If a pantheistic God were admitted to .... (behavior, principle, philosophical)
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 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.
No, you PRETEND you know, when in reality, you only "know" in your head. That doesn't make it true. Saying it does, does not change the fact that you "know", no more than anyone else does. You simply THINK you know. I know you think your opinion is fact, but that isn't how things work.
Fact is, we don't believe in things there is no evidence before, and you do. So therefore, you don't know, yet believe anyways. You have the same faith as a fundamentalist Christian, only you play more word games, and have nothing but cherry picked definitions and your opinion. No holy book, no evidence. Hell, you can't even tell us what your God supposedly can or can not do. You can't even tell us how it differs from our physical universe.
"But but but, SB, there is evidence for my God!!! He is EVERYTHING AND EVERYTHING EXISTS THEREFORE HE EXISTS!!!"
Blah blah blah, same bull excrement, different day.
No, you PRETEND you know, when in reality, you only "know" in your head. That doesn't make it true. Saying it does, does not change the fact that you "know", no more than anyone else does. You simply THINK you know. I know you think your opinion is fact, but that isn't how things work.
Fact is, we don't believe in things there is no evidence before, and you do. So therefore, you don't know, yet believe anyways. You have the same faith as a fundamentalist Christian, only you play more word games, and have nothing but cherry picked definitions and your opinion. No holy book, no evidence. Hell, you can't even tell us what your God supposedly can or can not do. You can't even tell us how it differs from our physical universe.
"But but but, SB, there is evidence for my God!!! He is EVERYTHING AND EVERYTHING EXISTS THEREFORE HE EXISTS!!!"
Blah blah blah, same bull excrement, different day.
I realize that it bothers you that I know. But that is just your Godophobia flaring up.
That happens to Atheist Fundies. The same way it happens to some Religious Fundies when you mention Same Sex Marriage.
It's basically bias, prejudice, and hatred causing an emotional reaction.
This what causes some to accuse others of doing what they are actually doing themselves...such as cherry-picking definitions.
See...I accept the FULL definition, while you only recognize (cherry-pick) part of it.
Fundies do this "definition redacting" a lot too.
I notice it is most prevalent in what I call "Trans-Fundies". They were Fundies on one side, now they have taken up being a Fundie on the other side. The Religious to Atheist Trans-Fundies typically are the most over-the-top...and are my favorites to debate.
Thanx for that.
^In fairness I pointed out some of your posting behavior that lacked integrity too
We'll have to agree to disagree because I'm not wasting any more time discussing the discussion than is absolutely necessary to keep you honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
So you expect to receive answers despite not providing them.
No. Rather, having provided the answers, I expect you to read them and acknowledge that you've received them, even though you don't agree with them. I expect you to be able to tell the difference between getting answers and liking them. And I expect you to acknowledge that when you ask a question the respondent determines the proper way to express the answer, not you. You're the one asking the question, seeking information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
Because you see...my remarks, which clearly offended you...were about the absurdity of ideas and beliefs.
That's the problem: The ideas and beliefs are not absurd. You just don't like them. Keep in mind that you're rationalizing categorically rejecting pantheism in a thread intended to explain the pantheist perspective. I've told you that it does make sense - logical, evidence-based sense. I've explained how. It doesn't have to make sense to you - you don't have to do the work necessary for that. If you don't wish to, then just maturely agree to disagree.
Integrity includes realizing that just because someone sees something differently doesn't mean that they're wrong. It doesn't mean that they don't make sense. It doesn't mean that there is something wrong with their thinking. Reasonable people disagree with each other without stooping to some of the behavior that we've seen exhibited by some of the more extreme atheists in the forum this week.
Some folks seem to think that whenever they want they can excrete rude disrespect for things that they don't want to understand. Well, not every thread is their latrine. As I've made clear already, if people want to understand, I've provided the information that will help them understand. If people just want to defecate, then they shouldn't expect to be applauded like mommy and daddy applauded them during potty training, but rather called out for their misbehavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
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.
Religion is about the human condition. Religion is about meaning-making. Religion is about morality. Religion is not about geology, cosmology or chemistry.
No. Rather, having provided the answers, I expect you to read them and acknowledge that you've received them, even though you don't agree with them. I expect you to be able to tell the difference between getting answers and liking them. And I expect you to acknowledge that when you ask a question the respondent determines the proper way to express the answer, not you. You're the one asking the question, seeking information.
I like how you believe I am in disagreement with a definition of a word you didn't actually define...as I requested.
Then I asked you what you meant in that context. No really....that is the contention here. A single word is what you refuse to define because_you_did_not_do_that_in_any_other_post_in_t his_thread.
Clear enough for you? Waiting on your linky still. Bet you'll type twice as many words as it would take to reiterate the definition you didn't give, all while figuring out new ways to use sarcasm and insults, which you purport to be against except when it is with people who offend your beliefs. Not you, your beliefs.
Quote:
That's the problem: The ideas and beliefs are not absurd. You just don't like them. Keep in mind that you're rationalizing categorically rejecting pantheism in a thread intended to explain the pantheist perspective. I've told you that it does make sense - logical, evidence-based sense. I've explained how. It doesn't have to make sense to you - you don't have to do the work necessary for that. If you don't wish to, then just maturely agree to disagree.
Integrity includes realizing that just because someone sees something differently doesn't mean that they're wrong. It doesn't mean that they don't make sense. It doesn't mean that there is something wrong with their thinking. Reasonable people disagree with each other without stooping to some of the behavior that we've seen exhibited by some of the more extreme atheists in the forum this week.
Some folks seem to think that whenever they want they can excrete rude disrespect for things that they don't want to understand. Well, not every thread is their latrine. As I've made clear already, if people want to understand, I've provided the information that will help them understand. If people just want to defecate, then they shouldn't expect to be applauded like mommy and daddy applauded them during potty training, but rather called out for their misbehavior.
You did explain your take on pantheism. And you did explain you don't find it absurd. Good on you & I never said you did not. Go back & read every post I wrote to you...each of them request what "greater" means to you (which you never explained). I didn't ask for your take on pantheism.
I don't agree with your assessment that calling something absurd is crude. "Disrespectful"? Perhaps, but I'm not obligated to "respect" pantheism any more than you are obligated to respect right wing politics. The key distinction here is that pantheism & politics are philosophical constructs/frameworks whereas people are not. So scrutinizing the construct is perfectly fair game, whereas attacking the person is crude (or abuse as you & TZ like to say) and shows a lack of integrity. You are a habitual abuser here bud...by the TZ's standard of Forum Decorumâ„¢...even if thats not who you think you are.
Quote:
Religion is about the human condition. Religion is about meaning-making. Religion is about morality. Religion is not about geology, cosmology or chemistry.
And perhaps if you can ever get past your insecurities, hypocrisies, and defensiveness...I'd be more curious about why you feel you need religion for any of those things.
I realize that it bothers you that I know. But that is just your Godophobia flaring up.
That happens to Atheist Fundies. The same way it happens to some Religious Fundies when you mention Same Sex Marriage.
It's basically bias, prejudice, and hatred causing an emotional reaction.
This what causes some to accuse others of doing what they are actually doing themselves...such as cherry-picking definitions.
See...I accept the FULL definition, while you only recognize (cherry-pick) part of it.
Fundies do this "definition redacting" a lot too.
I notice it is most prevalent in what I call "Trans-Fundies". They were Fundies on one side, now they have taken up being a Fundie on the other side. The Religious to Atheist Trans-Fundies typically are the most over-the-top...and are my favorites to debate.
Thanx for that.
You make this claim of Godophobia repeatedly , in large part because you simply have nothing of substance to offer in the way of intelligent discourse, but please explain something . Exactly what about your version of God is there to be phobic of ? Your God is the universe , the same universe atheists already live and operate in, so what do you think there is to fear about your version? You keep making this claim, so offer up some evidence that your version is feared and phobic of .
I like how you believe I am in disagreement with a definition of a word you didn't actually define...as I requested.
Of course I made very clear what the words meant. You're again refusing to acknowledge what I've written because you don't like it. Acknowledge it and move on. You apparently want to own the thread and have it conform to your preconceived notions. Tough. No one is here to stroke you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
And perhaps if you can ever get past your insecurities, hypocrisies, and defensiveness...
And stop with the personal attacks. Address the topic. Not the poster.
Of course I made very clear what the words meant. You're again refusing to acknowledge what I've written because you don't like it. Acknowledge it and move on. You apparently want to own the thread and have it conform to your preconceived notions. Tough. No one is here to stroke you.
Don't like what exactly? I don't like your evasion, that is true. But you've refused to put forth the miniscule amount of substance I asked for.
Either you can answer it or not. Hiding behind "go read a bunch of words which don't even include the key word" is a cop out. And if I'm wrong....all you have to do is quote, link, or reference the post #. Again you'll evade this for reasons which seem bizarre to me.
Quote:
And stop with the personal attacks. Address the topic. Not the poster.
You certainly enjoy that card. But I'm afraid you are once again exhibiting those behaviors.
I've been trying to get a simple definition of "greater" for the past 5 pages or so.
It doesn't seem either one can be explained by those purporting it.
I am afraid that you simply aren't a member of the club with its special definitions and secret handshakes, Martin. Evangelicals want to convince you but are incapable of providing anything convincing. Liberals don't even want to convince you.
It may be helpful to realize that the UU "church" is not creedal, but covenantal. If you ask them what they mean by a particular teaching or practice, you are apt to just get it thrown back at you and asked what YOU think it means. Because in general they are honestly unwilling to say. It is (in theory at least) up to you. They would say something along the lines that they teach meta-principles which you can use to derive your own spirituality.
The example given to me in one of their adult ed classes is they have this ritual of candle-lighting (excuse me, it's a chalice, not a candle -- *koff*). Light the chalice at the start of a service or meeting and snuff it out afterwards. And that means whatever you decide it means. Or as their web site puts it:
Quote:
The flaming chalice combines two archetypes—a drinking vessel and a flame—and as a religious symbol has different meanings to different beholders.
So my mind would fasten on it as symbolic of coming together as a community, yours might have some other interpretation such as that it's just a simple signal that the meeting has started or ended.
That's the primary source of the "whatever people believe is valid and so must be honored and deferred to or you are being rude" vibe. And while it has some positive aspects it does spare them the bother of explaining themselves or taking particular stands. I don't judge it but I'm not sure I buy it either.
So some of what you are encountering in not being able to get a simple definition of terms is cultural.
But, nah, some of it is just elitist. There is of necessity tacit agreement about what "greater" means somewhere in the UU universe but if you have to ask it's just not for you to know. The very asking is gauche.
The inside joke as I understand it is that the Unitarian/Universalist merger was not a merger of equals. One group was more working class and felt god was too good to judge man, the other felt that man was too good for god to judge. I'm guessing the latter group tends to dominate.
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.
