really couldn’t know what a bat’s experience is really like.

So, do transgenders actually feel like the opposite sex, or are they simply imagining what it is like, and want that and then go through the steps to acquire it (hormone therapy), so that they actually get some sense of what it does feel like, rather than just imagine what it feels like?

Not only that, but many of the people in this thread have argued FOR Nagel's idea in other threads, yet reject that in this thread. Take a long hard look at your worldview, people. It needs to be consistent across the board.

There may not be a point to you -- but it would be foolish to believe that there is no such distinction. And, in fact, the distinction is very important to some people. — Moliere

I never said there wasn't a distinction. I said that the distinction lies in the boundaries between cultures, not between sex/gender.

I conflate sex/gender precisely because you have yet to establish a real, objective distinction between them. All you do is keep going around in circles.

Well, this is where I pointed out that there are facts to the matter with Jesus, and you then said there are facts of the matter to gender -- but then proceeded to conflate sex with gender with gender-identity on the basis of, what I take from your above, that there was "no point" to these distinctions, and that I was offering something too vague for your taste -- that my view was "incoherent" on that basis. — Moliere

Come on, Moliere. It is really difficult to have a discussion with someone who can't stay focused.

You said :

Just to highlight -- feelings are the arbiters of truth with respect to identity, not all beliefs. — Moliere

The point I made about the person who believes that they are Jesus is that feelings are the arbiters of truth with respect to identity. Obviously, feelings with respect to identity can be wrong. So, feelings cannot be the arbiters of truth with respect to identity. Logic and reason are the only arbiters of truth, and you have yet to be reasonable or logical in this discussion.

Not only that, but in the same post, you said:

It seems to me that you don't see a difference between feelings and beliefs. Before I said there is a difference between feelings and claims. There is a difference between feelings and beliefs as well. — Moliere

So, at first you said that there is a difference between feelings and beliefs, yet when you added your highlight, you conflated them - a contradiction. Stop contradicting yourself so that we can actually have a meaningful conversation.

It is physical, but it is not a sexual trait. It's not even a biological trait. Things like the maximum length hair can grow to are, but aligning short/long hair to masculine/feminine is not. There are myriad examples of non-sexual masculine/feminine entities. — Moliere

Again, if both men and women can do something, like grow/cut hair and wear/not wear makeup, then there is no point in making a distinction of masculine/feminine between these behaviors. Again, the distinction lies in the boundaries between cultures, not between sex or gender.

EDIT: Just to highlight -- feelings are the arbiters of truth with respect to identity, not all beliefs. — Moliere

We already went over this :roll: Again, I refer you to our friend that believes that they are Jesus. We're just going around in circles. How do you break out of this circle of inconsistency?

That's not what is in my dictionary. But then, i'm using the Oxford, not one I wrote myself. — Banno

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/man
Man: An adult human male.
Woman: An adult human female.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/man
Man: an individual human; especially : an adult male human
Woman: an adult female person

As you can clearly see, I am using actual dictionaries. You have yet to provide any link to the definition you are using. So, who is it again that is making stuff up?

A man is a category for a particular sex/gender of a certain species, just as a buck and a bull are. Males are just a more general category that doesn't make a distinction between species - only between sex/gender.

Keeping in mind that my focus has mostly been on interiority, and there are people in a better position than I to answer these questions -- — Moliere

If they feel like the opposite "gender" then why do they need go about performing physical changes to validate their feeling? Why would they need to change the length of their hair, their style of clothes, hormone therapy, replacing their genitals, etc. if their feeling is all they need to validate the accuracy of their belief?