Originally posted by mindbomb
sorry sometimes when im drunk i get paranoid and think every question is aimed at me, and yes I was very drunk in the morning hahaI geuss i would like to know what you believe god is
I think that God is beyond human understanding. That means anything that humans say about God, is at some level wrong. I also believe that God is natural. I do not believe in a creation, therefore, I do not believe that God is a creator. I believe that we are part of God, and cannot be separated from God. I believe that believing in or worshiping God is not required. We are not the center of the universe, and God is not specially concerned about us. I don’t believe that God has a plan, wants or needs. In conclusion, I am at some level fundamentally wrong about God, but that does not mean someone else is more right or wrong.
If you believe this:
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think that God is beyond human understanding.
Then how can you possibly extrapolate this:
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
. . . I also believe that God is natural. I do not believe in a creation, therefore, I do not believe that God is a creator. I believe that we are part of God, and cannot be separated from God. I believe that believing in or worshiping God is not required. We are not the center of the universe, and God is not specially concerned about us. I don’t believe that God has a plan, wants or needs.
Shaky, a famous philosopher (but not famous enough that I can remember his name, lol) once said that anything where the terms are stated clearly can be answered, and differences in answers come from vague or different language. I feel like this conversation is proof of that, as you seem to feel it fit to invent definitions of words you won't find in any dictionary, and then apply those meanings onto what I have said.
I said that atheism is the absence of the belief in God. It should be obvious that the common, dictionary definition, that one could find on pages like this.
You could make atheism easily sound stupid by applying definitions not on that list. You could say "God" means "cheese", and thus atheists don't believe in cheese, and that means atheism is obviously wrong. But that relies on a obscure if not manifestly ridiculous use of language, and adds nothing at all to the discussion that has non-semantic value. That principle obviously applies to your definition as well--if almost nobody uses the word that way, then it's probably not what I meant.
Basically, anything, anything at all, can be stupid and wrong if I take the words in it and change their definitions. Using that tactic, I could prove Buddhism is stupid and false as well. Using that tactic, I could prove Christianity is the one true religion. But these are gimmicks, and when you get down to it, they don't prove a thing.
here is something you guys can ponder and argue about
The eye by which I see God is the same as the eye by which God sees me. My eye and God's eye are one and the same — one in seeing, one in knowing, and one in loving.
-- Meister Eckhart
the problem here is that ppl seem to think they have to believe in something in order to discuss and argue for or against it.
shaky's personal belief or opinion of what he considers god to be doesnt mean he cant engage in a conversation or debate with some one with a different belief.
I read a little back in this thread but not to the end but it reminds me about my definition of god. My feeling that can be associated as a religion by some and not apart of religion by others is that god is everything, a part of everything, is not an entity and is non-condenscending. This would also mean that I am god and every person, place or thing is also god.
This is also what Jesus could have meant when he said, "I am the Son of god." Just as he and Paul stated that we need to be "Sons and daughters of god." But in becoming that we need the understanding that we become that only if we would acknowledge it in all of it's meaning and intirety. Enlightenment might have been synonymous of faith and Saved in the old language. Saved from the disconnection to everything else making your life a living hell and also understanding the law of Cause and Effect. That, if not understood leads to your unknowing path which leads to the hell of your own making.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
My feeling that can be associated as a religion by some and not apart of religion by others is that god is everything, a part of everything, is not an entity and is non-condenscending. This would also mean that I am god and every person, place or thing is also god.
Originally posted by King KandyYou would need to either understand where that person is talking/coming from..ie their reference. If you have been around or know the views of a person then you can assume to know.
If everything can be defined as "God", then what value does the word "God" add to this debates lexicon?
If not, then you should ask a question that would lead to a diffinition.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
You would need to either understand where that person is talking/coming from..ie their reference. If you have been around or know the views of a person then you can assume to know.If not, then you should ask a question that would lead to a diffinition.
You didn't answer my question... how is your definition of "God" conducive to concise communication? Why would you ever choose to use "God" rather than just "Everything" or "Existence"?
Originally posted by King Kandy
Shaky, a famous philosopher (but not famous enough that I can remember his name, lol) once said that anything where the terms are stated clearly can be answered, and differences in answers come from vague or different language. I feel like this conversation is proof of that, as you seem to feel it fit to invent definitions of words you won't find in any dictionary, and then apply those meanings onto what I have said.
I’m not making stuff up, although I have gone outside your boundary of knowledge, and to some degree mine, to pick a definition that really exists. Look up natural god.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I said that atheism is the absence of the belief in God. It should be obvious that the common, dictionary definition, that one could find on pages like.
You cannot have an absence of belief and know what something is. As soon as you know the concept of a god, you can only choose to believe it, or choose to not believe it. What you are telling me is illogical.
Originally posted by King Kandy
You could make atheism easily sound stupid by applying definitions not on that list. You could say "God" means "cheese", and thus atheists don't believe in cheese, and that means atheism is obviously wrong. But that relies on a obscure if not manifestly ridiculous use of language, and adds nothing at all to the discussion that has non-semantic value. That principle obviously applies to your definition as well--if almost nobody uses the word that way, then it's probably not what I meant.
Or I could find other definitions that really exists, and point out how illogical your point is.
You are acting like atheism is some kind of ant-belief. There is no such thing.
Do you know what happens when ant-belief encounters belief? They mutually annihilate each other in a flash of stupidity.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is not the point. If god is incomprehensible, then knowledge of god is impossible. You cannot possibly know anything about the characteristics of god if god is beyond human understanding.
That is absolutely correct. You also cannot say that God does not exist. I live with the fallible definition that I have until a better on comes along.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I’m not making stuff up, although I have gone outside your boundary of knowledge, and to some degree mine, to pick a definition that really exists. Look up natural god.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You cannot have an absence of belief and know what something is. As soon as you know the concept of a god, you can only choose to believe it, or choose to not believe it. What you are telling me is illogical.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or I could find other definitions that really exists, and point out how illogical your point is.You are acting like atheism is some kind of ant-belief. There is no such thing.
Do you know what happens when ant-belief encounters belief? They mutually annihilate each other in a flash of stupidity.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is absolutely correct. You also cannot say that God does not exist. I live with the fallible definition that I have until a better on comes along.
1. I believe god does not exist
2. I don't believe god exists
are not identical. The first is positive, the second is passive.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is absolutely correct. You also cannot say that God does not exist. I live with the fallible definition that I have until a better on comes along.
That is the difference between your belief and mine; I do not claim to have knowledge that I do not have, i.e. whether a god exists.
I simply do not believe that a god exists, because there is no evidence that a god exists. I do not affirm that there is no god.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think that God is beyond human understanding. That means anything that humans say about God, is at some level wrong. I also believe that God is natural. I do not believe in a creation, therefore, I do not believe that God is a creator. I believe that we are part of God, and cannot be separated from God. I believe that believing in or worshiping God is not required. We are not the center of the universe, and God is not specially concerned about us. I don’t believe that God has a plan, wants or needs. In conclusion, I am at some level fundamentally wrong about God, but that does not mean someone else is more right or wrong.
i geuss my next question is since you said atheism has nothing to offer what could this diffinition have to offer?