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.
What are "natural" processes?? Why are they "natural?" How did they become "natural?" What are "unnatural" processes? What makes it God-like is its scope, power, ubiquity, and uncompromising comprehensiveness.We had the name God for it long before science was invented. How does your undefined "natural" usurp that provenance? Anything and everything about the Bible and Jesus is part of my BELIEFS. They are NOT the obvious and verifiable attributes of God we are discussing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernbored
Semantic games as per usual. They are "natural", because that is the word we have to describe them. If God, as you say, is simply the Universe, then "God" is nothing more than what we know as the Universe, which would make God natural as well. Sure, you can call it God if you want, but it is a worthless definition of god worthy of no worship or thought.
We each treat material at the level we are capable of engaging it. If you see semantic games and nothing deeper, so be it. You like euphemisms (words that explain nothing but pretend to do so) so the ignorance implied in the use of "natural" works for you. It explains your agnosticism.
Quote:
Please explain to me how your "God" is different than simply, the Universe.
God correctly characterizes the attributes. Universe ignores them under a euphemistic pretense at explanation.
Quote:
Where does Jesus come in? Did your version of "God" send him down to us? If so, that would imply your "God" is more than the Universe, and is, instead, a deity like other religions.I am a bit confused as to how you could believe "The universe is God", but also believe in a man-made book about a certain deity called God. They are not the same, at all.
I accept that my perspective on our reality is not typical and therefore difficult to relate to. Not everyone can engage in the kind of philosophical thinking that I routinely use. Questions like "Where does Jesus come in? Did your version of "God" send him down to us?" indicate you do not understand the perspective I am using. Everything means everything. There is no separate us to send anything to.
I don't "care" if they call the Universe God either, Arach. I comment when they come onto threads, as they are both known to do, and derail the thread with their Universe is God stuff. They then dodge questions, or play word games, which with Gldn, I think is more trolling than anything. The fact is, if their "God" is the Universe, then why are they even commenting on threads CLEARLY not talking about that version of God? If we are talking about the Christian version of God, their God is the Universe nonsense doesn't belong in the thread, yet they constantly come into thread after thread and derail it, complete with a whole bunch of quotation marks, capitalized words, and crappy formatting.
If someone is pushing their obsessions as truth, with no proof, then yes, it does bother me. Religious or not. Personally, I am an atheist/agnostic, and don't claim to know the truth.
I feel, slamming religion and not addressing the validity of what people call "spirituality" is bogus too.
Many of the traits people "lack belief" in are part of the attributes of the universe. Derailing is about teaching. Some anti religious types don't want that. They willfully run away from listing traits of the universe when it gets in the way of anti religious rants.
As the title states and in direct response to Vizio but indirectly to many religious people who claim that atheists are close minded, go you believe there are any possibilities that a god of some sort exists.
I do but at the current moment I do not think this possibility is very high. I also think that if there was a god and one that is known to mankind that the gods of most religions would nor be that god.
I would other atheists to state if they do or do not believe in that possibility. No evidence or facts needed, just that you entertain or do not entertain the possibility of a God existing or having existed.
Not sure what you're exactly referring to, I'm sorry.
But by definition, such an atheist would not be an atheist. He'd be an agnostic.
Not sure what you're exactly referring to, I'm sorry.
But by definition, such an atheist would not be an atheist. He'd be an agnostic.
That's not correct. Pretty universally, the Atheists that post on City-Data agree that the definition of an Atheist is a person who does not believe there are any God(s). After saying that, most of them also say that there is a possibility, however small, that one does exist, but they have seen no evidence for it.
An agnostic claims that absolute knowledge of the existence and nature of God is unknown and unknowable.
The two are not mutually exclusive terms. Ask any of the regulars in the A&A forum. 99-44/100 % of them agree with these definitions.
That's not correct. Pretty universally, the Atheists that post on City-Data agree that the definition of an Atheist is a person who does not believe there are any God(s). After saying that, most of them also say that there is a possibility, however small, that one does exist, but they have seen no evidence for it.
An agnostic claims that absolute knowledge of the existence and nature of God is unknown and unknowable.
The two are not mutually exclusive terms. Ask any of the regulars in the A&A forum. 99-44/100 % of them agree with these definitions.
The trouble for both the Atheists and the Agnostics...is that Pantheism provides for the unequivocal and irrefutable evidence of a God that comports definitively, and its existence is self-substantiating.
It is only bias and/or ignorance that would have them claiming "No Evidence For God(s)" in the face of that.
It is, in fact, an insult and disrespectful to Pantheists. It is directly contradictory and a bashing of their beliefs.
Why would one need faith to assert that there are no gods? There is zero proof that any gods exist. You would need faith to assert that they do exist.
You are 100% wrong about that.
I'm a Pantheist...an ideology that has been around a very long time.
Pantheism provides for the unequivocal and irrefutable evidence of a God that comports definitively, and its existence is self-substantiating.
It is only bias and/or ignorance that would have anyone claiming "Zero proof that any gods exist" in the face of that.
We each treat material at the level we are capable of engaging it. If you see semantic games and nothing deeper, so be it. You like euphemisms (words that explain nothing but pretend to do so) so the ignorance implied in the use of "natural" works for you. It explains your agnosticism.
Oh, so now I'm stupid because I don't subscribe to your view? Grow up Mystic. I use "natural" for the same reason you use any word. It is the one I have. If you can't understand that, then there is not helping you. I see games when you constantly do what you and Gldn do, which is call something we have a name for by another name, and then claim you are correct.
My agnosticism is because I don't believe in things that can't be proven. I don't believe in hallucinations while meditating. I don't believe that the universe is God, because I see no reason to. If that makes me stupid in your eyes, so be it. I consider quite stupid to start believing in God because you had a hallucination. I consider it stupid to believe in an all powerful God (not saying you do cuz who knows. You never fully explain, or if you have, I have missed it.) when there is no evidence to believe there is one. I don't call people stupid for believing those things though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
God correctly characterizes the attributes. Universe ignores them under a euphemistic pretense at explanation.
How so? Because it exists, and we exist, therefore God? I don't feel a need, as you guys apparently do, to fill every gap with something, simply because I don't know. That is the difference between theists and agnostics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I accept that my perspective on our reality is not typical and therefore difficult to relate to. Not everyone can engage in the kind of philosophical thinking that I routinely use. Questions like "Where does Jesus come in? Did your version of "God" send him down to us?" indicate you do not understand the perspective I am using. Everything means everything. There is no separate us to send anything to.
Oh, so everything is so over our heads, you can't even explain? Why not try? Otherwise, why are you here at all? You are simply wasting space if you aren't trying to explain yourself. We are all just dumb, non philosophical knuckle draggers to you though, so I guess you don't feel the need to stoop to our level, so you instead just talk down and never explain. That's okay, not everyone can explain themselves correctly.
Your "perspective" came from a hallucination or dream you had while meditating, and you used that to catapult into your theism, after admitting that you had been searching for years for God. Amazing how your "perspective" seems to fit what you were looking for.
So again, if you can't, or won't answer questions put forth to you, then why are you on this site to begin with? You are simply wasting space, and wasting our time.
I feel, slamming religion and not addressing the validity of what people call "spirituality" is bogus too.
Many of the traits people "lack belief" in are part of the attributes of the universe. Derailing is about teaching. Some anti religious types don't want that. They willfully run away from listing traits of the universe when it gets in the way of anti religious rants.
They can start their own threads if they are interested in "teaching" as you say.
If I were to start a thread about muscle cars, people who want to talk about exotic Italian cars shouldn't be on there trying to derail the thread. It is the same thing on here. The traits of the universe are irrelevant if talking about the Christian deity, or any other deity for that matter.
I do think it is funny how you think "anti religious types don't want that", in regards to teaching, when the religious are notorious for not wanting their people to think or learn. Leads me to believe you are either religious in disguise, or you are simply trying to troll non religious folks. Either way, you have proved to me that you aren't worth responding to again in this thread, unless you bring something more than the bashing of people who "lack belief".
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.
What makes it God-like is its scope, power, ubiquity, and uncompromising comprehensiveness.We had the name God for it long before science was invented. How does your undefined "natural" usurp that provenance? Anything and everything about the Bible and Jesus is part of my BELIEFS. They are NOT the obvious and verifiable attributes of God we are discussing.
