You say that there is a god...

[The Hammer]

Not dragging this on, but I just want to mention that whether we say 'el', 'Dios', 'Alláh'... they all mean the same thing.

No, those are different names for different tribal gods that may be vaguely similar.

 

[Audie]

You Thanks for continuing to track and read my posts. It gives me hope for you.

My commrnt may have led to your improved post.
It's as false as usual but at least it's coherent.
Do work on content.
And be less callower and self indulgent.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

My commrnt may have led to your improved post.
It's as false as usual but at least it's coherent.
Do work on content.

By now, you have read enough of my posts to know that calling them incoherent is not a slight in my eyes. The self that desires uninterrupted coherence is not allowed into the place of greatness.

 

[ppp]

I have heard many atheists argue that if Yahweh exists they wouldn't consider it a God.

I think it is more commonly phrased that if the god of the Bible were to be demonstrated to exist that the speaker would accept that it existed; but not that it was worthy of worship.

The truth or falsity of any given god's existence is a matter of fact. To hold a "Yes" or "No" position on that proposition is to hold an opinion.

Whether a being exists or not is factual, but whether or not you consider that being a God is in fact, an opinion.

Quite.

there's more layers to what is considered God more than its mere existence.

If it does not exist, then the other layers are moot.

Does reality exist? I would contend that it does.

I would argue that in that context that reality is just another word for existence. So that you are really asking the equivalent of, Does cow cattle.

But is God reality? I would say yes, but that's a subjective opinion.

Did you just contend that reality is not real?

 

[ppp]

My commrnt may have led to your improved post.
It's as false as usual but at least it's coherent.
Do work on content.

You might add callow and self-indulgent to the false and incoherent.

 

[Audie]

You might add callow and self-indulgent to the false and incoherent.

Done

 

[Audie]

By now, you have read enough of my posts to know that calling them incoherent is not a slight in my eyes. The self that desires uninterrupted coherence is not allowed into the place of greatness.

Nor is such insoucience allowed to importune
my attn. for long.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Did you just contend that reality is not real?

No. I am saying that God and reality are the same thing, that the myth of monotheism separates people from God rather than brings them closer to God. I do not believe in the God of Abraham, or the Gods of Paganism or Hinduism. I believe in the God of Spinoza. And I call that God reality. God is all things that are real and nothing that isn't. Based on your first post I think you are agnostic, and as someone who believes in that, you actually understand God better than monotheists because you probably disbelieve in illusionary Gods that mono- and polytheists have created that separate God from reality. Reality is all that is real, and God is everything that exists, whether we know those things currently exist or not. We may not know enough to truly prove whether a God like Yahweh exists, but most of us can infer based on what God "did" according to the Bible that it wasn't Yahweh that did those things but rather other things instead. Unfortunately, for someone like you, who is agnostic, you are never going to fully understand what I say when I say the simple premise, "God is reality" no matter how simple of a phrase that is, nor what that means to me.

 

[Audie]

No. I am saying that God and reality are the same thing, that the myth of monotheism separates people from God rather than brings them closer to God. I do not believe in the God of Abraham, or the Gods of Paganism or Hinduism. I believe in the God of Spinoza. And I call that God reality. God is all things that are real and nothing that isn't. Based on your first post I think you are agnostic, and as someone who believes in that, you actually understand God better than monotheists because you probably disbelieve in illusionary Gods that mono- and polytheists have created that separate God from reality. Reality is all that is real, and God is everything that exists, whether we know those things currently exist or not. We may not know enough to truly prove whether a God like Yahweh exists, but most of us can infer based on what God "did" according to the Bible that it wasn't Yahweh that did those things but rather other things instead. Unfortunately, for someone like you, who is agnostic, you are never going to fully understand what I say when I say the simple premise, "God is reality" no matter how simple of a phrase that is, nor what that means to me.

The myth of godism separates people even
further from the reality that surrounds them.

 

[timothy1027]

In over 4,423 years of religious scriptures (since 2,400 BCE), nobody has ever provided any evidence that Gods exists. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone to claim any of God's attributes (e.g., all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, wise, perfect, jealous, loving) or what God wants, thinks, did, said, etc. etc. etc. God has chosen to remain anonymous & mysterious over the millennia. I don't make the rules, I just play the game (live a productive life).

 

[blü 2]

No. I am saying that God and reality are the same thing, that the myth of monotheism separates people from God rather than brings them closer to God. I do not believe in the God of Abraham, or the Gods of Paganism or Hinduism. I believe in the God of Spinoza. And I call that God reality. God is all things that are real and nothing that isn't. Based on your first post I think you are agnostic, and as someone who believes in that, you actually understand God better than monotheists because you probably disbelieve in illusionary Gods that mono- and polytheists have created that separate God from reality. Reality is all that is real, and God is everything that exists, whether we know those things currently exist or not. We may not know enough to truly prove whether a God like Yahweh exists, but most of us can infer based on what God "did" according to the Bible that it wasn't Yahweh that did those things but rather other things instead. Unfortunately, for someone like you, who is agnostic, you are never going to fully understand what I say when I say the simple premise, "God is reality" no matter how simple of a phrase that is, nor what that means to me.

I define objective reality as the world external to the self. I often simply call it "reality". It's where I get my parents, air, food, drink, shelter, society &c from.

How do you define reality?

Why call it "God" when it already has a name?

 

[ppp]

No. I am saying that God and reality are the same thing, that the myth of monotheism separates people from God rather than brings them closer to God. I do not believe in the God of Abraham, or the Gods of Paganism or Hinduism. I believe in the God of Spinoza. And I call that God reality. God is all things that are real and nothing that isn't.

Then why not just call it reality? God does not seem to add any value.

Based on your first post I think you are agnostic, and as someone who believes in that, you actually understand God better than monotheists because you probably disbelieve in illusionary Gods that mono- and polytheists have created that separate God from reality.

The fact that you think that one "believes in" agnoticism makes no sense to me. I am an agnostic atheist. Based on that "what do I believe in"?

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Then why not just call it reality? God does not seem to add any value.

Of course it does. I place inherent value in all things. I see all things as divine, as least in a passive way. I am an Exaltist, I have an inherence to raising the value of things. All things in fact. It's in my username. I call myself "Exaltist Ethan" not "Atheist Ethan". I am not an atheist nor will I ever be. I have explained my theology countless times to RF users so if you want to know why I believe what I believe, just read this. I have plenty of good reasons why I believe God and reality are the same, just as why Jews and Christians believe Yahweh is God, and so on.

The fact that you think that one "believes in" agnoticism makes no sense to me. I am an agnostic atheist. Based on that "what do I believe in"?

I said disbelieve, not believe. As an agnostic atheist you disbelieve in God. That's the definition of the word!

 

[ppp]

Of course it does. I place inherent value in all things.

Did you mean that yiou imbue value in all things? Or that you see inherent value in all things? You are not capable of placing value that is "inherent" to a thing that already exists.

I see all things as divine, as least in a passive way. I am an Exaltist, I have an inherence to raising the value of things.

Everyone can assign value to things. Everyone does.

I said disbelieve, not believe.

You said:

Based on your first post I think you are agnostic, and as someone who believes in that...

Hence my statement and question: The fact that you think that one "believes in" agnoticism makes no sense to me. I am an agnostic atheist. Based on that "what do I believe in"?

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

You said:

Hence my statement and question: The fact that you think that one "believes in" agnoticism makes no sense to me. I am an agnostic atheist. Based on that "what do I believe in"?

Okay, I used the word believe incorrectly there, I meant to use disbelieve on both instances I described it. But you’re nitpicking on the details that honestly don’t really matter. Yes, I know now, that you, @ppp , are agnostic atheist and thus have a disbelief in God, but at the same time, do not know if he/she/it exists. Frankly, having to use the word “disbelief” is confusing anyways. And I am unclear on how “belief in no Gods” is different than “disbelief in Gods” is different anyway. Don’t pretend to believe, however, that our position is the same - it’s not. Read my signature, read the threads I create, and realize that I am not an atheist. I have been influenced by several alternative theologies, none of which you probably care to know or understand.

 

[ppp]

Yes, I know now, that you, @ppp , are agnostic atheist and thus have a disbelief in God, but at the same time, do not know if he/she/it exists. Frankly, having to use the word “disbelief” is confusing anyways. And I am unclear on how “belief in no Gods” is different than “disbelief in Gods” is different anyway.

I agree that that phrasing is confusing. Annoying artifacts of the language.

• A theist is convinced that a god exists.
• An atheist is not convinced that a god exists.

That is the exhastive totality of all human beings.

Don’t pretend to believe, however, that our position is the same - it’s not.

I don't know what that means or why you are telling me that. I haven't ever considered our positions to be the same. Where on Earth did you get that idea?

Read my signature, read the threads I create, and realize that I am not an atheist.

I am not doing homework.

I have been influenced by several alternative theologies, none of which you probably care to know or understand.

Certainly not if you are going to take such a presumptuve and haughty tone about it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

...callow...

Thanks. I learned a new word today.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The myth of godism separates people even
further from the reality that surrounds them.

True, but Spinoza's god is far from godism. It is merely a form a pantheism, where one recognizes the divine nature in all that is. No belief required, therefore no godism.

Spinoza defined God as "a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence", and since "no cause or reason" can prevent such a being from existing, it therefore must exist.[99] This is a form of the ontological argument, which is claimed to prove the existence of God, but Spinoza went further in stating that it showed that only God exists.[100] Accordingly, he stated that "Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can exist or be conceived without God".[100] This means that God is identical with the universe, an idea which he encapsulated in the phrase "Deus sive Natura" ('God or Nature'), which has been interpreted by some as atheism or pantheism.[101] God can be known either through the attribute of extension or the attribute of thought.[102] Thought and extension represent giving complete accounts of the world in mental or physical terms.[103] To this end, he says that "the mind and the body are one and the same thing, which is conceived now under the attribute of thought, now under the attribute of extension".[104]

Baruch Spinoza - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree that that phrasing is confusing. Annoying artifacts of the language.

• A theist is convinced that a god exists.
• An atheist is not convinced that a god exists.

That is the exhastive totality of all human beings.

...

No, I am neither an atheist nor a theist.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Again, I do not know what you mean by authority. I am leery of your usage of the word as lacks definition and I suspect it bears hidden assumptions. Please provide a definition. Not an example.

Authority, definition: §2a, §2b and §4
Link: Authority Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary