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.
You still haven't explained why your version of God matters. If it is no more than the Universe, then as we have been saying over and over again, all you have done is relabeled the Universe and call it God. Whoopee.... Congrats....
It still remains, however, that your version of God is a big fat nothing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Wrong. There was no such distinction between natural and supernatural. That is a creation of the scientists who feared religious persecution. The distinction remains an artificial one to this day. There is no such thing as the supernatural, just what we do not currently understand, as it always was.Only in your unsupportable and unsupported opinion since we STILL do not have a clue WHAT our reality is or WHY it is and "We do not know" is NOT a basis for ANY such definitive assertions. Get a clue.
Atheists are great at using the intrinsically flawed "We do not know" premise...and taking all kinds of illogical positions, making all kinds of unreasonable determinations, and drawing all kinds of failed conclusions off of it.
It's the very basis of the whole Atheist concept!
The "Jeff Spicoli" logical basis for your ideology..."I don't know!". Cool.
Apparently none of which you have a legitimate reply for, which is perhaps why you chose to cravenly post a reply to the whole message instead of addressing the points I made. It is a shame you're unable or unwilling to engage in the discussion with integrity and instead insist on playing these foolish games to get some visceral thrill from express rude disrespect for that which you refuse to understand. Perhaps pointless and baseless rude disrespect is a ritual of your religion. If so, I guess we would have to respect it, but if so do confirm it so we can better understand your behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
No, observation does not . If science had developed before religion, religion would likely have never existed, as religion developed as a way for pre-scientific peoples to cope with unexplainable things about their existence , from death to birth to earthquakes to disease to drought and so on . Had these things been understood scientifically before religion, no such thing would have come about as a means for trying to understand the universe .
This is simply not the case. Religion would still have existed, though perhaps it would have evolved a bit later. Rev. Forrest Church taught that religion is [in part] our human response to the dual reality of being alive and having to die. He offered no pretense that we could make up some objectively true explanation for why, but rather just the recognition that it is a reality we need to (literally) make sense of, ourselves. I wasn't put here by some old man with a white beard to do what I do in life; I've made meaning out of my life, myself, and more importantly, made meaning in support of something greater than myself.
This is the true purpose of religion - so that the meaning we inevitably have to make for ourselves (even atheists do it, despite their vacuous claims to the contrary) are not exclusively self-serving - so society isn't a pit within which people wallow in self-centeredness, reveling in progressing by-way-of stepping over the bodies of those they've beaten (an attitude we've seen expressed by some fundamentalist atheists in the forum, this very week).
Apparently none of which you have a legitimate reply for, which is perhaps why you chose to cravenly post a reply to the whole message instead of addressing the points I made. It is a shame you're unable or unwilling to engage in the discussion with integrity and instead insist on playing these foolish games to get some visceral thrill from express rude disrespect for that which you refuse to understand. Perhaps pointless and baseless rude disrespect is a ritual of your religion. If so, I guess we would have to respect it, but if so do confirm it so we can better understand your behavior .
Integrity on a discussion board would be answering questions openly and honestly when someone engages you. I have done so, unless you'd like to point out the missing inquiries you have for me.
But once again you have chosen to evade giving your working definition of "greater". It's really not a trick question. And again I'll ask that you feel free to link, quote, or provide the post # where you specifically defined that term.
Another solution for you is to simply state you aren't sure what you mean by that, if that's the case. That would actually be demonstrating some level of integrity as well, which your personal attacks have undermined severely.
Integrity on a discussion board would be answering questions openly and honestly when someone engages you. I have done so, unless you'd like to point out the missing inquiries you have for me.
Within the message to which you replied "So many words," there was one direct question and many implied. I pointed out a lot of previous posting behavior that lacked integrity, for which you have not either apologized or otherwise rectified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
But once again you have chosen to evade giving your working definition of "greater".
False. You simply refused to acknowledge the answers you don't like for which you cannot come up with legitimate response, another debt of integrity you owe to the discussion.
^In fairness I pointed out some of your posting behavior that lacked integrity too, and you also neither apologized nor rectified it, another debt of integrity you owe to the discussion. It is amazing in our species how the behaviors many most often lament in others tend to be ones they heavily engage in themselves.
Within the message to which you replied "So many words," there was one direct question and many implied. I pointed out a lot of previous posting behavior that lacked integrity, for which you have not either apologized or otherwise rectified.
False. You simply refused to acknowledge the answers you don't like for which you cannot come up with legitimate response, another debt of integrity you owe to the discussion.
So you expect to receive answers despite not providing them. And then you insist that I ought to apologize for behavior you actually engaged in.
You arent owed an apology, and nor do you demonstrate intellectual integrity in my view....I'll try to explain why. Because you see...my remarks, which clearly offended you...were about the absurdity of ideas and beliefs. Your remarks....which I've pointed out to you.....are about the absurdity of a person. While I attack notions, you attack people. And when you are called out on that, you try to switch positions and insist that attacking people is justified because they deserve it for attacking notions you cling to. It is irrelevant if the person agrees with the notion or believes the polar opposite.
Now because I actually do value integrity, I will answer your only question which I did put aside in the hopes to not distract away from the question you want to avoid answering.
Explanatory power or purpose, as I used it, means that believing in the thing (in this case, pantheism) provides a framework which explains real things. So for instance, believing the Genesis story explains how the world exists for someone that believes it. So it is relevant to ask such a question to a pantheist because I see no explanatory power behind calling everythin, god.
^In fairness I pointed out some of your posting behavior that lacked integrity too, and you also neither apologized nor rectified it, another debt of integrity you owe to the discussion. It is amazing in our species how the behaviors many most often lament in others tend to be ones they heavily engage in themselves.
He projects his own misdeeds onto others, I've observed. He probably doesn't mean to or think that he does, but he is likely flustered at having to defend his beliefs under scrutiny and not putting his best self on display.
Come on, try actually reading what he says. He is saying that YOU have renamed what we already had a name for - God - long before science reared its head in rebellion to autocratic religious authority, not the other way around.
Oh, I read it just fine, Mystic. You and Gldn are welcome to say that. I have no problem with you saying that, in fact, but you can't use dictionary definitions (which your follower does) and then say that the dictionary definition doesn't work when it goes against you. Unless you are a hypocrite, of course, then you can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
whats it matter is a personal opinion. Weather it is there or not isn't. Observation says its more likely that it is there.
Grammar is your friend, Arach.
The point is, observation shows that the Universe is there, absolutely. It does not, however, show that the Universe is God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
Even if this is admitted to, and I'm not going to bother debating a pointless point , it doesn't equate with there being " something" beyond the natural physical realm . What you describe would be part of the natural universe , not something spiritual or metaphysical , which is what SB was referring to .
So try again .
Exactly, my friend! Now prove that this is somehow part of a cosmic "do nothing" God, and then we will debate. Until then, as you said, it is a pointless point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
Except that the term God was used in the typical majority sense of something supernatural , and so when it was found that the supernatural was not needed to explain the universe the term associated with the supernatural was correctly changed to a more accurate term .
That the early scientists were hindered by an inability to conceive how things could work without God does not bind us to continue on in their error . In order for the proto-science of the early religious scientists to become a truly scientific endeavor the quasi science of the early religiously minded scientists had to be abandoned and left behind . And true science is much the better for it .
Again, correct my friend!
Things change over time, and some people are just incapable of seeing that, or understanding that. Obviously, the early scientists and primitive people did not have access to the same things we do now, so of course they perceived things differently. They also thought the world was flat, slavery was okay, women were property..... ahhh, you get the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Atheists are great at using the intrinsically flawed "We do not know" premise...and taking all kinds of illogical positions, making all kinds of unreasonable determinations, and drawing all kinds of failed conclusions off of it.
It's the very basis of the whole Atheist concept!
The "Jeff Spicoli" logical basis for your ideology..."I don't know!". Cool.
Ahh yes, because it is so much more logical to say, "We don't know, therefore God!!!"
Ahh yes, because it is so much more logical to say, "We don't know, therefore God!!!"
I never said that I didn’t know. I do. My position is fully informed.
It is the Atheists that say they "don't know"...then make determinations based on that premise.
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.
