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.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not dragging this on, but I just want to mention that whether we say 'el', 'Dios', 'Alláh'... they all mean the same thing.
My commrnt may have led to your improved post.You Thanks for continuing to track and read my posts. It gives me hope for you.
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.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.
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.I have heard many atheists argue that if Yahweh exists they wouldn't consider it a God.
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.
Quite.Whether a being exists or not is factual, but whether or not you consider that being a God is in fact, an opinion.
If it does not exist, then the other layers are moot.there's more layers to what is considered God more than its mere existence.
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.Does reality exist? I would contend that it does.
Did you just contend that reality is not real?But is God reality? I would say yes, but that's a subjective opinion.
You might add callow and self-indulgent to the false and incoherent.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.
DoneYou might add callow and self-indulgent to the false and incoherent.
Nor is such insoucience allowed to importuneBy 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.
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.Did you just contend that reality is not real?
The myth of godism separates people evenNo. 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.
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). |
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.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.
Then why not just call it reality? God does not seem to add any value.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.
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"?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.
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.Then why not just call it reality? God does not seem to add any value.
I said disbelieve, not believe. As an agnostic atheist you disbelieve in God. That's the definition of the word!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"?
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.Of course it does. I place inherent value in all things.
Everyone can assign value to things. Everyone does.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.
You said:I said disbelieve, not believe.
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"?Based on your first post I think you are agnostic, and as someone who believes in that...
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.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"?
I agree that that phrasing is confusing. Annoying artifacts of the language.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 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?Don’t pretend to believe, however, that our position is the same - it’s not.
I am not doing homework.Read my signature, read the threads I create, and realize that I am not an atheist.
Certainly not if you are going to take such a presumptuve and haughty tone about it.I have been influenced by several alternative theologies, none of which you probably care to know or understand.
Thanks. I learned a new word today....callow...
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.The myth of godism separates people even
further from the reality that surrounds them.
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]
I agree that that phrasing is confusing. Annoying artifacts of the language.
That is the exhastive totality of all human beings.
- A theist is convinced that a god exists.
- An atheist is not convinced that a god exists.
...
Authority, definition: §2a, §2b and §4Again, 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.