The R&S Pantheism Thread (verses, society, myth, atheist)
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 see the massacre of the innocent straw people continues.
No, this is what YOU are doing.
Wrong. And I can prove it.
I have no problem with the title "GOD" being reasonably and validly assigned to any entity that comports definitively, based upon the definitions and meanings provided by those sources known to be experts sources at providing such.
There ya go...now expert 3rd party sources make the determination of what/who can be meritoriously titled "GOD".
Not what I think God is or should/must be...not what you think God is or should/must be...not what Joe Schmoe or Jane Doe think God is or should/must be.
Let 3rd party experts make that call.
Will you, et al, accept that? I will.
For people like trans its definitely not about bashing. To me anyway His intentions are noble, stop irrational beliefs from driving man into the dirt. Its just that many recovering and scarred people have phobia's at this point. Much like my phobia of gin that originated in like '77 with ted nugent.
Your god does not disprove atheism to me. Your type of thinking is how atheist think. Look around, see whats going on, form a belief to match those events. Some atheist go into religion and spirituality forum to fight religion using no-god as a weapon.
Of course, like religions, we have fundy think types. And misguided notions that religion is the cause of this evil. Just like some people think it causes the good (Hey nate ...look at that ... anther line of logic that shows how wrong you are ...again), And the improper step of thinking "its because of belief". when really its about how we form beliefs. to me that is.
Here is where I agree with VB. Its a total lack of understanding self.
You may be correct...but their phobias must be as bad and deep-seated as it gets...and has almost completely consumed them.
People do not fight in opposition of something with that kinda effort & dedication, for that long, otherwise.
You may be correct...but their phobias must be as bad and deep-seated as it gets...and has almost completely consumed them.
People do not fight in opposition of something with that kinda effort & dedication, for that long, otherwise.
oh yeah ... I even smell gin and I get sick. Thats MORE THAN forty years later. Can you imagine if I was forced to drink it for years even after I said I don't like it?
They are copmpleltly and utterly controlled by theism. They cannot think on their own. They can not step out of their personal statements of belief about god. Just, I mean exactly, like fundy theist can't. They think exactly the same.
Wrong. And I can prove it. I have no problem with the title "GOD" being reasonably and validly assigned to any entity that comports definitively, based upon the definitions and meanings provided by those sources known to be experts sources at providing such.
There ya go...now expert 3rd party sources make the determination of what/who can be meritoriously titled "GOD".
Not what I think God is or should/must be...not what you think God is or should/must be...not what Joe Schmoe or Jane Doe think God is or should/must be.
Let 3rd party experts make that call.
Will you, et al, accept that? I will.
exactly the point.
We are on a forum looking at beliefs and how they are, or are not, consistent with observations to sort them out.
How do people that think anything, out side of no deity to stop religion, skew the conversation? And how would it look if its actively planning to do it? Knowingly telling people, "we understand that people believe things, but could you not talk about them while we are fighting religion? Just heel. Please. We are helping you too.
Wrong. And I can prove it.
I have no problem with the title "GOD" being reasonably and validly assigned to any entity that comports definitively, based upon the definitions and meanings provided by those sources known to be experts sources at providing such.
There ya go...now expert 3rd party sources make the determination of what/who can be meritoriously titled "GOD".
Not what I think God is or should/must be...not what you think God is or should/must be...not what Joe Schmoe or Jane Doe think God is or should/must be.
Let 3rd party experts make that call.
Will you, et al, accept that? I will.
Repeating your lame arguments does not address the post your are responding to, although it ironically supports it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
You may be correct...but their phobias must be as bad and deep-seated as it gets...and has almost completely consumed them.
People do not fight in opposition of something with that kinda effort & dedication, for that long, otherwise.
Your inability to consider other positions than 'phobia' shows a lack of critical thinking, as does the inability of others to understand the difference between an OR and an AND condition. But that is often a problem with theist level thinking.
Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 03-12-2021 at 04:12 AM..
Reason: Spelling
You may be correct...but their phobias must be as bad and deep-seated as it gets...and has almost completely consumed them.
People do not fight in opposition of something with that kinda effort & dedication, for that long, otherwise.
they can't process looking at the word god. Its like a person looking at a web that has arach-no-phobia. Or is that no-arach-phobia? they see the web and nothing else matters. They are gripped in fear. Critical thinking skills can separate the "the fear of spiders, in Australia it would be totally acceptable, and the beauty of the spider as a life form.
There are truly critical thinkers, I call them, free thinkers, that can understand how natures works and smush the spider with regret. They can describe the spider in full and understand why we keep them out of our houses. People with phobia's self justify their actions fairly easily. And when in a group of them ... look out. Rational, free thinking, using science, is severely put down.
They hide it, by seeking scarred and recovering people, and by wrapping it in noble causes. "Its ok to believe, but keep it quite, don't question us, they out numbers us, and are a bigger problem, so join us and don't slow us down. In a political forum ... I would even agree."
The red flag "its divisive to question us." Any form of that.
When we list what people say, side by side ... that usually lifts the fog. Thats why they fight so hard to keep that from happening. People will believe in some thing because all the data points to it. That scares the no ba jesus out of them.
They said it themselves. "The word god has so much baggage it should be removed". Thats fine. then leave the other parts of rational beliefs.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 03-12-2021 at 04:13 AM..
Repeating your lame arguments does not address the post your are responding to, although it ironically supports it.
Your inability to consider other positions than 'phobia' shows a lack of critical thinking, as does the inability of others to understand the difference between an OR and an AND condition. But that is often a problem with theist level thinking.
Ah, yes...the "your lame argument" rebuttal.
The one typically given when they know they have no legit rebuttal.
Answer the question: Are you willing to accept as legitimate all the meaning and definitions of the title "God" as provided by known 3rd party experts at providing those meaning...and accept as a God Entity anything or anyone that comports?
I claimed that you, et al, were narrowly defining "God", based upon your own biased preferences. You claimed it was me doing that.
So, as always...I am willing to accept all the experts meanings and definitions.
And you? Or do you insist on dictating how "God" is defined?
AA, are you saying atheists are gripped by fear? Arach.no.phobia was clever.
some atheist. Not all. In fact, I say most aren't. I basically look at people. I look at how experts in the field classify people. I then make a table and predict how people would express their beliefs based on what the experts say. Since we are in a forum for religion and spirituality, I do atheist and theist.
Ah, yes...the "your lame argument" rebuttal.
The one typically given when they know they have no legit rebuttal.
Answer the question: Are you willing to accept as legitimate all the meaning and definitions of the title "God" as provided by known 3rd party experts at providing those meaning...and accept as a God Entity anything or anyone that comports?
I claimed that you, et al, were narrowly defining "God", based upon your own biased preferences. You claimed it was me doing that.
So, as always...I am willing to accept all the experts meanings and definitions.
And you? Or do you insist on dictating how "God" is defined?
No. Because some of those human usages are waggish or even ironic.
'His belly is his god and every day he sacrifices burnt offerings to it' (P.G Wodehouse)
This is a waggish or ironic use of the word as little more than metaphor, as in the most important thing or a metaphor for the workings of physics.
Quite apart from the equivocation - fiddle of god being the claimed creator as well as 'evolution' (including chemical) being the reason we are here, therefor an evolved universe is 'God'.
Thus, your attempt to set up a semantic swindle is busted, old son.
Just as your string of posts with Arach, swapping canards to lacquer over your tatty and threadbare prejudice against atheism.
And you can spare us the denial, abuse and posturing. Nobody is buying it.
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.