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 explained...it has been answered many times...replete with analogies of "friends", "heros", etc, to aid understanding. And noted by other members.
In the analogy of "hero" or "friend" it was explained that it doesn't make a difference whether someone else now has a different perception of the person. As long as the one now perceiving them as more than just the person themselves views them as a "friend", or "hero", etc, and it matters in that way to them..
Also...and I have noted many, many, many times...and it was even pointed out by an Atheist member...if there is an agreement that GOD does, in fact, exist...Atheism is rendered null & void.
THAT matters a real lot! Because, then, there won't be all those people bogged down in an illogical concept based in ignorance (that there is no evidence), and they will gain knowledge and understanding.
All explained before. And even noted by both of you many, many times. That you keep asking is very strange...though I'm hip to why you do it.
And your explanation has been further questioned , and you have proven unable to define why we should regard your friend analogy as relevant , since you are unable to explain just how you perceive things differently than you did as an atheist .
We are hip to why you keep running back to your old argument instead of moving past it and furthering the discussion .
You are becoming comical .And atheism isn't disappearing because you claim it to be null and void .
And your explanation has been further questioned , and you have proven unable to define why we should regard your friend analogy as relevant , since you are unable to explain just how you perceive things differently than you did as an atheist .
We are hip to why you keep running back to your old argument instead of moving past it and furthering the discussion .
You are becoming comical .And atheism isn't disappearing because you claim it to be null and void .
You not only don't "get" my posts...you don't even "get" your own.
The hypothetical you gave in the OP called for the perception of "ALL/EVERYTHING = GOD" to be accepted.
It has already been pointed out to you...if that were to be the case, Atheism is "scuppered" (to use a TRANSponder term) by that...as the Atheism Concept is fully contingent upon no God(s) existing.
It appears a big problem is the assumption that you can glean "given" type info from things written. You obviously lack that ability.
Just like when I use the analogy of perceiving someone as a "friend". All but a very few would not glean from that, that through that perception, the way that person "mattered to you" (your feelings about them) would be modified from what they were before, or without, that perception.
Even though that person is not "different" than what they were...through your assessment and appreciation of attributes they possess, you perceive them in a more "meaningful" way.
Again, the perception of others is irrelevant to this.
It is the same with the assessment and appreciation of attributes possessed by ALL/EVERYTHING (which would be any & all attributes)...determining through that assessment that it is "Something of Supreme Value"...and perceiving it as "GOD" based upon that.
As was also said before: The difference is "reverence".
And I never claimed pantheism was pointless for all people . ?
really ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
If you admit that agreeing that a pantheistic God exists is pointless, then that is what the OP is getting at .
nobody but dopes claim concrete facts in this matter. And only mentals demand it. Fundy-mentals. We have only more valid or less valid claims based on observations. We can use the word "probability" if we want. it is exactly the same as 'dark matter" claims.
For example:
1)What would accepting the definition do to those who didn't accept it previously? How would their lives change, etc?
Like admitting Dark matter, to deny that something is there is stupid at this point. Like dark matter again, some people lives change and some people's don't. Mine did, I know more now. I also understand every observation they use. I understand if you make a claim on what it is, like WIMPs, you better have more than what is being used to say why we think it is there. I am not sure you understand the difference I am pointing out here.
2)How does your God differ from the known Universe?
God doesn't differ from the known universe any more than "you" differ from the "known parts" that make "you". But, you are better defined by everybody you know than any one alone.
And there is "you" even if I take you apart and find no you. Besides, we don't know enough.
There is only a limited number of reasons these simple statements past you guys. None of them very flattering. Its not that you don't get it. It that's you think you do and are forcing this limited claim on us.
You not only don't "get" my posts...you don't even "get" your own.
The hypothetical you gave in the OP called for the perception of "ALL/EVERYTHING = GOD" to be accepted.
It has already been pointed out to you...if that were to be the case, Atheism is "scuppered" (to use a TRANSponder term) by that...as the Atheism Concept is fully contingent upon no God(s) existing.
It appears a big problem is the assumption that you can glean "given" type info from things written. You obviously lack that ability.
Just like when I use the analogy of perceiving someone as a "friend". All but a very few would not glean from that, that through that perception, the way that person "mattered to you" (your feelings about them) would be modified from what they were before, or without, that perception.
Even though that person is not "different" than what they were...through your assessment and appreciation of attributes they possess, you perceive them in a more "meaningful" way.
Again, the perception of others is irrelevant to this.
It is the same with the assessment and appreciation of attributes possessed by ALL/EVERYTHING (which would be any & all attributes)...determining through that assessment that it is "Something of Supreme Value"...and perceiving it as "GOD" based upon that.
As was also said before: The difference is "reverence".
My, my, my.... You still don't get the question in the OP, Goldie. The question is, what would it matter? What would it change? The answer, even if one slops through your word salad and terribly difficult to read word salad (You should really learn to type in paragraphs, or leave a space between thoughts. This whole 1 sentence, ENTER, type, thing is obnoxious), is that it changes nothing, and does not matter. Even if one were to say, "Okay, atheism is null and void," it would still change nothing, except what label they use to describe themselves.
Your version of God is a nothing, plain and simple. We already believe in what you call God, we just call it by a different name. Changing the name changes nothing for us, except we would now call it God. Nothing more, nothing less. We wouldn't look upon it with anymore "reverence" than we do now. It would not be any more meaningful than it is now. There would still be no evidence that what you CALL God is ACTUALLY God. There would still be no evidence that your "God" does anything, or is capable of doing anything.
Point being, calling the Universe "God" would change nothing for anyone. Accepting your definition, and even accepting that it makes atheism null and void, would change nothing for anyone. Especially considering the only difference you have come up with between it and the Universe is "reverence", which would be a difference in how we view it, not a difference in the actual God/Universe.
My, my, my.... You still don't get the question in the OP, Goldie. The question is, what would it matter? What would it change? The answer, even if one slops through your word salad and terribly difficult to read word salad (You should really learn to type in paragraphs, or leave a space between thoughts. This whole 1 sentence, ENTER, type, thing is obnoxious), is that it changes nothing, and does not matter. Even if one were to say, "Okay, atheism is null and void," it would still change nothing, except what label they use to describe themselves.
Your version of God is a nothing, plain and simple. We already believe in what you call God, we just call it by a different name. Changing the name changes nothing for us, except we would now call it God. Nothing more, nothing less. We wouldn't look upon it with anymore "reverence" than we do now. It would not be any more meaningful than it is now. There would still be no evidence that what you CALL God is ACTUALLY God. There would still be no evidence that your "God" does anything, or is capable of doing anything.
Point being, calling the Universe "God" would change nothing for anyone. Accepting your definition, and even accepting that it makes atheism null and void, would change nothing for anyone. Especially considering the only difference you have come up with between it and the Universe is "reverence", which would be a difference in how we view it, not a difference in the actual God/Universe.
Precisely . All of GRs blathering does not change this one bit .
nobody but dopes claim concrete facts in this matter. And only mentals demand it. Fundy-mentals. We have only more valid or less valid claims based on observations. We can use the word "probability" if we want. it is exactly the same as 'dark matter" claims.
For example:
1)What would accepting the definition do to those who didn't accept it previously? How would their lives change, etc?
Like admitting Dark matter, to deny that something is there is stupid at this point. Like dark matter again, some people lives change and some people's don't. Mine did, I know more now. I also understand every observation they use. I understand if you make a claim on what it is, like WIMPs, you better have more than what is being used to say why we think it is there. I am not sure you understand the difference I am pointing out here.
2)How does your God differ from the known Universe?
God doesn't differ from the known universe any more than "you" differ from the "known parts" that make "you". But, you are better defined by everybody you know than any one alone.
And there is "you" even if I take you apart and find no you. Besides, we don't know enough.
There is only a limited number of reasons these simple statements past you guys. None of them very flattering. Its not that you don't get it. It that's you think you do and are forcing this limited claim on us.
You really don't have much idea what you are talking about relative to the OP , and I really tire of waiting on you to figure it out .
nobody but dopes claim concrete facts in this matter. And only mentals demand it. Fundy-mentals. We have only more valid or less valid claims based on observations. We can use the word "probability" if we want. it is exactly the same as 'dark matter" claims.
For example:
1)What would accepting the definition do to those who didn't accept it previously? How would their lives change, etc?
Like admitting Dark matter, to deny that something is there is stupid at this point. Like dark matter again, some people lives change and some people's don't. Mine did, I know more now. I also understand every observation they use. I understand if you make a claim on what it is, like WIMPs, you better have more than what is being used to say why we think it is there. I am not sure you understand the difference I am pointing out here.
2)How does your God differ from the known Universe?
God doesn't differ from the known universe any more than "you" differ from the "known parts" that make "you". But, you are better defined by everybody you know than any one alone.
And there is "you" even if I take you apart and find no you. Besides, we don't know enough.
There is only a limited number of reasons these simple statements past you guys. None of them very flattering. Its not that you don't get it. It that's you think you do and are forcing this limited claim on us.
You seem to have trouble understanding what people are saying. No one is saying there is "nothing" there. We are saying that making the leap from, "There is something and that something is God", is illogical. Just because there is something there, doesn't mean "God". You are the one stuck on repeat and seem to let simple statement pass you by.
This thread isn't about whether or not something is there, or even whether that something is God. The thread is about what difference it would make to someone's life if they accepted these things. I guess that above was your attempt at answering this, but to say, "Some would change, some wouldn't", isn't exactly and answer as to how.
nobody but dopes claim concrete facts in this matter. And only mentals demand it. Fundy-mentals. We have only more valid or less valid claims based on observations. We can use the word "probability" if we want. it is exactly the same as 'dark matter" claims.
For example:
1)What would accepting the definition do to those who didn't accept it previously? How would their lives change, etc?
Like admitting Dark matter, to deny that something is there is stupid at this point. Like dark matter again, some people lives change and some people's don't. Mine did, I know more now. I also understand every observation they use. I understand if you make a claim on what it is, like WIMPs, you better have more than what is being used to say why we think it is there. I am not sure you understand the difference I am pointing out here.
2)How does your God differ from the known Universe?
God doesn't differ from the known universe any more than "you" differ from the "known parts" that make "you". But, you are better defined by everybody you know than any one alone.
And there is "you" even if I take you apart and find no you. Besides, we don't know enough.
There is only a limited number of reasons these simple statements past you guys. None of them very flattering. Its not that you don't get it. It that's you think you do and are forcing this limited claim on us.
"FUNDY-MENTALS"!!!
I LOVE it!!
Top notch stuff AA!
My, my, my.... You still don't get the question in the OP, Goldie. The question is, what would it matter? What would it change? The answer, even if one slops through your word salad and terribly difficult to read word salad (You should really learn to type in paragraphs, or leave a space between thoughts. This whole 1 sentence, ENTER, type, thing is obnoxious), is that it changes nothing, and does not matter. Even if one were to say, "Okay, atheism is null and void," it would still change nothing, except what label they use to describe themselves.
Your version of God is a nothing, plain and simple. We already believe in what you call God, we just call it by a different name. Changing the name changes nothing for us, except we would now call it God. Nothing more, nothing less. We wouldn't look upon it with anymore "reverence" than we do now. It would not be any more meaningful than it is now. There would still be no evidence that what you CALL God is ACTUALLY God. There would still be no evidence that your "God" does anything, or is capable of doing anything.
Point being, calling the Universe "God" would change nothing for anyone. Accepting your definition, and even accepting that it makes atheism null and void, would change nothing for anyone. Especially considering the only difference you have come up with between it and the Universe is "reverence", which would be a difference in how we view it, not a difference in the actual God/Universe.
Yes, there IS evidence that it IS GOD.
It comports definitively, and objectively exists. DONE DEAL!
It doesn't need to "matter" or "change something" to be GOD.
It just had to comport definitively and objectively exist.
You need to get hip to that. Then you might stop with the bogus and impotent arguments.
I objectively behold "Something"...and that "Something" IS definitively GOD. Thus, GOD!
It is Atheism that is the Concept of Nuthin', based on Nuthin'. You guys declare that yourselves.
Yes, there IS evidence that it IS GOD.
It comports definitively, and objectively exists. DONE DEAL!
It doesn't need to "matter" or "change something" to be GOD.
It just had to comport definitively and objectively exist.
You need to get hip to that. Then you might stop with the bogus and impotent arguments.
I objectively behold "Something"...and that "Something" IS definitively GOD. Thus, GOD!
It is Atheism that is the Concept of Nuthin', based on Nuthin'. You guys declare that yourselves.
And once again your intellectual capabilities are shown to be limited to repeating the same thing over and over , as if claiming it a million times will somehow make it true and cause all atheists to admit to such .
Can you offer objective proof of God using any other definition other than the one that fits your need ? Like the one commonly meant by theists when they use the term God ?
Last edited by wallflash; 05-26-2016 at 05:49 PM..
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.
