3 of 4
3
Hello. I’m a Christian
Posted: 11 January 2012 08:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7684
Joined  2008-04-11
dougsmith - 11 January 2012 03:18 PM
asanta - 11 January 2012 10:00 AM

OTOH, I don’t think Egor is coming back….

Faith is Greater than Reason ...

Thanks, Doug.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 January 2012 03:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10

Hello, Ronald! I personally enjoy a good debate/discussion with people who may not agree with me, so welcome! smile

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 January 2012 05:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6125
Joined  2009-02-26

Welcome Ronald.

Looking forward to your posts.

As an atheist humanist I can offer you my sincere wish for “peace on earth and good will to all ”

[ Edited: 17 January 2012 05:46 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2012 04:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2012-02-18
dougsmith - 07 January 2012 02:23 PM

Well, all of these claims depend on definitions. “Faith” as I define it is belief without evidence, or belief contrary to the evidence. As such, and as practiced by most people, it is arguably the lowest form of mental functioning possible for any living creature in the universe.

I have to agree with Doug.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2012 11:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30
dougsmith - 07 January 2012 12:09 PM
Occam. - 07 January 2012 10:40 AM

Since we see the belief or disbelief in a god as unprovable on either side, we consider it a matter of faith on both sides.

Well now, Occam, I don’t believe that. wink

Doug, with the caveat that we do not have the right to insult, libel and slander people in this forum or anywhere, I assume that we all enjoy having freedom of speech. Agreed?

With this in mind, I will play the role that I am a pantheist—perhaps even a panentheist. Atheists are always challenging, ESPECIALLY MONOTHEISTS, to prove, to all of us, that there is such a god and that this God exists. Again, do we agree?

But the proof doesn’t come for the simple reason that G0D does not exist,YET! But this does not mean, and let us not give up on the idea, that this could not be true, eventually.

OK, as a pantheist, I agree that, as of yet, God is not a human-like being, like you and me. But there is no reason that the cosmos could not take the shape of one. The problem is:

MONOTHEISTS HAVE THE WRONG DEFINITION OF GOD
Monotheists are totally wrong when, depending on faith alone, they say there is a supernatural God already in place. Unfortunately, they who have created the delusion that God is only a supernatural being, who we will only meet after we die.

They even have trouble proving this kind of God, to themselves, let alone to agnostics and atheists.

FEEL FREE TO TELL ME I AM DELUDED—and give me the right to be wrong
So, exercising my right to speak, therefore, I say, and define God, or G0D, as follows: The cosmos, as it is currently, and is being revealed by astronomy, is God—not completely G0D yet, but the process is on its way, well on its way, in my opinion.

Because the universe is still expanding and evolving, scientists do not, as yet, have all the facts as to where it is heading—physically, mentally and spiritually. But we do have enough of the facts to name it G-0-D and to continue to explore. The same is true of genetics. Let’s talk some details about this in another post or two.

All anyone has to do is accept the right for me, or anyone, to express this definition and this vision of G0D—and the future. And so do you have the right to have your definition, your vision, whatever. It would be interesting to know what it is.

But my feeling is that the more of us who agree, accept and work on making this definition, this vision a reality, the sooner G0D and/or god-like people will be as real and as wonderful as a new-born child is to its parents.  Now how about that, for some GOOD NEWS!  grin

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2012 11:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Quoting RLGK:

Because the universe is still expanding and evolving, scientists do not, as yet, have all the facts as to where it is heading—physically, mentally and spiritually. But we do have enough of the facts to name it G-0-D and to continue to explore. The same is true of genetics.

  Sorry.  I have to disagree with you strongly.  We do NOT have to call it god.  You may, but I don’t.  Over the last few hundred years scientific discoveries have consistently diminished the purview claimed for god.  No more blaming the weather or geology on it, no more blaming infections on it, and on and on.  Everything we’ve learned about genetics both human and across the species shrinks the need for fairytale explanations.  And, in science we learn not to make up stories just because we haven’t figured out the cause for something yet. 

I believe the concept of any god has been dying for the last century and will become totally unnecessary for anyone, no matter how uneducated, and disappear in the next century or two. 

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2012 01:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6125
Joined  2009-02-26

Linds, please do not take this as trying to be argumentative, but more as a conversation with myself relating to your philosophy as I understand it.

Linds,
But the proof doesn’t come for the simple reason that G0D does not exist,YET!
But this does not mean, and let us not give up on the idea, that this could not be true, eventually.

I think I am getting the drift of the concept of what you call G-0-D and as I said, we may not be far apart in concept. I have one major problem with your use of the name G-0-D, even as you have replaced O with 0. With respect, to me it sounds like a socio/political attempt to make it easier for people to accept the theory behind it.

]MONOTHEISTS HAVE THE WRONG DEFINITION OF GOD
Monotheists are totally wrong when, depending on faith alone, they say there is a supernatural God already in place. Unfortunately, they who have created the delusion that God is only a supernatural being, who we will only meet after we die.

On this we are in total agreement.
But it is also the problem with selecting a similar name for your concept. The word GOD has been around for so long that any radical departure in concept from what the name represents symbolically will only serve to confuse the real message that you are trying to convey. I have the same problem with any name that incorporates the term “theist”. This confusion, which some smart person recognized a long time ago, is expressed by the biblical phrase “Therefore I shall confound their language.” And indeed, it has been ever thus and has been the cause for Holy wars, Jihads, and religious conflict by any other name.

From wiki,

The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning “god”

and

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[1] The term theism may be used within context for monotheism, a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God’s relationship to the universe.[2][3] Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism that contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.


From this traditionally established interpretation you seek to change the concept into an emergent state of Universal perfection.

So, exercising my right to speak, therefore, I say, and define God, or G0D, as follows: The cosmos, as it is currently, and is being revealed by astronomy, is God—not completely G0D yet, but the process is on its way, well on its way, in my opinion.
Because the universe is still expanding and evolving, scientists do not, as yet, have all the facts as to where it is heading—physically, mentally and spiritually. But we do have enough of the facts to name it G-0-D and to continue to explore.

With respect, I submit that IMO to name this completion G-0-D is misleading and still ascribes a spiritual aspect, not to people, but to the Universe itself. To then recognize the universe is still evolving, expanding, and incomplete negates any scientific concept of the dynamic Perfection of Universal Constants by which the universe and its majesty actually IS evolving.
Moreover, as completion may take a few more hundreds of billions of years we would get stuck with an incomplete G-0-D forever and in addition would imply that “in the beginning” there was no G-0-D at all, only a little god, which is clearly not the case as the universal constants have existed since (possibly) before the beginning and are an inherent latent excellence by which the universe expresses itself.

All anyone has to do is accept the right for me, or anyone, to express this definition and this vision of G0D—and the future. And so do you have the right to have your definition, your vision, whatever. It would be interesting to know what it is.

I have already mentioned this before, but we do actually already have a name for the Implicate of what was before the beginning, the present, and the future of the Universe. This Implicate, pure Potential, is made Explicate (expressed) through the function of Universal (cosmic) Constants.
But before anything can become reality it MUST be preceeded by potential. The very definition of Potential is “That which may become reality”. Without potential nothing can become reality, not even god (by any other name). Potential preceeded, precedes, and will preceed everything from the very beginning of time to the very end of time.
When the universe runs out of potential it will become static. But this is moment you would call completion and name it G-0-D. That is going to take a long time.

But my feeling is that the more of us who agree, accept and work on making this definition, this vision a reality, the sooner G0D and/or god-like people will be as real and as wonderful as a new-born child is to its parents.  Now how about that, for some GOOD NEWS!  grin

Why not try to convince people of their own inherent potential and make it a moral imperative for people to reach their full potential? It places the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of each individual, where it properly belongs, both as a person and as a parent to his/her children and NOT on some future completion of the evolution of the universe into a perfect state.
Pefection means the end of potential and the end to everything. As long as something is dynamic it has not reached a state of perfection.

GOD (or any variation thereof) = POTENTIAL

This is my personal philosophy. I hope I was able to express it coherently.. smile

[ Edited: 19 February 2012 03:45 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2012 02:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  220
Joined  2011-10-01

I recommend you all check out this episode of the Philosopher’s Zone on Hegel’s God and rational mysticism.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/hegel-and-hegels-god/2967404

 Signature 

“Life is shit, but the graphics is good”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2012 06:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

No, Linds, astronomy doesn’t reveal that the universe is God, and so yes, you are deluded. The rest of your post is only an attempt to justify your delusion. What if I told you that a wooden log lying next to my fireplace, one that I call PIN0CCHI0, not Pinocchio, is on its way to become a boy?

[ Edited: 19 February 2012 06:28 AM by George ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2012 06:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2012-02-18
George - 19 February 2012 06:03 AM

No, Linds, astronomy doesn’t reveal that the universe is God, and so yes, you are deluded. The rest of your post is only an attempt to justify your delusion. What if I told you that a wooden log lying next to my fireplace, one that I call PIN0CCHI0, not Pinocchio, is on it’s way to become a boy?

Exactly, really it’s not the job of astronomy or science, or atheists to disprove the exsistance of God.  The burden of proof falls in those making the claim that god exsists.

Is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful, without having to believe there’s fairies underneath?

[ Edited: 19 February 2012 07:51 AM by Atomic Betty ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2012 08:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30
Occam. - 18 February 2012 11:23 PM

Quoting RLGK:

Because the universe is still expanding and evolving, scientists do not, as yet, have all the facts as to where it is heading—physically, mentally and spiritually. But we do have enough of the facts to name it G-0-D and to continue to explore. The same is true of genetics.

  Sorry.  I have to disagree with you strongly.  We do NOT have to call it god.  You may, but I don’t. Occam

Occam, take note: I do NOT call it god, or God (the supernatural being as refuted by Richard Dawkins on page 31 of his book, The GOD delusion).

I REPEAT: G-0-D is an acronym
I hope that you will take note of what I mean when I use the acronym, G-0-D. The -0- represents the zero point as used by David Bohm. The G stands for the good that has come our way as the result of evolution. The D stands for the desirable goals we keep before us, and envision, as we evolve within the eternal NOW.

Also, keep in mind that I am playing a role here. Therefore, I always keep my options open. What if pantheism and panentheism are on the right and GOOD path? God and good have the same root—as in goodbye, which means ‘god be with you’. What if the atheists have it right?  smile rolleyes

[ Edited: 19 February 2012 02:08 PM by RevLGKing ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2012 02:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I’m sorry, RLGK, but using G-O-D seems a transparent way to try to slip in god while using an explanation (I could call it, excuse) to blunt non-theist arguments.  I have to reject G-O-D just as strongly as I did god, since I don’t see that it offers anything new or of value beyond our present understanding of the physical universe.

While you may want to keep your options open, I just don’t see any value to my thinking to the options you offered.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2012 05:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30
George - 19 February 2012 06:03 AM

No, Linds, astronomy doesn’t reveal that the universe is God ...

Of course I agree. Did I actually say that it does? If I did, for god’s sake tell me where—and feel free to tell me how to correct the mistake. I don’t like feeling red face

Meanwhile, as I understand it, all astronomy does is measure what is. I repeat: It is pantheism, not I, which says that the universe is one with God. And, BTW, I respect their right to say so. So, if we give them, as I do, the right to define ‘God’ as they see fit, I also feel we need to give them the benefit of the doubt.

So I ask: How do atheists respond to pantheists who say that God and nature are one and the same? Is nature a delusion? Perhaps you feel that pantheists have no right to give this definition? If so, on what grounds? I find the following interesting:
http://www.pantheism.net/
http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm

What really interests me in all this is this: What does the sincerely held belief of pantheists inspire them to do do about the realities of life? Does it help them, in their day by day activities, really go about making the world a better place for themselves and us? If so, good for them.

CREEDALISM AND DEEDALISM—COMPARED
Me? I like to think of myself as striving to be a positive “deedalist”—that is, one who, in thought, word and deed, strives to be truly, loving,moral and good. I try to avoid being just a “Creedalist”—that is, one who, hypocritically, says, “Of course I have the true faith. Just don’t expect me to practice it. After all, my religion does tell me that it can arrange for forgiveness, at a price…”

BTW, agnostics/atheists, may I, without being snide, ask you: “Does your agnosticism/atheism help you to be truly happy, moral, ethical and loving people? I hope it does. If so, good.”

... so yes, you are deluded. The rest of your post is only an attempt to justify your delusion. What if I told you that a wooden log lying next to my fireplace, one that I call PIN0CCHI0, not Pinocchio, is on it’s way to become a boy?

I would take you at your word and consider it to be a cool and amusing idea.  cool smile

Exactly, really it’s not the job of astronomy or science, or atheists to disprove the exsistance of God.  The burden of proof falls in those making the claim that god exsists.

I repeat: I do not believe in a god—a supernatural being who exists—but I assume I have the right to define the G-0-D concept as I understand it.

Is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful, without having to believe there’s fairies underneath?

As an amateur gardener, I love beautiful gardens. If you are inviting me to use my thoughts, words and deeds to work with you in the building of such a garden—without the need to depend on supernatural fairies—I joyfully accept.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2012 10:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2012-02-18
RevLGKing - 19 February 2012 05:08 PM
George - 19 February 2012 06:03 AM

No, Linds, astronomy doesn’t reveal that the universe is God ...

Of course I agree. Did I actually say that it does? If I did, for god’s sake tell me where—and feel free to tell me how to correct the mistake. I don’t like feeling red face

Meanwhile, as I understand it, all astronomy does is measure what is. I repeat: It is pantheism, not I, which says that the universe is one with God. And, BTW, I respect their right to say so. So, if we give them, as I do, the right to define ‘God’ as they see fit, I also feel we need to give them the benefit of the doubt.

So I ask: How do atheists respond to pantheists who say that God and nature are one and the same? Is nature a delusion? Perhaps you feel that pantheists have no right to give this definition? If so, on what grounds? I find the following interesting:
http://www.pantheism.net/
http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm

What really interests me in all this is this: What does the sincerely held belief of pantheists inspire them to do do about the realities of life? Does it help them, in their day by day activities, really go about making the world a better place for themselves and us? If so, good for them.

CREEDALISM AND DEEDALISM—COMPARED
Me? I like to think of myself as striving to be a positive “deedalist”—that is, one who, in thought, word and deed, strives to be truly, loving,moral and good. I try to avoid being just a “Creedalist”—that is, one who, hypocritically, says, “Of course I have the true faith. Just don’t expect me to practice it. After all, my religion does tell me that it can arrange for forgiveness, at a price…”

BTW, agnostics/atheists, may I, without being snide, ask you: “Does your agnosticism/atheism help you to be truly happy, moral, ethical and loving people? I hope it does. If so, good.”

... so yes, you are deluded. The rest of your post is only an attempt to justify your delusion. What if I told you that a wooden log lying next to my fireplace, one that I call PIN0CCHI0, not Pinocchio, is on it’s way to become a boy?

I would take you at your word and consider it to be a cool and amusing idea.  cool smile

Exactly, really it’s not the job of astronomy or science, or atheists to disprove the exsistance of God.  The burden of proof falls in those making the claim that god exsists.

I repeat: I do not believe in a god—a supernatural being who exists—but I assume I have the right to define the G-0-D concept as I understand it.

Is it not enough to see that a garden is beautiful, without having to believe there’s fairies underneath?

As an amateur gardener, I love beautiful gardens. If you are inviting me to use my thoughts, words and deeds to work with you in the building of such a garden—without the need to depend on supernatural fairies—I joyfully accept.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2012 11:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30
Write4U - 19 February 2012 01:26 AM

Linds, please do not take this as trying to be argumentative, but more as a conversation with myself relating to your philosophy as I understand it. ...

to which I added

But the proof doesn’t come for the simple reason that G0D does not exist,YET!
But this does not mean, and let us not give up on the idea, that this could not be true, eventually....

To which you respond

I think I am getting the drift of the concept of what you call G-0-D and as I said, we may not be far apart in concept. I have one major problem with your use of the name G-0-D, even as you have replaced O with 0. With respect, to me it sounds like a socio/political attempt to make it easier for people to accept the theory behind it.

Then I write

MONOTHEISTS HAVE THE WRONG DEFINITION OF GOD Monotheists are totally wrong when, depending on faith alone, they say there is a supernatural God already in place. Unfortunately, they have created the delusion that God is only a supernatural being, who we will only meet after we die.

Then you add:

On this we are in total agreement. ...

You ask

Why not try to convince people of their own inherent potential and make it a moral imperative for people to reach their full potential?

Other than your response which follows, are there other suggestions as to the best way to say this?

It places the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of each individual, where it properly belongs, both as a person and as a parent to his/her children and NOT on some future completion of the evolution of the universe into a perfect state.Perfection means the end of potential and the end to everything. As long as something is dynamic it has not reached a state of perfection. ... GOD (or any variation thereof) = POTENTIAL This is my personal philosophy. I hope I was able to express it coherently.. smile

I assume that, by now, you are noting that, in all responses—while being aware of honest differences of opinion—I consciously look for the things we have in common.

BLAME IT ON THE THEOLOGICAL ROOTS OF MANY LANGUAGES
BTW, regarding the way I bring words like ‘good’ and ‘god’ together: My large World Book Dictionary, which gives a lot of information
about the etymology of words, points out that our word ‘goodbye’ comes from the Old English for, “God be with ye!”

Does this mean that atheists refuse to say “goodbye”?  surprised  zipper  The French say “adieu”—to God. In Spanish it is “adeos”. The root meaning of the Hebrew word, ‘Elohim’ (the majestic plural), is “to the highest powers possible”. Hebrew uses the plural in the same way that we use capitals.

The Arabic “Allah” is similar to the Hebrew singular “Eloh”. Thus we get, EL AL—To the heights and the highest powers—as the logo on the planes of the Israeli airlines. The Greek ‘theos’ means ‘to the highest idea’ (theory—god-given thought) possible—the idea (god-given thought behind the powers). Had the Greeks followed logic in translation, they would have translated Elohim as Dynamo—from the Greek for power. In English, we simply put it together and we think of the good idea behind the power.

Our word ‘idea’ is, of course, rooted in the Latin, DEO. Blame the Greeks for adding the ‘th’ sound. Our definite article ‘the’ is theologically rooted. And the Spirit of God is often referred to as the ‘Logos’. Hence ‘logy’ as a suffix on so many words.

And what about swearing? Do atheists ever give a “good goddamn…”? Or say, “God damn” it when they hit their thumb”?  grin Linguistically speaking, it is not easy being an atheist, eh?

Me? By putting the linguistic elements together—as indicated above—I find it easy to think of G-0-D as the One-Powerful-and-Good idea, from out of nowhere, -0- and sent to everyone, and everywhere of which the O is a symbol.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3