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 asked for what definition of greater we're talking about & got a not-so-thinly veiled implication of being a sociopath if I don't agree with the definition you didn't give. I see you are still up to doing god's good work.
Lol. For someone who claims to be respectful of the right of others to (dis)believe what they will, he certainly can be, as Trans puts it, an asshat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
More semantic games. By that rationale, I can proclaim the letter A to be everything and a much better word to use than god.
Well he is dodging the point that the best word for a thing is not the shortest one, but the one that will be hardest to be widely misunderstood. People have a particular common understanding of what "god" and "everything" mean. Conflating the meaning of the two simply creates heat (or confusion) rather than light.
The very fact that he actually resorts to arguing that "god" is a good word because it has few letters, demonstrates either spectacular ignorance or spectacular evasion. Since bUU is no dummy, I'm suggesting the latter is more likely. It is not a truism that any random word will suffice, so we might as well pick one that's already used to cover a different concept.
He will doubtless want to know what word we would use for "that which is of supreme value". I have seen "The Divine" used in that context as an abstraction of choice, but while it's less fraught with problems than "god", it's not by much. I think "personal values" is better but still going down a rather unwise path in my view by encouraging people to value pretty much whatever they (often unmindfully) decide to, which is what they do anyway, and giving respect to it, justifiably or not. It leads to inherent problems. Perhaps someone values being drunk, or objectifying women via porn, or pulling the legs off bugs, more than anything else. Is that god too? It just becomes pointless nonsense. Which is I guess what your point is about panentheism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
We have the word which encompasses everything. Not so surprising....it's "everything". And we all know what we mean by that word.
Look...I perceive a God that objectively exists...and can be proven as such. Thus, God.
That renders Atheism null and void.
I will admit there are many things I am not capable of...proving the objective existence of GOD isn't one of those things.
For some reason...it is very obvious that bothers you. I hope you are able to reconcile that. Really, I do.
Hey...maybe you could try the Prayer Thread!
Nothing about this " bothers me " in the least, as there is nothing to be " bothered by " with your type of God, which is the point of this thread . I just find your claim that you have disproven atheism, which is in reality a disbelief in supernatural gods , by simply calling the natural world God , to be laughable . It's a little like arguing your have disproven the Denver Broncos being the world champions of football because you showed that Germany won the World Cup .
But the topic of THIS thread is not your semantical manner of trying to insist your God exists , but rather what it matters IF one admits to it for the sake of moving past your one dimensional argument .
Care to try and addressing the actual topic of the OP and move past your misplaced braggadocio about proving a type of God no one really cares about ?
Last edited by wallflash; 05-22-2016 at 09:16 AM..
He will doubtless want to know what word we would use for "that which is of supreme value". I have seen "The Divine" used in that context as an abstraction of choice, but while it's less fraught with problems than "god", it's not by much. I think "personal values" is better but still going down a rather unwise path in my view by encouraging people to value pretty much whatever they (often unmindfully) decide to, which is what they do anyway, and giving respect to it, justifiably or not. It leads to inherent problems. Perhaps someone values being drunk, or objectifying women via porn, or pulling the legs off bugs, more than anything else. Is that god too? It just becomes pointless nonsense. Which is I guess what your point is about panentheism.
Yeah I would expect an argument presented in regards to "well what do you atheists hold as Supreme Value....if it isn't god?"....to which I'd offer that I'm not obligated to such self-imposed theistic dichotomies, much like objective morality.
I can place my wife and kids above my wellbeing without them being (a) me, or (b) supreme or divine. As a matter of fact, despite them being quite special to me, I would dare say most people would slander them with the term "ordinary". This would not elicit war, anger, nor even the slightest annoyance from me. I'd realize that the slanderer is just one drop of perspective in an ocean of perspectives...and so long as we don't cross other boundaries...we have no quarrel on the subject.
But I certainly wouldn't expect anybody else to value my family as I do. Even if they are "everything" to me.
Nothing about this " bothers me " in the least, as there is nothing to be " bothered by " with your type of God, which is the point of this thread . I just find your claim that you have disproven atheism, which is in reality a disbelief in supernatural gods , by simply calling the natural world God , to be laughable . It's a little like arguing your have disproven the Denver Broncos being the world champions of football because you showed that Germany won the World Cup .
But the topic of THIS thread is not your semantical manner of trying to insist your God exists , but rather what it matters IF one admits to it for the sake of moving past your one dimensional argument .
Care to try and addressing the actual topic of the OP and move past your misplaced braggadocio about proving a type of God no one really cares about ?
Yes. That was the point and I forgot it. So what? Well Gldnrule answered that. Atheism is scuppered. We all become sortagod -agnostics, not that the term is appropriate to someone who is now convinced.
Then what? Well, no more than knowing about black holes and quantum mechanics. It doesn't change anything much. Anthony Flew was convinced to become a non -religious theist. It didn't change his views on organized religion.
With regards to the subject of this thread , so what ? Not agreeing with your claim , but even if I did, so what ? I'm tired of yours and Mystics roundabout arguments over definitions, and have no desire to rehash that line of reasoning . What difference does accepting your definition make ? Did it change your life ? Did you give up the life of a porno king to become a different type of person because you changed from an atheist to a pantheist ?
How does your God matter ? What affect does it have in your life ? How does your believing alter anything about you for the better ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
In other words, your version of God does nothing in people's lives , changes no one, not even someone who exploited people as an atheist before turning to pantheism , and is essential irrelevant in spiritual terms .
I didn't expect you could do more than run your mouth once we got past your one dimensional parroting of Mystic , so you aren't a huge disappointment in your failure with regards to the topic of this thread . Even so, I really don't know why I even bothered with you , other than you were the first of your team to respond . I should have just waited for the teacher to show up. His student isn't really that capable .
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
Nothing about this " bothers me " in the least, as there is nothing to be " bothered by " with your type of God, which is the point of this thread . I just find your claim that you have disproven atheism, which is in reality a disbelief in supernatural gods , by simply calling the natural world God , to be laughable . It's a little like arguing your have disproven the Denver Broncos being the world champions of football because you showed that Germany won the World Cup .
But the topic of THIS thread is not your semantical manner of trying to insist your God exists , but rather what it matters IF one admits to it for the sake of moving past your one dimensional argument .
Care to try and addressing the actual topic of the OP and move past your misplaced braggadocio about proving a type of God no one really cares about ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Yes. That was the point and I forgot it. So what? Well Gldnrule answered that. Atheism is scuppered. We all become sortagod -agnostics, not that the term is appropriate to someone who is now convinced.
Then what? Well, no more than knowing about black holes and quantum mechanics. It doesn't change anything much. Anthony Flew was convinced to become a non -religious theist. It didn't change his views on organized religion.
I say my perception of GOD is "ALL THE MATTER/ENERGY THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED".
Then I get, "Even if I agreed with this claim, so what? What effect does it have?"
How can anyone ask, "What effect does it have?", about ALL THE MATTER/ENERGY THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED"?!!!
I you were to accept that...then is it not necessarily responsible for anything & everything that has ever happened, ever?!
From the workings of each atom and smallest particle...to the formation of the billions of galaxies, every thought & feeling, every instinctive action by any creature, etc, etc, etc? Every occurance...no matter what or when.
EVERYTHING is everything!!
ALL the matter & energy, EVER! You get what that would entail, right?! It entails EV-ERY-THING!!
THAT is why it is "GOD" to me! Ya dig?!
Yet I get the questions..."What does it do? What difference does it make?".
Wow...talk about "Not getting it"!
So what you're saying is that the difference is reverence.
Nice of you to change my words again, like you usually do, but no I never said that at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
That's clear. I'm working on that as much as I can. Be patient; I am.
Keep at it then, more work needed from you here.
No question, but to be honest I cannot put my finger on any regular poster here who is a panentheist and not a pantheist. Perhaps you can point a few out?[/quote]
It was there. The definition required providing background. It was in no way a thinly-veiled anything. It was a comprehensive answer to your question, constructed based on presumed respect for your ability to understand more than a sound bite. Please go back and read the whole thing for understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
Supreme value it is then?
The words typically used are "ultimate value". "Supreme value" came from a definition someone else posted. It serves well enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
So then how ought one revere everything? How does one go about serving everything?
And when you seriously ask those question, with an intention to actually come to that understanding, it's available to you from many resources, not the least of which is my religion. Is it easy, like being a Catholic? No. As you've noted, without the artificial boundaries on concern that people two thousand years ago crafted to ensure the religion they created would be acceptable to the general order of peasantry to whom they were trying to sell their religion, it becomes much more of a challenge. Abrahamic religion, with its supernatural deus ex machina crutches, are like doing algebra, while a pantheistic religion that worships, effectively, reality - that's like doing calculus and topology. It is not about memorizing by rote the rituals and patterns of behaviors set forth millennia ago, but rather learning how to derive such things from first principles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
And what utility does that have in daily life...to quite literally...revere everything?
Quite a lot, but the fact that you're asking that question even after reading my earlier messages in this thread (which I linked to in another thread as an answer to the very question you're asking here) indicates that you aren't willing to even acknowledge that your question has been answered, much less accept the answer. So how do we get you the answer that you are seeking, given that? What approach could be used? What means by which will you be willing to accept that there is an answer to that question?
After that first question, you asked a lot of vital questions, by the way. One of the cute pseudo-maxims that has developed in our religion over the last couple of hundred years is this one: "All answers questioned here." Unlike the Abrahamic religions, which are artificially crafted and therefore artificially bounded (yet are still rife with inconsistency), a true pantheistic religion embraces the unknown and the unknowable. So for many of the questions you have, the answer will be, "Gosh that's an interesting question. What are you thoughts about it?" No ministers or bishops or rabbis or popes that supposedly have all the answers, but rather a healthy respect for the never-ending search for truth and meaning, that some of the other questions you asked evoke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
More semantic games.
More self-ratifying abject disrespect for the beliefs and values you personally don't agree with. Congratulations, you're a fundamentalist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
Come on...have you really considered the absurdity of pan(en)theism before?
Have you really considered the absurdity of asking a question and imposing the answer you want to hear? Have you really considered the absurdity of talking past people while trying to make it seem like you're honestly interested in having a discussion with them? And most of all... Have you really considered the absurdity of expecting people to abide your minority view about religion when you're unwilling to abide their view about religion?
People have a particular common understanding of what "god" and "everything" mean. Conflating the meaning of the two simply creates heat (or confusion) rather than light.
The conflation is hardwired into society, itself: It took me two minutes to pull these together, from standard Christian forums:
God is life.
God is love.
God is creation.
God is goodness.
That last one is what we're talking about here, and really encompasses the others. God is, in the minds of most American, goodness, itself. It isn't that God has goodness, but rather that God is goodness. So if you have goodness, then you must have God. And we're not talking about their religion - we're just talking about society's understanding of the words of its languages. The meaning of words isn't what a dictionary says - it is what the society that uses those words says that meaning is.
That's why Americans don't truth atheists. You proclaim that you're godless (i.e., without goodness). Of course, that's not really what you mean, but your dogmatic behaviors drive you directly into that brick wall, and fundamentalism precludes you from realizing and acknowledging that it is your own error that did the damage.
So, again, if you want to deliberately set yourself apart as a pariah, so you can cry incessantly about being oppressed by a society that doesn't understand you, go for it. But recognize that it is your choice to be misunderstood, in the interest of some fundamentalist atheist dogma that prompts you to fear (yes, fear) reverence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
The very fact that he actually resorts to arguing that "god" is a good word because it has few letters, demonstrates either spectacular ignorance or spectacular evasion.
It was mirroring the absurdity of the inane comment to which I was replying, within which Martin said, "if I can use a single word to mean exactly the same thing..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
He will doubtless want to know what word we would use for "that which is of supreme value".
Not really. You, as atheists, don't get to determine what words have what meanings in the minds and hearts of the members of society. You can talk about pedantic matters, and quibble about what words fit best in an intellectual treatise, but in society you have no standing to dictate anything. Society will do as it will regardless of your insistence.
By the way, your attributions for that comment you posted were totally off. You had me quoted as saying something that was actually posted by another, in opposition to what I was saying.
I just find your claim that you have disproven atheism, which is in reality a disbelief in supernatural gods ...
Again, you are mistaken. Atheism is a disbelief in gods in general, supernatural or natural. If you continue to deliberately blind yourself to the actual, operational meaning of words when used in our society, you're going to have a very hard time understanding the replies to the comments you make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
by simply calling the natural world God , to be laughable
And that's also probably going to hamstring your ability to understand the replies to the comments you make: You have such a deep, self-ratifying preconceived notion of the inconsequential nature of anything contrary to what you clearly want to believe, that it'll take far more to help you understand that is possible in the context of an online discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
But the topic of THIS thread is not your semantical manner of trying to insist your God exists , but rather what it matters IF one admits to it for the sake of moving past your one dimensional argument .
How do you expect to get anything out of the thread, other than a platform for expressing vacuous intolerance for anything other than subjugating one's self to your personal opinions, if you insist on regarding as "semantics" not just any comment but any and all comments at the core of the question you're asking, itself? Your doing so reduces your creating of this thread to just trolling.
Nice of you to change my words again, like you usually do, but no I never said that at all.
It was simple logic. I could diagram it for you if we ever happen to meet.
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.
