So.. much like there is a phenomenal difference between a 'leprechaun', (that I mentioned), and a 'pink elephant' that you changed it to for some strange little reason. Why did you do that? And then you have the audacity to to say you're not dismissing anything? I was talking about one very specific being, (a leprechaun), and you decided to brush it aside for something as baseless as a pink elephant.
So, getting back to the actual issue, you said define god, to which I said define a leprechaun. I then went on to add that definitions of such entities will vary from person to person. This is mainly due to none of them actually existing except in the minds of deluded individuals. What I was getting at, is that a definition of god can vary wherever you go. Thus far I haven't believed in one definition presented.
However, tell me what this phenomenal difference between god and a leprechaun is when related to whether either exists. In literature they both look different and do different things. That in no way means one has more credibility of existence than the other.
Your only prior explanation was that you don't "depend" upon one whereas to your mind you "depend" upon the other. Admittedly you did say "we", but you most certainly couldn't have been referring to me, because I don't depend on god.
I suppose one good thing however, is that you're eventually coming to see it from my perspective. You see, to me god is nothing more than a 'pink elephant'. You might say from personal opinion that god is phenomenally different, but to me it isn't at all - just like you see a leprechaun.
I didn't.
You certainly like using the term "absolute standard", and while it serves as a convenient 'patsy', it's not much for debating purposes. In debates a lot will be personal opinion/thought and feelings. For instance, Later on in your post you say:
"If it blinds, then it isn't love -- it is only an infatuation."
To which I could take your 'escape-response' and say "and you are assuming to have the absolute standard to measure love".
It just kills off any point in discussion right there, because not only can it be said for every single sentence anyone ever says, (and you've most certainly tried to prove that), but it shows you're not interested in discussion or debate, but just running for the hills. Being as thats the case, why waste my time, or yours?
So to summarize thus far...
Firstly you dismissed my leprechaun in favour of a funny coloured, 4 legged, tree eater even though there's a phenomenal difference and then decided to ignore any debate in preference of a barrage of "absolute standard" quotes. By that token you can't even claim to be human, after all there is no "absolute standard" with which to measure humanity.
I would, but there is no absolute standard to measure listening to oneself.
This could get really boring, really quickly - not that there's any absolute standard with which to measure boredom.
Completely unrelated. I find it hysterical how the religious mind will try to justify existence of the non-existant by using the scientific. If you think these two 'examples' are even remotely connected, you're a nitwit.
Is the big bang around right now? I don't think so, and as such we do not depend on it for our ongoing existence. Our existence as a whole would have "depended" upon a big bang, but right now we "depend" on the sun. It isn't the *only* thing we depend upon - but it is certainly at the top of the ladder.
It depends on 'bible versions'. The OT was certainly full of demands whereas the NT seems a little more lenient as far as sacrifice goes. Perhaps we could do with an NNT, (new new testament), just to be certain.
There was even a time when the sun demanded sacrifice. That's not to say it actually did, but you try telling the believers that.
Kiss Hank's ass is of relevance here.
That's what I said, which is why you have god.
And god exists in literature.
Absolutely. So tell me, why are you not paying any attention to your own statement?
Make up your mind. At the beginning of this post you were telling me not to put words in your mouth when saying it's what people "need", and now you're telling me it's what people need.
Further to which, My entire quote says it's what we need, so what are you debating against exactly? I used the word 'need' three times, if you didn't notice. Perhaps you should only respond to posts when you're awake. Just a suggestion.
Oh, did an invisible "me" pop in there somewhere? Were you going to debate the point, concur with the point or just continue with your habitual stupidity?
Seriously, a debate can not work in this manner. If you have something to debate, debate it - but thus far you've done very little except A) try and run from the point, B) Disagree with the point, but then agree with it later, or C) Think somehow bringing my personal life into the subject means you can completely evade the actual post.
Not at all, but humans work better in numbers - just like wolves. However, I can't go running round like a madman every single time someone shouts; "fairy/loch ness monster/god". All I ask is that the person who makes the claim, gives something of worth that would give me a starting point. All the religious person can muster is "just have faith" - which is completely meaningless. It's like me saying to you "just have faith in the giant green octopus of planet thwobble plop". Tell me, why don't you - even if I tell you to?
Yes I did.
No it isn't. To you it might be, but, (and I hate to say it), you have no absolute standard with which to measure what is or is not conceivable - so why are you trying to shove it upon me? Much like the abominable snowman might not be conceivable to you, god is not conceivable to me. Got it?
Now, although the quote you used didn't specifically apply to anything with sentience, I have already tried several times to give you a definition and even a dictionary definition of what 'god' supposedly is, and that is the topic at hand.
You need to learn what figure of speech is. Next I suppose you'll be having a go at me for saying "you've drawn a face on the sun", and argue that nobody has a pencil that large, nor can survive the heat.
Of course it is, it's only ever not an abuse of religion, when it happens to be the exact methods you follow. Don't think this is unique to you, every religious person on the planet does it.
I know a large number that would disagree with you. But of course, you're right - they're wrong. Yeah, that figures.
What do you mean?
And you're assuming to have the absolute standard with which to measure love.
As I said earlier, you really should be awake first if you intend on making posts. Kindly note the word "If"
Save your pity and patronization for when your brain is actually turned on.
Where did I say 'human-like'? What was it you were saying about putting words into ones mouth? Personally I think it would be far more impressive if he came down as something not human-like... say a talking banana or something.
No, the way I put it is exactly how it's written. Someone comes up to you and says "Hey, do you know Bob who works in accounting?" You'd say; "Yes, I know Bob".
We're not talking absolute knowledge, merely pointing out that when you know something is there, you never use the words "believe" or "faith".
Let's say there were 5 Bob's in accounting, you might say "I believe I know Bob from accounting", and then go on to ask if he means the Bob with glasses and a bald head.
To be honest, it's about time you trash your entire "absolute" statements. They don't suit you at all, but just make you look daft.
People who are know of somethings existence, don't use the word "believe". Period.
No I'm not thereby saying anything. I asked you a question. Here it is again:
How many people do you know that walk round saying "I believe in gravity"?
Kindly leave out your worthless little equations and answer the bloody question. Thanks.
Sure, as long as you recognise it as "history".
Yeah, and in 1000 years the knowledge they have would be most feasible. Either way you cut it though, the people several millennia ago were knowledgeless nitwits.
Is English your first language? You might notice that I never said anything about discarding. With regards to the ancient times - I said put it in a museum, which is all about "preservation", and nothing whatsoever to do with discarding.
Yeah, so why you believing the rantings of ancient shepherds? For interest I have no issues, I read ancient stuff all the time, including the bible - but is when you start thinking that is reality, that the problem arrives.
It depends. There are those, (creationists), who view creation as literal- even so far as to claim the world is a mere 7000 or so years old. While it clearly is not science, it's their personal little version of science. They will reject actual science which shouts evolution, in preference of their own 'science' which they claim shows something completely different. If the bible is not a science book, these people should not be trying to argue science by using the bible. They should not argue evolution, the age of the planet or cosmos - or anything 'scientific' by using a book that is clearly not scientific.
You have yet to provide so much as one example of that being the case. As such, your claim is inherently worthless, and without worth in this discussion.
I don't have to scientifically prove it, it was your statement, I merely copied it - and posed it back to you as a question
Are you purposely being stupid?
I say one thing and you shout "absolutes", "scientific proof", and so on... even when I've only copied your statements for the sake of discussion.
This isn't a review board, it's a debate. Of course, I could just do things your way, and the very next time you use the word god I can demand scientific proof and absolutes.
No, you're being a raving bloody imbecile.
You asked me for a "definition of god". You didn't ask me for a definition of worshippers, and as such the part where it says who this dood is worshipped by, is completely irrelevant.
Look, lets chop this up into bite sized chunks, I fear anything larger will give you a hernia.
A) You said: "How do you define god?"
B) I decided to give you the dicitionary definition in full which states:
"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."
C) Now let's look at the sentence. The first section says "a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe"
D) That would be a working definition of what god is.
E) The next part, which you seem fixated on, says that this definition of god is worshipped in monotheistic religions.
F) E is irrelevant, because it does not define god, merely who happens to worship it.
G) In the matter of defining god, "perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe", is the part you should be paying attention to.
H) As the question was asked to me, I can define god anyway I deem fit, otherwise you shouldn't have bloody asked. I decided for ease, that the dictionary definition of "omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, and ruler" was a suitable definition for a being that I don't believe in.
I) That particular definition of god, I don't believe in. I couldn't give a rats piss who worships that definition of god, but that was one example of a god definition I don't personally believe.
J) Damn you're an idiot. No offence.
Are you a gibbering simpleton? So you're saying I can't define god as omnipotent, omniscient and perfect unless I happen to be part of a monotheistic religion? Get real wouldya.
And yet more of this nonsense. If you said "There's a leprechaun in my garden", I'd say "show me evidence/proof". We wouldn't sit down over dinner and agree to "common standards". If you make a claim, expect it to be questioned. That's all there is to it, agreement or otherwise.
I can see you've picked these little phrases up somewhere around the internet, and are as keen to use them as a child with a new toy. The only problem is you're using them where they don't belong.
That's a good thing, but very unlikely. Here we are having a simple discussion and you're reeling off "absolutes", "scientific proof" and so on as if the world's about to end. I can only imagine you if someone said they'd just seen a leprechaun.
What are you suggesting? That atheists existed first, (not believing in something that hadn't even been mentioned), and then a theist turned up saying god existed, and the atheist said "ah, thats what it was I didn't believe in"?
If there were no theists, everyone would techincally be atheists, but nobody would be called atheists because there wouldn't be anything theistic to not believe in.
I already went through this earlier, and if you didn't manage to grasp that, then you're a lost cause. No, I dont have an absolute standard with which to measure a lost cause.
Now, as earlier, take the "a being of supernatural powers". It's irrelevant who worships it, you asked me to define the being, not it's followers.
Further to which, it was about my lack of belief in a god being, to which you asked me to give a definition. It would be simple enough for me to now say "The definition of god I don't believe in is that as worshipped by monotheistic religions and 'a people'".
Eh? So if I'm an unbeliever I can't unbelieve the definition of a being I don't believe in that you asked me to define?
The whole point was that that definition of god has no meaning for me. It is as fictional as the vengeful rice krispie from outer space.
You really do get off on being silly. I said I don't believe in a god, at which point you said I can't unbelieve something that I have no definition for, at which stage I gave you a definition of god that I don't believe in, at which point you then tell me I can't use that definition because I don't believe in it.
Lol, what a turnip.
Oh, go away.
I swear, you use that phrase one more time I'm going to enter you into the Guiness Book of Stupidity.
So you have belief in something that you can't define, but then demand that I can't not believe something that I have no definition for, but then when I do give a definition you argue that I can't use that definition because I don't believe in it.
I know, I've said the same thing twice now. It was just so supremely idiotic, it deserved another mention.
And people can disbelieve whatever they want. But if someone makes a claim to the existence of something, it is still open to questioning. That's the way it goes, and if you don't like it, sue me. What are you trying to debate against? I never said you couldn't believe in something, but I never said I wouldn't question it either.
Why "leave it!"? I can do as I please, and in the event that someone makes a claim to the existence of something, I like to question it and debate it. That's the way it goes.
Yes, they do have clashes.. which are usually based around some sort of 'faith' Bush had faith that they had womd.. it turned out fruitless, but didn't stop a bunch of people getting bombed. I wont even bring up the faith aspect of sept 11 or any other all out rampage.
Well in context to this particular section of my post, I said don't force it upon others. Having a belief is one thing, forcing it upon others is completely different. Further to which, once a belief turns into a claim you must understand and expect that it will be dissected, questioned and debated. Don't make the claim if you don't want that, because it will happen whether you want it to or not.
That's very nice for you... Alas, you're not the absolute standard of crushes. :bugeye:
Last edited:
