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.
Well the problem is, you have to call it something.
As you and I probably agree, you have to first of all define what you mean by 'god' before you can even start any new conversation, and what 99.9999% of people do actually perceive 'god' to be, from either a theist or atheist perspective, carries an awful lot of baggage, so the flare ups are inevitable.
EDIT TO ADD:
You could probably hang the label 'Pantheism' on what I believe if you really wanted to shoehorn in a meaning for god, but it wouldn't really be accurate because
1) it's not how I personally perceive it and
2) if you did want to call what I understand the universe to be 'god' instead of 'nature', I don't think there would be any point in that. It would just be giving nature another name. It would bear no real resemblance to what most people believe in.
"G-O-D" has been defined...by experts known for giving us the meaning for words and terms.
And unless one wants to excise some of those meanings (meanings relevant to the issue) instead of accepting all of them...they must admit that there are manifestations of GOD that some perceive that do, in fact, exist.
If one is, as most typically claim, looking for "truth"...then they must qualify any claim about "No Evidence for God"...to be limited to just Religious Deities.
Not use the generic title "GOD"...and claim "Lack of Belief in Gods Based Upon No Evidence". Then found that position in some illogical ad Populum excuse about how "most people" define "G-O-D".
MOF...in the course of human history...there were probably more Pantheists than Religious Deity believing Theists. So, that doesn't hold water anyway.
"G-O-D" has been defined...by experts known for giving us the meaning for words and terms.
And unless one wants to excise some of those meanings (meanings relevant to the issue) instead of accepting all of them...they must admit that there are manifestations of GOD that some perceive that do, in fact, exist.
If one is, as most typically claim, looking for "truth"...then they must qualify any claim about "No Evidence for God"...to be limited to just Religious Deities.
Not use the generic title "GOD"...and claim "Lack of Belief in Gods Based Upon No Evidence". Then found that position in some illogical ad Populum excuse about how "most people" define "G-O-D".
MOF...in the course of human history...there were probably more Pantheists than Religious Deity believing Theists. So, that doesn't hold water anyway.
Sorry GldnRule, I really am a bit lost now as to what point you are making.
Are you saying that atheists should only restrict their argument about there being 'no evidence for god' to just the types of god put forth by religion?
I'm just trying to clarify.
Sorry GldnRule, I really am a bit lost now as to what point you are making.
Are you saying that atheists should only restrict their argument about there being 'no evidence for god' to just the types of god put forth by religion?
I'm just trying to clarify.
You can use science to break down everything we see on earth including your own body .
And when you've finished you will be left with cells and atoms.
But when you have broken it all down and realized you are nothing but common matter and elements you will still not be able to dissect LIFE.
What makes the water ,soil and protein within the cell LIVE?
We are still looking for the last key. " The god partical "
Should science discover such a thing then we could safely rule GOD out .
But until then you hold on to your superstitions as you like to call it.
PS you could also try and define death . What is death? All the elements are still there when you die but life is gone , Where did it go? Where does it come from?.
What is this god partical????
Now try to separate true science and religion with a forum policy ..... Evolution is more of a religion then creation.
I believe Unsettomati is referring to your comment here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by clickstack
You can use science to break down everything we see on earth including your own body .
And when you've finished you will be left with cells and atoms.
But when you have broken it all down and realized you are nothing but common matter and elements you will still not be able to dissect LIFE.
What makes the water ,soil and protein within the cell LIVE?
We are still looking for the last key. " The god partical " Should science discover such a thing then we could safely rule GOD out .
But until then you hold on to your superstitions as you like to call it.
PS you could also try and define death . What is death? All the elements are still there when you die but life is gone , Where did it go? Where does it come from?. What is this god partical???? (Pssst... It's particle not partical just for future reference)
Now try to separate true science and religion with a forum policy ..... Evolution is more of a religion then creation.
The so called 'God Particle', otherwise popularly known as the Higgs Boson, was discovered at CERN in 2012.
I believe I'm allowed to tell you this as part of the new "not prohibiting people with knowledge of science from posting corrections" rule.
Now as to explaining to you what the Higgs Boson is, I would love to but I'm going to say that would probably be taking the thread off in a Science direction.
(EDITING TO ADD: I've been away for a while but things have certainly changed around here. This is going to incredibly difficult for someone like myself to contribute any meaningful discussion. Hmm ).
It is an insult to Pantheists to say..."No Evidence For *God*".
Okay well I don't see why Pantheists should be insulted by an atheist saying they can't see any evidence for God in a Pantheist view. That would have to be one over-sensitive Pantheist. It's just a difference of opinion, not an insult. It's all down to the way you handle the conversation and whether you are attempting to offend. I don't know why anyone should be offended by an atheist saying they can't see any evidence of god, any more than I'm offended by a Pantheist saying they can.
Also if you say that atheists should only restrict their arguments about there being 'no evidence for god' to just the types of god put forth by religion, then you, GldnRule are personally selecting which gods in your view, an atheist is allowed to criticize.
Therefore you are the one differentiating between gods, unlike an atheist who treats all gods the same. Fairer no?
Okay well I don't see why Pantheists should be insulted by an atheist saying they can't see any evidence for God in a Pantheist view. That would have to be one over-sensitive Pantheist. It's just a difference of opinion, not an insult. It's all down to the way you handle the conversation and whether you are attempting to offend. I don't know why anyone should be offended by an atheist saying they can't see any evidence of god, any more than I'm offended by a Pantheist saying they can.
Also if you say that atheists should only restrict their arguments about there being 'no evidence for god' to just the types of god put forth by religion, then you, GldnRule are personally selecting which gods, in your view, an atheist is allowed to criticize.
Therefore you are the one differentiating between gods, unlike an atheist who treats all gods the same. Fairer no?
Save
I fully accept ALL definitions of God. I noted that in the link I posted.
It is upon anyone that has a perception of God to substantiate the objective existence of the God they perceive.
If the Pantheist ideology of "ALL = GOD" is considered...then the Atheists can't possibly "treat all gods the same"...and then, as is typical of this board, say, "There is ZREO evidence for God. NADA...ZIP...ZILCH...BUGGER ALL...NONE!!".
"ALL" objectively exists and is self-evidenced. Yet many Atheists still proclaim "No Evidence For God" as valid.
Even after an explanation of the Pantheist ideology.
So, no...all Gods are not treated the same in the Atheist "No Evidence" proclamation. They can't be...as there are perceptions of God that comport definitively and unequivocally and irrefutably exist.
I believe Unsettomati is referring to your comment here:
The so called 'God Particle', otherwise popularly known as the Higgs Boson, was discovered at CERN in 2012.
I believe I'm allowed to tell you this as part of the new "not prohibiting people with knowledge of science from posting corrections" rule.
Now as to explaining to you what the Higgs Boson is, I would love to but I'm going to say that would probably be taking the thread off in a Science direction.
(EDITING TO ADD: I've been away for a while but things have certainly changed around here. This is going to incredibly difficult for someone like myself to contribute any meaningful discussion. Hmm ).
I think the intention is genuinely to protect believers from attack by atheists using science. Explaining why a particular belief is NOT supported by existing scientific knowledge is still permissible, I believe. BTW, the primary import of the Higgs Boson is the validation that a field exists as the foundation of our reality (ostensibly the Higgs field, but ultimately the unified field).
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.
).
).
