U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-16-2013, 04:51 PM
 
4,901 posts, read 5,300,809 times
Reputation: 2553

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
A word like "sweetheart" which only has two major defintions - one of which is rarely ever used - is hardly nebulous. You cannot call anything you want a "sweetheart" and expect it to convey any meaning.
Yes...the meaning like this:

Sweethearts (candy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Or, someone who suffers from Aspergers and is so literalist in everything that having a norm conversation is all but impossible. That is what so many people on this thread are like. Just as someone with Asperger's will not understand punch lines and metaphors, these people don't understand pantheism, a very easy concept in the study of religion.

And, of course, people with Asperger's syndrome as significantly more likely to be atheist. Source:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...3NzgtBDg1ji4Uw


Quote:
Calling the air and the sun and anything else that floats your boat "God" would be the same thing as calling every type of container in the world a "glass." So whether you're talking about a 50 gallon drum, a beer bottle, the hold of an oil tanker, or a box - you would call it a "glass." We, the listener would have no ability to distinguish between one glass and another without digging through the context. The definition becomes so broad as to lose its usefulness as a word.
Funny, for thousands of years people have called the air, sun, moon and everything else "God" and yet have had no confusion, and many religions find it 100% useful.

Quote:
"Yeah, honey, I'm going to the beach to get a God tan, so where's my God block lotion? If it gets too hot, we can always go inside where it's God conditioned. Oh yeah, and when we go to church to worship God it's God conditioned in there, too, unless we have it out on the God deck where I can wear a God dress while we sing hymns to God and God shines down on us and, and, and ...."
When I was a child I used similar arguments on my algebra teacher against using letters and numbers together. Why? Algebra was over my head. But I had the excuse of being a child....

Anyway, "God" is used in reference to reality, as opposed to other words, when one wishes to invoke a certain relevance. If no relevance is needed, one would not use the word.

An example of this is as such: a man calls his girlfriend "my beloved" in the bedroom but "Katherine" at the grocery. So what is it, "beloved" or "Katherine"? Both. He is simply using a different term when appropriate. Likewise, is it "the Sun" or is it "God"? It is both. Using one term over the other depends on the circumstances.

Quote:
It's like a bad author who uses too many nondistinct pronouns during an action scene involving 5 or 6 characters ... pretty soon you don't know who is doing what.
Or like a bad reader who is barely literate...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-16-2013, 04:58 PM
 
4,901 posts, read 5,300,809 times
Reputation: 2553
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Yes. It's a sliding scale (like evidence - a point generally ignored by theist apologists when they argue 'believe or not') 'Sweetheart' can be loosely applied to a spouse, a lover, a baby, a pet cat and even a prized possession, though we really have almost lost the relevance there.
Or, it can be the Candy which is also called "Sweathearts." That is the point: the same word can have different meanings.

Quote:
'God' also has distinct connotations in people's minds, and that's why I feel unsettled to hear it applied to concepts remote from what is generally in mind when we use the term.
Depends on the person. A Taoist and Gnostic connotation of GOD is completely different from a Nicene Christian or Muslim connotation of GOD and different from a Wiccan connotation. That is the point: Dawkin's Witnesses think that everyone on Earth is a follower of traditional Abrahamic religions, so much so that their little minds can't wrap themselves around different conceptualizations of religion.

The perfect analogy is the first few UFCs: so many kick boxers and karate experts being rendered helpless by Gracie ground fighting techniques, just as the Dawkin's worshippers are completely helpless here.

Quote:
For example Hawkins' 'I want to know the mind of God' was a very metaphorical way of saying that he wanted to understand the workings of the universe. Einstein also used the term in a very similar sense, though he (through believing that there was ordered method in the workings of the universe) was approaching a sortagod non - personal quasi (and maybe not so Quasi as all that) conscious entity, and as I have explained elsewhere, that means that it plans ahead and executes those plans, and that's the difference between 'God' and 'matter'.
Completely untrue. Thinking GOD is conscious in the sense that we are is an alien concept to Taoism, Gnosticism, and a host of other religions.

Quote:
Thus, when employing the term 'God', one has a responsibility to explain just what is meant by the term, otherwise one is risking misleading the reader.
Ah, I did just that on post one. The readers seem to have a problem with reading comprehension...


Quote:
To leave out any explanation of what is meant by 'God' in any particular context is a very common act of misleading in theist apologetics, and when this is pointed out but the perpetrator keeps on doing it, it is deliberately misleading and a conscious and dishonest attempt to make a case for God using parameters that really make no such case, but by trying to deceive the reader into believing that they do.
Which is why I wrote paragraphs explaining what I meant by "GOD."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2013, 05:01 PM
 
4,901 posts, read 5,300,809 times
Reputation: 2553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
You keep using the words 'metaphor' and 'archetype' incorrectly and not at all in the way that Campbell and Jung used them.
"God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It is simple as that"-Joseph Campbell.

source:God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as... - Joseph Campbell at BrainyQuote


Quote:
You are concretizing the metaphors and archetypes. If you don't know what I mean by that, go back and read what Campbell had to say about it.


I just posted what he said about it.
Quote:
So apart from flinging childish insults at everyone, all you are doing is demonstrating again and again that you have a rather flawed and simplistic understanding of the works of Campbell and Jung. You come across like a Jungian "Rebel' archetype.
Insults? I haven't insulted anyone. I am simply stating facts and ideas and hoping that some people understand, but they are failing to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2013, 05:05 PM
 
4,901 posts, read 5,300,809 times
Reputation: 2553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
The word "love" is not a metaphor FOR a chemical reaction in the brain. You are using 'metaphor' as if it is a label - that's not what a metaphor is.
Fine, then why label a chemical reaction love? Why not call it simply a chemical reaction and leave it at that?

You have a habit if nit picking small parts of an argument while ignoring the whole. It is not helping your cause which, by the way, needs all the help it can get...

Quote:
The phrase "Love is a chemical reaction" is a metaphor that connotes the idea that love is explosive, or an instantaneous reaction or love is something we can't control.
Yes, and GOD is huge, massive, omnipresent and unfathomable...just like reality itself.

Quote:
You seem to think metaphors are like labels that denote something. Metaphors are used to connote something.

An example of a Love metaphor is the song "The Rose"

Some say love, it is a river that drowns the tender reed.
Some say love, it is a razor that leaves your soul to bleed.
Some say love, it is a hunger, an endless aching need.
I say love, it is a flower, and you its only seed.

"Love is a river" doesn't mean love is another label or description for a river.
Yes, and "GOD is everywhere" is a connotation for reality: it is everywhere. And "I hear the voice of GOD" connotes the super ego.

Quote:
When you understand what a metaphor actually is (or an archetype for that matter) you might actually begin to understand what Campbell and Jung were talking about.
Funny, I wrote several papers in college on Jung and Campbell, and my professor thought I understood them perfectly...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2013, 05:24 PM
Status: "Amiable" (set 8 days ago)
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
7,128 posts, read 2,420,480 times
Reputation: 4312
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
...snip....

Funny, I wrote several papers in college on Jung and Campbell, and my professor thought I understood them perfectly...
And no doubt the lurkers support you in email and DM.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2013, 05:27 PM
 
4,901 posts, read 5,300,809 times
Reputation: 2553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
No, they are so vacuous and devoid of an actual point that there is nothing TO "knock down".





Essentially with this thread you have put a thread title that is asking people to knock something down.... but in the OP post and the entire thread to date you have not presented anything TO knock down.
Here it is again:

Many religions consider GOD to be reality itself. I provide the following for evidence that many religions consider GOD to be reality itself:

Quote:
Om ! In this material world full of things that appear and disappear (now and then), one should perceive and understand that even such worldly transitory things are filled in with the presence of Lord. (iisavaasyam itham sarvam – God pervades everything in this world)
The Isha Uppanishad. Source:
Isha Upanishad - Translation

Quote:
All-pervading is the Great Tao. It can be at once on the right hand and on the left. All things depend on it for life, and it rejects them not. Its task accomplished, it takes no credit. It loves and nourishes all things, but does not act as master. It is ever free from desire. We may call it small. All things return to it, yet it does not act as master. We may call it great.
Lao Tzu, Taoist sage. Source:
The Sayings of Lao-Tzu: Tao In Its Transcendental Aspect, And In Its Physical Manifestation

Quote:
. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."
Gospel of Thomas, Logion 3.Source:


The Gospel of Thomas Collection -- Translations and Resources


So, as we see, the idea that GOD is everywhere and GOD is everything is an ancient idea that I did not make up...unless you think I traveled back in time and wrote the sacred texts I quoted above myself.



So, if GOD is reality, as the above states, and reality exist (Solipsism not withstanding) therefore GOD, in this ancient conceptualization at least, does exist.


That is my argument. Saying "it's not saying anything" is juvenile at best.


Quote:
Your whole thread is reducible to "If I arbitrarily call something that does exist 'god' then how does my 'god' not exist".
No, it is the "pantheistic and Jungian conceptualization of GOD are A) compatible and B) impossible to refute." That is my argument that I have stuck to and after so many posts ignoring my sources, making lame and simplistic arguments, my thesis still stands.

Quote:
So perhaps next time you want people to attempt to knock your arguments down.... you might deign to actually get around to presenting one kid. Once. Ever. Even a little.
Next time I want to present an argument, I may went to present it to people who can understand it...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2013, 08:41 PM
 
1,039 posts, read 547,007 times
Reputation: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
Here it is again:

Many religions consider GOD to be reality itself. I provide the following for evidence that many religions consider GOD to be reality itself:

The Isha Uppanishad. Source:
Isha Upanishad - Translation

Lao Tzu, Taoist sage. Source:
The Sayings of Lao-Tzu: Tao In Its Transcendental Aspect, And In Its Physical Manifestation


Gospel of Thomas, Logion 3.Source:


The Gospel of Thomas Collection -- Translations and Resources


So, as we see, the idea that GOD is everywhere and GOD is everything is an ancient idea that I did not make up...unless you think I traveled back in time and wrote the sacred texts I quoted above myself.



So, if GOD is reality, as the above states, and reality exist (Solipsism not withstanding) therefore GOD, in this ancient conceptualization at least, does exist.


That is my argument. Saying "it's not saying anything" is juvenile at best.


No, it is the "pantheistic and Jungian conceptualization of GOD are A) compatible and B) impossible to refute." That is my argument that I have stuck to and after so many posts ignoring my sources, making lame and simplistic arguments, my thesis still stands.


Next time I want to present an argument, I may went to present it to people who can understand it...
Atheists don't believe in the same gods you don't believe in. Additionally, we do believe in reality/universe/nature (we just don't give them the title "god.") So how is your belief any different from an atheist other than you giving these things a different title?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-16-2013, 10:50 PM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
10,029 posts, read 8,557,135 times
Reputation: 6165
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
So, as we see, the idea that GOD is everywhere and GOD is everything is an ancient idea that I did not make up...unless you think I traveled back in time and wrote the sacred texts I quoted above myself.
It is true that many religions equate God with "reality" or "everything."

However, what you're not mentioning is that all of these religions also have other beliefs associated with supernatural existences.

Belief in heaven, hell, afterlife, incarnation, reincarnation, angels, deities, souls, spirits, miracles, visions, prophecies, divine weapons, etc., etc. ... are aspects of religions which you cannot conveniently ignore if you're going to bring up these religions in your argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2013, 01:08 AM
 
Location: The backwoods of Pennsylvania ... unfortunately.
3,145 posts, read 888,422 times
Reputation: 1868
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
Or, someone who suffers from Aspergers and is so literalist in everything that having a norm conversation is all but impossible. That is what so many people on this thread are like. Just as someone with Asperger's will not understand punch lines and metaphors, these people don't understand pantheism, a very easy concept in the study of religion.
Yeah, sure, I mean being literal when discussing the definitions of words is ridiculous. Silly me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
And, of course, people with Asperger's syndrome as significantly more likely to be atheist.
LOL! Oh, I get it. You think I was accusing YOU of having aphasia. Haha. Wow, aren't you a sensitive one. I was using aphasia as an example of how words need to have specific meanings - they need to refer to specific things. Otherwise it is akin to someone with aphasia uttering random words that do not mean anything to the listener.

How you leapt to the conclusion that I was claiming you had aphasia is beyond me, but retaliating by accusing me of having Asperger's was ... well ... quaint.

Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
Funny, for thousands of years people have called the air, sun, moon and everything else "God" and yet have had no confusion, and many religions find it 100% useful.
They called ONE of those things "god." Only one at a time. Sun worshipers didn't call the air, moon, and everything else "God." They were very specific in labeling what was God and what was not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
When I was a child I used similar arguments on my algebra teacher against using letters and numbers together. Why? Algebra was over my head. But I had the excuse of being a child....
Now you're just being a putz ... and I only use that particular word because the words I would like to use would be censored. Perhaps you think you're being clever by slipping in veiled snarkiness into an otherwise civil conversation, but you're not. It's just childish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
An example of this is as such: a man calls his girlfriend "my beloved" in the bedroom but "Katherine" at the grocery. So what is it, "beloved" or "Katherine"? Both. He is simply using a different term when appropriate. Likewise, is it "the Sun" or is it "God"? It is both. Using one term over the other depends on the circumstances.
The words "Katherine" and "beloved" are used in that context to denote a specific person. It is unlikely that this man would use her name and the pet name on anyone else but her (unless he just happens to know another Katherine). Imagine what would happen if the word "beloved" became a meme used by nearly everyone - in the same way complete strangers in certain locales will call each other "love" or "honey."

Do you think Katherine would know the word refers to her? Would she look up everytime someone used the word "beloved?" Of course she wouldn't - only the familiarity with her husband's voice would indicate that a particular utterance of "beloved" would refer to her. The word itself, lacking any specificity, becomes meaningless. Just like your metaphor for God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
Or like a bad reader who is barely literate...
Even should a mod allow us to indulge in a flame war, which I have no desire to do, you would have to do WAY better than that.

Cheers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2013, 01:38 AM
 
5,436 posts, read 2,054,277 times
Reputation: 2085
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
Here it is again:

Many religions consider GOD to be reality itself. I provide the following for evidence that many religions consider GOD to be reality itself:
Repeating it does not change a thing. It is still an empty and vacuous line of "reasoning". You created a thread with a title asking us to show something does not exist, but have not actually presented anything to show does not exist.

If you simply point at something that does exist and merely label it "god" then you have said nothing at all. Saying "Reality itself is god" is no more useful or meaningful than saying "Apples are god" or "My car is god" or "My Dad is God" or "Van Morrison is God".

Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
Next time I want to present an argument, I may went to present it to people who can understand it...
Disagreeing with you, or finding no merit in your position, is not the same as failing to understand you. No matter how much you need to pretend it is. We understand you perfectly. We are just explaining why it is an empty, vacuous, useless and irrelevant point you are attempting to make.

But by all means bury your head in the sand behind a shield of pretending everyone else is stupid if it makes you feel better. But as Shrina said, if you want to derail your thread into a flame war by not so subtle insults flung against people who do not buy what you are selling... then you need to try harder than this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $89,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top