Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
That metaphor IS my GOD. Can it be proven to not exist? No. Hence, my GOD, defined by Taoism, Wicca, Gnosticism, Zen, Vedanta etc as being a metaphor for reality (ultimate reality to be exact) and the Joseph Campbell/Carl Jung definition that GOD is a metaphor for that which we experience but can't be put into words and that higher part of us, both of which are compatible, cannot be proven false.
No one's god can be proven false. Your god claims are not unique in that regard. And no atheist here claims to have such proof.
There are many things in life that can't be disproven OR proven and yet this does not make a default of belief in those things reasonable. What makes belief reasonable is that something is likely, based on what IS known. I can't disprove leprechauns, nor can you, but I suspect we'd agree that they are vanishingly unlikely to exist just the same. And if you claim that a leprechaun appears to you out of thin air every day and directs your life and rewards obedience with solid gold bars, that would be an extraordinary claim for which the burden of proof would fall upon you.
Congratulations, at least you have empirical evidence for that but at the risk of offending the fairer sex, you debate like a female.
This is annoying and I hate to focus on it because everything else you write is not annoying.
All I see here is men continuing the debate. You have some men who think they are debating like men. These men then argue with other men who are supposedly debating like a female. And you continue this?
He or she IS worshiping: worshiping that aspect of himself and reality as personified by the GOD.
First, it is not "pretend self-therapy". I could easily say the same thing about someone reading a novel. Second, those are deities: they simply understand that the deities are not literally true. Just as someone painting a picture of liberty is paining liberty while understanding it is the ideals behind the image (archetype) that matter but the lady with one boob hanging out isn't literally true, someone who worships Zeus or Jesus can and often does understand that the ideals behind it are literally true even if the Myths are not.
Yes, someone who paints the Statue of Liberty is painting a picture of a statue which represents an ideal. They should realize that they aren't actually painting the existing concept, just the statue that represents the concept.
Just like if someone painted a picture of the current president, the painting would just be a representation of something/someone that actually exists. The painting would not actually be the president himself. However, in your line of thinking, you don't believe that an actual (conscious deity) god exists, you only believe in the representation (god as metaphor). Just as the painting is not actually the president himself, your metaphor-god (representation) is not actually an existing deity.
Yes, someone who paints the Statue of Liberty is painting a picture of a statue which represents an ideal. They should realize that they aren't actually painting the existing concept, just the statue that represents the concept.
Just like if someone painted a picture of the current president, the painting would just be a representation of something/someone that actually exists. The painting would not actually be the president himself. However, in your line of thinking, you don't believe that an actual (conscious deity) god exists, you only believe in the representation (god as metaphor). Just as the painting is not actually the president himself, your metaphor-god (representation) is not actually an existing deity.
I think the problem is that the OP is switching back and forth with his meaning of the word "metaphor" which suggests that he doesn't really understand what a metaphor is. A metaphor connotes something, it doesn't denote something. Even Joseph Campbell made that distinction clear.
Joseph Campbell: "If you think that the metaphor is itself the reference, it would be like going to a restaurant, asking for the menu, seeing beefsteak written there, and starting to eat the menu."
Joseph Campbell: "It all comes from misreading metaphors, taking denotation for connotation"
If I were to say that "This thread is horse crap", that's a metaphor which connotes that this thread is worthless etc. It doesn't mean that I am saying that this thread is literally faeces excreted by a horse.
You're asking us to prove that a god of some kind ISN'T real? It can't be done. You can't prove a negative.
Example, I don't have evidence that unicorns AREN'T real. This is, however, unimportant. The important thing is that no one else has evidence that they ARE real.
Point being, one cannot prove something does not exist, only that it does. The reality of your question is that it is not our job to find evidence that a god doesn't exist, but rather your to find that it does. And that is all that I will say.
I think the problem is that the OP is switching back and forth with his meaning of the word "metaphor" which suggests that he doesn't really understand what a metaphor is. A metaphor connotes something, it doesn't denote something. Even Joseph Campbell made that distinction clear.
Joseph Campbell: "If you think that the metaphor is itself the reference, it would be like going to a restaurant, asking for the menu, seeing beefsteak written there, and starting to eat the menu."
Joseph Campbell: "It all comes from misreading metaphors, taking denotation for connotation"
If I were to say that "This thread is horse crap", that's a metaphor which connotes that this thread is worthless etc. It doesn't mean that I am saying that this thread is literally faeces excreted by a horse.
You are correct, Jay . . . but what is worse in my view is that it provides a platform for the continued misunderstanding of the distinction between the EXISTENCE of God and any specific BELIEFS ABOUT God. Existence can be established by the minimum requisite attributes exhibited by our reality . . . the more typical characterizations, anthropomorphisms, etc. require their own separate substantiation.
Because people of limited intellects continue to ignore the information, hence I am forced to repeat myself.
Still trying the intellectual card I see. You want to go this route I am happy to post my qualification and you yours and then let us compare our "intellect"
Quote:
Precisely. Hence, it is dishonest to label an endorphin release "love". Why not simply call it a chemical reaction?
Because saying to a girl "I chemical reaction you" can be taken the wrong way
Quote:
First, if GOD is imaginary, than so is Love. Second, of course GOD dies when we die: GOD is a little different for each person. GOD is defined by how a person experiences it. When a person dies, the GOD-image they have constructed dies. All besides the point.
Love is an emotion everyone experiences as are feelings of fear and anxiety or depression. Seeing we have medication to calm the nerves and deal with depression, it is a product of a brain.
Love is used as a euphemism for god because god is not real
Quote:
Usually when I pwn people the way I am now, they get angry.
You must be very speshall to be able to distinguish emotions over the internets. Which ACME corporation can I order my emotional interwebz detector from?
Quote:
First, that is very sexist. Shows your outdated thought process. Second, this may remind you of your experiences with females in the past, i.e., you are judged and laughed at. Hence, I understand how this reminds you of certain failed mating practices (ad hominem, I admit, but at least I am willing to admit it)
I have had no past problems with women b/c I did not date morons. I could have intellectual conversations with them on many different topics. I had a better than average batting average so methinks you are projecting your own inadequacies on me.
Quote:
Indeed it is. Just as reality has a certain definition but it varies from person to person, so does GOD.
Okay
So what is the point of defining perceptive reality as god or gods?
Quote:
Because they are more likely to understand it and hence not think of it as "drivel", unlike my current audience.
It would be interesting to hear what your rats say about this. Or are they also metaphores of your imaginary world?
Quote:
Several posters on this very thread have said they agree with me. And people rarely admit they are wrong in online debates.
Only two, Mystic and Goldie as they also hold to your definitions.
Quote:
Didn't you just say I convinced no one?
And I never deflected or changed an argument: only elaborated and provided different examples. I am sorry you can't understand that.
No you deflected. It is what unskilled debaters do.
A definition not available as a standard definition and the second one went to a woo site of comparative religions. Nice try but another fail.
Quote:
Not according to the Tao te Ching, Upanishads, Gnostic Gospels, and Wiccans and pagans. How hard is it to understand that the pantheistic definition of GOD is a definition of GOD?
I do not frame my reality by what others frame theirs. This is an appeal to authority and/or appeal to numbers. Discuss reality with any person worldwide and they will be discussing it from the perspective of the definitions I offered. You would not have this in a RL convo as this is a philosophical musing.
Quote:
So, reality does not exist?
Not the way you or your ilk wish to define it.
Quote:
From the link that you certainly didn't read:
"The world's religions hold very different views on Ultimate Reality. More than merely different, they are irreconcilable one with another. Indeed, the impersonal Brahman of the Upanishads, who balances between his manifested state and unmanifestation, or the lack of any transcendental being, as stated by Theravada Buddhism, are positions that cannot be reconciled with the personal God of the monotheistic religions."
-Comparative Religion - The Ultimate Reality in world religions
Impersonal reality...ULTIMATE REALITY.
I read your link. The headings include woo like reincarnation, cosmic justice and so on. This is NOT a source of definitions.
Quote:
First, it is not bias: comparative religion is not the same as BELIEF IN A RELIGION. One can study CR at any good college and be an non-believer. Saying a site on CR is bias because it is a CR site is like a Creationists saying a biology site is bias because it is a biology site.
Trying hard to backtrack are we? Why would anyone want to study comparative religion? You have obviously been misinformed. Any neutral observer would conclude this is a collection of beliefs based only on conjecture.
Quote:
So I never said anything about Shiva? okay
And a person praying to Shiva in SA and a person praying to Shiva in India will get the same identical results if done right: they will come closer to inner understanding. Shiva is not a literal GOD: he is a metaphor for the destructive forces in life and reality that bring about redemption. Stop building a "strawgod" argument and face the one presented to you.
It is not the same. Atomic theory is a valid theory regardless if you choose to believe in it or not.
By now you should know that I have no need for straw gods. I am addressing your lame assertions where you attempt to redefine the English language and use false analogies. Science does not require that the definitions of common English words be redefined like you are attempting and failing to do.
Quote:
And you cannot see all of lives [sic] destructive power that brings about redemption or see every way ends (i.e., destruction) results in new beginnings in human lives, but you can illustrate Shiva.
I have no interest in your gods. Shiva is NOT the authority to define reality for the masses. Comparing a religious icon to an atomic model which educated people know is a model of something so small that cannot be seen is not a good analogy. We know how atoms react with each other to form molecules/elements. This is supported by the periodic table that again is internationally depicted in the same way.
Quote:
First, I never said "icons of GODS", I said GOD(s) themselves. Second, as a said, a man in America prays to Shiva and achieves the same closeness to that part of life as a man who prays to Shiva in India. You can replicate those results globally.
No you cannot. Each person has different influences. But seeing you make the claim, lets see some evidence that is NOT anecdotal.
Quote:
I think you need to look of the definition of GOD provided by Joseph Campbell, because it is clear the notion is over your head.
Who is Joseph Campbell? He is a religionist so his definitions of god would be as useless as yours are.
You are correct, Jay . . . but what is worse in my view is that it provides a platform for the continued misunderstanding of the distinction between the EXISTENCE of God and any specific BELIEFS ABOUT God. Existence can be established by the minimum requisite attributes exhibited by our reality . . . the more typical characterizations, anthropomorphisms, etc. require their own separate substantiation.
Reality is not a metaphor for god or gods. Empirical evidence for a god or gods would not require your need to butcher the English language or use of euphemisms.
All theists retreat with sayings of "its a mystery" or equally lame deflections when confronted to provide proof or evidence for god(s)
Like VP's attempt to introduce ultimate or impersonal reality, these are modifiers not used in any other discipline except religious ramblings. Such things do not exist as ultimate or impersonal realities; just as god(s) do not exist.
Last night we had a hailstorm with golf ball sized hail stones. I now have to replace the windscreen on one of my cars. That was in my town and not everyone was hit so some do not have the reality of needing repairs done to their cars.
Using your assertion that reality is god, that would make me and others singled out by god to experience damage to their cars and others not. I am sure amongst the masses there are theists that were also hit.
This reality is random chance and nothing else but bad or good luck depending on the individual outcome.
You are correct, Jay . . . but what is worse in my view is that it provides a platform for the continued misunderstanding of the distinction between the EXISTENCE of God and any specific BELIEFS ABOUT God. Existence can be established by the minimum requisite attributes exhibited by our reality . . . the more typical characterizations, anthropomorphisms, etc. require their own separate substantiation.
Well see, the bolded is where we disagree. I'm not referring to the usual anthropomorphisms. Your claims about 'known' science, are actually not 'known' and not supported by evidence. For example, there is no credible evidence that the Universe or Reality is conscious or that there is any intentional control or design.
Reality is not a metaphor for god or gods. Empirical evidence for a god or gods would not require your need to butcher the English language or use of euphemisms.
All theists retreat with sayings of "its a mystery" or equally lame deflections when confronted to provide proof or evidence for god(s)
Like VP's attempt to introduce ultimate or impersonal reality, these are modifiers not used in any other discipline except religious ramblings. Such things do not exist as ultimate or impersonal realities; just as god(s) do not exist.
Last night we had a hailstorm with golf ball sized hail stones. I now have to replace the windscreen on one of my cars. That was in my town and not everyone was hit so some do not have the reality of needing repairs done to their cars.
Using your assertion that reality is god, that would make me and others singled out by god to experience damage to their cars and others not. I am sure amongst the masses there are theists that were also hit.
This reality is random chance and nothing else but bad or good luck depending on the individual outcome.
Here is what you, et al, refuse to acknowledge.
"GOD" is a TITLE...like "hero", "friend", "President", "Champion", "sweetheart", etc...that can be assigned by one that perceives someone/something as meritorious of having that title assigned.
That another doesn't have the same perception...does not diminish or invalidate a differing perception of merit.
I will give you an example:
I say that I think some man that ran into a burning building and helped people to find their way out safely is a "Hero" for doing that because of the risks he took to do it.
BUT...someone else claims they have a different perception.
They argue that: Running is no big deal, most people can run...helping those people wasn't special, lots of people help others...that the building was on fire isn't of much of a factor, the guy was a trained firefighter, knew the risk was minimal, and besides was being paid to do it as a job. Many people have dangerous jobs, that involve risk and they are not considered "Hero's" for doing them.
They could say that they don't consider him a "Hero"...and furthermore they don't believe in the concept of "Hero's" at all...that there is no such thing.
They argue...They feel, simply because some people are willing to take risks others won't...is nothing special in their perspective. Cliff climbers and people surfing big waves, take the same, if not greater risk, for fun.
They challenge me to provide "Objective Proof that can be demonstrated by the Scientific Method" that "Hero's Exist".
NOW...answer these:
Does that now mean my perception is "invalidated"...and I cannot reasonably title that man a "Hero"?
Does that now determine that there really is no such thing as a "Hero"?
OR
Does my perception of that man as a "Hero" not only validate his designation as a "Hero"...but also validates the existence of such a thing as a "Hero"?
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Didn't you just say I convinced no one? 
