If a pantheistic God were admitted to .... (difference, atheists, explanation)
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.
Quite obviously your one dimensional argument is incapable of moving past regurgitating the same old tired semantics crap of the past and dealing with the topic of this thread .
With yet another failure on your part you can be dismissed as having anything substantive to post about this topic .
It had and has been answered...many times.
You just don't like the answer...or are unable to "get it".
It isn't "semantics"...that is just the only bogus and impotent rebuttal you can claim.
Still waiting for what you have to substantively contest the known, expert definition.
If it is actually "semantics", as you claim...you must have that rebuttal.
You made the claim...now back it up.
You need to have a point before it can be proven again.
no, I addressed the point clearly but you don't like the fact that I didn't say pantheist has to be pointless to all people. I tried to explain to you that some things are "pointless" and other things are not "pointless" to different people. I used sports, rock garden, ort cloud, and dark matter as examples.
That is helpful actually, thanks mordant. It might sound odd, but I'm not aware of anybody that I've met or talked with being UU. Nor could I recall seeing a UU church (or whatever name they use for congregations). And I have to admit that, embarrassingly enough, I don't think I realized UU was pantheistic prior to this thread...though maybe I knew that somewhere at some point in my life.
Unitarian Universalism is not credal. Many UUs are pantheists. As many are atheists. There are a good number of UU Christians. UU churches often also provide a spiritual home and church family for Buddhists, pagans, etc., especially where they are too sparse to foster their own religious houses of worship. Having said that, most UU I know are agnostics or humanists - mostly folks who consider as unimportant the particulars that we're discussing here.
Please don't churlishly claim later that I haven't given you an outline of the broad nature of different UU theologies.
It had and has been answered...many times.
You just don't like the answer...or are unable to "get it".
It isn't "semantics"...that is just the only bogus and impotent rebuttal you can claim.
Still waiting for what you have to substantively contest the known, expert definition.
If it is actually "semantics", as you claim...you must have that rebuttal.
You made the claim...now back it up.
How about you try this, Gldn. Actually answering the questions in the OP.
Even if we were to admit to your version of "god", what would it matter? How would our lives be changed? How does your version of "god" differ from simply the known universe?
It had and has been answered...many times.
You just don't like the answer...or are unable to "get it".
It isn't "semantics"...that is just the only bogus and impotent rebuttal you can claim.
Still waiting for what you have to substantively contest the known, expert definition.
If it is actually "semantics", as you claim...you must have that rebuttal.
You made the claim...now back it up.
As SB pointed out, I didn't start this thread to merely get the same old claims from you . The point of the OP is not whether your version exists , but what it matters if one accepts it and moves away from agnosticism to pantheism. Either you can move forward to that topic or you aren't capable of doing so , in which case you can be ignored as irrelevant .
no, I addressed the point clearly but you don't like the fact that I didn't say pantheist has to be pointless to all people. I tried to explain to you that some things are "pointless" and other things are not "pointless" to different people. I used sports, rock garden, ort cloud, and dark matter as examples.
btw ... thanks again.
And I never claimed pantheism was pointless for all people . I asked what point would there be if an agnostic agreed with the pantheist definition . As has been shown, there would be none, hence its pointlessness . This in no way demands that pantheists should give up pantheism, just that their definition has no meaning for non pantheists and doing as a couple of pantheists here demand and agreeing that their definition is correct would not matter in the least . An agnostic and a pantheist see the universe the same , they just use different terms to describe it .
You've tried to explain a lot of silly things , but you never seem to get the point being made prior to making your claims of alive space and Oort clouds .
I agree that pantheists have the right to believe and that they can find what meaning they want in it . Do you agree that agnostics have the right to not accept pantheism as a concrete fact ?
How about you try this, Gldn. Actually answering the questions in the OP.
Even if we were to admit to your version of "god", what would it matter? How would our lives be changed? How does your version of "god" differ from simply the known universe?
You make the claim, now YOU back it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
As SB pointed out, I didn't start this thread to merely get the same old claims from you . The point of the OP is not whether your version exists , but what it matters if one accepts it and moves away from agnosticism to pantheism. Either you can move forward to that topic or you aren't capable of doing so , in which case you can be ignored as irrelevant .
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.
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.
As to the bold, that does not tell us what it would matter to those who were to accept your definition of it. They would still think the same, and you would still think the same. Nothing would change. Therefore, as wallflash has pointed out, it is pointless.
You still haven't explained how your version is different from that which we already know. Calling something God does not make it God, and neither does playing word games. What is the difference between your God, and the known Universe? If there is no difference, then we are simply calling something known by two different names. This would change nothing, and would not make atheism null and void. That is simply your wishful thinking.
Not to mention, nowhere have I (or most other atheists/agnostics/non believers) said that there is ZERO chance of ANY God, rather, we just don't see the evidence for one. Before you bring out your normal nonsense about EVERYTHING OBJECTIVELY EXISTS, EVERYTHING =GOD, THEREFORE GOD EXISTS, that just doesn't work for me. Everything = Everything. I have no need to call it God. I know you have some weird deep seated psychological need to believe in a God, but some of us do not have that problem.
As to the bold, that does not tell us what it would matter to those who were to accept your definition of it. They would still think the same, and you would still think the same. Nothing would change. Therefore, as wallflash has pointed out, it is pointless.
You still haven't explained how your version is different from that which we already know. Calling something God does not make it God, and neither does playing word games. What is the difference between your God, and the known Universe? If there is no difference, then we are simply calling something known by two different names. This would change nothing, and would not make atheism null and void. That is simply your wishful thinking.
Not to mention, nowhere have I (or most other atheists/agnostics/non believers) said that there is ZERO chance of ANY God, rather, we just don't see the evidence for one. Before you bring out your normal nonsense about EVERYTHING OBJECTIVELY EXISTS, EVERYTHING =GOD, THEREFORE GOD EXISTS, that just doesn't work for me. Everything = Everything. I have no need to call it God. I know you have some weird deep seated psychological need to believe in a God, but some of us do not have that problem.
Just as I thought...you still don't "get it".
It was explained...in detail. But, you either can't or won't understand.
I will try this analogy one last time:
Once one perceives someone as a "friend", and refers to them as such...that doesn't "change" the person they now view as a "friend"...though it could change how that person "matters" to them, in whatever way it might.
That most others do not consider that person their "friend" is inconsequential...and does not mean that since they are unchanged in status to others that the perceiver is now "playing word games" by titling them "friend, or that others lacking the same perception negates them as a "friend" to the perceiver.
By the perception...they are now a "friend", and friends objectively exist...and "matter" in whatever way they "matter" to the perceiver. This is NOT changed by the lack of the same perception in others.
I hope this helps explain how ALL/EVERYTHING manifests as "GOD" to those that perceive it as such...and how the lack of a similar perception by others is inconsequential to that.
BTW...the bogus claim of "playing word games" and "semantic tricks" has yet to be substantively contested by a reasonable rebuttal of the known, expert definition of "G-O-D".
I'm still waiting.
But please don't ever stop making that bogus claim...it is so lame and pathetic it gives me great amusement every time I see that straw grasped at.
Just as I thought...you still don't "get it".
It was explained...in detail. But, you either can't or won't understand.
I will try this analogy one last time:
Once one perceives someone as a "friend", and refers to them as such...that doesn't "change" the person they now view as a "friend"...though it could change how that person "matters" to them, in whatever way it might.
That most others do not consider that person their "friend" is inconsequential...and does not mean that since they are unchanged in status to others that the perceiver is now "playing word games" by titling them "friend, or that others lacking the same perception negates them as a "friend" to the perceiver.
By the perception...they are now a "friend", and friends objectively exist...and "matter" in whatever way they "matter" to the perceiver. This is NOT changed by the lack of the same perception in others.
I hope this helps explain how ALL/EVERYTHING manifests as "GOD" to those that perceive it as such...and how the lack of a similar perception by others is inconsequential to that.
BTW...the bogus claim of "playing word games" and "semantic tricks" has yet to be substantively contested by a reasonable rebuttal of the known, expert definition of "G-O-D".
I'm still waiting.
But please don't ever stop making that bogus claim...it is so lame and pathetic it gives me great amusement every time I see that straw grasped at.
No, my friend, it is you that seems incapable of "getting it".
Your analogy has no bearing on this thread whatsoever. You were asked two distinct questions, and you seem incapable of answering them to any degree that matters.
1)What would accepting the definition do to those who didn't accept it previously? How would their lives change, etc?
Your only answer is, "God would now exist, and "matter" in whatever way they "matter" to the perceiver". Okay, so in other words, it would change nothing, which was the whole point of the thread. The only thing that would change, is that the person would now say the universe is God. They would not perceive anything differently ABOUT the Universe, and it would have no bearing on their lives. You just proved wallflash's point.
2) How does your God differ from the known Universe?
This you haven't answered, because you can't.
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.
