Religion is "man-made" is like saying universe is

[paarsurrey1]

Revealed-Religion is "man-made" is like saying universe is "man-made", is it so?

Regards

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 16 by benchwarmer]

Step 2: Do some research on carbon dating, and paleontology.

Just a correction, in the highly unlikely event that paarsurrey1 would actually pursue this course of action, change "carbon" to "radiometric" in the statement above. Carbon dating is only good to about 60,000 years ago because of the short half life of 14-C (5,730 years, and ten half lives reduces the 14-C content to about as low as can be measured reliably). But there are plenty of isotopes of other elements that can be used for the time periods appropriate to T-Rex (eg. U/Pb, Sr/Rb, K/Ar, etc. are commonly used, and of course when different combinations result in the same age it is further confirmation that the whole scheme does in fact work).

[benchwarmer]

Revealed-Religion is man-made is not a fact. Is it? Those who believe or have faith or trust that Revealed-Religion is man-made may kindly let us have their own understanding* of the word "fact" and then give their arguments/reasons if they have any. Right, please?

*Please don't quote from a lexicon/dictionary.

Regards

I'm sorry, but you want us to explain what 'fact' means and not use a dictionary? i.e. you want us to make something up? I'll leave that to people who like making things up - like revealed religions.

Dictionaries exist for a reason. The let us have a common understanding of what words mean. If we can freely make up meanings of words, then I hereby give my definition of 'revealed religion': mumbo jumbo

Words have several meanings and usages. Don't they?

Yes. And guess where they are outlined such that we can refer to common understanding of what any word means?

When one gives one's own understanding, it becomes easy to discuss further .

As long as one's own understanding lines up with one of the valid uses for the word. Which is outlined where?

It harms nobody, later one could change the expression if one notices that one made a mistake.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting we should just go around changing common meanings of words to suit our tastes? Yes, word usage, meaning, and even new words do evolve over time. However, if you just randomly assign meaning to a word because it suits you, you are no longer communicating properly so as to be understood.

Language existed and lexicons/dictionaries were compiled much later. Right, please?

Regards

Of course, what's your point? How do you think the contents of the dictionary were compiled? Do you think a single person just randomly assigned meaning to each word?

Dictionaries are collections of our common understanding for the words in our language. If we stray from common understanding, we better be able to explain precisely why or be misunderstood.

Clearly English is not your first language (not an insult, just an observation). How did you learn this language? Did you just start making up definitions for every word? Or perhaps you learned what the common meaning of each word was, based on the common understanding of everyone who speaks English. Which is compiled, you guessed it, in dictionaries.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 22 by benchwarmer]

benchwarmer
Dictionaries are collections of our common understanding for the words in our language. If we stray from common understanding, we better be able to explain precisely why or be misunderstood.

Since I am leaving it to you to give your understanding of the word "fact" so you could remain as closest to the "common" approach as possible, not straying from it, never. Right, please?

Regards

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 22 by benchwarmer]

benchwarmer
Dictionaries are collections of our common understanding for the words in our language. If we stray from common understanding, we better be able to explain precisely why or be misunderstood.

Since I am leaving it to you to give your understanding of the word "fact" so you could remain as closest to the "common" approach as possible, not straying from it, never. Right, please?

Regards

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

If you want my understanding of the word 'fact', go see any English dictionary. I've been speaking English all my life and the definitions of 'fact' in the dictionary are what I use.

If someone were to use the word 'fact' incorrectly (like saying the Genesis story of creation in the Bible is 'fact') then they are the ones either using the word wrong, or have somehow undone hundreds of years of science and not yet claimed their Nobel prize.

Words have meaning. That's how we communicate. Change the meaning and communication becomes unclear at best or nonsensical at worst.

Perhaps it might be more fruitful for you to describe what your understanding of the word 'fact' is if it doesn't line up with dictionary definitions. Perhaps we can supply a better word that you should be using instead.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 22 by benchwarmer]

benchwarmer
Dictionaries are collections of our common understanding for the words in our language. If we stray from common understanding, we better be able to explain precisely why or be misunderstood.

Since I am leaving it to you to give your understanding of the word "fact" so you could remain as closest to the "common" approach as possible, not straying from it, never. Right, please?

Regards

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

If you want my understanding of the word 'fact', go see any English dictionary. I've been speaking English all my life and the definitions of 'fact' in the dictionary are what I use.

If someone were to use the word 'fact' incorrectly (like saying the Genesis story of creation in the Bible is 'fact') then they are the ones either using the word wrong, or have somehow undone hundreds of years of science and not yet claimed their Nobel prize.

Words have meaning. That's how we communicate. Change the meaning and communication becomes unclear at best or nonsensical at worst.

Perhaps it might be more fruitful for you to describe what your understanding of the word 'fact' is if it doesn't line up with dictionary definitions. Perhaps we can supply a better word that you should be using instead.

Anybody else, please

Regards

[paarsurrey1]

Revealed-Religion is man-made is not a fact. Is it? Those who believe or have faith or trust that Revealed-Religion is man-made may kindly let us have their own understanding* of the word "fact" and then give their arguments/reasons if they have any. Right, please?

*Please don't quote from a lexicon/dictionary.

Fact comes from the Latin verb facere, the supine part of which is factum, and it originally meant something done or made. It means something that is true. If there is any debate about the truth of something then it is NOT a fact.

Who had "done" or "made" the fact/s originally, please?
Anybody, please
Regards

[benchwarmer]

In response to me:

Anybody else, please

Regards

In response to marco:

Anybody, please
Regards

Is it standard practice to ignore the responses given to you and essentially insult those who took the time to debate with you by asking for others to answer instead?

I'm hoping this is simply a language difficulty, because that comes off as rather insulting. At the very least, it shows you have no response so you hope someone else will come along and agree with you. Good luck with that.

I'm done.

[Wootah]

Revealed-Religion is "man-made" is like saying universe is "man-made", is it so?

Regards

Mohammad literally changed the Koran as he went along.

For instance he wanted his adopted son's wife and then Allah gave Mohammad a verse to permit this.

Can you admit this seems man made?

[marco]

Revealed-Religion is man-made is not a fact. Is it? Those who believe or have faith or trust that Revealed-Religion is man-made may kindly let us have their own understanding* of the word "fact" and then give their arguments/reasons if they have any. Right, please?

*Please don't quote from a lexicon/dictionary.

Fact comes from the Latin verb facere, the supine part of which is factum, and it originally meant something done or made. It means something that is true. If there is any debate about the truth of something then it is NOT a fact.

Who had "done" or "made" the fact/s originally, please?

Paarsurrey, you ask and you receive. I regard it as an obvious fact, beyond argument, that religion is man made. I offered reasons for my odd opinion: religion involves groups of people agreeing to certain aspects of belief. But they are all different, generated by people. If you think God generated each religion, why are they all different?

But clearly you think God instituted ONE true religion and, by coincidence, you have it whereas Christians and Jews don't. That is your OPINION, not a fact. To make the discussion meaningful it is time for you to show us how you came to believe it is a fact that religion is not man made. If you have truth then perhaps, after your exposition, we will all join you. We surely discuss with the intention of showing our views are reasonable. So please, show us your view on this is based on fact.

[paarsurrey1]

Revealed-Religion is man-made is not a fact. Is it? Those who believe or have faith or trust that Revealed-Religion is man-made may kindly let us have their own understanding* of the word "fact" and then give their arguments/reasons if they have any. Right, please?

*Please don't quote from a lexicon/dictionary.

Fact comes from the Latin verb facere, the supine part of which is factum, and it originally meant something done or made. It means something that is true. If there is any debate about the truth of something then it is NOT a fact.

Who had "done" or "made" the fact/s originally, please?

Paarsurrey, you ask and you receive. I regard it as an obvious fact, beyond argument, that religion is man made. I offered reasons for my odd opinion: religion involves groups of people agreeing to certain aspects of belief. But they are all different, generated by people. If you think God generated each religion, why are they all different?

But clearly you think God instituted ONE true religion and, by coincidence, you have it whereas Christians and Jews don't. That is your OPINION, not a fact. To make the discussion meaningful it is time for you to show us how you came to believe it is a fact that religion is not man made. If you have truth then perhaps, after your exposition, we will all join you. We surely discuss with the intention of showing our views are reasonable. So please, show us your view on this is based on fact.

I liked your post and I appreciate it. It is a positive post, though I may differ with its contents.

I regard it as an obvious fact, beyond argument,

So, one means, if I have correctly understood one's expression, that obvious facts are not open to discussion.
But why, please?

Regards