The problem of identifying God falls squarely on the theists. If anyone gets confused by what one actually means when using the word God, it is up to them to explain which version they are referring to. Why should I have to try to avoid confusion? I did not create this confusion, theists did. There are as many interpretations of god as there are people. And there are as many gods as their are scriptures. I have 6 versions of the bible and each is different in important conceptual areas. 6 bibles, 6 different messages. 

It is their language which is confounded and clouded by “subjective” interpretations of what god actually is.  Why should I be required to accommodate their confusion, lest they be offended?.

I have my own paradigm of a metaphysical condition which was present before creation and all I need to do is to refer to any and all dictionaries, encyclopedias, physics and other sciences to find the various definitions where the concept is applied. I need not explain the meaning of the word. In ALL cases it means “that which may become reality” as a fundamental premise and function, which remains consistent in all possible applications of the abstract concept contained in the word Potential.

Until Theism (all theists) can agree on a single clear meaning of the concept and properties of God, they cannot intelligently argue anything about what it should mean to me.

Write4U - 16 May 2011 09:17 PM

The problem of identifying God falls squarely on the theists. If anyone gets confused by what one actually means when using the word God, it is up to them to explain which version they are referring to. Why should I have to try to avoid confusion? I did not create this confusion, theists did. There are as many interpretations of god as there are people. And there are as many gods as their are scriptures. I have 6 versions of the bible and each is different in important conceptual areas. 6 bibles, 6 different messages. 

It is their language which is confounded and clouded by “subjective” interpretations of what god actually is.  Why should I be required to accommodate their confusion, lest they be offended?.

I have my own paradigm of a metaphysical condition which was present before creation and all I need to do is to refer to any and all dictionaries, encyclopedias, physics and other sciences to find the various definitions where the concept is applied. I need not explain the meaning of the word. In ALL cases it means “that which may become reality” as a fundamental premise and function, which remains consistent in all possible applications of the abstract concept contained in the word Potential.

Until Theism (all theists) can agree on a single clear meaning of the concept and properties of God, they cannot intelligently argue anything about what it should mean to me.

That’s all true and very well stated. As humanists we are not responsible for identifying god (an impossible task), but as rational people we are aware that some (like Einstein) are saying something completely different from others (like Ernest Angley) when they use ‘god’. With such a broad usage of the nebulous word, god, we need to discuss concepts while neutralizing (not ignoring) the word itself. Such neutralization might eventually obviate its use. (One can hope.)

jump_in_the_pit - 16 May 2011 07:21 PM

Now you can see the talk, but be careful.  You can’t see the volunteer works, and so don’t know what works are being done.    Why not try to take a lead and gather some Humanists in your area to help?  I have seen that the CFI trying to raise relief money for Japan.

Not sure what you mean by “see the talk.” (I have lots of pictures of my volunteer experiences.) Do you mean “talk the talk” v “walk the walk?” You are correct that someone needs to take the lead and gather some humanists/realists/naturalists to do some good as a group. Not sure I’m the one to lead such an effort.