Unless, of course, it isn't.
That's tantamount to saying that everyone must define things the same way, which of course doesn't reflect reality.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why do you come here? (To atheists)
- Thread starter AntEmpire
- Start date
That's tantamount to saying that everyone must define things the same way, which of course doesn't reflect reality.
dallas1125
Covert Operative
Im not separating the two, im separating the way you use the two.
Science cannot be used for religion.
Religion cannot be used for science.
dallas1125
Covert Operative
The whole thread will make you throw up
waitasec
Veteran Member
because the followers of pikachu infringe on the inalienable rights of others because they believe they are morally superior and this is where they hang out...is that ok with you?
AntEmpire
Active Member
lol i don't believe in pikachu either.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I would change my religion to apikachuist
but I figure I would get tired of everyone telling me "bless you" all the time.
AntEmpire
Active Member
waitasec
Veteran Member
Unless, of course, it isn't.
That's tantamount to saying that everyone must define things the same way, which of course doesn't reflect reality.
Yeah, you can define things all willy nilly Humpty-Dumpty style but you won't really be able to communicate with anyone and it would be sort of absurd...
In fact, if you thought I just told you anything other than that your shoe is untied, then you seemingly agree that commonly defined words shouldn't just be chosen out of a hat to mean other things!
Equivocating nonsense with jibberish isn't helpful, either.
Humpty-Dumpty speaks sense. Don't knock the Humpty.
It is absurd. But that is also how things happen. God is on of the most ill-defined of concepts, and so are derived ideas such as theist and atheist.
I believe we had a thread not long ago on whether pantheism is atheism. I don't think there was consensus, either.
Ah, but part of the point of having a concept of God in the first place is that it is supposed to have flexible meaning. People may agree that they all believe in God, and therefore avoid realizing that they don't actually have common ground in goals, moral values or beliefs.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Silly Meow Mix, there's always time for mystispeak. Don't you know how fun it is to say stuff you think sounds cool but doesn't really make any sense when you think about it?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
And that's why it's such a problem to talk about God. However, it's only that way because people like mystispeak. It can be very simple. God is a sort of human-like intelligent being that created the universe and interacts with it on occasion. If people don't mean that idea, then using a different term for their "god" would help communication. But that's the basic idea of God that defines theist and atheist.
Why? I thought the point of having a concept of God was to have a very particular thing you believed in that was supposed to actually exist? Having that concept be flexible doesn't seem like a good idea, much less a goal.
Thanks for simplifying that, Matt. Now we can all know what it is we should be believing in.
Maybe because we're all distinct?
If so, then theists may be very much a minority, perhaps even non-existent. Not too many so-called gods are human-like yet also creators of the universe, for instance.
It is a good idea if you want to use the concept to find common grounds with your neighbor - or to raise a flock or a theocracy.
Not necessarily a honest idea, but one that works. Instead of saying that you have specific moral values and goals, you say that you trust and believe in God, which reveals nothing. So everyone is free to delude themselves into being in agreement, regardless of how compatible their actual worldviews may be or fail to be.
Last edited:
Gods have a variety of definitions, but there are common themes that exist in many of them. So the words theist and atheist do hold value.
If someone tells me that god is the physical universe, then sure, I'll say their god exists but I see no reason to call it something other than the physical universe.
Adding mystispeak or deliberately decreasing the value of the terms doesn't add much value. Language is useful when people try to work with it, and becomes less useful when people simply don't want to use it.
I don't like blue.
And I define blue as yellow.
But when I talk of color, what I really mean is sound.
you'd probably have better luck waiting on the second coming.
there are, in fact, practical reasons to determine belief or disbelief in a particular concept. it doesn't have to be the biggest part of your life, but it's usually a good idea to have it nailed down for yourself whether you believe that something exists or doesn't. even if that belief is subject to change based on the data.