bumped for end of page:
Originally posted by Deadline
Nope your just not getting it and clearly not listening. As I pointed out humans are similar to the Norse God conceptually.
Yes yes, we're the most powerful beings within our reality that we know of, and have many similar characteristics to gods of mythology. Our definition of gods is relative to what we consider exceptional, Usain Bolt could be considered a god of speed relative to our views, there's many other examples like that, etc. etc. I understand your position, agree with parts of it (though not all) and have read all your posts that respond to me.
But again, what's the point? Why call us gods when you could just say we're humans and avoid the confusion? What do we gain by labeling ourselves as such?
Originally posted by Autokrat
Hasn't this entire debate been nothing more than a pointless argument of semantics?
Pretty much.
Originally posted by Digi
Yes yes, we're the most powerful beings within our reality that we know of, and have many similar characteristics to gods of mythology. Our definition of gods is relative to what we consider exceptional, Usain Bolt could be considered a god of speed relative to our views, there's many other examples like that, etc. etc. I understand your position, agree with parts of it (though not all) and have read all your posts that respond to me.
Which therefore means that humans fit into the defintion of a pagan god not a monotheistic one.
Originally posted by Digi
So again, what's the point? Why call us gods when you could just say we're humans and avoid the confusion? What do we gain by labeling ourselves as such?
There is no confusion. Im just pointing out that if we exist there are other beings more powerful than us and the concept of gods is not such an irrational idea.
When the wind is blowing and there an earthquake it may not actually be what you think it is. It could actually be a highier lifeform. What you think is going on could be something else entirely.
Originally posted by Autokrat
If you start changing definitions all the time, then of course you could very well claim anything means anything or relates to anything.
Except im not doing that. If you have a defintion and something fits into it its not semantics. A rock would not fit into a defintion of what a god is.
Originally posted by Deadline
Which therefore means that humans fit into the defintion of a pagan god not a monotheistic one.
k, sure.
Originally posted by Deadline
There is no confusion. Im just pointing out that if we exist there are other beings more powerful than us and the concept of gods is not such an irrational idea.
Ok, fine (again). 'cept I wouldn't call them gods. I'd just call them beings more powerful than us. There's no need to insert religion where it will just create murky meanings.
Originally posted by Deadline
When the wind is blowing and there an earthquake it may not actually be what you think it is. It could actually be a highier lifeform. What you think is going on could be something else entirely.
We've had this particular discussion before. But. Is this possible? Yes. Is it likely, plausible, rational, etc.? No. We know what causes earthquakes. And while it could be something else, it's irrational to believe in something with no evidence when there is very, very refined evidence for a non-god explanation.
I have no problem with admitting that all kinds of this are possible, including gods, God, etc. But please understand the distinction between possible and plausible.
Originally posted by Deadline
Except im not doing that. If you have a defintion and something fits into it its not semantics. A rock would not fit into a defintion of what a god is.
A Christian's definition of God or gods wouldn't fit yours. Yours doesn't fit mine. And if I defined God to be all of the universe, a rock would indeed be God and our definitions would be incompatible. So yes. Semantics. This is the very definition of a semantic discussion.
Originally posted by Digi
...Deadline: how does this affect your worldview? What is gained, or what changes, from referring to ourselves as gods instead of humans...?
Originally posted by DeadlineStill, c'mon, share. It could help us understand your POV.
Don't see how thats relevant really.
But if you prefer to keep it private, das cool. 😎
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then 95% of gods in human history wouldn't qualify as gods. I'd say your definition is a pretty terrible one.
Argh. Are you going to play semantics with me too, Sym? I'll stick to a point shakya made earlier to give you my definition. Gods of myth didn't adhere to the physical laws of the universe. If they transcended such laws, as Zeus and the like do, then yes they're gods. If they adhere to such rules, however powerful, they are not gods. As powerful as gods, perhaps. But not gods in and of themselves. Thor's a god, for example...he uses non-causal magic. Doctor Who is not. Potentially as powerful, but through science.
But the point was aimed at Deadline's logic, which was to refer to humans as gods for no discernible reason that he's been able to give to us. He was saying he'd call powerful aliens gods, and similar points. As such, I stand by my point, exactly how it was worded, because your objections to it here are coming from a different perspective than the context it was originally intended for.
Originally posted by Digi
Argh. Are you going to play semantics with me too, Sym? I'll stick to a point shakya made earlier to give you my definition. Gods of myth didn't adhere to the physical laws of the universe. If they transcended such laws, as Zeus and the like do, then yes they're gods. If they adhere to such rules, however powerful, they are not gods. As powerful as gods, perhaps. But not gods in and of themselves. [b]Thor's a god, for example...he uses non-causal magic. Doctor Who is not. Potentially as powerful, but through science.
[/B]
Argh! Thats nonsense. There are lots of people who don't think that gods use magic its just a highier form of physics. If you want to follow that defintion its fine but stop trying to pretend that im just inventing something.
Its ridiculous its as this the athiests had some convention and just decided that they have the only correct defintion for what a god is. Millions of people disagree with that point of view. This is why im saying you are missing the point and just ignoring what im saying.
Stop pretending thats the only correct defintion and im making shit up.
Originally posted by Mindship
Still, c'mon, share. It could help us understand your POV.But if you prefer to keep it private, das cool. 😎
Sorry not ignoring you im just kinda busy.
Originally posted by Deadline
Argh! Thats nonsense. There are lots of people who don't think that gods use magic its just a highier form of physics. If you want to follow that defintion its fine but stop trying to pretend that im just inventing something.Its ridiculous its as this the athiests had some convention and just decided that they have the only correct defintion for what a god is. Millions of people disagree with that point of view. This is why im saying you are missing the point and just ignoring what im saying.
Stop pretending thats the only correct defintion and im making shit up.
Sorry not ignoring you im just kinda busy.
Deadline, you can believe anything you want to believe. But if you get on this forum and make claims that your belief is fact, then do not become tweaked if someone confronts you on that belief. It is your responsibility to support your ideas. If you are going to convince anyone that what you believe is true, then you need to look at your belief from every direction. We are simply helping you with that. If you don't want anyone to challenge your ideas, then don't debate anyone on the subject.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Deadline, you can believe anything you want to believe. But if you get on this forum and make claims that your belief is fact, then do not become tweaked if someone confronts you on that belief.
Its not a fact that lots of religous people think that their beliefs can't be explained through science? Ok I guess im wrong. Yes thats a fact.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is your responsibility to support your ideas. If you are going to convince anyone that what you believe is true, then you need to look at your belief from every direction. We are simply helping you with that. If you don't want anyone to challenge your ideas, then don't debate anyone on the subject.
I don't have to convince anybody because it a matter of an opinion wether my defintion is correct or not. The problem is you guys are pretending that your defintion is the only traditional point of view.
In all honesty I just simply think that in the same way Christians use the devil to refute science, athiests just use science to refute religious beliefs. If science can be used to explain anything religous you just lie to yourselves and pretend that it changes what it is.
You're just basically lying to yoursellf and ignoring what im saying. You're not debating you are arguing the same way a Christian would.
Originally posted by Digi
k, sure.
Fine.
Originally posted by Digi
Ok, fine (again). 'cept I wouldn't call them gods. I'd just call them beings more powerful than us. There's no need to insert religion where it will just create murky meanings.
Thats up to you. Other people would.
Originally posted by Digi
We've had this particular discussion before. But. Is this possible? Yes. Is it likely, plausible, rational, etc.? No. We know what causes earthquakes. And while it could be something else, it's irrational to believe in something with no evidence when there is very, very refined evidence for a non-god explanation.I have no problem with admitting that all kinds of this are possible, including gods, God, etc. But please understand the distinction between possible and plausible.
Yes and again I understand the difference its still possible and plausible. You just don't define them as gods.
Originally posted by Digi
A Christian's definition of God or gods wouldn't fit yours. Yours doesn't fit mine. And if I defined God to be all of the universe, a rock would indeed be God and our definitions would be incompatible. So yes. Semantics. This is the very definition of a semantic discussion.
So what? The fact of the matter is humans fit the defintion of a pagan god. If it doesn't fit your opinion of what a god is thats up to you but don't try and sit there and pretend like im making shit up.
Originally posted by Deadline
Its not a fact that lots of religous people think that their beliefs can't be explained through science? Ok I guess im wrong. Yes thats a fact.I don't have to convince anybody because it a matter of an opinion wether my defintion is correct or not. [b]The problem is you guys are pretending that your defintion is the only traditional point of view.
In all honesty I just simply think that in the same way Christians use the devil to refute science, athiests just use science to refute religious beliefs. If science can be used to explain anything religous you just lie to yourselves and pretend that it changes what it is.
You're just basically lying to yoursellf and ignoring what im saying. You're not debating you are arguing the same way a Christian would. [/B]
We are not talking about if people believe something or not. We are talking about rather humans can be defined as gods. You are redirecting the argument, and building a straw man.
BTW I'm not an atheist, and I'm a very religious person. My religion agrees with science completely. If your beliefs do not align with science, then it is not science's fault.
How am I lying to myself? Also, I am not ignoring what you are saying, but I am disagreeing with you. Do you always get bent out of shape when someone disagrees with you? If you do, then I think it is because your point is too weak, and you know it, but can't admit it.
Originally posted by Deadline
...So what? The fact of the matter is humans fit the defintion of a pagan god. If it doesn't fit your opinion of what a god is thats up to you but don't try and sit there and pretend like im making shit up.
Pagan god? Now that is new. You are not telling us everything. The term pagan god is an insult from Christians, that was, in the past, usually followed by being killed.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We are not talking about if people believe something or not. We are talking about rather humans can be defined as gods. You are redirecting the argument, and building a straw man.
Its not a straw man argument your not getting it. The point is if people believe that supernatural can be explained by science human being scan be defined as gods and lots of people don't have a problem with seeing gods as just more powerful versions of ourselves.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
BTW I'm not an atheist, and I'm a very religious person. My religion agrees with science completely. If your beliefs do not align with science, then it is not science's fault.
Well it seems maybe you just don't understand what im saying.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How am I lying to myself? Also, I am not ignoring what you are saying, but I am disagreeing with you. Do you always get bent out of shape when someone disagrees with you? If you do, then I think it is because your point is too weak, and you know it, but can't admit it.
I get bent out of shape when people ignore the points im making, theres a difference between ignoring somebody and disagreeing.
Your saying that if science can be used to explain a god then it doesn't fit the definition of what god is. Heres the problem and this is what im finding irritating, you are acting like this is the only traditional point of view of the defintion. This is the reason why humans can't be gods because eventhough they can fit the criteria of what a god in some ways they are not supernatural. What im trying to explain to you and you don't seem to be getting into your head thats not essential. If its not essential then human beings can be defined as gods.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Pagan god? Now that is new. You are not telling us everything. The term pagan god is an insult from Christians, that was, in the past, usually followed by being killed.
Thats exactly what im talking about. Which clearly illustrates all this time you dont seem to be getting it. Why are we using The Christian god as the only criteria for what a god is?
No it isn't new. Paganism is new...wow.
Originally posted by Deadline
Thats exactly what im talking about. Which clearly illustrates all this time you dont seem to be getting it. Why are we using The Christian god as the only criteria for what a god is?
It is not my responsibility to know what you are talking about, when you have not stated what you are talking about. If no one understands you, then it is your fault.
Why do I use the Christian god as the only criteria for what a god is? I do not do that intentionally. I have a habit of restricting what I talk about to the thing I know about. I was raised as a Christian, and I understand Christianity very well. I asked you earlier to post a link to the definition of god that you are using, but you said you were too tired. Also, from my point of view, the Christian god is a pagan god, and there is no difference as far as truth is concerned.
I think if we redefine the word god enough, then what you are saying is true. However, who gave you the right to redefine a word like god? If we are going to redefine words, then I should be allowed to do the same. I say god means the universe.
😄
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is not my responsibility to know what you are talking about, when you have not stated what you are talking about. If no one understands you, then it is your fault.
Nope. I mentioned pagan gods and I explained how they were different.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why do I use the Christian god as the only criteria for what a god is? I do not do that intentionally. I have a habit of restricting what I talk about to the thing I know about. I was raised as a Christian, and I understand Christianity very well. I asked you earlier to post a link to the definition of god that you are using, but you said you were too tired. Also, from my point of view, the Christian god is a pagan god, and there is no difference as far as truth is concerned.
I didn't post a defintion but I explained to you how they differ. You might think that the Christian God is pagan but hes not the same as the Norse Gods.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think if we redefine the word god enough, then what you are saying is true. However, who gave you the right to redefine a word like god? If we are going to redefine words, then I should be allowed to do the same. I say god means the universe.😄
Which is why im getting bent out of shape, I know the difference between disagreeing and arguing which is what you are doing.
Im not redefining anything. The Christian defintion of what god is not the only acceptable and traditional view of what a gods is. You are taking a defintion of god and pretending like thats the only correct one. I explained this to you a hundred times already.
Originally posted by Deadline
Nope. I mentioned pagan gods and I explained how they were different.I didn't post a defintion but I explained to you how they differ. You might think that the Christian God is pagan but hes not the same as the Norse Gods.
Which is why im getting bent out of shape, I know the difference between disagreeing and arguing which is what you are doing.
Im not redefining anything. The Christian defintion of what god is not the only acceptable and traditional view of what a gods is. You are taking a defintion of god and pretending like thats the only correct one. I explained this to you a hundred times already.
You exaggerate a lot.
Does everyone always disagree with you, and misunderstand you? If so...
By any definition that does exist, humans cannot be defined as gods. A half human and half god is a demigod.