It’s not a single god of a single cult, its god per se, regardless all of human definitions and conceptions.
That still implies a false assumption that god actually exists. This is logical fallacy since it hasn't been demonstrated one way or the other. With no positive reason to accept the assertion of a 'god,' we are left with the logical conclusion that until positive evidence exists there is no valid reason to assume its existence. To do so implies that the nature, characteristics, or qualities of this 'god' are known. The very assertion that there is *a* god and not multiple or infinite gods is, itself, an assertion that these qualities are known. This is simply false. Thus: poppycock created by man to satisfy his credulous nature.
That is not the case, it is not ‘my god’, it is just god.
Which begs the question: 'how do you know?' And I use
begs the question as its rare, but true, definition of circular reasoning because the answer is invaribly something along the lines of it is known because it is true or other arguments of petitio principii.
The many gods are due to people having to identify with god in this way, but higher appreciations of god do not need form, attributes or even definitions for god. This is not to say it is a different god, just a different understanding of god.
Complete and utter poppycock. Not only is there no supporting evidence of this, but there is a
vast body of evidence that discounts this notion completely. All one need do is look at the contradictory and diverse nature of man's gods. Again, the reason those that consider themselves "spiritual free thinkers" use such analogies is clearly because if
other gods of humanity can be admittedly fictional, then why cannot the same assumption be made of their own. This is why, while you may
claim to be one, free-thought is limited among the so-called 'spiritual free thinkers.' True free thought requires that your own assumptions be logical examined and evaluated and, regardless of what your final conclusions may be, an admittance of provisionality be made.
I'm an atheist, but at least I've the intellectual honesty to admit this is a provisional position. I'm more than willing to revise this position with real evidence -not the tautological nonsense that keeps getting suggested by so-called 'spiritual free thinkers.'
God without form or attributes is called brahman nirguna in Hinduism.
Its called human mythology and good fiction. Such a god is oxymoronic since the very act of assuming this 'god' is without attributation or form is an attributation -a form. Thus, we can toss this out; discard the notion as pure, human invented fiction. It cannot be accepted as any sort of real definition without sacrificing your intellectual honesty.
Please take a few minutes to read the short article in this link, it is about a slightly different subject but I think it explains the different levels of comprehension of god quite well.
http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/creation_benjamin.htm
If a few minutes presents itself as free, perhaps I shall, but I'm betting that I'd be better satisfied reading an article that explains the different levels of comprehension of Jedi Knights. At least it'll be entertaining, albeit equally fictional.
And I would also defend the same right plus the right of anyone not to believe. I will though (as you) still argue my case and criticise others where I see fit.
I'd have it no other way.
[...] your definition of free thinker seems to mean anyone who does not believe – anyone who jumps on the atheist bandwagon. And if someone uses their free critical thinking to arrive at a conclusion of belief in anything spiritual all of a sudden they are not free thinkers (according to you). Well this thinking doesn’t seem very free to me – it seems fettered within the realms of materialism. You cannot criticise the religious for free thinking and at the same time hold it as a virtue for atheists.
I'm quite used to being accused by the credulous of not being "open-minded" simply because I don't buy into their fanciful explanations of gods, demons, ufos, perpetual motion, free energy, esp and the like. Free thought, as I said, involves the characteristic of being willing to revise a position based on evidence when new evidence is presented. I fully admit to being materialist and naturalist. This is what matters in the universe as the mystical superstitions of man are untestable. I'm sure there is bound to be some postmodernist, new age response of nonsense from someone with that statement, going on about how "nothing can be empirically tested, blah, blah, blah..."
Believe your superstitions and magical mumbo jumbo all you want. If you're willing to assert them in public, be prepared to have them cricitized and perhaps ridiculed. That there is some un-spoken rule that religious belief is somehow immune to criticism and ridicule (i.e. parody), while it's okay to criticize and ridicule political beliefs and other social institutions, is utter nonsense.
). My obection was that you were excluing me from your definition of free thinker