A Simple Start

[Earthling]

the human form of Jesus died, not the god-side.

 

[Audie]

Oh, I'd love to, Audie, but . . . then you said it.

Right, someone else's fault that you are not good
for your word. Contemptible.

 

[HonestJoe]

You're arguing this from an atheist perspective and it's warping your ability to consider facts. You are the one limiting the word to having a single meaning. You think a god has to be God or is just an imitation of the God.

Your OP literally gives a singular definition for the word! I’m saying that the word can mean different things in different contexts. Note that I’m not claiming the phrase “There are no gods” is true or false, only that you can’t declare any statement definitively true or false without knowing the context it’s being used.

This has literally nothing to do with atheism, we’re talking about language and logic, not theology. The same principles apply to any other noun (and I suspect a number of religious people would actualy object to your generalised definition of the word ).

Nonsense. Eric Clapton isn't a prime number, isn't a cure for cancer, is a god and does exist. Therefore at least one god exists. The statement that there are no gods is nonsensical.

Why are you allowed to declare what a word means but I can’t? Why can’t I say a prime number is anything that can be counted to a prime and there is only one Eric Clapton? Why can’t I say anything a cancer patient experiences before going in to remission is a cure for cancer and I know someone who listened to Eric Clapton during their successful chemotherapy? How are they any different to your definitive definition of the word “god” in the OP?

But to say a god has to be supernatural or omniscient is false.

I never said that. Sometimes the word “god” is used to mean that and sometimes the word “god” is used to mean something different.

To say "To me, there are no gods" is fine.

What if the “to me” isn’t actually spoken but implied by context or inflection? Is the truth of a statement based on the definitions used by the speaker or the definitions used by the listener?

When you say "No gods exist" that means you are saying that no one no where at any time has ever said that a thing or person, whether existing or not, was ever venerated or attributed a might greater than his / her own and that is false. By definition and common use.

That is a lie! I have spoken that exact phrase and it is not what I meant. You’re perfectly free to take your own interpretation of my words but you can’t decide what I mean, what is actually inside my own brain.

And surely rather than presuming what people mean when they make general statements, it would be much more rational and normal to ask them to clarify what they actually mean if you consider their statements false or otherwise flawed?

The most common use of the word God may specifically refer to a single God but that doesn't negate the existence, including the actual physical existence, of many other gods and goddesses. But that is what you are suggesting.

No I’m not. The definitions of the word “god” (or the word “God”, which is different) have absolutely zero impact on reality. We could entirely eliminate the words and the existence or non-existence of any actual beings, powers or concepts would remain precisely the same. Again, this is a purely a debate of semantics, not theology.

 

[Earthling]

Your OP literally gives a singular definition for the word!

How deluded can you possibly be?! My OP gives 2 qualifications for being a God. I then gave all of the dictionary definitions of the word and invited anyone to present the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin or English definition of the word that disqualified my 2 qualifications. No one has.

I’m saying that the word can mean different things in different contexts.

Within those 2 qualifications. Might. Veneration. Simple. Give just one that isn't.

Note that I’m not claiming the phrase “There are no gods” is true or false, only that you can’t declare any statement definitively true or false without knowing the context it’s being used.

If you make the statement there are no gods, what possible context can you make that true? Do it now. Let me try first.

"There are no gods." False. There are millions.

"There are no gods that are supernatural." Opinion. May be true may be false. Doesn't change the qualifications for being a god.

"There are no gods that I'm aware of." Ignorance. Doesn't change the qualifications.

"There are no gods because gods is defined by might or veneration." Doesn't matter what is or isn't mightier to you or me, it matters what is mighty to the one attributing might to the god. Doesn't change the qualifications.

"There are no gods because I'm a doofus turd who thinks that anything mightier than me would be a god" One of the qualifications for being a god is might. That doesn't mean that anything mightier than you is a god. Like one of the qualifications for being an English teacher is to speak English doesn't mean that anyone who can speak English is an English teacher. Anyway. Doesn't change the qualifications.

"There are no gods because I personally think that a god must be a supernatural creator of universes." You're an idiot. Doesn't change the qualifications.

This has literally nothing to do with atheism, we’re talking about language and logic, not theology.

True to an extent. The claim that there are no gods as has been the definition of atheism word for word for about 200 years is relevant as an example of stupidity.

The same principles apply to any other noun (and I suspect a number of religious people would actualy object to your generalised definition of the word ).

Like I said, all definitions of the word god fit within the 2 qualifications I mentioned. Religious people should recognize that, and if they don't they might want to give it some thought.

Why are you allowed to declare what a word means but I can’t?

First of all, I didn't declare it, it was declared thousands of years ago and hasn't deviated from that at all. You want to argue that anything or anyone can't be a god because that would mean that atheism is nonsensical. You can't argue your way out of that by quasi intellectual excursion or linguistics which have already dictated to you what a god is. The idiots who started using the term "there are no gods" were ignorant of what it means to be a god and were primarily only concerned with one god who they called God.

Why can’t I say a prime number is anything that can be counted to a prime and there is only one Eric Clapton? Why can’t I say anything a cancer patient experiences before going in to remission is a cure for cancer and I know someone who listened to Eric Clapton during their successful chemotherapy? How are they any different to your definitive definition of the word “god” in the OP?

I used the example of English teacher above. How can you **** up the English language to justify your use of atheist propaganda? Educate yourself. Stop regurgitating nonsense. Think for yourself. If I'm wrong show me what qualifications a prime number must be and how that could apply to Mr. Clapton. That still wouldn't change the 2 qualifications for being a god.

I never said that. Sometimes the word “god” is used to mean that and sometimes the word “god” is used to mean something different.

Then, what is a god, Joe? How can someone make the statement that there are no gods truthful? How, for that matter, can someone say "there are no Lords" and be truthful and accurate? Or "there are no men." The only possible context in which this could possibly be done is if you said "There are no gods, lords, or men." In answer to the question of "Is there any gods, lords or men in the men's room of the Beverly Hills Hotel at 3:30 A.M. on Tuesday, January 5th, 2018?" And even that would be somewhat incomplete and wouldn't change the qualifications.

What if the “to me” isn’t actually spoken but implied by context or inflection? Is the truth of a statement based on the definitions used by the speaker or the definitions used by the listener?

First of all, it wouldn't change the qualifications in the OP, and second it would be misleading, incomplete or just stupid and irresponsible to leave the "to me" out.

That is a lie! I have spoken that exact phrase and it is not what I meant. You’re perfectly free to take your own interpretation of my words but you can’t decide what I mean, what is actually inside my own brain.

What difference could you possibly introduce in which saying "There are no gods" is truthful or in accordance with what a god is?! You were wrong, in your own brain.

And surely rather than presuming what people mean when they make general statements, it would be much more rational and normal to ask them to clarify what they actually mean if you consider their statements false or otherwise flawed?

How many posts will it take for you to get the message, accept you are wrong and correct yourself or demonstrate where I'm wrong in saying might and / or veneration? You can't mental extort yourself out of it. You're just wrong. Ignorant of what it means to be a god and how that is applied even though I've given you everything you need to make that correction.

No I’m not. The definitions of the word “god” (or the word “God”, which is different) have absolutely zero impact on reality. We could entirely eliminate the words and the existence or non-existence of any actual beings, powers or concepts would remain precisely the same. Again, this is a purely a debate of semantics, not theology.

One of the Hebrew words for god(s) is elohim. A few years back the Christians suddenly got obsessed with this word. Elohim this and elohim that. Praise Elohim. Until someone, probably a JW, pointed out that the word in the Bible was applied to men, both righteous and unrighteous, to angels, and to Dagon. They stopped using the word. Elohim can also be plural. Gods. Or, it can be used in a plural sense to the singular god in majesty or excellence. Like with Moses. Moses was a God. It's like Paul said, there are many gods and many lords but to us (the early Christian congregations) there is only one God and one Lord. That applied to them, not everyone else. They recognized that there were many gods and lords.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Before you try to fake being the victim, you do realize that YOU were the one who called my belief blind to begin with and you compared me to a drug user. Are you contemptuous of us monotheists?

I only reciprocated in kind to your dismissive and insulting behavior. Actually I have nothing against Christians specifically. Frankly, if this was your first time insulting me for no reason, I'd just ignore it.

I am honest with theists and atheists who aren't born again.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm also waiting to see it from you.


Likewise.

The love I have for you comes with reproof. The difference is I don't write things like "You are deluded." I believe you have had some encounters with God but have lost your way.

 

[Audie]

I am honest with theists and atheists who aren't born again.

Yes, honestly, insulting, belittling, and much inclined to the
fictional.

 

[Jumi]

I am honest with theists and atheists who aren't born again.

You feel insulted about things you yourself say to others and you don't feel that you are insulting.

The love I have for you comes with reproof. The difference is I don't write things like "You are deluded." I believe you have had some encounters with God but have lost your way.

If you don't like others talking to you the way you talk to them, why not change it? Or do you think you're so superior to other people that everyone should just accept your insults as "love".

People don't enjoy being talked down to. It's especially annoying when the person talking down doesn't seem to follow his own guidelines.

 

[Earthling]

Yes, honestly, insulting, belittling, and much inclined to the
fictional.

If true, peas in a pod.

 

[Quintessence]

When you say "No gods exist" that means you are saying that no one no where at any time has ever said that a thing or person, whether existing or not, was ever venerated or attributed a might greater than his / her own and that is false. By definition and common use.

I'd like to point out that this isn't really the common usage. I understand the struggle of interpreting what an atheist means when they say "gods don't exist" or something similar. After all, were I to interpret this at face value with respect to my own religious tradition the results would be at least as absurd as what you say here, if not worse.

At that point, however, I realize I needed to take a step back and check my assumptions. What is it that this other person is intending to communicate to me? What does that word "god" mean to them? From experience, I can tell you that it rarely if ever matches up with polytheistic or pantheistic theology. A major reason why I find labels like "theist" and "atheist" useless is because "god" means many different things in different cultural and theological contexts. Unfortunately, we often use these terms as if they have some sort of universal meaning that is biased towards our culture's particular norms. In the case of my culture, a person's understanding of theism is heavily biased by classical monotheism, Abrahamic theology and religion (especially Christian).

The term "atheism" only makes sense within a particular cultural context that has defined a norm for what "god" means - it only makes sense as a constrast to a specific type of theism. It becomes nonsensical the moment one attempts to apply it to all types of theism or all god-concepts. You get absurdities like you talk about above, or things like "the air I'm breathing doesn't exist." The key is to remember that's obviously not what an atheist means to say. The common usage of the word "god" in my culture is the god of the Bible - classical monotheism. I start with the assumption that an atheist in my culture rejects that god, throws out other gods with the bathwater under the assumption they operate like that god, and maintains a monotheist stance that other gods aren't "really" gods. Sometimes, the person is more of an apatheist (aka, the "lack of belief" crowd) than an atheist - they just don't care.

I suppose the point I want to get across in all of this is to be mindful that how we use terms is not how others use terms. Talk it out with folks rather than make assumptions.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You feel insulted about things you yourself say to others and you don't feel that you are insulting.


If you don't like others talking to you the way you talk to them, why not change it? Or do you think you're so superior to other people that everyone should just accept your insults as "love".

People don't enjoy being talked down to. It's especially annoying when the person talking down doesn't seem to follow his own guidelines.

You may hear "talked down to" because it's hard to hear emotion online, but sincerely, I would tell anyone like you, who says, "The Bible is wrong, I know, because I talk to God," respectfully, they are talking to "the wrong God".

 

[Jumi]

You may hear "talked down to" because it's hard to hear emotion online, but sincerely, I would tell anyone like you, who says, "The Bible is wrong, I know, because I talk to God," respectfully, they are talking to "the wrong God".

You're strangely messed up on the timing too, because you were first to call my views blind belief, when I reciprocated you thought I was being anti-christian. Of course it doesn't come as a surprise because you've started with the insults before.

Apparently you don't care about what I think either, based on your guesswork so far about my views. I think you might be talking to the wrong God.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You're strangely messed up on the timing too, because you were first to call my views blind belief, when I reciprocated you thought I was being anti-christian. Of course it doesn't come as a surprise because you've started with the insults before.

Apparently you don't care about what I think either, based on your guesswork so far about my views. I think you might be talking to the wrong God.

Again, I'm trying to help you, presuming you may be misled--which presumption comes from you saying/writing:

1) The Christian God is the wrong God to speak to

2) I have blind beliefs

3) I hate you, when rather, I respect you

 

[Jumi]

1) The Christian God is the wrong God to speak to

Never said that line, I don't believe you're speaking for Christians at all. I know good ones, who don't come out with insults and then try to make themselves into victims of it all.

And if we go by your twisted logic you're saying the Monotheist God is false.

2) I have blind beliefs

And again, this is something you said to begin with. Amazing, isn't it? You're still annoyed about something you said to me first.

3) I hate you, when rather, I respect you

People who respect others, show it. You haven't. Not in discussion or before. If you don't show respect don't expect others to respect you either.

 

[Notaclue]

A god is anything or anyone who is attributed a might that is greater than the one attributing it, so the statement that there are no god(s) is false. Correct?

1Cor.8:5(ASV) For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many;
6 yet to us(Christians) there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.

Christians have One God, the Father.


Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. (2Cor.5:17)

 

[BilliardsBall]

Never said that line, I don't believe you're speaking for Christians at all. I know good ones, who don't come out with insults and then try to make themselves into victims of it all.

And if we go by your twisted logic you're saying the Monotheist God is false.


And again, this is something you said to begin with. Amazing, isn't it? You're still annoyed about something you said to me first.


People who respect others, show it. You haven't. Not in discussion or before. If you don't show respect don't expect others to respect you either.

The monotheist God is an incomplete picture--God is triune, three-in-one.

I'm not annoyed, respectfully, I'm asking you to calm down enough to approach God and ask, as I did, for extraordinary proof that Jesus is the Christ, then respond.

 

[Earthling]

1Cor.8:5(ASV) For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many;
6 yet to us(Christians) there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.

Christians have One God, the Father.


Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. (2Cor.5:17)

What Paul was saying was that Christians have one God above all others, though there are many gods. That is in line with the OP. God, the Father, Jehovah is the one God, though Jesus was prophetically called a mighty god at Isaiah 9:6. Moses was appointed to be a God to Aaron and Pharaoh, the judges of Israel were gods. (Exodus 4:16 / Exodus 7:1 / Psalms 82:1 / Psalms 82:6 / John 10:34-35) Those weren't false gods of the nations.

 

[Jumi]

The monotheist God is an incomplete picture--God is triune, three-in-one.

I'm not annoyed, respectfully, I'm asking you to calm down enough to approach God and ask, as I did, for extraordinary proof that Jesus is the Christ, then respond.

When you started our discussion with insults, you should have expected the results. When you started claiming yourself as a victim though you started with insults, you should have expected that I will not be interested in whatever you're promoting.

I was taught to say sorry when I made a mistake, perhaps your trinitarian beliefs don't have the same kind of morality.

 

[BilliardsBall]

When you started our discussion with insults, you should have expected the results. When you started claiming yourself as a victim though you started with insults, you should have expected that I will not be interested in whatever you're promoting.

I was taught to say sorry when I made a mistake, perhaps your trinitarian beliefs don't have the same kind of morality.

1) Then say sorry, for attacking me now for like the fifth time, multiple times after I've explained myself.

2) Then say sorry, for saying I have empty/wrong belief in the Bible and Jesus Christ.

3) Then be repentant, instead of saying "you started with a [perceived, assumed] insult, so therefore, I'm justified in attacking you these multiple times.

4) Then have fellowship with me, and learn of the true God. Or go away and insult someone else.

 

[Jumi]

1) Then say sorry, for attacking me now for like the fifth time, multiple times after I've explained myself.

Your so-called explanations have been laced with more insults. But you feel justified in insulting people first, then asking them to apologize if they are insulted by you.

2) Then say sorry, for saying I have empty/wrong belief in the Bible and Jesus Christ.

You have to go first, since you were the first to say I hold empty beliefs. Though I'm sure you already forgot.

3) Then be repentant, instead of saying "you started with a [perceived, assumed] insult, so therefore, I'm justified in attacking you these multiple times.

You feel justified attacking first, but don't feel like it when someone tells you the same.

4) Then have fellowship with me, and learn of the true God. Or go away and insult someone else.

Why would I learn from someone who starts with insults and then tries to put all blame on me? You haven't demonstrated that you know anything I should learn.