The god semantics language of argument

[Cacotopia]

Very nitpicky to be honest. The god is not real prove me wrong thread? Lot of questions of which god.....when in the OP the god was not specified, but because not a specific one is listed or a <(s)> was not tacked on the end, people have to drag you through a harangue of useless questions trying to figure out which one they are talking about.

I find it is an irrelevant question if he is an atheist why would he be arguing for a specific god? Granted arguing the existence of god to me is a fruitless endeavor because it can neither be proven nor disproven. But I can read with a grain of salt, why can't some of you? No no no no no I must be told specifically what question I* want to read.

No one has the time of day to write every single god's name down in history. And a huge chunk of them have been lost to history. Can you name 6000+ plus gods? Do you even know all the names? and how long you think it would take to type them all down?? It's a waste of time. God(s) aren't real, don't ask me which god, ****in' all of them.

 

[Frog]

Awareness/abidance of the universal laws will plug you into the eternal godhead.

 

[Cacotopia]

Awareness/abidance of the universal laws will plug you into the eternal godhead.

I see what you did there but I'm not going to bite.

 

[Frog]

I see what you did there but I'm not going to bite.

Honestly though, If you really want to know what is true and what isn't all you need to do is tune your awareness. We are an earthly apparatus built with nerves and and sensors we are spiritual beings having a human experience not humans having a spiritual experience

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Very nitpicky to be honest. The god is not real prove me wrong thread? Lot of questions of which god.....when in the OP the god was not specified, but because not a specific one is listed or a <(s)> was not tacked on the end, people have to drag you through a harangue of useless questions trying to figure out which one they are talking about.

I find it is an irrelevant question if he is an atheist why would he be arguing for a specific god? Granted arguing the existence of god to me is a fruitless endeavor because it can neither be proven nor disproven. But I can read with a grain of salt, why can't some of you? No no no no no I must be told specifically what question I* want to read.

No one has the time of day to write every single god's name down in history. And a huge chunk of them have been lost to history. Can you name 6000+ plus gods? Do you even know all the names? and how long you think it would take to type them all down?? It's a waste of time. God(s) aren't real, don't ask me which god, ****in' all of them.

My question is, if I understood, how can an atheist argue about a general definition of god when there is no god?

The only thing an atheist can do with arguing gods is to pick one so at least we will be on the same topic regardless our beliefs.

But if one is an atheist, and there is nonspecific god to which one wants to argue, what exactly is the debate about when ideally atheist have no conception of a supernatural god to begin with.

If not a specific god, what does god mean to the atheist to which his or her questions refer to?

 

[Frog]

My question is, if I understood, how can an atheist argue about a general definition of god when there is no god?

The only thing an atheist can do with arguing gods is to pick one so at least we will be on the same topic regardless our beliefs.

Very true!
But haven't people been trying to prove God for thousands of years? Has technology of this century made any strides to proving him? I know it must feel like some that they are left with the burden to prove him. It would take equal amount of science like math and no short amount of deductive logic to write a theosophy proof if one hasn't been archived already that God exist both scientifically and deductively. Deductively logic if My definition is correct is an invisible force interacting in our world that can produces measurable effects. A lot of these effects can be measured oh a human level with human science. But these are sciences of all senses, including the rational mind, and the third eye. If the third eye can be proven if it hasn't already than we have then an apparatus to study god on god's own level.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Very true!
But haven't people been trying to prove God for thousands of years? Has technology of this century made any strides to proving him? I know it must feel like some that they are left with the burden to prove him. It would take equal amount of science like math and no short amount of deductive logic to write a theosophy proof if one hasn't been archived already that God exist both scientifically and deductively. Deductively logic if My definition is correct is an invisible force interacting in our world that can produces measurable effects. A lot of these effects can be measured oh a human level with human science. But these are sciences of all senses, including the rational mind, and the third eye. If the third eye can be proven if it hasn't already than we have then an apparatus to study god on god's own level.

I think science has already proven god. We are holding on to what's a mystery must be divinity. What's proven is "of man."

But we can't use the word god as if everyone knows the term especially online on RF. While we can't list all the gods, of course, we do need to be mindful not everyone know the Christian, muslim, or jewish god. Even among these three religions, they feel their gods are different.

Even in your reply, I have to stop and think which god are you referring to. I can guess but not everyone has the same background; I certainly dont.

 

[Cacotopia]

That's a load of arrogant malarkey, an atheist can't ask questions about god because he has no relationship with god, and doesn't know what god even is.

That's like me saying you know nothing about the Last Dab XX, and because you don't know what The Last Dab XX is, you are not allowed to ask any questions you have concerning this product, they are irrelevant because of your lack of knowledge about it.

But you said this in a passive aggressive manner.

 

[Cacotopia]

Honestly though, If you really want to know what is true and what isn't all you need to do is tune your awareness. We are an earthly apparatus built with nerves and and sensors we are spiritual beings having a human experience not humans having a spiritual experience

Where's the holy wrench to make the adjustments then?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That's a load of arrogant malarkey, an atheist can't ask questions about god because he has no relationship with god, and doesn't know what god even is.

That's like me saying you know nothing about the Last Dab XX, and because you don't know what The Last Dab XX is, you are not allowed to ask any questions you have concerning this product, they are irrelevant because of your lack of knowledge about it.

But you said this in a passive aggressive manner.

It's like this:

You know who I met?

Who?

Oh, I met ______ . I saw ____ just the other day. We had a good long chat.

What does _____ do for s living?

I don't know. I didn't ask. I think _____ works as a electrician over on states street New York. You know the place?

Yeah, me and ______ has good history there. Now I remember. ____ used to live right in the next neighborhood.

-so, of course atheists can talk about _____ all day long. They do need a idea or concept of ______ so it won't look like two people taking a pause in breathe when they get to the _____.

There needs to be some context. Without context it makes no sense. Give ____ a name. A definition. A something!

I hate having conversations when my family member or friend talks about someone they know but doesn't want to say their name (even though I don't know them nor near them to even know it), so I tell my loved ones: give him/her a name! Gosh darnet. Make up something. Sara. Rachael.


God is not a name. So what exactly is an atheist talking a lot that not even believers can define?

 

[Frog]

I think science has already proven god. We are holding on to what's a mystery must be divinity. What's proven is "of man."

If God is of man than man should be of God, we should be able to or have a science to prove it.
The invisible occult sciences. top secret?
We all understand God from our own perspectives. I think church is for lost souls and drug addicts.
A painter sees God mane fest in his mind

But we can't use the word god as if everyone knows the term especially online on RF

I have an Idea for RF and that would be to place an icron in place for the word "GOD" . This would prove to be a universal.

Even in your reply, I have to stop and think which god are you referring to. I can guess but not everyone has the same background; I certainly dont.

GoDs? HA! there can only be scientifically 1 God proven to exist in a "uni"verse. People trip over the word universe, but it shows us a simple truth that we are all one. One nature.. So one could say he is god and we would not be wrong but relatively true. This is why i respect the
Bahá'í Faith for its unification outlook on all religions.

The expanding universe, subject to the laws of physics, and measurable under quantum mechanics.

 

[Frog]

Where's the holy wrench to make the adjustments then?

Everyone has the ability through application to change there inner and outer environments. Look into mentalisim and the 7 Hermetic principles.

 

[Frog]

I hate having conversations when my family member or friend talks about someone they know but doesn't want to say their name (even though I don't know them nor near them to even know it), so I tell my loved ones: give him/her a name! Gosh darnet. Make up something. Sara. Rachael.

Does make it easier to connect as humans by referring the name

 

[Sir Doom]

Very nitpicky to be honest. The god is not real prove me wrong thread? Lot of questions of which god.....when in the OP the god was not specified, but because not a specific one is listed or a <(s)> was not tacked on the end, people have to drag you through a harangue of useless questions trying to figure out which one they are talking about.

I find it is an irrelevant question if he is an atheist why would he be arguing for a specific god? Granted arguing the existence of god to me is a fruitless endeavor because it can neither be proven nor disproven. But I can read with a grain of salt, why can't some of you? No no no no no I must be told specifically what question I* want to read.

No one has the time of day to write every single god's name down in history. And a huge chunk of them have been lost to history. Can you name 6000+ plus gods? Do you even know all the names? and how long you think it would take to type them all down?? It's a waste of time. God(s) aren't real, don't ask me which god, ****in' all of them.

It's rhetorical. Meant to demonstrate the lack of depth to the OP's thinking in most cases. Everyone has their canned arguments, you know.

 

[Earthling]

Very nitpicky to be honest. The god is not real prove me wrong thread? Lot of questions of which god.....when in the OP the god was not specified, but because not a specific one is listed or a <(s)> was not tacked on the end, people have to drag you through a harangue of useless questions trying to figure out which one they are talking about.

I find it is an irrelevant question if he is an atheist why would he be arguing for a specific god? Granted arguing the existence of god to me is a fruitless endeavor because it can neither be proven nor disproven. But I can read with a grain of salt, why can't some of you? No no no no no I must be told specifically what question I* want to read.

No one has the time of day to write every single god's name down in history. And a huge chunk of them have been lost to history. Can you name 6000+ plus gods? Do you even know all the names? and how long you think it would take to type them all down?? It's a waste of time. God(s) aren't real, don't ask me which god, ****in' all of them.

Well, I don't know what to say. On the one hand it was refreshing not to have to read some hippie spiritualistic bull**** that amounts to a vague, feel good sort of absolutely nothing. On the other hand, though I can agree with a great deal of what you are saying you sort of stuck your foot in your mouth in that last sentence.

 

[Frog]

I see what you did there but I'm not going to bite.

Did not the apple bit grant knowledge? Take of my fruit, and sow its seeds my brother!

 

[lukethethird]

Very nitpicky to be honest. The god is not real prove me wrong thread? Lot of questions of which god.....when in the OP the god was not specified, but because not a specific one is listed or a <(s)> was not tacked on the end, people have to drag you through a harangue of useless questions trying to figure out which one they are talking about.

I find it is an irrelevant question if he is an atheist why would he be arguing for a specific god? Granted arguing the existence of god to me is a fruitless endeavor because it can neither be proven nor disproven. But I can read with a grain of salt, why can't some of you? No no no no no I must be told specifically what question I* want to read.

No one has the time of day to write every single god's name down in history. And a huge chunk of them have been lost to history. Can you name 6000+ plus gods? Do you even know all the names? and how long you think it would take to type them all down?? It's a waste of time. God(s) aren't real, don't ask me which god, ****in' all of them.

Just concentrate on the one true God and ignore all the others.

 

[Cacotopia]

Just concentrate on the one true God and ignore all the others.

Why.

 

[Jumi]

Granted arguing the existence of god to me is a fruitless endeavor because it can neither be proven nor disproven.

Objectively, yes.

No one has the time of day to write every single god's name down in history. And a huge chunk of them have been lost to history. Can you name 6000+ plus gods? Do you even know all the names? and how long you think it would take to type them all down?? It's a waste of time. God(s) aren't real, don't ask me which god, ****in' all of them.

I think the point is on types of gods, I don't think even polytheists care about names of those. I've had anti-theists argue against the Christian God when they see I'm monotheist. Of course they aren't going to be interested in my God, but a generic one. Then it starts the blame, how you are avoiding the questions (if you don't believe in a literal Biblical creator God, isn't it natural people should accept such and not continue to argue against it?) or not being nice by conforming to their expectations. They then get angry and start acting like creationists do when they argue against evolution, they run against their own definitions and if those miss the mark, they are going to say you have an agenda.

 

[Jumi]

Another point is, it's the religious forums. That gives a bit of an expectation that you know a bit more about things you're arguing against.