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.
There is an equal amount of evidence for the Biblical God as for Krishna, Thunderbird and Odin, so which is the "correct" god or gods?
How would you know? You are completely clueless which is really going on in the Christian world. Our faith isn't based on wishful thinking. It's based very real experiences.
Since you have absolutely no concept of what I understand or comprehend, I shall consider this just another of your attempts to justify a myth and god just a word you use to explain what you cannot understand, merely another false concept.
"GOD" is a title...that can be assigned to anything one perceives as such. Like "HERO" is a title.
"God" is not a name...nothing/nobody is named "God".
The Pantheist concept of giving All Of Reality the title of "God" is one of the most ancient and prolific. There is no "myth" to it.
How would you know? You are completely clueless which is really going on in the Christian world. Our faith isn't based on wishful thinking. It's based very real experiences.
So is faith in Knrishna. That's why faith is not evidence. Now I thought this was the evidence thread! So perhaps we can say we are tired of being told 'You don't understand' or 'You are failing to see the real reasons to believe' when we see and understand very well and are not buying and want to be left alone to not buy it.
How would you know? You are completely clueless which is really going on in the Christian world. Our faith isn't based on wishful thinking. It's based very real experiences.
So are Hinduism, indigenous American theology and ancient Scandinavian religious systems.
No...I accepted the facts that NoCapo presented in support of the argument from that standpoint. It is THAT evidence I am using. You don't have to accept the evidence NoCapo presented...but I do. If you claim that evidence to not be reasonable and logical...I challenge you to substantiate that.
Strange thing now though...NoCapo is now claiming it doesn't count. But that's just because it would set a precedent of accepting definitions that is fatal to the Atheist argument.
Oh GldnGrahams, your dishonesty wounds me (well, not really, but a little melodrama never hurt anything)!
I have never, in our entire history of discussing this issue, accepted that your version of logic and linguistics is correct.
Let me state for the record:
Blindly relying on an "expert definer" is malarky. It ignores the way language works.
Conflating multiple definitions of a word, or claiming that all definitions must aply or none can, has surpassed stupid, it is squarely in the realm of dishonest. The only purpose of torturing language like this is to obfuscate and distort.
Ignoring implications and definitions of words in one sentence and relying on them the next is also dishonest. It is the blind flailings of someone who is in over their head, and had decided to try to "win" a discussion using the pigeon chess strategy - knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut about crowing that they've won.
With that out of the way, I did use your own tortured and broken logic to highlight the inconsistencies in your position. And evidently I did it well enough that you had to rethink some of your statements. I would have hoped that it would have made you rethink your underlying logic, but that appears to have failed...
So if we start at the beginning and ditch this useless "expert definer" and "full and complete definitions" garbage, the situation becomes much more clear.
If we examine the definitions of religion, the most appropriate one in the context of this discussion is that of an "organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods". In that sense you are not religious. As far as I understand your belief it has virtually no doctrine, your god makes no demands, has no will, requires no worship. Thus I would argue that in light of the most pertinent definition, you are not religious.
However if we continue to use a rational and sane approach to the meanings of words, your argument that God=All falls apart. The pertinent definition of God in this case is not the metaphoric usage of the word, but rather something like "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe". In this case God is more than a meaningless label or title, and you have not shown how extant reality, all that is, qualifies.
You are welcome to your Pantheist belief, but you have in no way made a credible case that it is irrefutably true. In fact, the method that you have attempted to use is simply renaming "all" to "God". Which, if that is what you are doing, makes me wonder why. Even the luminaries and originators of Pantheist thought attached something transcendent and ineffable to God. By just choosing to relabel materialism, honestly it looks like you are an atheist who make a cynical calculation to try to join what he thought was the "winning team", but still had enough integrity not to want to out right lie. So you invent a meaningless concept of God, attach it to a materialist reality, and now you get to be a 'believer'...
That's the part that has me the most baffled by your defense of your belief. You willingly and enthusiastically devalue your own belief, to the point that it becomes a semantic argument with no underlying truth, no value, no worth, all for the sake of trying to rile people up on the internet? A big part of me thinks this all must be a sham, a put on.
-NoCapo
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.
)!
