I talk with God

[Theoryofrelativity]

But there is a difference - because those words have definitions. Like I said earlier, you can call tennis 'football' if you so choose, but then we're debating given definitions. 'Natural process' and 'god' are, by definition, two completely different things - and using one in place of the other is wrong.

Certainly, which is why we don't say 'bananas' instead of 'tennis'.

Actually snake it is generally accepted people have different definitions of what the word 'god' represents.
see wikipedia

"God denotes a deity who is believed by monotheists to be the sole creator and ruler of the universe. Conceptions of God can vary widely, despite the use of the same term for them all.

The God of monotheism, pantheism or panentheism, or the supreme deity of henotheistic religions, may be conceived of in various degrees of abstraction: as a powerful, human-like, supernatural being, or as the deification of an esoteric, mystical or philosophical category, the Ultimate, the summum bonum, the Absolute Infinite, the Transcendent, or Existence or Being itself, the ground of being, the monistic substrate, etc. The more abstract of these positions regard any anthropomorphic mythology and iconography associated with God either sympathetically as mere symbolism, or unfavourably as blasphemous.

Theologians and philosophers have studied countless conceptions of God since the dawn of civilization. The question of the existence of God classically falls under the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, but is also one of the key discussions taking place within the field of the philosophy of religion."

ello ello what is this then:

"The question of the existence of God classically falls under the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, "

 

[RoyLennigan]

just becuase General Paul has a rational opinion that differs from your own he's a drug addict. however your poetic post, could be compared to being under the influence of LSD. go figure.

i'd hardly call it a rational opinion. what kind of rational person solves problems by putting people on drugs and locking them away?

and i didn't really word my response that well. i am not against the usage of drugs, just against the idea that drug use alone can solve problems. therapy, experience, and knowledge are needed to overcome problems, drugs can only aid (or sometimes hinder) the process.

apparantly geeser you didn't read the post fully, Roy was parrotting what GP said to him and elaborating, LC says : "he who throws the first stone should expect a brick in his face".

thanks, ToR. appropriate quote.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

i'd hardly call it a rational opinion. what kind of rational person solves problems by putting people on drugs and locking them away?

and i didn't really word my response that well. i am not against the usage of drugs, just against the idea that drug use alone can solve problems. therapy, experience, and knowledge are needed to overcome problems, drugs can only aid (or sometimes hinder) the process.


thanks, ToR. appropriate quote.

hehe LC is my intitials

 

[RoyLennigan]

Question:

Consider for a moment that perhaps a 3 year old visits this site.. Does that mean you would say goo-goo ga-ga just to accomodate them?

i talk to my cat in his language by meowing and blinking my eyes in a similar fashion. so yeah, i usually try to find out how other people (or things) talk and then use their methods to communicate instead of forcing them to figure out what i'm saying in my own language. its courteous and very helpful when trying to convey something.

I personally think your post was nicely expressed without the word 'god' used as a substitute for other suitable words. I guess it's just an opinion like anyone elses, but I would actually drop you points for it.

But there is a difference - because those words have definitions. Like I said earlier, you can call tennis 'football' if you so choose, but then we're debating given definitions. 'Natural process' and 'god' are, by definition, two completely different things - and using one in place of the other is wrong.

at one point i would have fully agreed with you and i would never have written anything including or even implying a belief in god. but, as ToR says in the post before this, there is such a wide variety of definitions of god that the word becomes almost purely subjective. notice that i did not call a banana a football or an elephant a tennis ball. these latter terms are less subjective--they are words that we translate exactly into a physical thing that we can directly sense with any of our senses. but we cannot sense god like we can sense an apple. god is a subjective idea; a thought that something in the world around us--some physical process or non-physical interaction--is the underlying cause of all that we experience. and there is no known definition for god, so you are wrong there. that is why i use the word god.

I wouldn't, and to my knowledge not many people that would consider themselves atheists would either.

because atheists close their minds to anything of the sort. god is simply a word, whats the harm in using that word to describe something we dont have a word for? because thats exactly what i'm doing. i think mainstream christians have it just as wrong as atheists do. i don't believe in any of this--i simply know. i do not use the word god in my thoughts--i simply know. and that is why it is almost impossible for me to convey these ideas through words, because they cannot be described through words. i don't care if you dont want to call it god, but i will because i can, and the thing i am ascribing the word god to is something that is very similar to what many people believe god is. but it is very real and the most influential thing in the universe. but i dont worship it, i dont read any kind of scripture about it. i might write scripture about it--my own scripture--but only because i am trying to pinpoint its existence through my own experiences. and so it can only be found subjectively.

Distinctions and definitions are inevitable, which is pretty much why I have issue with the word usage of your original post. Words have been defined and are understood with the given definitions. To just change a definition as and when it suits you is undoubtedly going to cause issue.

thats just the thing. words have been defined, but everyone's definition is different. when you think of the word dog, you subconsciously think of every dog in your memory. and so does the next person, but his memories of dogs are going to be differernt, from a different perspective with a different past. our common knowledge derives from the fact that so many people have similar memories tied to similar words. but at the same time, our different memories and different tendancies tied to those memories cause us to interpret them differently--we understand what we hear or experience differently. and words like god are not tied so distinctly to any kind of particular definition. the only thing christians have to define their god is a bunch of words. and words are not experiences; words only remind you of experiences and stir up different connections between them. so everyone's definition of god is determined by a collection of their subjective past experiences. god is different to everyone.

I tend to disagree in this issue. A word has a definition, no need to completely change that definition simply because you think a religious man is going to read your writing.

i don't see how i have completely changed any definition. maybe you're definition, but i don't see how that could be, because you've already said you don't have a definition for god.

Maybe it's just me, but again I disagree.

as do i. a picture is worth countless words. but an experience is worth more than any number of words or pictures.

Well an experience does not have an exchange for words and so words can only convey so little of an idea.

Strike 3 I disagree again.

please explain instead of just disagreeing. its so frustrating, like you're trying to be better or something.

But 'God' has a defintion that is, (or can easily be), understood.

i believe ToR has refuted this point pretty well, you can refer to his post right before mine.

Yeah:

Cause.

- The producer of an effect
- A basis for an action or response; a reason

anyone religious, maybe.

i would say that scientific language is better at relaying more accuracy, and that is a good thing. but religious language is more tied to emotion. and emotion is the drive in human motivation; sometimes humans need that religious philosophy to give them a reason. and i think that scientific discoveries can be translated to religious language to better achieve a composite between both science and belief. right now the two are segregated by those like you who deem that there is an inherent difference between the two when they're not. they're both human philosophies, even though one is antiquated and conservative while the other is emotionless and without a motivator.

By definition, 'perfect' is unfailing. When it fails, it is by definition no longer perfect. The minute anyone can say that something in this universe went wrong, it is no longer perfect. Of course you could argue that it is actually perfect, but only seems imperfect, (or to have failed), to us humans - but then given that us humans are part of this universe, and thus would be imperfect when understanding perfect.. it means the universe is indeed imperfect.

don't think of it in terms of failing or not. the universe never fails--the word fail has no meaning objectively. there is only what happens. so the universe is perfect for what is in it because its state is what causes things to be. if its state were any different, the things in it would be different proportionally. and so any state the universe is in is always going to be perfect for the state of everything inside the universe.

Certainly, which is why we don't say 'bananas' instead of 'tennis'.

yeah but have you ever seen god?

 

[RoyLennigan]

hehe LC is my intitials

lol i was kinda confused but the sentence made sense.

you're post on the definition of god (or lack thereof) hits the nail on the head.

 

[geeser]

apparantly geeser you didn't read the post fully, Roy was parrotting what GP said to him and elaborating, LC says : "he who throws the first stone should expect a brick in his face".

oh yes, I read it correctly thats why, I mentioned LSD.
I had read the opening post some time back, and thought Roy was just waxing a little too lyrical, but when he had the audacity to accuse Paul, I felt I had to say something.

 

[geeser]

i'd hardly call it a rational opinion. what kind of rational person solves problems by putting people on drugs and locking them away?

a doctor person who considers another person, dangerous to themselves and others, (anti-psychotics is what he said.)

and i didn't really word my response that well. i am not against the usage of drugs, just against the idea that drug use alone can solve problems. therapy, experience, and knowledge are needed to overcome problems, drugs can only aid (or sometimes hinder) the process.

drugs only make people more irrational, but you have to devine what a drug is, is theism a drug, I think so, the euphoria the religious have, is all well and good, but it kills people. it's as dangerous as any drug.

 

[RoyLennigan]

oh yes, I read it correctly thats why, I mentioned LSD.
I had read the opening post some time back, and thought Roy was just waxing a little too lyrical, but when he had the audacity to accuse Paul, I felt I had to say something.

effluence bears greater understanding because diversity is proportional to success and success for a human depends largely on the problem-solving ability of the brain. i am no more lyrical than the next philosopher--and anyone who theorizes the nature of the universe is a philosopher. but why should my way of describing things be worse than any other? they're all words, arent they? perhaps i am just more partial to a lyrical prose type than staccato blocks of sentences.

and by the way, it was paul that accused me in the first place, i was merely defending myself.

 

[RoyLennigan]

a doctor person who considers another person, dangerous to themselves and others, (anti-psychotics is what he said.)
drugs only make people more irrational, but you have to devine what a drug is, is theism a drug, I think so, the euphoria the religious have, is all well and good, but it kills people. it's as dangerous as any drug.

so you consider me dangerous to me or others. nice, im amazed at your stupendous ability for online diagnosis

only someone naive to our biology and the reactions of chemicals would say that drugs only make people more irrational. or perhaps it is because many people define rational as something that is irrational--only seeming rational because we are so indoctrinated by our societal traditions; traditions that we only think are good because we've been using them for countless generations.

air is a drug, as is water, or food. every chemical affects us differently. and each chemical has both beneficial and adverse effects. you can call any number of things a drug just as you can call any number of things god, like what i have been saying in this thread. and for some people in certain environments, some drugs can be a mind-opening experience--allowing them to see the world from a perspective they could never imagine without the change from their normal chemical balance.

i think the euphoria people have through religious experiences is sometimes more because of a manifestation of belief, and not an association to something in the real world. all my 'theistic' beliefs have been realizations of interactions in the world around me. i have no preconcieved ideas of a god or any religious notions. they all stem from experiences i've had personally.

 

[geeser]

i am no more lyrical than the next philosopher

that is supreme arrogance to call yourself a philosopher, philosophy and theism are mutually exclusive, it is usually easy enough to demolish most naive faith-based belief systems. Teleology for instants, Most contemporary versions of Theism are utterly dependent on teleological assumptions about the nature of the universe. In simpler terms, it's a belief that there is a divine purpose to everything that happens in our lives and indeed, in the universe at large. In reality, all of this is just so much "post hoc" false reasoning.

but why should my way of describing things be worse than any other?

it is'nt, just as snakelord had said there was no need to put a god in the picture.

they're all words, arent they? perhaps i am just more partial to a lyrical prose type than staccato blocks of sentences.

yes, but you can change the whole meaning of a sentence just by changing a few words, or adding some unnesessary ones.

so you consider me dangerous to me or others. nice, im amazed at your stupendous ability for online diagnosis

now I did not say or imply that did I.
you ask a question,

what kind of rational person solves problems by putting people on drugs and locking them away?

and I said

a doctor person who considers another person, dangerous to themselves and others

only someone naive to our biology and the reactions of chemicals would say that drugs only make people more irrational.

having worked with junkies, drunks, and even people who smoke they become irrational either because of or the lack of.
I personal refrain for anything like that, as it changes your personality.

air is a drug, as is water, or food. every chemical affects us differently. and each chemical has both beneficial and adverse effects.

agreed, however, it's when those things are taken in excess, that problems occur.

you can call any number of things a drug just as you can call any number of things god, like what i have been saying in this thread. and for some people in certain environments, some drugs can be a mind-opening experience--allowing them to see the world from a perspective they could never imagine without the change from their normal chemical balance.

that's where we differ I dont think thats a good thing, would'nt you want to be the best you can be on your own merits, too much religion, too much love, too much money. people do the most nastiest things because of these afflictions.

i think the euphoria people have through religious experiences is sometimes more because of a manifestation of belief, and not an association to something in the real world. all my 'theistic' beliefs have been realizations of interactions in the world around me. i have no preconcieved ideas of a god or any religious notions. they all stem from experiences i've had personally.

not you personally, but these type of experience can be dangerous to others.

 

[RoyLennigan]

that is supreme arrogance to call yourself a philosopher, philosophy and theism are mutually exclusive, it is usually easy enough to demolish most naive faith-based belief systems. Teleology for instants, Most contemporary versions of Theism are utterly dependent on teleological assumptions about the nature of the universe. In simpler terms, it's a belief that there is a divine purpose to everything that happens in our lives and indeed, in the universe at large. In reality, all of this is just so much "post hoc" false reasoning.

you seem to have completely misread me. i am not at all like you have just described me and i am sorry that i have failed to convey to you my true beliefs. i hope you did understand me when i said that everyone with an idea about the nature of the universe is a philosopher. that is how i describe myself as one. and yes, even theists are philosophers--everyone is. but i am no theist--i have never even read the bible. me belief in god is like my belief stems from the idea that god is one of, if not the only word in our language (or any language) that can be defined so widely; it has no set definition and as such, it can be a great many things. i don't believe in a divine purpose anymore than i believe in fate, or destiny--they mean the same thing to me.

it is'nt, just as snakelord had said there was no need to put a god in the picture. yes, but you can change the whole meaning of a sentence just by changing a few words, or adding some unnesessary ones.

the definition doesnt get changed--it can't because the definition is subjective, its in your mind. all i did was i put different connections to the word, which was my intention. i tried to connect a word that has no real definition to things that did have real definitions.

having worked with junkies, drunks, and even people who smoke they become irrational either because of or the lack of.
I personal refrain for anything like that, as it changes your personality.

i'm sorry feel that way, but my experience tells me different. the only way your statement is true is if you are talking of people with no self-control and/or those who inevitably will become irrational, drugs or not.

agreed, however, it's when those things are taken in excess, that problems occur.

yes, but don't start thinking that any irregular chemical use is automatically excess.

that's where we differ I dont think thats a good thing, would'nt you want to be the best you can be on your own merits, too much religion, too much love, too much money. people do the most nastiest things because of these afflictions.

yes, too much religion, too much love, too much money can do these things. too much drugs can make you oblivious to how the world really works. but drugs like marijuana, lsd, and mdma--when taken in as much moderation as you take love in--can be extremely helpful in understanding, or becoming a part of the world around you. its as if they open pathways through your mind that you had never known were even there. but too much use of these, just like overindulgence in anything, can lead to bad things. but most of it is circumstantial and subjective anyways.

not you personally, but these type of experience can be dangerous to others.

yes, i know that. because they have one experience and they think they know everything. but they don't realize they've either just begun to learn, or they've just had a hallucination--similar to dreams where people think they see the future or something.

my experience with god is exactly as i have written it--i figure out interactions in the universe and that is how i find that influential force--something i cant put my finger on, but i can sense just below the surface. you have to find out for yourself.

 

[RoyLennigan]

since many of you don't like the word god, i have rewritten the original post with substitutes for god. the following means exactly the same thing it meant with the word god in it.

I experience the universe every day of my life.
First I must listen, because knowledge always begins with listening.
I listen to the wind blow across my ears--I hear its raggedly fluctuating oscillations as they are affected by the shape of my ear.

I hear the leaves blown to and fro, the branches creaking under age-old pressure; the kinds of pressure that have been here millions of times the length of my miniscule life--if life is what it can be called.

Listening does not only include just sound, but touch, smell, taste, and sight as well:

I feel the central Floridian sand give way under my feet, that sand which was once at the bottom of the ocean, evidenced by the shark teeth I recently found in a nearby creek.

I smell the musty, thick ozone brought down from the upper altitudes by the recent thunderstorm--those pieces of O3 which rode the lightning down to earth. The air is thick with oxygen, nitrogen and water vapor, flooding my lungs and making me feel as if I am partly underwater.

I can almost taste the chemicals, that strange similarity of taste/smell between tongue and nose as I feel the chemicals carried on the wind reach both my sensual chemical detectors.

I feel warm rays heating up my back as the humidity, receding from nearly 100%, allows electrical energy to pass more readily through the fluid air. I feel the sun revealed by departing clouds as my skin heats up and a red glow brightens over my closed eyelids.

I open my eyes and the first thing i notice is the brilliant yellow lighting up the deep green tree line. The tops of the pines and oaks--like masts of a great ship of nature--wave back and forth as great gusts of wind push a monumental cumulus mountain across the sky. I see the cloud is dark, but waning after leaving most of its water here.

I listen and the world shows me that everything is a cause of something just as every cause is an effect. There are no words; the message is too powerful, too true to be conveyed with mere words. Words are deceiving and the only truth is what we can see and touch and smell and hear and taste. So these things are what brings us truth.

And so, after listening, I talk back.

I ask the world in my thoughts, why do birds fly south for the winter?
it was the first thought that crossed my mind, maybe not the most monumental thing to ask nature, but I did nonetheless.

And no answer came. Time passed and still no answer came. I looked to the sky, I looked to the ground. Time progressed still and finally I heard birds calling from above. looking up I saw them flocking south, from as far away as Maine and Canada. But why?. And a chill wind blew from behind me, from the north. A few dead leaves fell and winter flashed through my mind. Nature had answered me.

So i search for the answer to another question. why is the sky blue?
this one, I knew instinctively, was quite harder, though the difficulty was not in answering it, but in the world finding a way to show me the answer. Again I had to wait. After waiting an even longer period than before I noticed a blue jay fluttering around in the grass. it would fly up to a tree branch, then dive down to the ground and begin to dig till it came up with a worm, then it would fly back to some hidden nest. it made me think. This bird does not wait for answers from the universe, it knows, instinctively, that the answers are already present and must be sought out personally. So I took the advice from the bird and I set out to find the answer to my question; an answer which had was somewhere in this world (for every available question, there must also be an answer, that is how the world works). I figured the best place to find an answer would be where I could see as much of the sky as possible. So I went to the beach. It was morning when I arrived and the sky was cloudless, a brilliantly deep blue, stretching a spectrum from azure baby blue around the horizon to dark navy blue above me. The sun of course turned that navy blue to white as the rays distorted colors. I found all of this very curious and somehow important to the answer of my question. Why, for one, should the sky be a different color near the horizon than it is straight over head? I watched the sun go over me and sink towards the western horizon, the side over the water of the gulf. As it did I noticed how as the sun set, the colors deepened to paler shades of blue until it began to turn brown and then a brighter orange. Very curious indeed. where once there had been navy blue above me, there now was a deep purple that faded into the dark navy blue behind me, on the opposite horizon from the setting sun. So there was still blue in the sky, but why? I put my hand down in the sand and jolted it back up again quickly with pain. Looking down i saw that I had cut it on a piece of glass buried in the beach. I pulled it out, looking at it and was about to throw in away when it caught at just the right angle in the light and sent a rainbow of color onto the sand. Beautiful, I thought. It was then that i realized something. It was as if two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle had snapped together in my mind. The white light of the sun was still shining down to me and the glass shard and when I held the glass up to it I could see the light fragmenting into these separate colors. I looked up at the colors in the sky and saw a visual analogy. The universe had answered my question, but now I had to make sense of it. Studying the colors made through the glass i found blue and saw that it was near the end of the spectrum, followed only by a deep violet color--the same color I was now seeing directly above my head in the clouds. I began to laugh when I realized the answer. The light in the sun held many different frequencies and when they traveled through a medium other than a vacuum--such as the gases in our atmosphere or the glass shard in my hand--those frequencies traveled at different speeds. So the earth's atmosphere acted exactly like the piece of glass; it caused the light to be spread out and since the atmosphere was so big, the other colors just bounced off particles in the air, leaving only the blue part of the spectrum to hit the earth. As the sun set--as the angle of the rays coming to earth changed--the spectrum also moved with it and the colors reaching earth through the atmosphere moved through the spectrum.

I have found, by listening to others (something you must always do) that everyone has a different idea for a kind of motivating force in the universe. This force must transcend the individuals' definition of it, but how? Through our use of language, we are able to imagine entities and ideas that are not real--in fact every thought we have is of something completely made up in our minds. It only loosely relates to the reality around us. Our direct experience and memories are the only definition we have of this force, and it is something that cannot be told to another person; it is something we each have to find on our own.

That force is time, time is change, change is diversity, diversity is chaos. It is entropy, entropy brings all to chaos and diversity eventually. It is space, space is the inherent energy of the universe, an energy that can't be tracked down but can be theoretically measured, an energy that determines--through probability--the outcome of every minute event in this universe.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

As you have noticed Roy, atheists (some for whom non belief consumes them! ) have issues with the word 'God'. Note, that many of the main anti theists are very knowledgable about religion and indeed were raised with it in many cases. Their rejection of religion and therefore of God has much more to do with their own personal demons than just realising the 'stories' may not be true. Those atheists who do simply have a non belief, rarely comment as it is not of any importance for them to do so. However the potent anti theists here, well it is their life blood. They are as ardently anti theist as the ardently theist are theist. They really have not changed so much afterall.

So indeed, changing the words may help, but it will of course result in their exodus, as they only challenge you because that word 'God' is a very potent aphrodisiac and draws them in. What are your words to them without that one word?

Although credit where credit is due, a few here have enjoyed the quality of your posts atheist or not.

 

[RoyLennigan]

As you have noticed Roy, atheists (some for whom non belief consumes them! ) have issues with the word 'God'. Note, that many of the main anti theists are very knowledgable about religion and indeed were raised with it in many cases. Their rejection of religion and therefore of God has much more to do with their own personal demons than just realising the 'stories' may not be true. Those atheists who do simply have a non belief, rarely comment as it is not of any importance for them to do so. However the potent anti theists here, well it is their life blood. They are as ardently anti theist as the ardently theist are theist. They really have not changed so much afterall.

So indeed, changing the words may help, but it will of course result in their exodus, as they only challenge you because that word 'God' is a very potent aphrodisiac and draws them in. What are your words to them without that one word?

Although credit where credit is due, a few here have enjoyed the quality of your posts atheist or not.

heh, thanks. i agree that there are many who are just as disturbed at the usage of the word god as many theists are at the usage of the phrase "god doesn't exist".

neither are right but neither are they wrong. just as my words are not right alone, but they are not wrong either.

we are each just individual filters through which energy is flowing. if you don't have the right experience to interpret the words, then you aren't going to understand their meaning. only my experience can interpret these words like i understand them. and so only i can see the full message that my words contain. you being you can only interpret the words as they are filtered through your own experiences. the fact that you agree with me is because you have had similar experiences as i have had, even though you probably disagree with some of what i have written.

 

[fadingCaptain]

The dawning of knowledge and understanding is truly a wonderful thing. Even better is the fact that it is a bottomless cup from which we drink.

 

[SnakeLord]

Actually snake it is generally accepted people have different definitions of what the word 'god' represents.

Certainly, but you'll hopefully see what I'm getting at in my response to Roy.

see wikipedia

Oh come on.. Just the other day you were accusing me of having no life for using wikipedia.

as ToR says in the post before this, there is such a wide variety of definitions of god that the word becomes almost purely subjective. notice that i did not call a banana a football or an elephant a tennis ball. these latter terms are less subjective--they are words that we translate exactly into a physical thing that we can directly sense with any of our senses. but we cannot sense god like we can sense an apple. god is a subjective idea; a thought that something in the world around us--some physical process or non-physical interaction--is the underlying cause of all that we experience.

Ok, here is the point:

Any word can have a "wide variety of definitions". If I were to say 'tree', you would probably create an image of a 'tree' in your head that differs to what other people would see. The key comes with the words use around it. For instance, if I were now to add 'bonsai' at the front of that it's likely that the image in your head of 'tree' has changed a great deal.

It's the same with every word.

Elephant --- dumbo the elephant.

banana --- green banana with blue spots.

To get an accurate image, a word requires other words to go with it. In the case of your post, 'god' was not only capitalised, but was surrounded by "he" and other words that make the image one of:

- A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

By your word usage surrounding 'god', (or God as you put it), it becomes clear what definition the word carries. If you had have said "football is god" it would be a completely different definition - one not of beings, but one of serious adulation and worship (for a game).

and there is no known definition for god, so you are wrong there

I disagree as explained above. I will agree that there are many different definitions of the word, but a specific definition is found by the word usage that surrounds it.

because atheists close their minds to anything of the sort. god is simply a word, whats the harm in using that word to describe something we dont have a word for? because thats exactly what i'm doing. i think mainstream christians have it just as wrong as atheists do. i don't believe in any of this--i simply know. i do not use the word god in my thoughts--i simply know. and that is why it is almost impossible for me to convey these ideas through words, because they cannot be described through words. i don't care if you dont want to call it god, but i will because i can, and the thing i am ascribing the word god to is something that is very similar to what many people believe god is. but it is very real and the most influential thing in the universe. but i dont worship it, i dont read any kind of scripture about it. i might write scripture about it--my own scripture--but only because i am trying to pinpoint its existence through my own experiences. and so it can only be found subjectively.

Quite interesting to note that you're now using a lower case 'g' accompanied by 'it'. As such you have now moved away from a specific god definition - however, I do still disagree with your statements concerning words, and am sure given some effort you could find other words that perhaps fit better in place of 'god' - which, (if you were to be right in saying it has no definition), means what you're saying is completely meaningless.

words have been defined, but everyone's definition is different. when you think of the word dog, you subconsciously think of every dog in your memory. and so does the next person, but his memories of dogs are going to be differernt, from a different perspective with a different past.

Most certainly, but I have explained this above. Of course with your usage of 'God', there is still some room for differing view. Undoubtedly a muslim would assume you're talking about allah, a jew yhwh, a christian jesus etc - but again that comes down to explanation. "The biblical god" would certainly be an indicator that you are referring to yhwh. etc.

You will most likely never really entirely get someone elses 'image' completely on par with your own, but you get them a lot closer to it, and thus what you're saying is more likely to be understood in the way you stated it.

i don't see how i have completely changed any definition.

See above. Tree -- bonsai tree -- 30 foot oak tree in the middle of winter. You set particular understanding of words by the words you use around them. By saying 'God' with 'he', 'him' etc, you alter the definition to mean a specific male deity. When you say 'god' and 'it', you're talking about something else entirely.

a picture is worth countless words.

I still disagree.

please explain instead of just disagreeing. its so frustrating, like you're trying to be better or something.

Can't say I've ever personally see someone be better, or even try to be better, by just disagreeing. I just thought it best not to go too much into detail. Still..

In the first instance I disagree because I personally think words are a lot more powerful than you give them credit for. I guess it's just an opinion, but being a man that loves to write and loves to take photo's, I find I give them equal appreciation.

In the other instance I disagree with you saying an experience doesn't have an exchange for words. I used to write about experiences quite a bit, and although you can never make anyone ever live that experience, I do say that you can convey it rather well with some time and effort.

i believe ToR has refuted this point pretty well

I have addressed this above.

right now the two are segregated by those like you who deem that there is an inherent difference between the two when they're not. they're both human philosophies, even though one is antiquated and conservative while the other is emotionless and without a motivator.

Wouldn't you consider "antiquated and conservative" and "emotionless and without a motivator" as inherently different as "tree" and "bonsai tree"?

At the root, (no pun intended), you could say they're both trees - indeed a bonsai is just a smaller version of the other tree - but in detail they are completely different things. You could equate science and religion as similar in many different ways, but in detail they are completely different things.

{edit} It's not an issue of 'disliking' the word 'god' or 'God' or 'he' or 'it', my concern is that it's just out of place, (in the way it was used), for what you were seemingly trying to say.

Oh and to Tor: The whole speech about personal demons is a tad naive. I will confess I do like to debate religions, gods, theology in general much the same as my interest in debating Star Trek. The latter instance does not express a belief, (and personal demons), with regards to klingons or vulcans, and the former instance does not express a belief, (and personal demons), with regards to gods.

If anything I would say that atheists debate these things because that's what happens when someone says something completely ludicrous to them. If a man came up to me and started waffling on about leprechauns, I would personally find myself debating with him - not becauseI have belief in, (or personal demons), regarding leprechauns, but because what he just said is so stupid it demands comment.

It reminds me of that 70 page Happeh thread. "Masturbation makes you go blind, turn gay and lose your limbs". Such a ludicrous, unfounded notion that it literally demanded comment from atheists and theists. It didn't imply that we all have personal demons concerning masturbation.

I hope that has cleared things up.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

If anything I would say that atheists debate these things because that's what happens when someone says something completely ludicrous to them. If a man came up to me and started waffling on about leprechauns, I would personally find myself debating with him - not becauseI have belief in, (or personal demons), regarding leprechauns, but because what he just said is so stupid it demands comment.

It reminds me of that 70 page Happeh thread. "Masturbation makes you go blind, turn gay and lose your limbs". Such a ludicrous, unfounded notion that it literally demanded comment from atheists and theists. It didn't imply that we all have personal demons concerning masturbation.

I hope that has cleared things up.

hehe I like the happeh masturbation analogy you may have a point, I debated Buddha a tiny tad on his 95% of men have a preference for other men! Was even forced to google at some point to find out what his source was.

However, there are self confessed types on here who do admit to the sex drugs and religion rock and roll life before atheism! Their demons are apparant.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

The fact that you agree with me is because you have had similar experiences as i have had, even though you probably disagree with some of what i have written.

I haven't seen anything I disagree with thus far.
(I haven't read it all though!)

Some people notice stuff and some don't. Myself when I was a teenager I 'opened my mind' and it was a real thing not metaphorical one...no drugs involved. LOTS of things began to occur, it was very strange what I became aware of, bit scary. The regular 'sign's' or what you call 'answers from god' were everywhere. I could read the future in the pattern on the carpet, real phenomenon manifested with others present too, got very weird, we all got a bit scared. I closed my mind and it stopped. So there is biological difference I feel to seeing and not seeing what is out there.

Anyway this is for the parapsych thread not religious one, but I don't go there, full of nutters lol. night night

 

[RoyLennigan]

Ok, here is the point:

Any word can have a "wide variety of definitions". If I were to say 'tree', you would probably create an image of a 'tree' in your head that differs to what other people would see. The key comes with the words use around it. For instance, if I were now to add 'bonsai' at the front of that it's likely that the image in your head of 'tree' has changed a great deal.

It's the same with every word.

Elephant --- dumbo the elephant.

banana --- green banana with blue spots.

exactly, i understand what you are saying. by diversifying our explanations--by using more descriptive words for the thing we are talking about we can convey an idea or experience more accurately.

but when you say tree, you usually don't think of a bronze tree, or a sentient tree, or a family tree. you think of a living tree that you most easily associate a memory with. in the case of the word god, there are many definitions that do not line up like the definition of a tree does. no one can argue about the definition of a tree because we are all able to equally sense it and experience a tree as the same kind of thing. god is not something that we all can all sense in the same way. it is a subjective idea, not a physical thing. that is why it has a "wide variety of definitions" and a tree does not. the idea of god is as defined as the idea of a utopia. it is not something that we have all come into contact with and so there are no words yet to define it. those that have come into contact with it have done so subjectively and therefor they cannot completely convey that idea to someone else.

To get an accurate image, a word requires other words to go with it. In the case of your post, 'god' was not only capitalised, but was surrounded by "he" and other words that make the image one of:

- A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

By your word usage surrounding 'god', (or God as you put it), it becomes clear what definition the word carries. If you had have said "football is god" it would be a completely different definition - one not of beings, but one of serious adulation and worship (for a game).

perhaps clear to you, but maybe that is because all you have ever heard about god was that god is a he and that he has supernatural powers and controls all of nature. this is not my indoctrination so it is not my definition of god.

the only reason i capitalised god was because i wanted the post to be formal. the only reason i referred to god as 'he' is because i thought saying god every few words would become redundant.

but we are discovering pieces of my post that would cause misinterpretation and misunderstanding by those who would take those descriptive words more literally. so you are right, in a way. my intention is to show that anything said in language should be taken metaphorically--that none of it can be literally true to reality.

I disagree as explained above. I will agree that there are many different definitions of the word, but a specific definition is found by the word usage that surrounds it.

then what is the common definition of god? what is the definition of god that, if told to every god-believer, they would understand and agree?

the specific definitions create different definitions. when you say tree, i might think of an oak tree i saw in southern florida near the beach. but when you say a bonzai tree i might automatically switch over to a small, twisted tree i saw in china town. they are both trees, as you are saying. so, my definition of god has similarities to those of christianity or judaism or buddhism, but its still god. what makes the analogy any different? why is it so bad that i describe natural processes as god? my intent is not to change the definition of god, but to show that god is not necessarily exactly like it is written in the bible. my intention is to show that god is more likely to exist as a part of natural processes. that the supernatural is really natural.

Quite interesting to note that you're now using a lower case 'g' accompanied by 'it'. As such you have now moved away from a specific god definition - however, I do still disagree with your statements concerning words, and am sure given some effort you could find other words that perhaps fit better in place of 'god' - which, (if you were to be right in saying it has no definition), means what you're saying is completely meaningless.

you should also notice that i stopped capitalising the pronoun 'i'. does that mean my definition of myself has changed? i have not moved away from any specific god definition, i just describe them with different words that mean the same thing. its like using different equations to reach the same answer. the words might be different, but their interactions with each other have a similar effect. the problem is, that effect is distorted from person to person depending on their experiences. have you read the revised version of my original post? i don't mean that 'god' has no definition. i mean that it has no commonly accepted definition and that there are so many differing definitions that it might as well have no definition.

Most certainly, but I have explained this above. Of course with your usage of 'God', there is still some room for differing view. Undoubtedly a muslim would assume you're talking about allah, a jew yhwh, a christian jesus etc - but again that comes down to explanation. "The biblical god" would certainly be an indicator that you are referring to yhwh. etc.

You will most likely never really entirely get someone elses 'image' completely on par with your own, but you get them a lot closer to it, and thus what you're saying is more likely to be understood in the way you stated it.

yes, which is one of the reasons why i used the word god. because i wanted to relate to people--i wanted to show them that god is not just a mythical being that is only true in ignorant worshippers. i wanted to show that god can be something that we can all see is real--it only depends on how you allocate his meaning. the most commonly accepted version of god is that god is a force that caused the universe to be [like it is]. so you can allocate that to pi, or you can say its the big bang, or you can say its energy that pervades all things, or you can say that its something we havent been able to observe yet. but what matters is the relations that remain in place. throughout all definitions, god is that which brought the universe to be. so with that in mind, you can describe god however your experiences show it to be.

See above. Tree -- bonsai tree -- 30 foot oak tree in the middle of winter. You set particular understanding of words by the words you use around them. By saying 'God' with 'he', 'him' etc, you alter the definition to mean a specific male deity. When you say 'god' and 'it', you're talking about something else entirely.

but, again, i am still talking about the ultimate creator of our universe. the bringer of all existence. whether i am talking about an oak or a bonzai, i am still talking about a tree--an organism that photosynthesizes light and fixes nitrogen and grows a woody stalk. the difference between god and a tree is that a tree can be objectively witnessed, god cannot.

I still disagree.

Can't say I've ever personally see someone be better, or even try to be better, by just disagreeing. I just thought it best not to go too much into detail. Still..

i have a desire for all truth. i become frustrated when someone doesn't want to tell me their reasoning for something. i feel like i'm missing out on something.

In the first instance I disagree because I personally think words are a lot more powerful than you give them credit for. I guess it's just an opinion, but being a man that loves to write and loves to take photo's, I find I give them equal appreciation.

yes, i can see how what i have written can evoke a sense that i have no respect or use for words. but my post should be evidence against that. i also love to write and i enjoy taking pictures from time to time (my sister is an abstract photographer). my love of writing has lead me to the knowledge that words can never convey an experience, no matter how good a writer you are. its like the exponential curve towards an asymptote; you can always get closer to a better understanding, but you can never relay it exactly how it is.

In the other instance I disagree with you saying an experience doesn't have an exchange for words. I used to write about experiences quite a bit, and although you can never make anyone ever live that experience, I do say that you can convey it rather well with some time and effort.

with any picture you can learn something you had not known before. you can learn the shape of an object. you can learn its color. but with writing, its different. by putting words together, you are evoking memories in different patterns. the reason why we think we learn when we read is because we are making connections between memories that we had never connected before. and so we realize an interaction between them by what the writer has shown us. you cannot write a story about a man trapped in the arctic circle, dying of freezing temperatures--and give it to a man in the tropics who has never experienced, nor heard of snow and ice, and expect him to understand it. he must first have the experience of coldness to understand the situation. this is why language is both important in its own right, but also meaningless compared to pure experience.

Wouldn't you consider "antiquated and conservative" and "emotionless and without a motivator" as inherently different as "tree" and "bonsai tree"?

i would consider them two sides of the same coin. but our society has caused us to think that they are two different coins altogether, when they are not.

{edit} It's not an issue of 'disliking' the word 'god' or 'God' or 'he' or 'it', my concern is that it's just out of place, (in the way it was used), for what you were seemingly trying to say.

then maybe you have not understood a deeper meaning to what i was trying to say. my intention is not to describe natural processes as god, but to describe god as natural processes. my desire is to show that our only source of the 'word of god' is from nature, not a book.

 

[(Q)]

Myself when I was a teenager I 'opened my mind' and it was a real thing not metaphorical one...no drugs involved. I closed my mind and it stopped.

"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out"

but I don't go there, full of nutters

"Birds of a feather flock together"

I could read the future in the pattern on the carpet

Is the future Berber or plush?