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.
This line of discussion has to be understood in context. Mystic has proclaimed to atheists he has proven god exists, because he defines god as simply the universe .At least for debate purposes. He believes in more than this with regards to his own personal god, so he doesn't even apply his definition to himself. He then proceeds to claim that atheists are willfully lying, because he has proven god exists. So my list of attributes must be understood as a response to all of this from Mystic. Most people define god as more than 2 minimum bare bones attributes, and it is against this fuller definition of god that atheists debate. Mystic simply wants to force everyone to agree with his definition. I am merely pointing out that his definition is a meaninglessness and irrelevant sort of god, and one that even Mystic does not limit himself to, although he demands atheists do so when debating god, because if god is merely the physical universe then we know that exists, so atheists have been disproven. This is Mystics only purpose, to craft a definition that atheists can't deny, regardless of how meaninglessness this nothing type of god is.
I think you typed your post as I was typing mine above.
Quote:
Most people define god as more than 2 minimum bare bones attributes, and it is against this fuller definition of god that atheists debate.
Do they? I'm open to all kinds of debate. I'm not restricted to any single parameters of how god is defined.
Again, I do not think that Mystics worldview is meaningless to him.
Mystic in the way that he writes, does have a way of seeming to appear that his worldview is THE worldview, but actually it is just his worldview and I see it from that perspective.
Many Atheists on this board claim (even relate personal accounts of it) they encounter Religious that tell them they are going to burn in hell...but, meanwhile, I have rarely, if ever, seen the Religious on this board actually do that.
HMMMMMMM...something strange about that.
I have. There was a prolific poster not so long ago, that was practically the only thing he ever talked about. Can't remember his name now. I think he was a little cuckoo honestly. But he was here for quite a while.
You are confusing two different things that Mystic has claimed over the years, his personal beliefs and his debate version. They are different . The version he and I have been debating is meaningless to him. He doesn't limit himself to it. Panentheism sees a god beyond the mere physical world, usually possessing the minimum attributes I gave. Hinduism is panentheistic . So is Eastern Orthodoxy. Mystic envisions a conscious god that he meets in meditation, and that apparently saw men as sinful, and because of this sent Christ to save men. But the god Mystic proclaims in debates with atheists is merely one that has created us , even if by evolution , and provided for us. Thats it. No consciousness, no immortality, nothing else . And thats it because if he adds more than this he knows he cannot claim the universe as god and claim to have proven god to atheists.
Do not confuse Mystics beliefs with this debate. They are not the same thing. This debate is about Mystic trying to insist god only needs two attributes to be god, having created us and providing resources for us to live by. And its sole purpose is as a debate tactic with atheists.
I think i understand what you are saying.
Are you talking about Mystics belief in panentheism that goes alongside his belief in Christianity?
If so I also find those conflicting. But I guess he has it all worked out in his head to make them work together.
I do disagree though that his beliefs are only a debate tactic.
Nobody can be on a forum for a decade purely to play devils advocate so to speak. They have to really believe what they are saying.
Are you talking about Mystics belief in panentheism that goes alongside his belief in Christianity?
If so I also find those conflicting. But I guess he has it all worked out in his head to make them work together.
I do disagree though that his beliefs are only a debate tactic.
Nobody can be on a forum for a decade purely to play devils advocate so to speak. They have to really believe what they are saying.
I'm saying Mystic posits two different gods here in his debates. This confuses the situation some. In his personal private belief he seems to hold to a quasi Christian panentheistic god who sent Christ to save humans from their sin, whom he meets in meditation.
When he debates atheists he argues he has disproven atheism , but if you explore it with him you find that he , for this second version, is defining god as merely the physical universe , which is something that is God " relative to us" ( Mystics own words) because this god, the physical universe, has created us and provides for us. Mystic chooses to deny any other attributes for this god because he knows he cannot prove the physical universe has any other godlike attributes beyond these two, and claiming to have proven god in debates with atheists is the only point to this second definition.
Mystic debates with the second version, but believes in the first version. I do believe that he sincerely believes in the first version. I merely point out that the second version is something he has created as a debate tactic with atheists. And it is the second version he and I have been debating here.
I have. There was a prolific poster not so long ago, that was practically the only thing he ever talked about. Can't remember his name now. I think he was a little cuckoo honestly. But he was here for quite a while.
This is a discussion forum and lots of people debate all sorts of topics. In this section of the forum, lots of people debate religious topics, so it wouldn't surprise me if there are a few goobers out there on either extreme (which I've seen). I mean, there are extremes of every sort and they're often pretty strident and inflammatory about their beliefs.
Personally I think it's sad but oh well.
I also think it's counterproductive and often distasteful - from any camp.
The meds actually do something that can be replicated in others and understood. Prayer? Not so much. Realistically, what is the difference of outcome of either talking to oneself and prayer?
I'm saying Mystic posits two different gods here in his debates. This confuses the situation some. In his personal private belief he seems to hold to a quasi Christian panentheistic god who sent Christ to save humans from their sin, whom he meets in meditation.
When he debates atheists he argues he has disproven atheism , but if you explore it with him you find that he , for this second version, is defining god as merely the physical universe , which is something that is God " relative to us" ( Mystics own words) because this god, the physical universe, has created us and provides for us. Mystic chooses to deny any other attributes for this god because he knows he cannot prove the physical universe has any other godlike attributes beyond these two, and claiming to have proven god in debates with atheists is the only point to this second definition.
Mystic debates with the second version, but believes in the first version. I do believe that he sincerely believes in the first version. I merely point out that the second version is something he has created as a debate tactic with atheists. And it is the second version he and I have been debating here.
In my opinion, he believes both versions. I don't know how he believes both versions, - this is a sticking point for me as well that I do not understand.
But Mystic is a believer in science as well as Christianity (the NT version at least). I don't know how people are able to square two seemingly different ideogies. But plenty of people do it.
There are lots of scientists that are also Christians so I see Mystics worldview as a version of that.
But I believe him to be sincere in believing everything that he says he believes and not just a partial debate tactic. We will have to disagree on that.
Anyhow, I have probably said enough as Mystic can defend himself on this.
I'm saying Mystic posits two different gods here in his debates. This confuses the situation some. In his personal private belief he seems to hold to a quasi Christian panentheistic god who sent Christ to save humans from their sin, whom he meets in meditation.
When he debates atheists he argues he has disproven atheism , but if you explore it with him you find that he , for this second version, is defining god as merely the physical universe , which is something that is God " relative to us" ( Mystics own words) because this god, the physical universe, has created us and provides for us. Mystic chooses to deny any other attributes for this god because he knows he cannot prove the physical universe has any other godlike attributes beyond these two, and claiming to have proven god in debates with atheists is the only point to this second definition.
Mystic debates with the second version, but believes in the first version. I do believe that he sincerely believes in the first version. I merely point out that the second version is something he has created as a debate tactic with atheists. And it is the second version he and I have been debating here.
since you seem familiar with saguna brhmam, or Ishvara, i feel Jesus is Mystics version of Ishvara. you can hold both versions at the same time. we do it all the time.
Well, that wouldn't be me so I am not sure why you directed that at me but OK.
You seem pretty torqued, I might add. Why is that? I mean, why is it REALLY?
I simply pointed out that when you said, "Maybe people just don't want to read and respond to a whole wall full of vitriole and you consider that "winning an argument," who knows? Think about it.", that that's not much different than how we who don't believe feel with all the christian privilege that exists here in this country.
You seem to be displaying another habit here. First, people who disagreed with you were...well, I've forgotten what adjective yo were using the other day, and now we're "torqued". No more so than you. You love to toss in adjectives about people who disagree with you: "strident", "inflammatory", "sad", "distasteful".
Many Atheists on this board claim (even relate personal accounts of it) they encounter Religious that tell them they are going to burn in hell...but, meanwhile, I have rarely, if ever, seen the Religious on this board actually do that.
HMMMMMMM...something strange about that.
That's because we are often talking about in-person proselytizers. We tent to accept that this and other forums are a different 'world' set aside from the 'real world'.
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.
