havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#255 Jul 16, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Why didn't you answer my question to you?
Which god would you like me to disprove?
KJV cannot answer that. But I can. Disprove the existence of a God defined as everything that exists.(pantheism) i really would like to see someone do it.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#256 Jul 16, 2012
MrDesoto1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have made no claims about there not being any gods. He claims to believe in a god. Would he not know that there is a god, that a god exists, if he says he believes in one? Conversely, would he believe in a god that he knows doesn't exists?
don't you think it is possible to be both agnostic and theist, just as one can be both agnostic and atheist? If it is called a "leap of faith" doesn't that imply one does not know, but believes anyway (out of terror of going to hell if one is mistaken in not believing, which is a really dishonorable reason to believe, in my view)?

I did not think you made claims about there not being any gods. I think you are very careful.

I think one can believe in a god one does not claim to know exists, but believes in deeply anyhow. I guess much would turn on how one defines the word know. I mean in the sense of claiming to be able to prove, rather than the sort of socalled "gut" knowledge that is related to deep belief, and is not mental.

I even claim to have that sort of "gut" knowledge related to deep belief, when I say I am a hard atheist with regard to the notion of an allgood and allpowerful god, because my objection to pain and suffering says an allpowerful god could not be allgood. It is not exactly my mind that knows this. It is my toothache, or whatever other pain I feel - put together with what I seem to be observing as pain that other living beings feel. I claim to "know" - but not to be able to prove by conventional evidence - that an allpowerful and allgood god could not exist.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#257 Jul 16, 2012
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> KJV cannot answer that. But I can. Disprove the existence of a God defined as everything that exists.(pantheism) i really would like to see someone do it.
That isn't a god in any normal sense of the definition. You may as well have said, "disprove the existence of a god defined as this donut on my plate".
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#258 Jul 16, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
But then one can also fall into the trap of word games. Atheist means you do not believe in God. If you believe in a god or gods you are a Theist if you do not believe in a god or gods you are an Atheist. One can create lots of terms that all mean the same thing really. Do we bother with proving there isn't an invisible flying teapot ruling from Pluto? Of course not we would scoff at such a myth and move on. God is no different and believing in something without evidence is not a good thing for people of reason.
<quoted text>
First of all, naturally your first sentences make sense - as to definitions that are consise and limited. I have been insisted on very limited definitions for those terms for a long time. Also, you are saying that "believing in god without evidence is not a good thing for people of reason". I say that belief does not require evidence; it requires any old cause or motive for believing.(I do not think it is a good thing for people of reason to believe in a god, either, but that is more for moral than epistimelogical -sp?- reasons) If there is excellent evidence, it is not mere belief. I cannot see the possibility of excellent or even mediocre evidence regarding the existence OR NONEXISTENCE of a god (EITHER WAY) Are you also saying: but(1) believing - or (2)even claiming to know!- without evidence that there is no god, is a good thing for people of reason? I would agree yes to one, but say no to two. I see no merit in claiming to know something I do not know and do not believe is known or can be known. In the first place - no adequate definition of god is even supplied! That makes the question sloppy and ambiguous in the first place.

Suppose I say God is defined as the all that exists. and you say a reasonable person does not believe that the all that exists, exists. that would be silly. You would have to refuse to accept my definition of God in the first place, it seems to me.

I am not sure how many people on here have studied these matters in a philosophy class or logic class, or even in a study of linguistics. We are getting into word usage matters, and have not agreed to agree about what we mean, to begin with.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#259 Jul 16, 2012
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> KJV cannot answer that. But I can. Disprove the existence of a God defined as everything that exists.(pantheism) i really would like to see someone do it.
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying...it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." ~Carl Sagan
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#260 Jul 16, 2012
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
That isn't a god in any normal sense of the definition. You may as well have said, "disprove the existence of a god defined as this donut on my plate".
well, I do not think there is an agreed upon normal sense of the definition. You had better try to see whether you can drum up an agreement among the vast majority on what the term God means. Try advancing a definition, and see how many will agree outright with your definition. I think the case for the all is a bit better than for the donut (nonexistent, by the way - oatmeal raisin cookie is more plausible) on my plate.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#261 Jul 16, 2012
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> KJV cannot answer that. But I can. Disprove the existence of a God defined as everything that exists.(pantheism) i really would like to see someone do it.
easy
god by definition requires the supernatural. if god is all things, than all thing would have to involve the supernatural. That is impossible.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#262 Jul 16, 2012
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> well, I do not think there is an agreed upon normal sense of the definition. You had better try to see whether you can drum up an agreement among the vast majority on what the term God means. Try advancing a definition, and see how many will agree outright with your definition. I think the case for the all is a bit better than for the donut (nonexistent, by the way - oatmeal raisin cookie is more plausible) on my plate.
No, the mistake in definitions was yours; you should follow your own advice. Pantheism is normally seen as treating the natural universe as a substitute for a god. There is a vague 'spirituality' to it in the sense there should be reverence for the universe, but in no way does it encompass a creator god. Some people 'mis-use' the term pantheism by claiming that god is everything therefore god is the universe; that is a completely different claim.

The term 'god' in order to have some common, meaningful definition needs to include the concept of supernatural.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#263 Jul 16, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying...it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." ~Carl Sagan
are you implying - and is he?- that the idea of praying to a god is part of the necessary definition of a god? I certainly would not limit the definition in that manner. I am not sure all believers in even the more conventional gods would include being able to pray to it as an essential part of a god being a god by definition.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#264 Jul 16, 2012
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the mistake in definitions was yours; you should follow your own advice. Pantheism is normally seen as treating the natural universe as a substitute for a god. There is a vague 'spirituality' to it in the sense there should be reverence for the universe, but in no way does it encompass a creator god. Some people 'mis-use' the term pantheism by claiming that god is everything therefore god is the universe; that is a completely different claim.
The term 'god' in order to have some common, meaningful definition needs to include the concept of supernatural.
why does it have to include the concept of the supernatural? are you saying that is common to every concept of god? or only common to every concept that you accept as being a concept of a god? do you have a majority of believers on your side? of philosophers on your side? at least you are giving some specifics.

one of you says it has to be something one can pray to, and another says it has to be supernatural - to be a god.

I know there is a saying that pantheism is a subterfuge for atheism. why does it have to be. what is the characteristic of a god that is essential to its definition (being prayed to, or being supernatural, for example) that rules out God being all that exists? you seem to insist that it be a creator god. do you?

there's no vague reverence for the universe in the pantheism as I would define it - the lousy universe has pain in it and is not something to be revered, just as a lousy creator god that made everything also made pain, and is not something to be revered. are you saying that being revered is part of the definition of a god? what about "curse God, and die" - doesn't that make it quite explicit that one does not have to think G/god is Mr. Wonderful?
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#265 Jul 16, 2012
when I follow my own advice, I go to greek roots for what definitions are. I do that for pan theism just as I do for a theism, and agnosticism, or as I would for poly theism. You want to say that with a pan in front of it theism is not related to a god, but with a poly in front of it it is related to gods, I think.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#266 Jul 16, 2012
has anyone on here even read Spinoza, regarding God? or read Martin Buber's book I and Thou? are we reduced to lists of gods on godchecker, and none other? I am not saying these concepts are of beings that exist, but I am saying that there is a case for "don't know" as well as, is, and isn't - which in the hands of atheists, only is a case for isn't.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#267 Jul 16, 2012
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> why does it have to include the concept of the supernatural??
Because if you want to avoid all the new-agey nonsense about 'god is this oatmeal-raisin cookie" you need to find something that it cannot be mistaken for. Therfore the term 'god' in order to have some common, meaningful definition needs to include the concept of supernatural. OTherwise, why use the word god? To intentionally mislead people?
havent forgotten wrote:
< are you saying that is common to every concept of god? or only common to every concept that you accept as being a concept of a god? do you have a majority of believers on your side? of philosophers on your side? at least you are giving some specifics.?
Yes, I think the majority of serious thinkers agree that any useful definition of a god includes the supernatural. It also usually includes consciousness.
havent forgotten wrote:
<
one of you says it has to be something one can pray to, and another says it has to be supernatural - to be a god.?
Praying to the gods is common as well. But there are concepts of supernatural gods that are not thought to listen to prayers so I would argue that is not a necessary component.
havent forgotten wrote:
<
I know there is a saying that pantheism is a subterfuge for atheism. why does it have to be. what is the characteristic of a god that is essential to its definition (being prayed to, or being supernatural, for example) that rules out God being all that exists??
I explained this already. You have to be clear what you mean by pantheism. Christians are pantheists in that they claim that god is all encompassing and therefore is the entirety of existence. Pantheism, if it is to have distinct meaning, is saying the natural universe is an entity (not necessarily a god) that deserves awe and reverence, but does not involve supernatural nonsense.
havent forgotten wrote:
<
you seem to insist that it be a creator god. do you??
NO. Polytheism has many gods that are not creator gods.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#268 Jul 16, 2012
havent forgotten wrote:
when I follow my own advice, I go to greek roots for what definitions are. I do that for pan theism just as I do for a theism, and agnosticism, or as I would for poly theism. You want to say that with a pan in front of it theism is not related to a god, but with a poly in front of it it is related to gods, I think.
Etymology is useful for understanding how words were formed. What most matters is how they are used today.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#269 Jul 16, 2012
havent forgotten wrote:
has anyone on here even read Spinoza, regarding God? or read Martin Buber's book I and Thou? are we reduced to lists of gods on godchecker, and none other? I am not saying these concepts are of beings that exist, but I am saying that there is a case for "don't know" as well as, is, and isn't - which in the hands of atheists, only is a case for isn't.
I have a question for you. You appear to be obsessing over the idea that there is some concept of a god must be accepted as possibly existing. Yet I have explained to you numerous times the difference between absolute and provisional certainty. Why doesn't this bother you on other topics? Why aren't you haranguing people about UFOs, ESP, NDEs, or reincarnation? After all, Snow Bunny believes in reincarnation. Is it your position that since I can't 'prove' reincarnation isn't real that she deserves respect for that belief?

Why is it so important to you to give respect to the lunatic claims of gods existing? I use the word lunatic intentionally; any other similar claim about something as absurd and illogical as a god existing would be seen as a lunatic claim. You seem to be unable to step outside of your culture for a minute and see how this looks.

Why is it so important to you that no one be able to say "There are no gods"?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#270 Jul 16, 2012
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a question for you. You appear to be obsessing over the idea that there is some concept of a god must be accepted as possibly existing. Yet I have explained to you numerous times the difference between absolute and provisional certainty. Why doesn't this bother you on other topics? Why aren't you haranguing people about UFOs, ESP, NDEs, or reincarnation? After all, Snow Bunny believes in reincarnation. Is it your position that since I can't 'prove' reincarnation isn't real that she deserves respect for that belief?
Why is it so important to you to give respect to the lunatic claims of gods existing? I use the word lunatic intentionally; any other similar claim about something as absurd and illogical as a god existing would be seen as a lunatic claim. You seem to be unable to step outside of your culture for a minute and see how this looks.
Why is it so important to you that no one be able to say "There are no gods"?
HF is a fence sitting agnostic and is fundamentalists about it.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#271 Jul 16, 2012
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> are you implying - and is he?- that the idea of praying to a god is part of the necessary definition of a god? I certainly would not limit the definition in that manner. I am not sure all believers in even the more conventional gods would include being able to pray to it as an essential part of a god being a god by definition.
It's meaningless tangents like that which remind me why I typically don't even bother replying to your posts.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#274 Jul 16, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
HF is a fence sitting agnostic and is fundamentalists about it.
That explains a lot. He/she doesn't sound like most of the atheists posting here. Thanks.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#275 Jul 16, 2012
EVE wrote:
This woman who now calls herself "haven't forgotten," used to call herself "lynette," which might be her real name for all I know. She gets stuck in a groove and will not budge. She gets worked up about other posters' language (or "vulgarity"), but pretty much drives everybody she pesters into finally losing it. Then she cries to topix about the "abusive poster." This has been her modus operandi from day one. I suspect she is an obsessive/compulsive with some kind of "school marm" complex. Every time she seems to be making any kind of coherent point, she veers off the cliff into unintelligible, dense, unbroken paragraphs of unanswerable bullsh!t. When the person finally has enough and suggests that she F off, she calls foul.
No answer will satisfy her. She is like the crazy blonde with the flower in her hair in that way (forgot her name). I think she might actually believe that she is encouraging dialogue when she is, in fact, doing quite the opposite. She is a contentious bore and is likely the type that, in real life, people slowly back away from in the grocery store, to the nearest exit.
Believe me when I tell you that I have tried to dialogue with this person on numerous occasions to no avail. She calls herself a "feminist." I call her a pest.
(sigh). I think we could use a Topix 'review a poster' section so newcomers could read up on what to expect and know who to avoid. I can't believe the energy I wasted on this one. At first she seemed so reasonable.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#277 Jul 16, 2012
EVE wrote:
<quoted text>
Heh. I totally agree, and I do my best to warn people if I've had any experience with posting with these types. Look at the energy expended on the dumb blonde with the flower in her hair.
Snow Bunny. I should have known when HF defended that twit.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Uncle Sam 2,282
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 2 hr _Bad Company 143
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 hr Just Think 232,901
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 14 hr polymath257 23,199
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 20 hr Yiago 148
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) Sat thetruth 34
God' existence Sat thetruth 67
More from around the web