The irrelevance of God

[Mazulu]

Very much like seeing and hear...except that you can't describe it to us and you, presumably, can describe what you've seen and heard.

I remember reading a near death experience/story about a man who was sick in a hospital bed. He found himself out of his body and was shocked to see his own body laying in the hospital bed. There was a man who told him urgently to follow him. So he followed the man into the darkness. He was then attacked and torn apart by evil entities. He was an innocent soul who had the misfortune of listening to those who would lead him astray into the darkness

Watching you atheists try to brainwash arfa brane makes me think of that story.

 

[arfa brane]

Watching you atheists try to brainwash arfa brane makes me think of that story.

Don't worry about me, I'll be fine.

 

[Mazulu]

Don't worry about me, I'll be fine.

Yes you will, you have a strong mind and a powerful will.

 

[wynn]

Until you figure out how to use a dictionary, you'll never understand the meaning of words and how to communicate effectively.

Always the power game, huh ...

Why not just define your words and then offer the explanation based on your definitions?

And when people do this, you fret.

:shrug:

"I have evidence God exists but I don't have to believe in it."

"My existence proves God exists but not that he originated me."

"I have an experience of God but can't describe it and don't need to."

Is anyone else getting tired of this ridiculous tapdance? Geez!

When will so many atheists get tired of their victim identity ...

 

[Seattle]

I remember reading a near death experience/story about a man who was sick in a hospital bed. He found himself out of his body and was shocked to see his own body laying in the hospital bed. There was a man who told him urgently to follow him. So he followed the man into the darkness. He was then attacked and torn apart by evil entities. He was an innocent soul who had the misfortune of listening to those who would lead him astray into the darkness

Watching you atheists try to brainwash arfa brane makes me think of that story.

No one is trying to "brainwash" anyone. It's insulting to arfa brane to think he's that fragile (or that we have any desire or ability to brainwash anyone).

This is a discussion. Why are you not worrying that arfa brane is trying to brainwash us?

 

[cole grey]

"1re·al adjective \ˈrē(-ə)l\
: actually existing or happening : not imaginary
: not fake, false, or artificial
: important and deserving to be regarded or treated in a serious way"
Much of this back and forth can be condensed down to one problem. Some of you are basically just saying that #3 is not #1. Over and over 3 is not 1, 3 is not 1. But any intelligent person must agree that 3 is a valid definition of "real". Period.
My definitions are accepted English usage. Whether it be the definition of "definition", or of "real". Anybody having a problem with that needs to take a second.
The fact remains that definitions of god do not agree, therefore a single definition does not exist. The best that can be said is, "most of the time, people mean x", which is not meaningful, and is short-hand. Also again, anyone who doesn't know the difference between einstein's DEFINITION of the word god (for example) and a rabbi's DEFINITION is either confused or not very knowledgable on this subject.
Also, the idea that god is man's highest consciousness is self-proving, in the same way that a person saying feeling down equates to feeling "blue" is self-proving logically. It either is or is not an accepted semantic. If accepted as a semantic, it is true. And that semantic is accepted by many people. Saying man's highest consciousness does not exist, or that it can't be called god, is ridiculous. Saying "blue" is not REALLY feeling down, is ridiculous, saying there isn't a feeling that can be described as blue is ridiculous.

Until we can agree on the basic usages of the English language we are not going to get anywhere anyway.

 

[Balerion]

It isn't a concept, unless you mean seeing something is a concept.

You did more than see it. You classified it as God. You said you even asked yourself about it later. Yes, it's very much a concept, but it's one you aren't confident enough in to share with others except through vague insinuation and poor analogies.

I doubt that you or anyone on this forum can convince me I can't see or hear

No one here has attempted to convince you of such a thing.

Hear or see what? Well, hear stuff that's like sound, and see stuff that's like light. Very much like hearing and seeing, you know?

No, I don't know what's "like" hearing or seeing. Here you go with the fuzzy definitions again.

 

[Balerion]

"1re·al adjective \ˈrē(-ə)l\
: actually existing or happening : not imaginary
: not fake, false, or artificial
: important and deserving to be regarded or treated in a serious way"

Much of this back and forth can be condensed down to one problem. Some of you are basically just saying that #3 is not #1. Over and over 3 is not 1, 3 is not 1. But any intelligent person must agree that 3 is a valid definition of "real". Period.[/quote]

No, the problem is that you're conflating 3 and 1.

My definitions are accepted English usage. Whether it be the definition of "definition", or of "real". Anybody having a problem with that needs to take a second.

No, your definitions are entirely out of place. We are talking about dreams as actual events, not as lacking or having importance. That was never a question. Again, this is because you either didn't read or didn't comprehend the conversation you jumped into.

The fact remains that definitions of god do not agree, therefore a single definition does not exist.

Another straw man. Aren't you tired of this yet? Your intellectual dishonesty is apparent to everyone here who isn't a crank. Again, you're only fooling yourself with this, and you've already made it clear that you're easily fooled.

Also, the idea that god is man's highest consciousness is self-proving, in the same way that a person saying feeling down equates to feeling "blue" is self-proving logically. It either is or is not an accepted semantic. If accepted as a semantic, it is true. And that semantic is accepted by many people. Saying man's highest consciousness does not exist, or that it can't be called god, is ridiculous. Saying "blue" is not REALLY feeling down, is ridiculous, saying there isn't a feeling that can be described as blue is ridiculous.

Absolute piffle. Word salad.

Until we can agree on the basic usages of the English language we are not going to get anywhere anyway.

Agreed. Once you stop poisoning the well, we can get on with it.

 

[wynn]

I see your points, but you and I can agree on what a dog actually is. If you and I are walking down the street side by side and see a dog run by, we will both agree that we saw a dog run by.

And when it comes to God, such an agreement is not necessary* - unless, of course, one already strictly adheres (probably implicitly) to Abrahamic notions of who God supposedly is.

You work yourself up over nothing.


*Such an agreement is not necessary as long as God is defined as that being that is the source of all other beings and who is the benefactor of all beings.

I take issue with people changing definitions to suit what they wish others to believe.

The definitions that you work with have been authorized by whom? God?

And it's not like atheists don't wish other people would believe as the atheists wish.

There is only one definition for reality and that is how things REALLY ARE and as they really exist.

A truism. Useless.

No, it just means many people are not willing to admit that they have changed the meaning of reality and truth to suit their own beliefs.

And everyone is to believe that you know what reality is?

Lol.

So, is it safe to assume that many people believe that there are two separate realities: a spiritual reality AND an actual reality?

Many people believe that, yes, but I've never seen any point in it. There's one reality, and it has many areas, some material, some spiritual. Not everyone has equal access to all areas at all times.

Actual reality is what we can measure, verify, and is tangible. It might not be seen by all, but could be seen by all. Or heard by all. Or tasted by all. Or felt by all. Example, a friend of mine bought a dog recently, and when we speak by phone, I can hear it barking. I have never seen the dog, but there is some evidence that it exists. So, I'm able to verify evidence of the dog, even though I have not physically seen it, yet. With God, there is no such scenario. Someone telling me that God exists, doesn't make God a reality. Someone passing on Biblical 'knowledge,' doesn't make God a reality. Someone sharing the beliefs of another faith, even sharing stories of supposed miracles, etc...does not make God a reality.

Objective reality for it to be so, just is. I don't need to convince someone else, of objective reality or truths. He/she will be able to discover them on his/her own, should they be objective truths. Science, math, etc...are objective truths, and while someone might not be interested in learning about them, they are still available to be explored.

God is not a tangible reality, and if someone asserts that he is, then how are you definining reality?

Apparently in ways you don't like.

While I think these discussions are very interesting, it seems like they go in circles, because spiritual people/theists don't want to admit that their definition of reality, isn't an objective one. And I have to ask, why is that?

And the atheistic definition of reality is objective?

When I was a practicing Christian, I never thought God was an objective truth. Or an objective reality. No two theists can even agree as to who or what God may or may not be. So, to claim that God is an objective reality, tells me that someone either has purposely blurred the lines between actual reality, and subjective/spiritual reality, or just doesn't know the difference between the two. I won't go as far as to say 'God is not real,' because spirtuality can feel like a very real thing, in a person's life.

The third option is that maybe some people aren't qualified to see God.

But, it's still not objective, for if it were, atheists wouldn't need convincing. They would be able to see/feel/understand/hear what theists see/feel/understand/hear. Objective reality can be discovered very plainly, and if God were an objective reality, why is evidence of him such a mystery?

Why do people have a fear of missing out?
Why do people feel envy?
Why do people feel like victims?
Why do so many people, theists and atheists alike, subscribe to the Abrahamic worldview?


Unless one is afraid that one is missing out, unless one is envious of others, unless one has the tacit belief that one has to "get it right in this one lifetime or suffer forever", unless one has the firm conviction that God, the universe and everyone and everything are unjust and one is an innocent victim:
then there is no reason to fret about God and theists.

 

[wynn]

Until we can agree on the basic usages of the English language we are not going to get anywhere anyway.

Nah.

The basic problem with these conversations is that there is so much aggression between the people taking part that little or no meta-discussion is possible. And, of course, given the aggression, little or nothing can be shared or learned.

However, nowadays, we seem to be primed to ignore this aggression, pretend it isn't there, and go on as if everything was fine and as if pretty much everything can be openly discussed with anyone at anytime in any way.

 

[cole grey]

No, the problem is that you're conflating 3 and 1.

Let me be more clear - 1 is real. 2 is real. 3 is real. 1 is not exactly 2. 2 is not 3. 3 is not 1. Did you get how the word is the same, i.e. "real" for all three usages of the word "real"? I am not confused about the difference between 1 and 3.

No, your definitions are entirely out of place. We are talking about dreams as actual events, not as lacking or having importance. That was never a question. Again, this is because you either didn't read or didn't comprehend the conversation you jumped into.

here you assume that your 1real is what everyone will agree to meaning, which is not the case. Were you actually asking if riding a hippo or whatever that dream you used as an example was 1real? What kind of ridiculous question is that? Are you dealing with people who say they have empirical data of god's physical existence? I would like to see where In the conversation that was brought up. God's existence is "shown" through people's interpretation (or misinterpretation) of 1real things, the same way we "show" a dog is kind. A sophisticated person is not going to go around claiming empirical evidence of god's physical existence based on thunderstorms or whatever, so reference to ancient methods of thought are ridiculous. This is like saying medical ethics (ethics, a philosophy, please note) is crap because it began to be practiced in the days when people put cow dung on a wound.
I for one haven't been sitting around stuck on 1real when bringing up philosophical ideologies. That is a joke. You will have a long wait to find a philosophy that has 1real attached to it, and again, going back to ridiculous again, when is asking someone if riding a pink elephant in a dream or whatever "actually happened" a functional question? That is just goofy.

@wynn - you have said this before and it is a good point, but I think intelligent people can sift in the mud and find useful things. And sometimes a person doesn't want to go finding useful things in certain more amiable ways, because as they say, the things you learn yourself are the things you remember the longest.

 

[Seattle]

Cole Grey, OK, let's not use the word "real" since you want to use it to mean "important". Let's use physical or perhaps not physical but an actual mental image while one is awake.

When people say they had "an experience" or saw and heard God and when we ask if that was real obviously were aren't asking if that was "important" (real 3). We are asking (and assuming) it must be real 1 if the person thinks they actually saw and heard God.

 

[Balerion]

Cole Grey, OK, let's not use the word "real" since you want to use it to mean "important". Let's use physical or perhaps not physical but an actual mental image while one is awake.

When people say they had "an experience" or saw and heard God and when we ask if that was real obviously were aren't asking if that was "important" (real 3). We are asking (and assuming) it must be real 1 if the person thinks they actually saw and heard God.

Exactly. Better yet, why don't we just use real to mean real, and important to mean important? You know, like everyone else in the world does? Especially when the importance of a dream isn't in question, but the validity of the imaginings within.

Notice how the theists turn this into a useless semantic exercise? All the while, absolutely nothing is accomplished.

 

[Seattle]

And then Mazulu comes along to say that we are trying to "brain wash" them

You would think just one person who claims to have seen and spoken to God would describe how that came about instead of arguing over definitions of the words involved.

No one wants to admit that they only see and hear God in their dreams or that it only happens when they are speaking (or thinking) to themselves and that God was only somehow involved through divine inspiration through whatever thoughts they ended up with in their consciousness.

One of those two scenarios has to be what actually is happening but no one will admit it. I'm sure someone will feign hurt feelings to my comments as if I've totally misinterpreted their comments without actually clearing up those misinterpretations.

 

[Balerion]

And then Mazulu comes along to say that we are trying to "brain wash" them

I have him on ignore, so I was unaware. I've found that trolls tend to slink off into the shadows if you don't feed them. But to your point, there's another one who abuses the language until it's a bloody pulp. Brainwashed? What?

:facepalm:

You would think just one person who claims to have seen and spoken to God would describe how that came about instead of arguing over definitions of the words involved.

No one wants to admit that they only see and hear God in their dreams or that it only happens when they are speaking (or thinking) to themselves and that God was only somehow involved through divine inspiration through whatever thoughts they ended up with in their consciousness.

One of those two scenarios has to be what actually is happening but no one will admit it. I'm sure someone will feign hurt feelings to my comments as if I've totally misinterpreted their comments without actually clearing up those misinterpretations.

That's exactly it. As I said before, this is more about affirmation than it is conversation. Whether it's Jan's "It's not a concept," or Cole's "It's not real but it's real," what we have here are theists who are trying to validate their beliefs through semantics. They literally want to be able to say "Yes, my experience was real," or "It was with God," and it's no less superficial than that. Talk about anti-philosophy! I mean, when I asked one of them if they could put their experience into words, they responded, "Maybe, but I prefer another medium." WTF? This is a discussion forum. What are you doing here if not to put your ideas into words?

(Waits for one of them to say "Ah, but it isn't an idea!")

 

[wellwisher]

No one wants to admit that they only see and hear God in their dreams or that it only happens when they are speaking (or thinking) to themselves and that God was only somehow involved through divine inspiration through whatever thoughts they ended up with in their consciousness.

Doesn't the New Testament talk about the inner man in contrast to the outer man. The inner man is interfaced via the mind's eye or imagination while the outer man is based on sensory reality. Animals and bugs lack development of the inner man. All innovation starts with the inner man because, in the beginning, it does not yet exist within reality where you can see it or touch it. The architect can envision the super shopping center on the empty lot of land. This is not done with the eyes, until after it is done. Then the atheist can see. Lack of the inner man makes it easier to trick people with magic tricks.

The rising social cost is happening because of atheist magic. What it calls natural is propped up with the rising cost. Natural does not require propping up with hidden costs. That is the magic trick with the outer man lacking basic common sense.

Here is how the trick works. Say I wanted to convince atheists that it is natural to eat rocks. Because of previous conditioning I could say the bible does not say this is good, therefore it must be good. Or I for those with some science, I can say birds, like chickens, eat little pebbles therefore this is natural because it is found in nature.

As I start to eat rocks, problems begin, analogous to STD"s of the digestive system. This condition now requires a new social spending program to clean uo the mess behind this "natural" behavior. If you don't cover the tab you are a hater. A person with the inner man would say natural does need this propping, only unnatural needs this. But atheism, by lacking the inner vision of the inner man is fooled by the magic trick again and again.

 

[(Q)]

That's only because what you have instead of evidence is an idea. You also believe in this idea without any evidence (in fact, that's why you believe it).

Sorry, but you have only an idea, as well. That's all gods are comprised, as ideas, notions, imaginary beings.

I think my evidence is a lot less complicated, in the same manner that breathing is less complicated when you just breathe.

Yes, exactly like thin air.

And I note you've said I don't have incontrovertible evidence that I can see what I'm reading or typing, which is what I said in that quote. Are you saying you don't agree with this, or are you just not agreeing because that's easier for you than reading what I actually typed (whilst watching my fingers move with my, apparently, working vision)?

FYI, the words you type here are not equivalent to gods, they are just words. God is just a word.

 

[(Q)]

Always the power game, huh ...

I have no idea what you're talking about... what power game?

 

[wynn]

@wynn - you have said this before and it is a good point, but I think intelligent people can sift in the mud and find useful things. And sometimes a person doesn't want to go finding useful things in certain more amiable ways, because as they say, the things you learn yourself are the things you remember the longest.

No. Intelligent people will stop sifting through the mud for the occasional pearl, and instead go to a chest full of pearls.

And sometimes a person doesn't want to go finding useful things in certain more amiable ways, because as they say, the things you learn yourself are the things you remember the longest.

Yeah, because learning stuff the hard way is soooooooo rewarding!

One thing that quietly learning from one's own mistakes and from the mistakes of others so desperately lacks are power games between people, the sheer thrill of power games. That's why Sciforums rocks, and the Prosblogion doesn't.

 

[Mazulu]

And then Mazulu comes along to say that we are trying to "brain wash" them You would think just one person who claims to have seen and spoken to God would describe how that came about instead of arguing over definitions of the words involved.

No one wants to admit that they only see and hear God in their dreams or that it only happens when they are speaking (or thinking) to themselves and that God was only somehow involved through divine inspiration through whatever thoughts they ended up with in their consciousness.

One of those two scenarios has to be what actually is happening but no one will admit it. I'm sure someone will feign hurt feelings to my comments as if I've totally misinterpreted their comments without actually clearing up those misinterpretations.

The name of the thread is: the irrellevance of God. The fact that there are people who will fight for what they believe proves that God is relevant. The fact that atheists are trying as hard as they can to discredit God, to discredit Jesus, only proves that God is relevant. I don't see anybody arguing over whether or not the flying spagetti monster, the tooth fairy, or time travelers exist or are relevant; because clearly those things are not relevant.

To the issue of whether or not anyone is willing to talk about their experiences with hostile atheist believers, they would be wise not to.