Total posts: 327
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Atheists are fully aware of the FACT that the Sun has been worshiped as a god and still is .Atheists can PROVE the sun exists.
Then you can PROVE a god exists. While atheism is defined as disbelief in the existence of God or gods,
To someone who worships the sun as God or a god that doesn't make any sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It just struck me, that the "Future of Evolutionary Theory" is a self evident statement.
[growls]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Evolution is a word that describes a process.
I often don't understand what you mean though I understand exactly what you mean. Ambiguity I keep calling it but I can't keep that up for long, now, can I? Evolution is a word that describes a process, yes. That is true. But defecation is a word that describes a process as well. So, what you say is exactly right, but I still don't know exactly what it means. A process of change. A newborn, if fortunate enough, evolves into an infant then a child, teen, adult, elderly and death. A caterpillar into a butterfly, grass seed into grass. We have observed evolution from the beginning of mankind. We know if we mate cows we get cows, we know if we plant apple trees we get apples. We have never observed anything evolve into something else. Like a lizard into a bird or a bird into a lizard.
I think that it's fair to say that 2024 years ago, J's Mom and Dad didn't ride into Bethlehem in a Toyota Hybrid.
Then I think you're just making a joke. For example, you aren't suggesting that evolution has anything to do with this. The ass J, as you say, rode into town on didn't evolve into a Toyota Hybrid, no. That is also true.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I think one of the results of the apostacy of Christianity, especially the "church," is that they had to make up all sorts of stupid rules to replace the reality of the teachings of Christ. Books, radio, television, rock music, etc. A great deal of it is just nonsense and hypocritical because they always end up adopting those things for their own ministry or religious and personal use.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
There was even a Christian propaganda video called "vile masturbator".
Out of a sort of morbid curiosity I would like to see that video. I thought the same thing about the old film "Reefer Madness!" and it turned out only to be boring and stupid - though I imagine not too bad to watch stoned.
Christians are, in my estimation, just a little bit more ridiculous than most. Though we all are to some extent. Scientologists and maybe Muslims have the Christians beat in that regard, but, still - given the general riculous nature of humanity as a whole, that is saying something.
Christians are obsessed with dicks.
I can't complain too much about that. In a very different way I was obsessed with them myself.
Created:
Posted in:
If I were to take over the world the first thing I would do is get rid of all monetary systems and replace them with science and technology, which would provide for every man, woman and child on the planet. Free, of course. No one would have to eek out a living through work or theft. That would be the first step because the love of money (greed) corrupts everything. All governments, religions, and commerce would be obsolete.
I would write a very simple constitution that protected the rights of individual life, liberty and property. The planet would consist of relatively small communities with no elected officials or agencies. Everything would be small scale and the community would decide upon what is needed, should be tried, changed, accomplished, etc.
I think that is the opposite of tyranny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@baggins
Define it as something else?! You mean define it as something other than what atheists, who don't believe it no matter what you call it, says it is? No.
A god is and has always been anything or anyone that is venereted/worshipped. Atheism is commonly defined as "disbelieve in God or gods" which is stupid. Modern day "Atheists" don't understand that the God of the Bible is just one of countless - billions - of gods. Some exist, some don't. They don't have to exist to be a god, but they can exist. The atheist defense is that that isn't what any atheist means by gods. Ask what a god is and they say "sky king magic etc." What they perceive in ignorance as the God of the Bible. They have almost no idea.
So, it doesn't matter what they do or do not believe about something they know almost nothing about. It's a sociopolitical bunch of nonsense.
Created:
-->
@Mall
If you were to ask me how do I know the sky is blue?I say through my visual sense I observe the heavens looking up to witness it. If I tell you "oh I use critical thinking skills", that's not telling anything.That's why you haven't elaborated passed that in the practical sense I just gave.
I'm always on about this. We teach the kids "The sky is blue, the grass is green, cows say moo cats say meow."
None of this is very accurate so we teach the kids to believe certain things but not to think very well. Everyone knows the sky is blue so there it is.
The sky appears blue to us sometimes. Sometimes it appears grey, white, red, purple or a sort of mauve, pink, orange, yellow, black, sometimes black with white spots, and I've even seen it green. Grass is most often green, but sometimes yellow, brown, black, bluish and so on.
It sounds silly, and in a way it is, but damnit! [pounds fist on desk] something needs to be done about these transgressions!
ETA: Oh, I forgot. Cows and cats don't make an m sound.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
No. Life doesn't make sense if you laugh. We laugh because it doesn't make sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
So you think it doesn't matter what we believe because everything is going to be destroyed anyway. Am I correct? Or is there something else?
No, that isn't it at all. I'm saying that the stuff we think we know, often elements of "everything." is crap that we think is true but isn't. So, when all we think we know is based upon some ideological block or blinders (on a social and/or political incentive) then whatever you say about the specific subject of theism/atheism isn't likely to matter in the sense that I can preach (teach) the subject till I'm blue in the face and - right or wrong - it doesn't matter because the traditional "scholarly" concesus is blocked. Put simply atheists can't consider what I say because they have to think in terms of what, ironically, they "believe" to be true. There is no science (knowledge and the investigation of it) when that is so obviously the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well said.
THAT! was fucking funny. Perfect!
I've heard it said that if you can't explain something simply then you don't know it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Do atheists believe no gods exists?Yes or no.
Yes. And no.
Now it's your turn. Do atheists believe anything?
Yes or no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
What do you mean by that?Do you think humanity is going sideways? Are you being apocalyptic?
Sure. Isn't it obvious that mankind will destroy themselves? I'm not talking about fake climate change, I'm talking about the inevitable conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I don't know you, man.
She's just playing. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Well yeah. You may be using the term atheism to describe the thread, but the concept you seem to want to talk about has nothing to do with what the vast majority of people are calling God/gods or religion.So this conversation to you isn’t about what’s real, but just a conversation about how people feel.
Sort of. It isn't about what's real because it's all just about how people feel. What's real isn't important. It's a smokescreen for other things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Is this a serious point?
As an atheist all I knew was that religion was stupid. I didn't know why - call it a hunch. At a very early age I had already come to the conclusion that politics and science were stupid as well. By stupid I mean fake, dumb ideology. Nothing real. Just bullshit. You can't have the atheist vs. theist debate with data. Everyone says data i.e. facts, truth, etc. is important, but it isn't. At all. The atheist vs theist debate is always only ever religion, politics and science. Not being very well aquinted with your thinking I would hazard a guess. With you it's politics.
The point is nothing is real. Not atheists. Not theists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Someone else had the courage to answer yes even though a lot of unnecessary statements, filler and rambling was piled on it.
Oh, hey, whoa! Not me!
Do atheists believe no gods exists?
Atheists don't believe in theists, so they're right more often than not, at least in that regard. But they do believe in atheists so there's the balance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So, your response was another interesting read.
I disagree.
Form which I've extracted the above statement for consideration.
The above statement? [Looks up. Looks down]
I would suggest that science will either come to a satisfactory conclusion or not.
There's a safe bet. Nothing ambiguous about that.
And there are still plenty of contented deists with a penchant for eschewing science.
What if you're wrong, she asked Richard Dawkins, to which he responded in turn. If he was right he would at least have amassed a considerable fortune selling dimestore novels to atheist idiots when he should have been out doing science. If he was wrong he would have inspired millions to be cheated out of not only a lot of dimes but also everlasting life in paradise and in peace without sickness or death.
And this question.Well, both I suppose, if they lend themselves to the methodical scrutiny of a plausible/reasonable theory.
[Laughs] We're all screwed.
Do you think/ not think that theism/deism has always been a scientific theory of sorts?
If you define science as knowledge, no. If you define theism/deism as bullshit, yes.
A tad naive today perhaps, in light of what has been concluded since.But nonetheless, a reasonable proposition at the time.
Since when? Which time?
Which isn't to say that certain aspects of the GOD principle are not still reasonable.A supreme intelligence for example.
A supreme intelligence without intelligence? A sentient non-being?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that GODS were an inevitable requirement of an evolving intellectual species.
You shouldn't.
And BK's crusty repository causes Mama Korea to chuckle.
Like Bates Hotel. Psychos check in and never check out. Old school. Nothing like Facebook or X marks the spot.
Created:
Posted in:
In the future the theory of evolution, like Socrates' immortal soul and Plato's trinity, was adopted by the church. Science, of course, dropped it like a hot tater. We are men of science!
AMEN BROTHERS!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The devil made me do it.
Oh, buddy. Ya' gotta' watch out for devils. The word means liar, slanderer. Did you know that? Got any songs like the Lucifer light bearer songs? And PLEASE! No devil went down to Georgia. Propper context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Well, if the term "God" has this connotation, I can agree. But the term "God" usually has a broader description. God is also the creator of this existence according to the believers.
Think of the word God like the word King. God's name is Jehovah. Jehovah may be my God but not your God. Charles may be your King but not my king. Jehovah is a god. Allah is someone else's God Charles is a king. The problem is simple. People wrongly think God is a name and gods are a copy. They think saying "God damn it" is taking the "Lord's name" in vain. I use the term think loosely.
So, you're right in part. If people stop worshipping a "God" then religions will have no reason for being because worshipping implies rituals and doctrines to follow up. Isn't it what religion is about?
Not really. The only reason for religion to exist is power, usually through money. Religion is pretense and ritual. Paying the man.
Nevertheless, the people will have this necessity of looking for a reason of their existence, so the need of a "God" will pop up anytime soon.
That's where the pretense comes in. Make believe. Just using God or gods or science or religion as a means to justify the ends. A make you look good to the people you want to look good for.
God's will. God is on our side. You can always tell a good god when he hates all the same people you do. Rally the troops! Don't question God. But God ain't them. Follow the science. Follow the money. Follow the god.
So, ya' gotta' ask yourself, what does it all matter? It doesn't. Just watch 'em destroy one another. Just like the very real Jehovah God told Adam they would.
So, I don't think it's enough to stop worshipping a "God" in order to get rid of this "God".
The stopping I mentioned wasn't to get rid of the God. Remember? I said it didn't matter whether or not God existed. It just means he wouldn't be a god anymore. God means worshiped. Not anything else. Anything and everything can be a god. Worshipped. You have to get the idea that God only means God. Sky magic make believe. God doesn't mean that. God means worshipped.
I think the only way to get rid of the GOD OF RELIGIONS is to know exactly the real nature of this existence. I mean, while it is true that the God of religions is a manifestation of human being's ignorance, we have to acknoledge too that we depend on a kind of FORCE or SOURCE that sustain us, which I refuse to call it God because it reminds me of religions. I'm pretty sure the knowledge about this FORCE or SOURCE can be explained scientifically and will satisfy all our doubts equally.
I know. No martyrs, right? But you're only recycling the same thing and calling it something different. Minus accountability and responsibility. It doesn't pay and it doesn't matter. It may make you feel like you're ahead of the game but you're in the same ship of fools as the "believers and sceptics." The ship's going down. It doesn't matter who goes down with it. It isn't a scare tactic, it's truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
[sigh]
I was just watching dooms day prepers.And this lot where prepping because of the "second coming" thing thats gonna happen in approx, four months , two weeks , three days and 17 mins."Bible prepares" they are called.
According to the Bible the end times began at the conception of Adam and Eve's first child. The founding of the world. And the Bible doesn't say that Jesus would return other than the time he did so before his disciples. That was a long time ago. So, you can watch the "Bible preppers" as they are called and you can marvel at how silly they look all the while not knowing any better than they.
They come across as ummmm , fucking dickheads.
No. They come across as stupid, you come across as fucking dickheads. But why always female? More cunt than dick.
I want to meet a person that " guesses the second coming will happen in a few hundred years time.Like after there dead.
After there dead. After they're dead. The puzzle calls for one to distinguish common mistakes, narrowing down those typical of the female/male, young/old, believer/unbeliever, british/american, cerebrial/emotional, accademic/traditional [yawn] stupid/religious . . . nice/not so nice . . . on my side/not on my side only if I take sides. I never take sides. Apolitical/irreligious. Keep up, boy!
God is a sick dude
Never an original thought. It takes all of the fun out of it when you make it so easy. Terms. Expressions. Fuck! Do you want me to show you how to do this right?! You don't want that. Atheists worldwide cower at me definitely, you see? Poet, jester, songsmith. Sock it to me. Maybe I am Hugh. Maybe I am also Legion. Only the chickens guard the henhouse.
Clues within clues within clues while you look up into the sky and down into the why. Don't be shy.
mUltiplacation up in the house wigger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
All of you be quiet. It doesn't matter to me who you all are it only matters to me what all of you say. Pretending doesn't make it any more interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You were slightly misrepresenting theoretical thinking and consequent study, by inaccurately pigeon holing with both the "ist" suffix and the word "believe".
It is what it is.
1. Though for sure, there are lots of people who without methodical consideration, will blindly accept or reject ideas because they have been conditioned to do so.
Not only or necessarily because they've been conditioned but also group think. To keep up appearances.
We tend to refer to such people as believers.
A liar is someone who is either stupid enough to think that lying is the only way to get what they want or intelligent enough to think that lying is the easiest way to get what they want. Like a sock puppet they operate on the assumption that no one will possess the ability to detect their deception, but really this only makes them predictable and easy to detect. We refer to such people as atheists or theists.
Believing isn't stupid, deceiving is. I think of it like a puzzle to solve. A riddle. But it gets old after a while when you've done the same puzzle over and over. Like I told you early on, words are a prison.
2. Whereas people who are not prepared to blindly accept or reject ideas without necessary consideration should be referred to as sceptics.
The further you get away from the truth the more skeptical virtually everyone is. Lying or ignorant skeptics are profoundly more prevalent in our zeitgeist than lying believers. Here we escape the prison of words, deviate from the puzzle and adapt to the show or theater. Theatre? Therapy? The eater and the rapist. Poets, Priests and Politicians. You see? I A.
3. And those who actually dedicate their time to the methodical study of such ideas should be regarded as scientists.
Which ideas? Theological or scientific. You would agree that there are incentives to corrupt and neglect both, in the past most notably for the former just as in the present most notable for the latter? Note how if one is paying attention, they will get bored at the repetition. The ritual of deception. Ritual. Religion. Theater. Hypocritical, from the Greek form of theater in which everyone and everything is magnified. Costumes, devices - Deus Ex Machina. Imitatio Dei. Deus Vult. Amor Dei Intellecualis. The new normal and the old. Meet the new boss, same as the old, but potentially far more destructive.
"I Am the science. God is on our side. God wills it." Ideas within ideas within ideas.
Here I am attempting to pigeon hole, somewhat more accurately.
Then which would you consider yourself - a student or a skeptic? You're not really a believer in the subject unless you are diligent in both capacities, aren't you?
Personally, I believe most people don't believe they just like the idea. For a plethora of reasons. Social, traditional, cultural, wishful thinking, superstition, blind morbid fear, virtue signaling, et cetera.
Proof is evidence indicating truth; evidence is data indicating truth; fact is a thing proved to be true; truth is data accepted as true. That isn't sequential, it's just circular reasoning. They are empty terms meaning truth is what we make it. The same as reality. What is accepted? Look at history, it's just copy/paste. Find scholars that are respected and repeat, verify. At one time everyone thought the concept of God is true. The concepts have been pretty much the same throughout time as far as we can tell. At that time science was regarded as suspicious. Science hasn't changed. It's always been what we think is true as far as we can tell.
Times changed. People now think science is true and the God concept is suspicious, but the only thing that has really changed is the times. Zeitgeist. Spirit of the Machine.
Take the immortal soul. Please. The Bible "believer" and the allegedly "skeptical" will both perceive the Biblical soul concept of Socrates and Plato as the traditional scholar will attest to. And it is completely stupid. Just read Ezekiel 18:4 and Matthew 10:28. What is the difference between a believer and a sceptic in a debate? Master debaters!
Huh? That stupid. How much of what follows do you think you would read as a student or sceptic?
Genesis 1:1 - The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action. At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point in the narrative the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards. The universe wasn't created in 6 literal days 6,000 years ago. Not according to the Bible.
Genesis 1:2 - The planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. It was likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.
Genesis 1:3 - Here the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable. The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate progressive action. The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.
Genesis 1:4 - Light and darkness are divided between the eastern and western hemispheres as the Earth rotates on its axis.
Genesis 1:5 - Here the Hebrew word yohm translated day, indicates the daylight hours, but the term will be applied in the following verses to indicate various lengths of time. The word is used to describe any period of time from a few hours to thousands of years. (Zechariah 14:8 / Proverbs 25:13 / Psalm 90:4 / Isaiah 49:8 / Matthew 10:15) The terms evening and morning are metaphoric. At this point there are no witnesses on Earth to a literal night and day, but there are witnesses in heaven. (Job 38:4, 7) The evening symbolizes the period of time in which the events unfolding was indiscernible to the angels in heaven. The morning symbolizes the period in which the angels could distinguish what had been accomplished. (Proverbs 4:18)
So, here . . . you still reading?! We've effectively shot in the head, directly between their eyes wide shut, the traditional ideas of theology and scientific skepticism.
It doesn't matter, do you know why?
FAITH
As Jesus pointed out at Matthew 13:10, God doesn't want the skeptical or the traditional believer to learn the truth. To contend, wrestle or grapple with God and prevail thus being worthy of salvation. "You are permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others are not."
They, the disciples didn't cling dogmatically to the corrupted Jewish tradition.
The Latin word credit means "trust/belief." The sceptics appeal to the authority of the scholars if they have credential. But scholars trust only tradition. Jewish or Christian. God wants someone with a good credit rating, not in the traditions of men, but the truth that sets you free from the prison of words. Those that don't cling to ideas have to defend them with lies. Including the skeptical.
Then there are those who gather together to bleat their distain at others who might seek to question the veracity of conditioned beliefs.We might refer to these people as sheep.This is a bit of a jibe.But they do often gather in what is often referred to as a flock.
Yeah. I got that. Evolutionists call it survival of the fittest, which is actually infinately more amuzing ironically. Tribal. Group think.
The shepherd would break the leg of a lamb if it develops the tendency of wandering too far from the flock, and then carry it from place to place until it can walk again on its own. For its protection from predators. The strength of the flock is the sheep, and the strength of the sheep is the flock.
The strength of the pride is the lion, and the strength of the lion is the pride. Before the fall.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Yeah, I hate evolution and how it basically just disproves Bible.
Idiots, like you, that "believe" evolution, are very much like idiots that believe in God in that they don't know what the fuck they are talking about. It always cracks me up when idiot believers present themselves as morally supreme because they think God is on their side and when "evolutionists" present themselves as intellectually superior. Especially when I point out that evolution doesn't disprove the Bible, it proves it. The Bible teaches things evolve, but disproves that they evolve into anything outside of the parameters given by the Bible. The evolution of the Bible is and always has been commonly observed. The evolution contrary to the Bible has never been observed. Never. It's a racist eugenic fantasy. I especially like the surprise on idiot evolutionists face when they are informed that evolution is an ancient Greek philosophy that predates Christ. Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Anaximander and Aristotle.
Idiot pseudo-intellectuals who scoff idiotic modern-day Christianity think the great thinkers of the past like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were preservers of some sort of secular reason when 15 minutes research online would set their ignorant asses straight. Those ancient philosophers taught the modern-day Christian nonsense they so unintelligently loath while the Bible taught the proven science. It just goes to show you. Idiots are idiots with or without God and the new religion, science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Often used as a puppet. You're a crusty sock puppet.
Created:
Posted in:
The first Atheism thread considered God and gods from the perspective of the ideologue. This thread is much simpler, it considers God, gods, theism and atheism from the practical perspective. This one will, I suspect, be much easier and quicker.
1. The Bible creator God would no longer be God if everyone stopped worshipping him.
2. If everyone stopped worshipping all gods there would be no more gods because that is the only requirement for being God or gods. Worship, i.e. veneration.
That's very simple, isn't it? If no one had ever worshipped anything there would never have been any God or gods. This is equally true whether or not God literally exists. So in such a case there would never have been theism or atheism. It's like love. If no one ever loved anyone or anything there would be no love. Everyone would be unloved.
Get it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
if you grew up virtually drowning in atheistsand they've heard this argument of yours that "virtually anything can be considered a god"are they no longer atheists ?
It's annoying, and sad, and funny until I step back and look at it - even though I've seen it a thousand times. I've told you that I could educate you, and I have. I've told you you wouldn't accept it because you can't. If you accept it that means you accept everything you've been conditioned and conditioned yourself against. And I've told you none of it would matter. Two more points, actually only confirming these.
1. The gods of people, historically, have often been destructive. Bad. Interacting in the follower's lives destructively.
2. Theism is your god. Not atheism. Theism.
If the kingdom in which you live made mandatory an act of worship to Nanofofho or whatever to preserve your life an atheist would do it but a theist wouldn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
that doesn't sound like a particularly useful delineationperhaps it would be just as useful to replace the word "religion" with the word "anyone"and perhaps it would be just as useful to replace the word "god" with the word "anything"
Everyone except dogs, newborns and elephants? You don't see atheism as a worldview? C'mon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
it is a frail argument about how "ideas about god(s)" have shaped historylike the fact that wednesday is named after the god ODIN means somehow that we all worship ODIN or something completely OFF-TOPIC
I didn't mean to imply that. Religion and gods are all around you, they have influenced every single aspect of your life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Hold on. I have a simple forum rule. When a thread becomes a pissing contest I'm out. You and I are having a pissing contest. We're ideologues having a battle with only shields. Chasing our tails in circles. You and I have already agreed on the primary tenent of the OP. That happened at least (if not earlier) than your big bang analogy, namely that an atheist can accept the big bang as a god. Where we go off track, I think, because I'm not entirely sure, is the definition of what it means to be a god.
You say: "a theistic god is a deity believed in by followers of a religion who is involved in the world and interacts with humans"
I say: "a god/deity is an adored, admired, or influential person"
So, now we have to determine what a religion is. I'm irreligious in the same sense that I'm apolitical. I have nothing to do with any organized religion or politics. Though I personally define religion, in line with the dictionary (survey) as "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." Thus, my comparison to religion and god.
God: a god/deity is an adored, admired, or influential person.
Religion: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
In that sense everyone is religious and everyone has gods. Religion is an expression of what a person ascribes supreme importance to. For some it may be political, with political leaders, for others it may be "religious" with religious leaders. The supreme religious leader would be, for example, Buddha, Confucius, Jehovah, Satan, Allah. The political Biden or Charles. The result is the same. It doesn't matter if the importance is true, false, literal, imaginary, extant etc.
Then, according to your definition of a theistic god above, having to do with a deity who is involved in the world and interacts with humans we have to consider how that is done. Through textual interpretation (Bible, Quran, Bhagavad-Gita, Analects, etc.) the follower allegedly makes an intellectual decision to live their life according to their interpretation of the sacred or quasi-sacred texts. I called them the source.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you understand that NOT all religions are theistic religions
That was the point I was making, but look at the defintion of religion I gave and the definition of god I've given in Post # 147 for example. Repeatedly throughout this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you're talking about Bible gods what are some of them? Moses, Satan, judges, Tammuz, Dagon, Molech, Baal, Ashtoreth, Jehovah, Jesus, Pharoah, sticks, stones, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
what in the hell are you talking about ?
If I say God to you, do you think Allah or Jehovah? Sky magician or venerated? Old man with beard or phallic symbol? God or Goddess? Tammuz or Moses? Satan or Baal? God or Lord? Landlord or Godmother? Fairy or troll?
So, a lord is someone with authority. Usually but not allways granted by another. A god is something or someone who in some way possesses a might that is greater than the one attributing it. A fertility god or goddess, for example, is entrusted with bringing about a bountiful crop and children. The god of luck delivers good or protects against bad luck.
In Western society we are conditioned to believe God is the only god and that all other references are modeled after Him, which doesn't make a great deal of sense but like racism in cultures it is a very powerful - uh, whatsit? Uh . . . conditioning, I suppose.
That's why I think it's so funny when atheists think God has no power over them. Look around you, your civilizations, laws etc. were modeled after them or some nonsensical variation of it anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you understand the difference between the logical operation of (OR) relative to the logical operation of (AND) ?
I'm not sure. Tell me exactly what that means because I haven't a clue what you're even talking about. It could be I do understand it but don't know it by name. OR, and AND. I'll have to look up that in the handy DART list of phrases we are too lazy to type out. Hmm. I don't see those on the list. OR is organized religion? AND uh - Atheist Near Death? I don't know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
ok, can you distill what you consider the essential characteristics of your version of jehovah ?
We were created in his image or likeness. Since we are physical and he is spiritual that obviously doesn't mean physical attributes. Since he (grammatical gender is masculine) created both man and woman in his image this means he possesses characteristics of both behavioral aspects. Male and female. So, Loving, wise, just, powerful, pure, happy, merciful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
a theistic god is a deity believed in by followers of a religion who is involved in the world and interacts with humans
Buddha said that there is no God and if there was he wouldn't be concerned with the world of men. Was Buddhism a religion? How would you define religion? A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
which flavor of biblical god hypothesis are you specifically talking about
How many are there?
it is obviously impossible to expose logical contradictions for undefined or underdefined (unfalsifiable) claims
Uh - okay. Give me an example of the attempt to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What is an elephant that is not a theist or an atheist? A non-existent elephant? Ganesh?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Makes a change from hours of endless masturbation.
Does it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I can't stand it. I've never liked radio. I've always liked albums. So, Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, Prince, Bob Dylan, Van Halen, ZZ Top all had more than 4-7 songs! Isn't that incredible? You'd think they didn't if you only listened to the radio. I will listen to classical, ambient, or talk radio (even liberal, left wing radical insane bullshit biased propaganda) before I listen to radio stations playing my kind of music, which is anything except most country, most rap, show tunes and opera.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
ok, but if the book of NANABOZHO demands that non-believers be destroyed, would that maybe get your attention ?
Not if I were a non-believer.
do you think maybe at that point NANABOZHO might warrant some attention ?
Well, perhaps, but not an emotional ideological fixation. If I thought it warranted some attention I would educate myself on NANOONANOOBOOBOO instead of stick my head in poo-poo, mister, I can tell you!
Can I get an AMEN, brother?! Woo!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
you say: everything is a god and if you believe in something, anything really, then you can't be an atheist
I didn't say anything remotely similar to that. At least I hope the hell I didn't.
i say: this has nothing to do with people who actually call themselves atheists because atheists simply lack belief in the demonstrable POWER of THEISTIC GOD(S)
I'll ask you again to define the theistic God. Not that I disagree, just for the sake of argument.
i've never met an atheist who claimed to not believe in money or statues or books or whatever the hell you think qualifies as a "god" in your own mind
You don't get it. What is a god? Something venerated. Jehovah is only one of the countless gods. Before Jehovah created anything to worship i.e. venerate him, he wasn't a god.
atheists are not a monolith, they believe many different things for many different reasons
I have no doubt.
just like theists or anyone else
Sure. I agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
It is reasonable/rational to be theist.Anybody want to debate this?
That's sort of ambiguous isn't it? Being theistic certainly doesn't guarentee reasonableness. I think, if only. I can be really stupid. My theism can be really stupid. I would think you would have to be more specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
sure, do you think it's fair to say the key claims of YHWH include the claim that YHWH is omnipotent omniscient and the creator of all things (OOC) ?
So, Jehovah isn't, according to the Bible, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, or omnibenovolent in the way theology tends to present him. For example, God's position is in heaven, and the physical heavens can't contain him. So God couldn't come here anymore than we could go into a birdhouse we built. God can't lie and can't go against his own will, God didn't know what Adam or Cain or the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah had done so he isn't omniscient. God hates wickedness and the wicked so he isn't omnibenovolent. However, think of omnivore. The term isn't practical in an exaggerated sense as the omnis are presented in theology. God can get to know whatever he wants, can do anything within the paramaters of his will. Pretty much common sense.
Is he the creator of all things? In a sense, yes and in a sense no. Had he not created our universe nothing would be created in it, of course. But he didn't create cell phones directly, for example.
Created: