This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
1-25 of 34
BibleData · M
@newjaninev2 No, Jan, if you don't think you have a god it's because you don't know what one is. The idiot militant atheists think a god h as to be supernatural. You can't explain to them that only some relatively few gods throughout history have fallen under that category. Then they are stupid enough to try and change the definition by claiming you did the same just because their limited estimation and world view.
Reason vs faith. Nonsense. There's no reasoning behind that application.
Reason vs faith. Nonsense. There's no reasoning behind that application.
val70 · 51-55
@BibleData I'm sorry. I don't want to just butt in and it's in the middle of night here, but aren't you making the same mistake from the other end? I mean, there's been christian humanism for centuries now. I respect someone's humanistic idea that human beings are at the center of absolutely anything, even the thought of a devine. One can be part of a creation without been able to know the creator. That's why I can explain God's love for me, for example. There's no explanation at all. People who say that there's no God, have that right to claim that and aren't wrong in essence whilst they are but human
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
BibleData · M
@Human1000 I understand what you mean. You don't believe in the supernatural and you don't worship anything you call a god. What I'm saying is that the average atheist, and the average theist even, doesn't understand what a god is. That a god don't have to be supernatural and you don't have to worship it per se.
BibleData · M
@newjaninev2 [quote]What’s a ‘militant’ atheist?[/quote]
Oxford defines militant as "combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods."
By militant I don't mean violent. I mean aggressive and confrontational. Most atheists aren't militant. The atheists that discuss and debate it online are. I'm a militant theist. I'm not using it as a derogatory term but rather to distinguish the average from the "militant."
[quote]An atheist has no gods.[/quote]
We've been through this before. There isn't any point arguing it because you don't and won't understand what a god really is. I can show you linguistically, historically the definition of a god and how you have them, I can give you sources like Wikipedia, Oxford's dictionary, etc. and you won't get it. It's a world view.
[quote]How can anyone be militant about that simple characteristic?[/quote]
Easy. It's human nature.
[quote]Incidentally, could you rephrase your comment so that your meaning is a little clearer?[/quote]
I don't understand how someone as intelligent as you don't understand it. I've reread it and I don't think I screwed it up. It is what it is. A god doesn't have to be supernatural. A god can be a mortal human. It can be anything or anyone. Money, food, sex, science, technology, a leader, an idol, an inanimate object, anything. Anyone. You know this. A god doesn't have to be a creator. You don't have to worship a god in a spiritual sense. It can be practical. A militant atheists is so opposed to religion that they don't see specific things thought to be of a spiritual or religious nature as being possible with them because one of their gods is the concrete. Knowledge, academic, intellectual.
Oxford defines militant as "combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods."
By militant I don't mean violent. I mean aggressive and confrontational. Most atheists aren't militant. The atheists that discuss and debate it online are. I'm a militant theist. I'm not using it as a derogatory term but rather to distinguish the average from the "militant."
[quote]An atheist has no gods.[/quote]
We've been through this before. There isn't any point arguing it because you don't and won't understand what a god really is. I can show you linguistically, historically the definition of a god and how you have them, I can give you sources like Wikipedia, Oxford's dictionary, etc. and you won't get it. It's a world view.
[quote]How can anyone be militant about that simple characteristic?[/quote]
Easy. It's human nature.
[quote]Incidentally, could you rephrase your comment so that your meaning is a little clearer?[/quote]
I don't understand how someone as intelligent as you don't understand it. I've reread it and I don't think I screwed it up. It is what it is. A god doesn't have to be supernatural. A god can be a mortal human. It can be anything or anyone. Money, food, sex, science, technology, a leader, an idol, an inanimate object, anything. Anyone. You know this. A god doesn't have to be a creator. You don't have to worship a god in a spiritual sense. It can be practical. A militant atheists is so opposed to religion that they don't see specific things thought to be of a spiritual or religious nature as being possible with them because one of their gods is the concrete. Knowledge, academic, intellectual.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@BibleData What to discuss and debate about having no gods? It’s binary... either one has gods, or one does not.
If you’re suggesting that anything can be a god, then you’re rendering the word meaningless. After all, if everything is urgent, then urgent is the default state of the universe, and nothing can be urgent. It means that gods would be completely indistinguishable from non-gods. In fact, that would be good, because then they would disappear and we need not postulate them any further.
Saying that a god becomes specifically definable for each person at any given moment and you still haven’t said what is necessary for someone to be able to claim something as a god (although you said what is not necessary)
_______________________
1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)
[b]Where’s the ‘world view’ in that?[/b]
If you’re suggesting that anything can be a god, then you’re rendering the word meaningless. After all, if everything is urgent, then urgent is the default state of the universe, and nothing can be urgent. It means that gods would be completely indistinguishable from non-gods. In fact, that would be good, because then they would disappear and we need not postulate them any further.
Saying that a god becomes specifically definable for each person at any given moment and you still haven’t said what is necessary for someone to be able to claim something as a god (although you said what is not necessary)
_______________________
1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)
[b]Where’s the ‘world view’ in that?[/b]
Human1000 · 51-55, M
@newjaninev2 Right. “God” has to have specific properties and attributes or it ceases to function as a word, and it can’t be just a synonym i.e., “God is love.”
BibleData · M
@Human1000 [quote]We can certainly agree we don’t share the same definition of “God.”[/quote]
Yeah. That's cool. The really interesting thing about that, though, is philosophically does that being cool fit more with your or my definition of "God." And perhaps more importantly could my God beat the shit out of your God? 😝
Yeah. That's cool. The really interesting thing about that, though, is philosophically does that being cool fit more with your or my definition of "God." And perhaps more importantly could my God beat the shit out of your God? 😝
BibleData · M
@newjaninev2 [quote]What to discuss and debate about having no gods?[/quote]
Whether it's a delusion or not, for starters. How you limit the definition and historical use since recorded history, what impact it has on every society ever known to man, what exactly a god is, examples, the various subtle nuances in linguistic applications. There's more to discuss and debate than can be discussed and debated, actually. We could discuss how the allegedly inquiring minds of militant atheists would question the discussion and debate as being necessary and insist there's nothing to discuss and debate while they are actually in the process of discussing and debating it.
[quote]It’s binary... either one has gods, or one does not.[/quote]
Perhaps. Like love is binary, either one has love or one does not. God is love.
[quote]If you’re suggesting that anything can be a god, then you’re rendering the word meaningless.[/quote]
Not at all. I'm rendering the meaning of the word as it has always been used without the agnostic limitation.
[quote]After all, if everything is urgent, then urgent is the default state of the universe, and nothing can be urgent.[/quote]
You obfuscate the meaning by confusing it with the application. God can be anything or anyone. Not God is everything or everyone. A person decides what is and isn't their personal gods by their words and actions. Jehovah is my God, not your god. Jehovah is a god. Jesus is a god but Jesus isn't Jehovah God. Jesus can be God to some uninformed Christians, ironically, if trinitarian, Jesus is Jehovah. But that isn't accurate Biblically speaking - since a person decides themselves their personal gods it can be said like that but that doesn't make it accurate from the personal perspective of the Jews in ancient Israel or early Christians. Ideally the modern day Jew or Christian are to follow the paradigm set forth in the Bible, but, they don't. They deviate from the model. So, in effect, you can say there is no right or wrong way to look at it, there is only a proper way according to the source as opposed to the way of the deviation which becomes proper in it's own way.
Does that sound like a word salad? Perhaps to make it relatable to you personally it's sort of like "the scientific method was first welcomed by astronomers such as Galileo and Kepler, and after the 17th century, its use became widespread. As we now know it, the scientific method dates only from the 1930s." (http://www.ajnr.org/content/34/9/1669) So, the science of Galileo's time isn't the science of our time but it was science nevertheless. Militant atheists, I think, have a difficult time with that perhaps because they are so temporally oriented.
So, to your analogy of the urgent, anything and anyone can be urgent doesn't mean everything and everyone is urgent.
[quote]It means that gods would be completely indistinguishable from non-gods.[/quote]
Not if you know what a god is. You see?
[quote]In fact, that would be good, because then they would disappear and we need not postulate them any further.[/quote]
Ahhhh . . . . there's the agenda of denial! Perfect. Given all I've said above about why to discuss and debate it, the "science" minded militant atheist with a proclivity to use the word "postulate" in this context, would replace the debate and discussion with dogmatic certainty - in complete and astounding ignorance. That is science, my friends. Pure bullshit in the costume of a wise old owl strutting around like a proud peacock with it's adorable intraspecific antagonism!
[quote]Saying that a god becomes specifically definable for each person at any given moment and you still haven’t said what is necessary for someone to be able to claim something as a god (although you said what is not necessary)[/quote]
Hmmm. Actually I have, and I've actually warned you in an earlier thread that you can't or won't get it. Not because you haven't the intellectual capacity to do so but because it creates a conflict with your world view. Your expectations about the world around you, which inform your every thought and action. That's - heh - bad news to a know it all. Firstly because it demonstrates your ignorance on a very relevant topic to you personally; naturally, considering it's your world view, and secondly because - well, you silly adorable little peacock, it's a fucking threat to your agenda.
[Looks cautiously from side to side, then whispers] You know what it is . . . .
But I digress. Specifically definable. Wow! That needs to be addressed. I don't know how you meant it but it set off alarms, or rather let's say notifications of possible variations of interpretation. Yeah. That's problematic. Most theists I've known couldn't do that. For example, I've had some discussions here with Christians and the cross and the overestimated significance of the Hebrew term ה ר ה (ʼEh‧yeh′ ʼAsher′ ʼEh‧yeh′) i.e. "I AM." It's crazy. I'm sure you wouldn't be interested in that. These discussions provoke me to endless contemplation so I tend to be, believe it or not, hella verbose. Hella. That's slang and in no way etymologically accurate, I suspect.
What was the question?
Oh, okay, I got it. Each person can specifically define who or what their god is without having a clue what the actual meaning is. The Christian with a cross. Traditional veneration of the cross as a god creates a conflict with their hypocritical obstinate idolatry. That's interesting because their alleged source makes it clear while their traditional practice, only about 1,500 years old, is sincere at least in it's ignorance. Still guilty of the law because the idol has become the god. You see?
I haven't speculated on what is not necessary to have a god because it isn't necessary to have a god in ignorance. It isn't a question of whether or not you have gods it's a question of whether or not you know it. Like, say, cells. It isn't necessary for you to know you have cells to have cells. See how I make the spiritual relatable to science? Isn't that cool?!
I will correct each of your numbered points.
[quote]1. there's no proof that gods exist[/quote]
There's no proof you will accept that gods exist while maintaining your current world view. Proof is "evidence or [b]argument[/b] establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement." Evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether [b]a belief[/b] or proposition is true or valid." Truth is "a fact [b]or belief[/b] that is accepted as true." (Oxford) Since proof is not only the evidence, which is subjective belief, but also the argument, then what we are doing is proof and that doesn't really mean what you think it means. You have to cling arrogantly to the concrete to maintain your world view. All observance of nature could be easily construed as evidence for creation as not. It's a biased premise.
[quote]2. there's no proof that gods don't exist[/quote]
Same thing as 1. By the way, I can easily prove gods exist but it doesn't fit with your world view. Gods exist, a god is, among other things, "an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; an adored, admired or influential person." (Oxford)
Seen any of those? The trick is to be more specific. Saying God or a god or gods isn't specific enough.
[quote]3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.[/quote]
[Laughs]
[quote]4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)[/quote]
People are idiots. Theology, science, and everything are social constructs designed by idiots. The atheist/theist debate is like one of you peacocks getting into a philosophical confrontation with a wood chipper. And it isn't pretty, I can tell you! Class distinction.
Whether it's a delusion or not, for starters. How you limit the definition and historical use since recorded history, what impact it has on every society ever known to man, what exactly a god is, examples, the various subtle nuances in linguistic applications. There's more to discuss and debate than can be discussed and debated, actually. We could discuss how the allegedly inquiring minds of militant atheists would question the discussion and debate as being necessary and insist there's nothing to discuss and debate while they are actually in the process of discussing and debating it.
[quote]It’s binary... either one has gods, or one does not.[/quote]
Perhaps. Like love is binary, either one has love or one does not. God is love.
[quote]If you’re suggesting that anything can be a god, then you’re rendering the word meaningless.[/quote]
Not at all. I'm rendering the meaning of the word as it has always been used without the agnostic limitation.
[quote]After all, if everything is urgent, then urgent is the default state of the universe, and nothing can be urgent.[/quote]
You obfuscate the meaning by confusing it with the application. God can be anything or anyone. Not God is everything or everyone. A person decides what is and isn't their personal gods by their words and actions. Jehovah is my God, not your god. Jehovah is a god. Jesus is a god but Jesus isn't Jehovah God. Jesus can be God to some uninformed Christians, ironically, if trinitarian, Jesus is Jehovah. But that isn't accurate Biblically speaking - since a person decides themselves their personal gods it can be said like that but that doesn't make it accurate from the personal perspective of the Jews in ancient Israel or early Christians. Ideally the modern day Jew or Christian are to follow the paradigm set forth in the Bible, but, they don't. They deviate from the model. So, in effect, you can say there is no right or wrong way to look at it, there is only a proper way according to the source as opposed to the way of the deviation which becomes proper in it's own way.
Does that sound like a word salad? Perhaps to make it relatable to you personally it's sort of like "the scientific method was first welcomed by astronomers such as Galileo and Kepler, and after the 17th century, its use became widespread. As we now know it, the scientific method dates only from the 1930s." (http://www.ajnr.org/content/34/9/1669) So, the science of Galileo's time isn't the science of our time but it was science nevertheless. Militant atheists, I think, have a difficult time with that perhaps because they are so temporally oriented.
So, to your analogy of the urgent, anything and anyone can be urgent doesn't mean everything and everyone is urgent.
[quote]It means that gods would be completely indistinguishable from non-gods.[/quote]
Not if you know what a god is. You see?
[quote]In fact, that would be good, because then they would disappear and we need not postulate them any further.[/quote]
Ahhhh . . . . there's the agenda of denial! Perfect. Given all I've said above about why to discuss and debate it, the "science" minded militant atheist with a proclivity to use the word "postulate" in this context, would replace the debate and discussion with dogmatic certainty - in complete and astounding ignorance. That is science, my friends. Pure bullshit in the costume of a wise old owl strutting around like a proud peacock with it's adorable intraspecific antagonism!
[quote]Saying that a god becomes specifically definable for each person at any given moment and you still haven’t said what is necessary for someone to be able to claim something as a god (although you said what is not necessary)[/quote]
Hmmm. Actually I have, and I've actually warned you in an earlier thread that you can't or won't get it. Not because you haven't the intellectual capacity to do so but because it creates a conflict with your world view. Your expectations about the world around you, which inform your every thought and action. That's - heh - bad news to a know it all. Firstly because it demonstrates your ignorance on a very relevant topic to you personally; naturally, considering it's your world view, and secondly because - well, you silly adorable little peacock, it's a fucking threat to your agenda.
[Looks cautiously from side to side, then whispers] You know what it is . . . .
But I digress. Specifically definable. Wow! That needs to be addressed. I don't know how you meant it but it set off alarms, or rather let's say notifications of possible variations of interpretation. Yeah. That's problematic. Most theists I've known couldn't do that. For example, I've had some discussions here with Christians and the cross and the overestimated significance of the Hebrew term ה ר ה (ʼEh‧yeh′ ʼAsher′ ʼEh‧yeh′) i.e. "I AM." It's crazy. I'm sure you wouldn't be interested in that. These discussions provoke me to endless contemplation so I tend to be, believe it or not, hella verbose. Hella. That's slang and in no way etymologically accurate, I suspect.
What was the question?
Oh, okay, I got it. Each person can specifically define who or what their god is without having a clue what the actual meaning is. The Christian with a cross. Traditional veneration of the cross as a god creates a conflict with their hypocritical obstinate idolatry. That's interesting because their alleged source makes it clear while their traditional practice, only about 1,500 years old, is sincere at least in it's ignorance. Still guilty of the law because the idol has become the god. You see?
I haven't speculated on what is not necessary to have a god because it isn't necessary to have a god in ignorance. It isn't a question of whether or not you have gods it's a question of whether or not you know it. Like, say, cells. It isn't necessary for you to know you have cells to have cells. See how I make the spiritual relatable to science? Isn't that cool?!
I will correct each of your numbered points.
[quote]1. there's no proof that gods exist[/quote]
There's no proof you will accept that gods exist while maintaining your current world view. Proof is "evidence or [b]argument[/b] establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement." Evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether [b]a belief[/b] or proposition is true or valid." Truth is "a fact [b]or belief[/b] that is accepted as true." (Oxford) Since proof is not only the evidence, which is subjective belief, but also the argument, then what we are doing is proof and that doesn't really mean what you think it means. You have to cling arrogantly to the concrete to maintain your world view. All observance of nature could be easily construed as evidence for creation as not. It's a biased premise.
[quote]2. there's no proof that gods don't exist[/quote]
Same thing as 1. By the way, I can easily prove gods exist but it doesn't fit with your world view. Gods exist, a god is, among other things, "an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; an adored, admired or influential person." (Oxford)
Seen any of those? The trick is to be more specific. Saying God or a god or gods isn't specific enough.
[quote]3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.[/quote]
[Laughs]
[quote]4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)[/quote]
People are idiots. Theology, science, and everything are social constructs designed by idiots. The atheist/theist debate is like one of you peacocks getting into a philosophical confrontation with a wood chipper. And it isn't pretty, I can tell you! Class distinction.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@BibleData [quote]in the process of discussing and debating it[/quote]
Actually, I simply dismissed it
That’s why I asked you what there is to debate.
So far you’ve mentioned the effects on society of not dismissing the postulation... that’s not really on topic, though, is it?
Actually, I simply dismissed it
That’s why I asked you what there is to debate.
So far you’ve mentioned the effects on society of not dismissing the postulation... that’s not really on topic, though, is it?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@BibleData [quote]replace the debate and discussion with dogmatic certainty[/quote]
1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s [i]no compelling necessity[/i] to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)
[b]Please point out the dogmatic certainty[/b]
1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s [i]no compelling necessity[/i] to even postulate gods, and, in any event, the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)
[b]Please point out the dogmatic certainty[/b]
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
1-25 of 34