Are you an atheist? if so, What is your POV about God?

[McBell]

Now that was just pathetic.

I completely agree.
Now the question is why you are avoiding it with the goal post nonsense.

I rest my case and won't be continuing this exchange any more.

If you had no intentions of properly sourcing your "the" definition, you should have just said so.
Or perhaps simply ignored the request.
Instead, you tried a failed diversion.

 

[ArtieE]

Was someone arguing over _od, or GOD, or some god ????
I lost track !
~
'mud

It was just Mestemia quoting me as saying "That is "the" definition of God." and asking me for a source and then complaining that I didn't give him the source for the definition of other gods at the same time.

 

[`mud]

Wellllllll.........that explains that !!!
~
'mud

 

[McBell]

It was just Mestemia quoting me as saying "That is "the" definition of God." and asking me for a source and then complaining that I didn't give him the source for the definition of other gods at the same time.

And thus the problem is revealed.

Seems you need to look up the definition of the word "seems"

Your "source" sucked because it directly conflicted with the definitions you provided.
Instead of clarifying, you went off onto a goal post moving diversion.

 

[`mud]

Damn......tripped again !!!
~
'mud

 

[Acim]

But the scientific method IS the best around whether it's followed or not.

But the method IS rarely followed in an actual way. Thus begging the question of "what makes it best?" Or put another way, there would be no way to falsify such a claim, at least historically (as in yesterday and before).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
(KJV)

shabua is the Hebrew word for the English word week. It's meaning according to Strong's Concordance is: "a period of seven (days, years) heptad, week. I know you can't understand this because you do not have discernment, which is a gift from God for those who believe in Him. It's just a clue for you, a clue you will likely never see again, because you don't care to see it again, even if it is right in front of your face. Anyhow The Book of Daniel was written before Christ by 300 years, and it foretold of His coming to the exact day.

First of all, though I should not have to point this out, you have no basis whatsoever to make bald-faced proclamations about my "discernment," and I find it somewhat egotistical for you to pretend that you have a special gift just because you're a believer.

In any case, the text above is part of an extremely unhistorical book, written long after it claims (for itself) to be written, which is dishonest, and the text in question is completely impenetrable -- written, as these things often are, to be just exactly that. It's a pretty lousy "prophet" (and one quickly and easily proven wrong!) who makes prophecy in clear and certain terms, complete with actual dates.

There is simply no reason (except, as I shall point you to, trying to make previous prophecy somehow "fit") to claim "weeks" doesn't really mean what it says, but rather, "multiply (unmentioned) years by 7." That's the subterfuge part. It's trying to reconcile Jeremiah's promise of 70 years, written 434 years previously, which obviously had not yet happened.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crosse...ction-a-skeptical-approach-prophecy-70-weeks/

So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and suppose by "discernment" you mean "the ability and imagination to be able to read into any text, no matter the source or readability, precisely what I want to see there." If that's your meaning, then I'll give it to you. Otherwise, 'fraid not.

 

[Acim]

Agnosticism is very different from weak atheism. It can even be theistic.

With the ism on agnostic, I would say it is weak atheism. An agnostic theist is not engaging in agnosticism. Or if they are is about as reasonable as say atheistic theism. For there can be (likely are) theists who hold belief in a particular god (or set of gods) and disbelief in all other gods.

 

[ArtieE]

With the ism on agnostic, I would say it is weak atheism.

Agnosticism is about knowledge, weak atheism about belief. Apples and oranges.

An agnostic theist is not engaging in agnosticism.

Of course he is. Agnosticism is not knowing. An agnostic theist doesn't know if god(s) exist just believes.

Or if they are is about as reasonable as say atheistic theism. For there can be (likely are) theists who hold belief in a particular god (or set of gods) and disbelief in all other gods.

That's why they are called theists. Because they believe in at least one god. How many gods they don't believe in is beside the point.

 

[viole]

Suggesting that there is only a 0.1% chance that there is a god is anything but honest. You have no data at your disposal to arrive at such a conclusion. It is pure speculation on your part, and there is nothing honest about speculation. Speculation is just speculation, or in this case 98% wishful thinking.

What is, in your opinion, the probability of Superman ruling a planet in our galaxy?

Please, justify your estimation with hard data.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

To equate God with fairies in your backyard garden betrays a very narrow definition of God, that which little children imagine.

I wonder why, since they have the same exact evidence. By the way, there are people believing in fairies. And they might find your statement quite arrogant and demeaning.

As concerns me, I am quite tolerant and ecumenic. I have the same amount of belief for God as I have for fairies. And therefore, I strongly think that both beliefs deserve the same amount of respect. Pending additional evidence.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

Agnosticism is about knowledge, weak atheism about belief. Apples and oranges.

Do you have problems comparing apples to oranges? Beliefs and knowledge are both thoughts.

Of course he is. Agnosticism is not knowing. An agnostic theist doesn't know if god(s) exist just believes.That's why they are called theists.

I like how you implied the two above aren't combinable, but here they are. Like an appletic orange.

Because they believe in at least one god. How many gods they don't believe in is beside the point.

Just as not knowing is beside the point, yet the other allows for it to be intermingled with the overall construct. Such that if one has disbelief in all gods (thus atheism), but one, thus theism, they may be called an atheistic theist.

 

[ArtieE]

Do you have problems comparing apples to oranges? Beliefs and knowledge are both thoughts.

In post 308 you said agnosticism was weak atheism. Nonsense. An apple isn't an orange.

I like how you implied the two above aren't combinable,

Never said they weren't combinable said they weren't the same.

Just as not knowing is beside the point, yet the other allows for it to be intermingled with the overall construct. Such that if one has disbelief in all gods (thus atheism), but one, thus theism, they may be called an atheistic theist.

Nonsense again. As long as you believe in the existence of at least one god you're a theist regardless how many gods you don't believe in.

Are you on purpose trying to get everything you say wrong?

 

[Acim]

In post 308 you said agnosticism was weak atheism. Nonsense. An apple isn't an orange.

So, you're closed minded on this. Let me know if that changes.

Never said they weren't combinable said they weren't the same.Nonsense again. As long as you believe in the existence of at least one god you're a theist regardless how many gods you don't believe in.

But you're dealing here with amount or object of "belief" whereas agnostic theist, deals with what is believed and allegedly not known. So, you're taking an apple and saying it is an orange. But then responding to my assertion by telling me it doesn't matter how many apples you have. They're all oranges.

Are you on purpose trying to get everything you say wrong?

Are you that dense? Just exposing the deception of agnostic theism for what it is.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well, I was responding to previous post you wrote, where you said: then, you don't say anything about what the god you DO believe in is like.

So, you don't accept that, and seem to outright reject it without interest in discovering / understanding more. But no longer can you say (without being disingenuous) that 'you don't say anything about the god you DO believe in is like.

When the reality is you simply can't accept what is being said and are observably closed minded to understanding it. I dunno, me stating that might have you show up less close minded?

All based on circular reasoning. Not that the other view isn't, but gonna make a choice, either way between the two (Masters).

Sorry, but I don't think that's quite accurate. You say that you have provided is really a description of "what God is like." The statement "God is Love" is essentially devoid of meaning, unless you can provide a definition of "love" that is something other than an emotional feeling. You say a great number of things that "love is not," but that doesn't describe it at all. (I might say that a pomegranate is not hollow, that it is not taller than a horse, or any number of other nots, and you will not be an inch closer to understanding what pomegranate is. Similarly, saying "love is within in you" likewise does nothing. Saying a pomegranate is in the grocery store isn't very helpful, either.)

And then, going further, there is nothing in what you wrote about what your belief in God means to you. What does it require of you, or you of it? What would change for you if you stopped believing it? What does it want, or if it does not want, what makes you personalize it with the (proper) noun "God?"

 

[ArtieE]

But you're dealing here with amount or object of "belief" whereas agnostic theist, deals with what is believed and allegedly not known. So, you're taking an apple and saying it is an orange. But then responding to my assertion by telling me it doesn't matter how many apples you have. They're all oranges.

Are you that dense? Just exposing the deception of agnostic theism for what it is.

The whole post makes no sense.

 

[Acim]

Sorry, but I don't think that's quite accurate. You say that you have provided is really a description of "what God is like." The statement "God is Love" is essentially devoid of meaning, unless you can provide a definition of "love" that is something other than an emotional feeling.

I believe I already have, but you clearly stated: You have to understand that I don't accept the way you appear to be defining "love" any more Than I accept the various definitions of god that I'm aware of.

Thus, you are rejecting whatever it is I put forth.

You say a great number of things that "love is not," but that doesn't describe it at all. (I might say that a pomegranate is not hollow, that it is not taller than a horse, or any number of other nots, and you will not be an inch closer to understanding what pomegranate is. Similarly, saying "love is within in you" likewise does nothing. Saying a pomegranate is in the grocery store isn't very helpful, either.)

I think not-statements do help understand / describe it. To say that is inherently meaningless would mean atheism is arguably inherently meaningless (via not believing).

I can provide understandings of love that do not utilize not-statements. I can also do so without relying on emotional feeling, yet that last part is debatable, for anything can be put in that category if one wants it there. Knowledge can be an emotional feeling.

But in the interest of being fair with what you asked, and with understanding that you'll likely reject whatever I put forth, I'll give you a couple of such assertions:
- Love is the desire (or idea) to give (all of) what you have to all (or at least willingness to give to someone).
- Love knows that strength is gained by giving / sharing what you have

*Wish to note that I could've stipulated both assertions with contrasts to how things appear to work in this world, and why those might not seem accurate, but chose instead to maintain positive assertions only.

And then, going further, there is nothing in what you wrote about what your belief in God means to you.

Not accurate. I say in previous post "God equals Love." If you need that parsed out, I'll also say "God means Love to me." I also said this entity is not over yonder, but is within. That means to me that God is within Me (and You). Felt I was explicit with that. Said other things about what it means to me to understand God within context of my life, all life, and how this relates to forgiveness.

What does it require of you, or you of it?

Love has no requirements.
I desire (wouldn't say require) God/Spirit communicate with me in some fashion daily. Usually multiple times a day. I receive such communications in discernible ways often. I would argue that God never stops speaking with Us, but admit I don't always have awareness of experiencing that.

What would change for you if you stopped believing it?

I would forego Knowledge. I imagine I would resort to a position where doubt and fear would be my primary guides.

What does it want, or if it does not want, what makes you personalize it with the (proper) noun "God?"

God / Spirit does not want. Though I would think in some technical semantical way, I could concede to idea of God wanting, but would be a bunch of semantical stuff occurring.

I use proper noun as a way to distinguish from generic form of god(s). That I am referencing a particular God, in vein of Gnostic Christianity.
I have either no issue, or very little with referencing 'it' as god (and would know for myself what I mean). Also have very little issue with referencing it with Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Yahweh, or Spirit, or perhaps countless other symbolic representations, and would know what I mean by it.

 

[Acim]

The whole post makes no sense.

Ignorant much?

 

[ArtieE]

Ignorant much?

Yes you are.

 

[Segev Moran]

What are you gonna do, fly there at the speed of light? The nearest hope is 4.2 light years away.
Our fastest spacecraft travels at a whopping 165,000 miles/hour. That is 4,058 times slower than the speed of light.
So you'll be arriving there in approximately 17,043.6 years, if you leave right now.

Wow...
You do realize we can actually get to Mars right?...it is not that far from us (in universe distance terms), it actually takes less than a year to get there...