Meadowchik Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 16 minutes ago, Ahab said: Most dictionaries say otherwise, simply defining God as some kind of supreme being. And not even the best of all kinds, in come cases. Someone can be said to be a god of basketball, for example. Atheism and theism do not refer to the "god of basketball" type usage of god. Please don't be ridiculous. 1
Ahab Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Atheism and theism do not refer to the "god of basketball" type usage of god. Please don't be ridiculous. Just saying you don't have to use our idea of who or what God is to form your own idea of who or what God is. You can say that anything or anyone you think is supreme is God, regardless of whether or not other people would agree with you. When you say you don't believe in God you are referring to some kind of idea of God you have in your mind, saying you don't believe in that version of God is God. But you do have some kind of idea in your mind which you believe qualifies someone or something as being supreme, and whatever or whoever that is, that is what God is to you.
Meadowchik Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 4 minutes ago, Ahab said: Just saying you don't have to use our idea of who or what God is to form your own idea of who or what God is. You can say that anything or anyone you think is supreme is God, regardless of whether or not other people would agree with you. When you say you don't believe in God you are referring to some kind of idea of God you have in your mind, saying you don't believe in that version of God is God. But you do have some kind of idea in your mind which you believe qualifies someone or something as being supreme, and whatever or whoever that is, that is what God is to you. As I said, you can assume that unless otherwise stated, I am using the conventional definition.
Ahab Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: As I said, you can assume that unless otherwise stated, I am using the conventional definition. The conventional definition is that it is some kind of being that is supreme. Each person determines for himself or herself which person or kind of being they believe is supreme. Perhaps when you say you don't believe in God you're simply saying you don't believe that the person or kind of being we (LDS) or Christians believe in as God is God, or that what Muslims believe is God is God, but I'm sure you still accept the idea that some person or kind of being is the supreme kind of being, better than any other. Edited January 31, 2020 by Ahab
Meadowchik Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 53 minutes ago, Ahab said: The conventional definition is that it is some kind of being that is supreme. Each person determines for himself or herself which person or kind of being they believe is supreme. Perhaps when you say you don't believe in God you're simply saying you don't believe that the person or kind of being we (LDS) or Christians believe in as God is God, or that what Muslims believe is God is God, but I'm sure you still accept the idea that some person or kind of being is the supreme kind of being, better than any other. No, the conventional definitions are more specific than merely a being that is the best of all beings, for example, they refer to a supreme being that is supernatural, or the creator of life, or one who controls all life. If I could identify the most powerful entity in existence, that wouldn't necessarily qualify as God. That is not what theism or atheism reference. You're still being ridiculous.
Ahab Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: No, the conventional definitions are more specific than merely a being that is the best of all beings, for example, they refer to a supreme being that is supernatural, or the creator of life, or one who controls all life. If I could identify the most powerful entity in existence, that wouldn't necessarily qualify as God. That is not what theism or atheism reference. You're still being ridiculous. Basketball players don't fit your definition and yet that still qualifies as a dictionary definition of God. So not everybody agrees with the idea you are proposing. People have various ideas of what they refer to as God, and the dictionary includes them all. The gist of all the definitions you will find in a dictionary is that the word God or god, whether or not you capitalize it, refers to something or some kind of being that is considered by various people as what is supreme. Maybe not your idea of God, but the dictionary definition of God. You can call whatever you want God, signifying you believe that is supreme. And you can also say that how some people define God is not how you define God, signifying that you consider something or someone else to be God.
mfbukowski Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 5 hours ago, Ahab said: Good for you, but not all atheists will respond in the same way that you did, or at least not as quickly. Some just dismiss the revelatory experience as just a thought in their head and discard it without thinking much about it, at least not at that particular time. And then sometimes after a while that thought will recur to them when something similar happens or they thin similar thoughts even if those thoughts are not the same exact thoughts that they had before. And again they'll either dismiss them or choose to believe those thoughts are coming from God. It works that way with everybody. God's work does not stop simply because we are not ready to move on yet. He'll try again and again and again to get an idea across to us, whether it sticks or not. And for some people it never will stick while for others it will stick, eventually. I was an atheist, too, once. Everybody was. Nobody just wakes up one day automatically believing in God. It's a process for everybody, an education, and God as our Father will continue to work with us until... I don't know, maybe he never will stop, even if we never believe him. Disagree but there is not much point in going further.
CA Steve Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 I believe in a God who is so powerful he can define words any way he wants and people still understand him. Now that is supreme. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) Duplicate Edited January 31, 2020 by mfbukowski
Ahab Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, CA Steve said: I believe in a God who is so powerful he can define words any way he wants and people still understand him. Now that is supreme. i do too, and yet some other people still do not understand him.
mfbukowski Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 42 minutes ago, CA Steve said: I believe in a God who is so powerful he can define words any way he wants and people still understand him. Now that is supreme. That works in praying which to me is wordless. I ask in language then zap. Instant intelligence, sometimes, or some times I have to wait, but the answer is non verbal. I just know the answer, and recognize God's signature. Scriptures are entirely different. Yes they were written by prophets but prophets are men. Anything written has to be REDUCED from Pure Intelligence into words. That's where the problems begin. So for me with God, it's not about definitions But with the scriptures and anything for example in this board, it's ALL definitions. I don't think Spirits communicate with words. Only we carnal Mortals do that. Edited January 31, 2020 by mfbukowski 2
Ahab Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: That works in praying which to me is wordless. I ask in language then zap. Instant intelligence, sometimes, or some times I have to wait, but the answer is non verbal. I just know the answer, and recognize God's signature. Scriptures are entirely different. Yes they were written by prophets but prophets are men. Anything written has to be REDUCED from Pure Intelligence into words. That's where the problems begin. I don't have as much problems with that as I do trying to ENLARGE from words into Pure intelligence. Still, it is possible, though, with God to help me. 1
The Nehor Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 4 hours ago, Ahab said: Most dictionaries say otherwise, simply defining God as some kind of supreme being. And not even the best of all kinds, in come cases. Someone can be said to be a god of basketball, for example. I'm not going to try to beat you over the head until you agree with me but you can look in a dictionary to find that you are the one who seems to have your own unique definition of what the word "God" can refer to, and that is okay, because the word can be used to refer to any kind of being that is considered to be supreme. I don't like to assume anything. It's just that the word is so open ended it can be used to refer to any kind of being that anyone considers to be supreme, and I'm sure there is one of all that are out there, and here, which you consider to be better than any other. Replace smugly with pedanticly in the below and the end of the exchange sums up my response to Ahab: 2
JLHPROF Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Anything written has to be REDUCED from Pure Intelligence into words. That's where the problems begin. You don't think God ever uses actual words of revelation?
mfbukowski Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) 38 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: You don't think God ever uses actual words of revelation? He may, He can do whatever He wants. But unless he is talking to me I still have to question if the other guy got it right. I think maybe I have felt words a few times, I guess So now I have to get my own personal revelation about whether or not what the other guy said is in fact God's word. I just like to cut out the middleman if I can. It's more efficient. My first reaction when I hear the words "Thus saith the Lord..." is to think "Nice. But how do I know that.?" I think the Jim Jones thing really affected me. That happened two years before I found the church. I was not about to listen to some stuff about angels and gold plates, and an entire civilization that my education told me did not exist. I was looking, but the story was too crazy. How could I know for sure? Then I read 10:4-5, meeting all the other qualifications. I had been looking for 30 years. ZAP. That 's why I take the Moroni promise so strongly to this day. And intellectually William James had already laid the philosophical basis for valid religious experience. I ask God for verification on everything. If no verification, forget about it. Edited February 1, 2020 by mfbukowski 2
mfbukowski Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ahab said: I don't have as much problems with that as I do trying to ENLARGE from words into Pure intelligence. Still, it is possible, though, with God to help me. It's ok, he's listening to your heart anyway Formal attire not required Edited February 1, 2020 by mfbukowski 3
Meadowchik Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) 14 hours ago, Ahab said: Basketball players don't fit your definition and yet that still qualifies as a dictionary definition of God. So not everybody agrees with the idea you are proposing. People have various ideas of what they refer to as God, and the dictionary includes them all. The gist of all the definitions you will find in a dictionary is that the word God or god, whether or not you capitalize it, refers to something or some kind of being that is considered by various people as what is supreme. Maybe not your idea of God, but the dictionary definition of God. You can call whatever you want God, signifying you believe that is supreme. And you can also say that how some people define God is not how you define God, signifying that you consider something or someone else to be God. Nope, that's not what God means when people use the term atheism. From here, it looks like you are willing to make God very, very small--smaller and less significant than is understood--in order to make theism universal or almost so. Edited February 1, 2020 by Meadowchik
Storm Rider Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 On 1/30/2020 at 12:29 PM, Meadowchik said: Neither atheism or agnosticism necessarily result in nihilism; it is not an inherent characteristic of either. And both theism and non-belief can be nihilistic. Can you give an example of this? When is an atheist not a nihilist? If there is no God what is the value of life? That was the purpose of the article - it describes what a religious upbringing does for children versus the opposite. The opposite produces significantly higher rates of anxiety, depression, etc. in young people.
Meadowchik Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 6 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: Can you give an example of this? When is an atheist not a nihilist? If there is no God what is the value of life? That was the purpose of the article - it describes what a religious upbringing does for children versus the opposite. The opposite produces significantly higher rates of anxiety, depression, etc. in young people. I did provide an example in my comments. Is belief in eternal life really necessary for life to be valuable? How about life being valuable because it's ours? I do agree that the ritual and community of religion can help people manage anxiety, but I wouldn't say that current statistics mean it's the only way. Today's leavers of belief are coping in a world built largely with religious structures. I'd say it's possible for people to create better conditions as the number of nonbelievers continue to adapt 2
Bernard Gui Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 (edited) Quote “He says gods like to see an atheist around. Gives them something to aim at.” “Gods didn’t mind atheists, if they were deep, hot, fiery, atheists like Simony, who spend their whole life hating gods for not existing. That sort of atheism was a rock. It was nearly belief…” ― Terry Pratchett, Small Gods Quote “‘No it's not!’ said Constable Visit. ‘Atheism is a denial of a god.’ ‘Therefore it is a religious position,’ said Dorfl. ‘Indeed, a true atheist thinks of the gods constantly, albeit in terms of denial. Therefore, atheism is a form of belief. If the atheist truly did not believe, he or she would not bother to deny.’” “Dwarfs were not a naturally religious species, but in a world where pit props could crack without warning and pockets of fire damp could suddenly explode they'd seen the need for gods as the sort of supernatural equivalent of a hard hat. Besides, when you hit your thumb with an eight-pound hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a very special and strong-minded kind of atheist to jump up and down with their hand clasped under their other armpit and shout, ‘Oh, random-fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!’ or ‘Aaargh, primitive-and-outmoded-concept on a crutch!’” - Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay. Edited February 1, 2020 by Bernard Gui 2
Meadowchik Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: Can you give an example of this? When is an atheist not a nihilist? 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: I did provide an example in my comments. "I could argue that an atheist can be as unnihilistic as anyone, as a person who does not expect anything after this life and who therefore decides to live this life intentionally and fully and to at least live on by contributing to others while they are here. "
Storm Rider Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: I did provide an example in my comments. Is belief in eternal life really necessary for life to be valuable? How about life being valuable because it's ours? I do agree that the ritual and community of religion can help people manage anxiety, but I wouldn't say that current statistics mean it's the only way. Today's leavers of belief are coping in a world built largely with religious structures. I'd say it's possible for people to create better conditions as the number of nonbelievers continue to adapt It would appear your opinion conflicts with the reality found in this study. You posit that life can be valued because it is yours....but the very definition of atheism is that life has no value. We exist and then we die; end of story. The challenge to create a value to life when there is no future appears, based on the study, to be difficult for young people. I don't think it is impossible, but it clearly is far more difficult than for young people raised in a religious tradition.
Meadowchik Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: It would appear your opinion conflicts with the reality found in this study. How so? 5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: You posit that life can be valued because it is yours....but the very definition of atheism is that life has no value. No, that is not a definition of atheism. 1
Storm Rider Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: "I could argue that an atheist can be as unnihilistic as anyone, as a person who does not expect anything after this life and who therefore decides to live this life intentionally and fully and to at least live on by contributing to others while they are here. " I appreciate that you have an opinion. It shows up to me similar to the slapstick parody of the spaghetti monster. Funny thought, but still just a thought. It humanity is studied and deductions are produced unfavorable to atheism, does that mean we should ignore science? Always interesting when it is one's own creation being hoisted on its own petard.
Meadowchik Posted February 1, 2020 Posted February 1, 2020 4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: I appreciate that you have an opinion. It shows up to me similar to the slapstick parody of the spaghetti monster. Funny thought, but still just a thought. Are you saying that living life intentionally without expecting something after death, trying to add value to others lives, is some kind of parody? 4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: It humanity is studied and deductions are produced unfavorable to atheism, does that mean we should ignore science? Always interesting when it is one's own creation being hoisted on its own petard. Scientifically, I'd hardly use current studies as conclusive as to the net benefit of atheism. That's like judging the success of the formation of United States of America by its economic conditions in 1797. 1
Recommended Posts