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.
I think the issue at hand here is....why do you choose to apply this label or title of god to something we are quite certain has a label already?
Let me explain the relevance here. Typical god-beliefs are an attempt to explain our origins to the extent which is just beyond our knowledge. Whether that is supernatural or natural explanations, a thinking and planning entity, or some sort of multiverse theory with a whole lot of new physics potentially at play; the reason is because most or many people prefer to have a method to rationalise the irrational....existence. I share that same curiosity of origins but have seen only one reliable method of getting to the bottom of complicated mysteries...the scientific method.
So the question here is essentially....if you have a genuine desire or curiosity to rationalise the irrational....how does labeling everything as god help that cause? And if you agree that it doesn't help that cause....what purpose does it serve to you?
This is why I use the analogy of a "friend". The person already has "labels"...they are already known to be a "human being", and certainly they have a name they go by...but because you have a certain perception of them, you add the title of "friend". This designates a special attitude and personal view you have of that person. One may even note that title of "friend" during greetings and introductions...as declaratory or informative of their special view of that person.
I chose to assign the title "God" to ALL THE MATTER/ENERGY THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED...because I perceive it to be The Ultimate Reality that is Something of Supreme Value...and the addition of the title will designate the special view I have of it.
I chose to do it, because it is my desire to do so.
I'm not trying to "rationalize the irrational", or have any aim of that type. If another views their God perception as serving that purpose, that's cool...but that's their thing, not mine. We each have our own views, and our own ways. Though, through history, the Pantheist concept of designating "All" God has been one of the most prolific and "typical" ideologies.
The assignment of the title is based on the perception of it, to show reverence.
You are wrong man. Read #80 again...that is from YEARS ago.
I said "God is a title...and God is what anyone perceives to be God and assigns that title to it." Even a rock outcropping!!
You asked if I thought "ALL/EVERYTHING" had attributes of intelligence and forward-planning...I said it did, to the extent that the intelligent and forward-planning entities that comprise it have those attributes. That seemed pretty clear to me. What part of that don't you understand?
I have always argued that NOBODY gets to dictate what God MUST be to be perceived as God.
I know you don't like it...but the fact remains, G-O-D is not definitively limited to Religious Deities. You can limit YOUR perception to that...that's all well and good IMO...but you can't dictate anyone else has to.
There is no question, and it is not even debateable, that "G-O-D" is defined as "The Ultimate Reality" and "Something of Supreme Value"...the perceptions of which, are subjective. Do you need the proof again?
So, logically...if someone has a perception that subjectively comports with those known definitions of GOD, it is reasonable that they assign that title to it. This then makes that "God", to THEM. That it isn't subjectively God to YOU is meaningless to that others perception.
Go back and read the post reviewing our discussion on Evidence thread.
"The good news is that I accept the term "God" for an intelligent universe (or 'everything') the bad news is that I still cannot apply it - and logically neither can you - unless you can demonstrate this intelligence (forward planning since just the 'intelligence' of evolution through unplanning physical processes can be represented as 'intelligence').
And you recognize this in your welcome and necessary caveat. "to the extent that which comprises "Everything" (God) is capable of intelligence and forward-planning." which shows as I always knew that we are on the same page, but you could never see it because of your atheism -phobia."
I have never denied you the right to call whatever you want God, but the problem is that you repeatedly tell us that this is a fact and seem to think that we should accept it,too. I am telling you why it doesn't meet the essential parameter needed to be called God and why I don't think it logically appropriate that you should too.
If you want to call it God, you can, but don't pretend for a second that it proves that God exists and thereby destroys atheism and agnosticism. Which in terms of the God that most people talk about and which even the most rarefied deist ideas supposes to be intelligent and planning of itself and not just an evolved cosmos and biology which happens to contain an intelligent life-form, is what we are atheist and "agnostic" about.
Only you - not even Mystic - tries to argue that (his Cosmos is intelligent) , and the only reason you do it is to debunk atheism and agnosticism without having to produce anything but semantic tricks.
Quote:
For some reason this bothers you...because it is not how you think it should be, since that's not how you prefer it.
This attitude is Pedigree bias and prejudice...no different than bias and prejudice toward any other difference.
It seems to be a Fundie mandate...to criticize and bash those that have differing ways or views they don't agree with. What's up with that?
Couldn't have projected it better myself. Pot, meet kettle.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-08-2016 at 04:35 AM..
I think the issue at hand here is....why do you choose to apply this label or title of god to something we are quite certain has a label already?
Let me explain the relevance here. Typical god-beliefs are an attempt to explain our origins to the extent which is just beyond our knowledge. Whether that is supernatural or natural explanations, a thinking and planning entity, or some sort of multiverse theory with a whole lot of new physics potentially at play; the reason is because most or many people prefer to have a method to rationalise the irrational....existence. I share that same curiosity of origins but have seen only one reliable method of getting to the bottom of complicated mysteries...the scientific method.
So the question here is essentially....if you have a genuine desire or curiosity to rationalise the irrational....how does labeling everything as god help that cause? And if you agree that it doesn't help that cause....what purpose does it serve to you?
Hear the man, Gldnrule. He sees it as clearly as everyone does - except you. You can label Nature "God" if you want to - physicists do as a metaphor of the workings of the universe - but you have have no business to tell us that your terminological legerdemain debunks - or at least bashes -atheism. Which is, I am certain, your whole agenda.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-08-2016 at 04:49 AM..
If I change my dog's name to God will you guys spend this much energy arguing that He is not God? That's exactly what's going on here.
One of our dogs is the type that looks perpetually worried / burdened and we like to put words in his mouth about how when we're not looking he writes scholarly treatises on nihilism. I suppose he could be god on the side, too, although that seems more like a traditional role for a cat ;-)
Hear the man, Gldnrule. He sees it as clearly as everyone does - except you. You can label Nature "God" if you want to - physicists do as a metaphor of the workings of the universe - but you have have no business to tell us that your terminological legerdemain debunks - or at least bashes -atheism. Which is, I am certain, your whole agenda.
Atheism doesn't need me to expose it as illogical...it's that regardless. Nothing but a Argument From Ignorance...working off a flawed "no evidence" premise...and thinking you can draw some kind of conclusion or determination off of that.
It falls in place on the "Ignorance Scale" somewhere just below Creationism and the like.
I see you, et al, still can't understand the difference between "labeling" something and "adding a title" to something. Oh, well.
Go back and read the post reviewing our discussion on Evidence thread.
"The good news is that I accept the term "God" for an intelligent universe (or 'everything') the bad news is that I still cannot apply it - and logically neither can you - unless you can demonstrate this intelligence (forward planning since just the 'intelligence' of evolution through unplanning physical processes can be represented as 'intelligence').
And you recognize this in your welcome and necessary caveat. "to the extent that which comprises "Everything" (God) is capable of intelligence and forward-planning." which shows as I always knew that we are on the same page, but you could never see it because of your atheism -phobia."
I have never denied you the right to call whatever you want God, but the problem is that you repeatedly tell us that this is a fact and seem to think that we should accept it,too. I am telling you why it doesn't meet the essential parameter needed to be called God and why I don't think it logically appropriate that you should too.
If you want to call it God, you can, but don't pretend for a second that it proves that God exists and thereby destroys atheism and agnosticism. Which in terms of the God that most people talk about and which even the most rarefied deist ideas supposes to be intelligent and planning of itself and not just an evolved cosmos and biology which happens to contain an intelligent life-form, is what we are atheist and "agnostic" about.
Only you - not even Mystic - tries to argue that (his Cosmos is intelligent) , and the only reason you do it is to debunk atheism and agnosticism without having to produce anything but semantic tricks.
Couldn't have projected it better myself. Pot, meet kettle.
AGAIN: This is why I use the "friends" analogy.
You may not consider MY friend YOUR friend...but that doesn't negate their status as a "friend", or prove "friends" don't exist.
My perception of them as a "friend" gives them a status that cannot be nullified by anyone else...and also necessarily assures "friends exist".
Your view of them as "not a friend" does nothing to effect my perception, or what is created by and through that perception.
Try to rebut the concept from the standpoint of the idea in that analogy, and you will better understand.
Try to show how you not considereding MY friend, YOUR friend...negates that persons status as a "friend", and how it also negates any evidence that "friends exist".
AGAIN: This is why I use the "friends" analogy.
You may not consider MY friend YOUR friend...but that doesn't negate their status as a "friend", or prove "friends" don't exist.
My perception of them as a "friend" gives them a status that cannot be nullified by anyone else...and also necessarily assures "friends exist".
Your view of them as "not a friend" does nothing to effect my perception, or what is created by and through that perception.
Try to rebut the concept from the standpoint of the idea in that analogy, and you will better understand.
Try to show how you not considereding MY friend, YOUR friend...negates that persons status as a "friend", and how it also negates any evidence that "friends exist".
The analogy isn't nearly as useful for you as you think. You are simply framing your friend analogy inconsistently with your god title.
The analogy breaks down when you title everybody as "friend"...as you do with god. If you perceive everybody as your friend then there is no useful meaning of your use of the word friend. You are simply choosing to replace the label of "people" with "friend". Because there are no people in that case who are also not friends...and friend is no longer describing anything unique about some of the people.
I'm not interested in whether your desire to irrationally replace words is your preference. But trying to use an irrational word choice as some sort of argument against the atheist position....a narrow position of disbelief in gods....is not convincing to anybody no matter how many times you want assert it, nor is rational by definition.
The analogy isn't nearly as useful for you as you think. You are simply framing your friend analogy inconsistently with your god title.
The analogy breaks down when you title everybody as "friend"...as you do with god. If you perceive everybody as your friend then there is no useful meaning of your use of the word friend. You are simply choosing to replace the label of "people" with "friend". Because there are no people in that case who are also not friends...and friend is no longer describing anything unique about some of the people.
I'm not interested in whether your desire to irrationally replace words is your preference. But trying to use an irrational word choice as some sort of argument against the atheist position....a narrow position of disbelief in gods....is not convincing to anybody no matter how many times you want assert it, nor is rational by definition.
Ah...I see...another that pretends not to understand that an analogy is used to help explain a concept or idea...not as a exact replica of it.
I have concluded these rebuttals of analogous explanations on the basis that they are not exact replicas of the concept they are trying to explain is based on an intention to be biased and difficult...few are actually that ignorant.
The analogy was made mainly to illustrate the point that ones lack of a similar perception, does not nullify that of another...but then, I bet you knew that.
Let's try again then: If someone has an attitude and perception that "they hate everybody and everything"..."everybody" and "everything" are now all "hated" entities. That others don't hate some things and some people doesn't negate that all things and people are now necessarily designated as "hated" because of that perception. And, furthermore, "the hated" now objectively exist. Including those that don't like it that they are hated or that hate exists...their disagreement doesn't change it.
Some want to dictate that "GOD" be a being or entity that has specific attributes to be "GOD"...and they can make that restriction...for THEMSELVES. For themselves, but not for others.
God is a title, a subjective conceptual descriptor....that can be assigned to anything or everything one may perceive as such. Once there is that perception...it is a done deal...and nothing can change it.
Just like if someone has a hateful perception of you...you are now a "hated" person...and no matter how much you may not like it, or that it may bother you, that doesn't change it.
Ah...I see...another that pretends not to understand that an analogy is used to help explain a concept or idea...not as a exact replica of it.
I have concluded these rebuttals of analogous explanations on the basis that they are not exact replicas of the concept they are trying to explain is based on an intention to be biased and difficult...few are actually that ignorant.
The analogy was made mainly to illustrate the point that ones lack of a similar perception, does not nullify that of another...but then, I bet you knew that.
Let's try again then: If someone has an attitude and perception that "they hate everybody and everything"..."everybody" and "everything" are now all "hated" entities. That others don't hate some things and some people doesn't negate that all things and people are now necessarily designated as "hated" because of that perception. And, furthermore, "the hated" now objectively exist. Including those that don't like it that they are hated or that hate exists...their disagreement doesn't change it.
Some want to dictate that "GOD" be a being or entity that has specific attributes to be "GOD"...and they can make that restriction...for THEMSELVES. For themselves, but not for others.
God is a title, a subjective conceptual descriptor....that can be assigned to anything or everything one may perceive as such. Once there is that perception...it is a done deal...and nothing can change it.
Just like if someone has a hateful perception of you...you are now a "hated" person...and no matter how much you may not like it, or that it may bother you, that doesn't change it.
The analogy problem is precisely the same problem with your use of the word god for everything. Its because when we take your analogy & make it truly analogous...it becomes absurd just like calling everything, god. It devalues the meaning of the term by replacing a "thing" or "things" (or in this case, "everything") with another term which means precisely the same exact thing (in your view).
I can assure you nobody is pretending not to understand the analogy. And nobody has a problem understanding what you are saying...its a problem of coherence in "why". You've addressed the "why" before so I'm done asking about it or debating its rationale. Its when you add in the extra "and this proves atheism to be irrational" bit which I'm sorry to say, won't go unchallenged. I won't debate the same point all day but I will debunk misinformation at least once when I see it.
I'm just saying it isn't helpful nor rational. I'm sure I also hold views that are unhelpful or irrational, try as I might not to.
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.
