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.
like difference between having personal experience of God and listening to reading Bible...
Possibly. I suspect (you might try this) that simply taking the first word of the Bible - even the first numbers and repeating them over and over for a sufficient time might give an 'experience' of "God". Or Allah, Krishna or whatever Buddhists get. The text itself might not do that but might well impart the ecstatic feelgood of bias confirmation. It's like the wonderful feeling you get when you (or your team) win. These human Feeling are very interesting and little understood. Especially by those who believe they tell them about a "Reality".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Corrected?
The very first line is : God : the supreme or ultimate reality: That is the first line in the definition.
What the heck do you mean corrected? What you mean is to fiddle with the definition so that it fits what you are fighting and then tell him he is wrong. Yes, you are fiddling with semantics. He has strength of evidence and its semantics. It is not lack of evidence. Its your faith against his strength of evidence.
Its your faith against his faith. Its just that he has some evidence for the claim. And you "lack belief" is actually "Faith based on gaps". where his is at least "plausible based on what we do know.
Why do you have to fit such a simple notion so hard? Is atheism that "holy" to you?
'Triggered' indeed. The first line of the definition - but leaving out all the subsequent qualifiers is the epitome of quotemining, which is dishonest.
For the rest, you are wildly (and incoherently) lashing out as usual. Mystic at least has a Deeply held Belief. You have little more than a deep political hatred that you need to keep feeding because we (atheists) aren't even in that battle.
'Triggered' indeed. The first line of the definition - but leaving out all the subsequent qualifiers is the epitome of quotemining, which is dishonest.
Definition of god
(Entry 1 of 2)
1 God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe Throughout the patristic and medieval periods, Christian theologians taught that God created the universe …— Jame Schaefer … the Supreme Being or God, the personal form of the Ultimate Reality, is conceived by Hindus as having various aspects.— Sunita Pant Bansal
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 or less commonly God : a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality Greek gods of love and war
3 : a person or thing of supreme value had photos of baseball's gods pinned to his bedroom wall
4 : a powerful ruler Hollywood gods that control our movies' fates
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
For the rest, you are wildly (and incoherently) lashing out as usual. Mystic at least has a Deeply held Belief. You have little more than a deep political hatred that you need to keep feeding because we (atheists) aren't even in that battle.
Mein gute, not the 'you have faith gravity exists, Mystic has evidence (despite admitting he does not) of intelligent consciousness without a brain' distortion again.
No wonder they avoid the science forum.
Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 02-12-2021 at 07:22 AM..
Possibly. I suspect (you might try this) that simply taking the first word of the Bible - even the first numbers and repeating them over and over for a sufficient time might give an 'experience' of "God". Or Allah, Krishna or whatever Buddhists get. The text itself might not do that but might well impart the ecstatic feelgood of bias confirmation. It's like the wonderful feeling you get when you (or your team) win. These human Feeling are very interesting and little understood. Especially by those who believe they tell them about a "Reality".
'Triggered' indeed. The first line of the definition - but leaving out all the subsequent qualifiers is the epitome of quotemining, which is dishonest.
For the rest, you are wildly (and incoherently) lashing out as usual. Mystic at least has a Deeply held Belief. You have little more than a deep political hatred that you need to keep feeding because we (atheists) aren't even in that battle.
Listen, all I can do I look at what is said. The first line is "the supreme or ultimate reality: such as ..." and the third definition of supreme value.
Taken in that light I see why mystic is using the term god. I personally wouldn't use it. But I get why. You have freaky need to fight every tooth and nail.
Yes, I did lash out a bit. How you are ok with blatant lying gets frustrating sometimes. You will not continuedly say that you are here to stop religion at all cost so you will not discuss any beliefs that have any merit at all. Maybe if you repeated that every now and again you wouldn't be so frustrating.
You have no dignity in how far you will go. I personally believe you are compensated by the site in some way. There is just no way you could be that deceitful without compensation. I guess I am giving you the benefit of doubt there.
A belief is a belief regardless of its polarity. Adding the word "system" to it to justify the asinine definition of atheism adopted here in the forum only perpetuates ignorance about beliefs. Whatever you believe, pro or con is a belief and no amount of semantic terpsichore can alter it. The other silly nonsense about CHOOSING to believe is equally ignorant and blinkered. We do not choose what we ACTUALLY believe. Like a digital state in a computer, it is either zero or one (it can fall short of either = agnostic). We either do or do not. We can CLAIM to believe or not believe but that is irrelevant.
bottom line
Merrion definition has what you say in two different parts of the definition.
Although I wouldn't use the word god ... saying you are making up a definition is flat out deceit. Its people trying to force a statement of belief about "their god" on the rest of us. That's why they resort to deceit and avoidance "strawman" and getting some lines of logic banned.
"Not getting them anywhere" means "Oh no, people might believe something and won't help us attack religion so hard."
With recovery and abuse present in high concentration, they will always have a following.
I see a lot of debate on here about atheism being or not being a "belief system". I saw this statement ( or a close approximation ) here on CD somewhere in this forum a day or so ago and I thought it summed it up succinctly. Maybe the owner will fess up, it isn't anything original from me.
" I have to believe in something to believe in gods. I don't have to believe in anything to not believe in gods."
Pretty clear explanation of atheism to me. I have trouble figuring out the theist side of considering it a "belief system" , and what the purpose would even be if they were correct.
BTW, I am not an atheist.
Is it really clear? It is convoluted and pretends as if it means something.
I believe god exists is a pretty clear unconditional statement.
I believe god does not exist is another clear unconditional statement.
Belief seems common to me.
Both beliefs either need proof or does not need proof. Neither can offer proof.
Can the fact that zero exists be proven? Or disproved?
1 God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe Throughout the patristic and medieval periods, Christian theologians taught that God created the universe …— Jame Schaefer … the Supreme Being or God, the personal form of the Ultimate Reality, is conceived by Hindus as having various aspects.— Sunita Pant Bansal
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 or less commonly God : a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality Greek gods of love and war
3 : a person or thing of supreme value had photos of baseball's gods pinned to his bedroom wall
4 : a powerful ruler Hollywood gods that control our movies' fates
Mein gute, not the 'you have faith gravity exists, Mystic has evidence (despite admitting he does not) of intelligent consciousness without a brain' distortion again.
No wonder they avoid the science forum.
What Mystic actually has Faith in is the revealed rightness of his interpretation of his Experience. It is (like much of his belief) Faith that God is revaliething the Truth to him, but he dresses it up in science a lot better than the other god -believers do.
But you pointed up the ongoing dismissal of what we know about 'reality' (what science tells us about the way the world works - and attempt to find a god in there have not worked. Which is why they have to claim a god in the gaps or at least the obscure areas of Woo that are not so well understood to leave no room for a god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Is it really clear? It is convoluted and pretends as if it means something.
I believe god exists is a pretty clear unconditional statement.
I believe god does not exist is another clear unconditional statement.
Belief seems common to me.
Both beliefs either need proof or does not need proof. Neither can offer proof.
Can the fact that zero exists be proven? Or disproved?
I don't know whether it can be proven as an actual thing, or even an observed effect like gravity. It depends on whether you accept mathematics and logic as a method of getting reliable results as rather more than just the laws of society or the rules of music, which do change with the evolution of human society.
Logic and Mathematics remain as valid as science.
But even if that is arguable, what science shows about the mechanics of matter and energy is reliable enough as a basic, and much more than the faith -based speculations of Religion, which can only appeal to popularity and not to even being as reliable as the concept of zero..
Possibly. I suspect (you might try this) that simply taking the first word of the Bible - even the first numbers and repeating them over and over for a sufficient time might give an 'experience' of "God". Or Allah, Krishna or whatever Buddhists get. The text itself might not do that but might well impart the ecstatic feelgood of bias confirmation. It's like the wonderful feeling you get when you (or your team) win. These human Feeling are very interesting and little understood. Especially by those who believe they tell them about a "Reality".
'Triggered' indeed. The first line of the definition - but leaving out all the subsequent qualifiers is the epitome of quotemining, which is dishonest.
For the rest, you are wildly (and incoherently) lashing out as usual. Mystic at least has a Deeply held Belief. You have little more than a deep political hatred that you need to keep feeding because we (atheists) aren't even in that battle.
if one does not sort out many synchronicities...after a while a pattern clearly emerges.
Like anything else, just saying 'I perceive a pattern' does not validate it, or it does does not explain it. That is best done if the pattern is described and the hypothetical explanation of what it is thought to be is set out. Then we can discuss it. That is what we do here, all the time.
I don't know whether it can be proven as an actual thing, or even an observed effect like gravity. It depends on whether you accept mathematics and logic as a method of getting reliable results as rather more than just the laws of society or the rules of music, which do change with the evolution of human society.
Logic and Mathematics remain as valid as science.
But even if that is arguable, what science shows about the mechanics of matter and energy is reliable enough as a basic, and much more than the faith -based speculations of Religion, which can only appeal to popularity and not to even being as reliable as the concept of zero..
You are fudging. The logic of zero is the same as the logic of existence of god or no-god. No proof.
Why do Atheists push back so hard on what is such a simple concept? If god exists is a belief, god does not is also belief. In order to deny god exists you already have to accept there is such a concept that exists.
Just take the Abrahamic connotation of faith and “belief” out of it. Let it go.
What Mystic actually has Faith in is the revealed rightness of his interpretation of his Experience. It is (like much of his belief) Faith that God is revaliething the Truth to him, but he dresses it up in science a lot better than the other god -believers do.
But you pointed up the ongoing dismissal of what we know about 'reality' (what science tells us about the way the world works - and attempt to find a god in there have not worked. Which is why they have to claim a god in the gaps or at least the obscure areas of Woo that are not so well understood to leave no room for a god.
nipped for space ...
And he got me stopped from pointing out where its that interpretation is clearly less valid ...
Imagine that ... "we aren't fighting that battle" so get it all stopped.
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.
'Triggered' indeed. The first line of the definition - but leaving out all the subsequent qualifiers is the epitome of quotemining, which is dishonest.
) here on CD somewhere in this forum a day or so ago and I thought it summed it up succinctly. Maybe the owner will fess up, it isn't anything original from me. 
