hackenslash wrote:

DefineGod wrote:You wanted to interchange the two, so I did, no lie.

No I fucking didn't, I pointed out from the off that the two are not fucking interchangeable. Another fucking lie.

You used "credulous brainwank" to represent the symbol god. (I still don't get this, never heard this name before you) I don't think those are interchangable either, but you obviously have the freedom to describe everything that exists however you want.

So why do you care?

Because I care about what's true, and I especially care enough that when vacuous, ill-considered bum-custard such as constitutes your contribution on the forum i your brief but sordid tenure here is posted here, it gets precisely the attention it deserves. Not for your benefit, of course, because I really couldn't care less what fucking manure you see fit to fill the space between your ears with, but that so that it doesn't get viewed by others as if it had any intellectual content when it doesn't.

I care about what is true also! Unfortunately your rapturous agenda blaring has little effect on the consistency or of statements posted.

Responding and addressing are different. "why are you so uncomfortable with this term?" because! I don't like it!

Another blatant lie. That's not what I said. I gave a detailed fucking reason why I reject your sophomoric arse-gravy.

I can see past a label. It doesn't seem like you can. We agree on the definition of reality/universe/god yes?

I don't think it makes sense. why not? because we use a different symbol instead! Its quite serviceable!

No it isn't. The word 'god' has a specific definition that carries attributes that cannot be applied to the universe.

Give me an example. I don't think you can come up with one that I agree with.

Define the universe. (Metaphors and constructs or theories that use non real entities are not allowed.)

That which is.

Ah, yes very profound, We share a premise. Just use a different label.

Yes, lol, everything that exists is evidence, hence the definition. define universe.

More fuckwitted and dishonest games. Keep lying.

this is getting more silly. lol

What is dishonest about using a symbol that has a long history with the definition I use? What is dishonest about continuing to use a symbol that has meant universe before universe did? Your belief in it being an outdated term is rather dishonest.

I don't do belief. As for the rest, your definition doesn't stack up, for reasons detailed several times across two threads, despite your fucking lies.

I feel like that is a ridiculous thing to say. belief with evidence and belief without evidence is still belief.

As far as I can remember most people that believe in God believe that God is the creator of the universe, not the universe itself. So no, people for thousands of years have not used the word "god" as a symbol, they have believed in an entity/deity that is separate from and transcends the universe.

You're trying to rewrite the history of religion and mythology all in one go, but it doesn't work. You want to make the word "God" into something that it is not.

DefineGod wrote:Granting you wishes? live forever? what are you talking about? I agree, they arn't interchangeable. See post #168 for an overview. Rumraket, define universe.

The universe is all that exists. When you call all that exists god, you're only replacing one word with another. God has a clearly religious implication and meaning, whereas the universe does not. This is simply a really shitty excuse to smuggle god-belief in the backdoor. Don't think this isn't more transparent than intergalactic vacuum is to neutrino radiation.

aban57 wrote:

DefineGod wrote:Yep, I fixed it in an edit. Men created language also, but you adhere to that?

I don't have to adhere to anything, this is proven fact

Language is fact. I guess you could say that. Is it fact because you use it? Or because it exists. Would it still exist if you didn't use it?

DefineGod wrote:
I agree, the metaphor came into being with humans (as far as we know.) Of course god is man-made.

What metaphore ?
You are again trying to stick your own interpretation of the idea of god to all believers before you. God is not a metaphore. It is, for 99,999999999999999999999% of people who use(d) the word "God", a timeless, omnipotent, omniscient entity. It has nothing to do with the universe or anything. Your stupid attempt to make us believe that YOUR view on this subject is somehow relevant is.... well just stupid, and dishonnest.

All is very broad term. I have not used all to describe anything. Of course god is a metaphor and a symbol. You think it is physically real? No language is physically real. And that number is obviously untrue. In fact, you could easily reduce the decimal places and still be accurate. Timeless, omnipotent, and omniscient describe the universe as well. "All there is."

DefineGod wrote:
As to why god is in an important label. Since people have been using that word for thousands of years, it opens up a huge amount of knowledge, thought, experience and inquiry.

bigotry, legends, impossibility to think by yourself, endoctrination
FIFY

Give me an example of how that is always true. It seems like you have a had a bad experience with organized religion?

Again, all the gods that existed before have had very precise description of behaviour, power, mentality, etc. Nothing like YOUR affiliation to the word "universe".

Yes, metaphor has existed for quite a while. Trying to make this a sole creation of me is unsubstantiated by the evidence. What behavior have I used to describe god? Obviously nature possesses power. "Nothing" is another broad logic word to use.

DefineGod wrote:
In the end, god is everything that exists.

No it's not. God is, and has always been extremely well defined. To make sure you understand, let me repeat it : God is NOT everything that exists. It's not because YOU think so, that all the believers before you thought the same. Your attempt to make us believe that is dishonnesty. But it's not like we're not used to that kind of behaviour from believers here...

Please cite historical references that the definition of god has never changed. I don't judge all scientists with obsolete theory. I reject that religion cannot do the same. Accusing me of dishonesty and then implying this is typical behavior of all "believers" is unfair. Its difficult to describe something if you don't understand what you are seeing.

DefineGod wrote:
no need to change the definition.

That's what YOU're doing, not us. Just look at a dictionnary.[/quote]
So do we need to do a complete etymology search? Dictionaries evolve too. I don't hold that the Greek origins of "universe" and "cosmos" are still referential to there full meanings today. Language is used how it is used. Theologians don't write very many dictionaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Etymology.2C_synonyms_and_definitions
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/dict_standard.htm
A look at some uses of god and universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_divisione_naturae

Moonwatcher wrote:Okay I'm late to the party and this is esentially a response to the first post.

Your definition of God is all well and good- for you. But generally, when we respond to the idea of "God", its what the other several millions of people who are not you are defining it to be which is clearly not an absraction.

I don't think I am asking for much, I think you will find very few people of high intellectual ability to think it is not an abstraction.

It's also well and good to word it something like you did, "Belief in God is belief in a symbol for the universe and and atheism is a lack of belief in a symbol for the universe".

We came to a peaceful understanding in an earlier post. Perhaps post #112, 125 126 might be helpful. or if you want to skip all that read post #134

But that only reminds me of some of the statements of Christians friends. "Well, at least I believe in something. You don't believe in anything", to which my response is, "You say that as if believing in made up crap was something to brag about. And as to my NOT believing in anything, perhaps its not as simplistic as some silly icon. Perhaps I can be defined by what I don't believe in. For example, I don't believe in asanine lies nor that they should be symbols for all that is true."

Yea, haha of course you believe in something. I understand what you are saying.

Hiya CB!

chairman bill wrote:Amongst the many problems in conflating the cosmos & God is the issue of God (as defined/described in the bible) as creator. The Genesis account has God pre-existing the universe. He can't therefore be coterminus with it. God is transcendant, as well as immanent. Whilst panentheism is workable from a Christian perspective, pantheism is not.

I believe genesis has god preexisting the "world" (as in the human experience of earth.) The KJB and the language it used really created some annoying interpretations. lol. I would say adding more descriptor words to god at this point is, as cali would say, superfluous. We know what we are talking about, its the label with which there is a problem.

Now, you could very well take the view that deity is the universe, and that the universe is deity - a pantheist perspective in which the term 'deity' or 'God' is nothing more than a cipher for 'cosmos'. The question is, why bother? Well, maybe for aesthetic reasons, as a means of expressing the depth of reverence for the natural order of things. But there's no real sense of believing in a god here.

I think deity refers to godhead, which I find to be simplification of "cosmic" properties in a form which is easy to understand. Whats simpler to explain? The calculations for the for periodicity of a pendulum are complicated, but seeing and saying it moves in a quarter circle is "accurate." It seems like most people don't get much more than a elementary education in theology. Its unfortunate that those types of people become spokespeople for "all." (fundamentalists and literalists, piss me off)

The trouble is, when you then try to impose a tradition drawn from a theistic perspective, such as Christianity, on top of a pantheist world-view, you can no longer sustain the idea of 'God' being a mere cipher for anything. The whole house of cards falls.

Could you explain it more? I do want to understand what you mean exactly. Is cipher synonymous with symbol?

At best, you are left with a cultural Christianity, or one devoid of deity & supernaturalism. The Christian message becomes a philosophy, not a religion. It requires a good deal of cherry-picking, but even the religious have to resort to that. But maintaining the idea of God seems superfluous & silly.

philosophy is an activity, religion is a system of doctrine/belief. While not interchangeable they are related. One must be active within a system to have it work well.

Thanks for the post ! Good stuff.

@panderos
Thank you. I am glad to see you continue to offer insight in a such a cordial manner.
@amkerman
I appreciate the clarification and the tone of your post. I think it is important not to give in to coercive measures. (You must do this, because it is popular, typical, or "better.")

I think the overwhelming majority of posters on this thread are intelligent, thoughtful and understanding to language use differences. I really appreciate the patience, discourse and attitude of these posters.

Oldskeptic wrote:As far as I can remember most people that believe in God believe that God is the creator of the universe, not the universe itself. So no, people for thousands of years have not used the word "god" as a symbol, they have believed in an entity/deity that is separate from and transcends the universe.

You're trying to rewrite the history of religion and mythology all in one go, but it doesn't work. You want to make the word "God" into something that it is not.

There is a difference between believing in something and believing it is representative of something. This was mentioned in post #30 by Byron. I really can claim no knowledge of what people have thought for thousands of years, anymore than I can claim what people "think" now. How do you do that? I have only written works, anthropology, archeology, psychology etc. The myth of a "creator god" does have rich history.
Where did you get that god created the universe? Genesis? "1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." How does that translate to universe? http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=KJV
Did translations change the meaning? I am sure this happens. Trying impose modern usages instead of referring to the primary sources is a common issue and I don't think I am alone in expressing my frustration with this. I make no attempt to rewrite anything, which is why I refer to numerous sources. Please remember, I am looking for truth as much as anyone else is. I just happen to find wisdom and practical aspects within zen christiandom. Thanks for the post.

Rumraket wrote:

DefineGod wrote:Granting you wishes? live forever? what are you talking about? I agree, they arn't interchangeable. See post #168 for an overview. Rumraket, define universe.

The universe is all that exists. When you call all that exists god, you're only replacing one word with another. God has a clearly religious implication and meaning, whereas the universe does not. This is simply a really shitty excuse to smuggle god-belief in the backdoor. Don't think this isn't more transparent than intergalactic vacuum is to neutrino radiation.

That is exactly what I am doing. From what I understand, god is a better term to use, and religion is a better platform, to me. I talk about this in the other newer thread.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... 30176.html
Thanks.

Moonwatcher wrote: "Okay, I'm late to the party and this is essentially a response to the first post.

Your definition of God is all well and good- for you. But generally, when we respond to the idea of "God", its what the other several millions of people who are not you are defining it to be which is clearly not an absraction."

DefineGod wrote: "I don't think I am asking for much, I think you will find very few people of high intellectual ability to think it is not an abstraction."

Oh that may well be true that more educated and intelligent people tend to take it as an abstraction.

Moonwatcher wrote: "It's also well and good to word it something like you did, "Belief in God is belief in a symbol for the universe and and atheism is a lack of belief in a symbol for the universe".

DefineGod wrote: "We came to a peaceful understanding in an earlier post. Perhaps post #112, 125 126 might be helpful. or if you want to skip all that read post #134"

Moonwatcher wrote: "But that only reminds me of some of the statements of Christians friends. "Well, at least I believe in something. You don't believe in anything", to which my response is, "You say that as if believing in made up crap was something to brag about. And as to my NOT believing in anything, perhaps its not as simplistic as some silly icon. Perhaps I can be defined by what I don't believe in. For example, I don't believe in asanine lies nor that they should be symbols for all that is true."

DefineGod wrote: "Yea, haha of course you believe in something. I understand what you are saying."

Of course we also get into different meanings of belief. "I believe my best friend will not betray me".
A "belief" based upon a number of things. Firstly, I have empirical evidence that my best friend exists. Secondly, I have decades of experience that this person- who actually exists- will not betray me.

As opposed to: I believe this entity that I have no evidence even exists does exist and all my reasons for believing it does are wish fulfillment and childhood indoctrination.

Obviously, a person isn't really going to say that buuuut...

On another level, I think/ believe that some stories teach us good ideas of conduct and ethics and I say this even knowing that "good" and "ethics" are products of social conditioning. This is as opposed to, "I believe they come from some higher entity that I believe exists based on nothing and now good and ethics are whatever this entity or the people that made him up say they are and I never really consider the questions of what good really is or acknowledge that it is not an absolute."

Symbols are fine. Superman is a great symbol for good behavior. The only problem is when he stops being a symbol and becomes an icon and you think he really exists other than as a symbol. Now instead of a symbol for what you think is right and wrong you perceive him as having objective existence and dictating to you what is right and wrong.

For most people, that's what gods become.

DefineGod wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

DefineGod wrote:Granting you wishes? live forever? what are you talking about? I agree, they arn't interchangeable. See post #168 for an overview. Rumraket, define universe.

The universe is all that exists. When you call all that exists god, you're only replacing one word with another. God has a clearly religious implication and meaning, whereas the universe does not. This is simply a really shitty excuse to smuggle god-belief in the backdoor. Don't think this isn't more transparent than intergalactic vacuum is to neutrino radiation.

That is exactly what I am doing. From what I understand, god is a better term to use, and religion is a better platform, to me. I talk about this in the other newer thread.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... 30176.html
Thanks.

People are far more likely to remember that "The Universe" is a symbol and far more likely to toss that out and start taking it literally as soon as you start calling it "God".

I just looked up those bible verses DefineGod refer to in his signature:

Ephesians 2:8-11

8 God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God. 9 Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it. 10 For we are God’s masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago. 11 Don’t forget that you Gentiles used to be outsiders. You were called “uncircumcised heathens” by the Jews, who were proud of their circumcision, even though it affected only their bodies and not their hearts.

Romans 10:13

13 For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Genesis 3:16

16 Then he said to the woman,

“I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy,
and in pain you will give birth.
And you will desire to control your husband,
but he will rule over you.”

Ezekiel 23:19-20

19 Yet she turned to even greater prostitution, remembering her youth when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey’s and emissions like those of a horse.

Is it some kind of joke? Is it intended to be some sort of highlights of theism? It makes little sense to me, anyway.

I consider myself a theist. Can you convince or otherwise talk me out of it?

(1) Why would I want to do that? I really don't care about your personal superstitions.

(2) The questions is a typical apologist ploy to attempt to shift the burden of proof. 'As an atheist' I offer no arguments or answers and make no claims. I assert only "I do not believe in gods due to the lack of credible evidence". I have neither the obligation nor interest to convince anyone else of anything. It is up to the person making the claims to provide proof,not to me to prove a negative.

DefineGod wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:As far as I can remember most people that believe in God believe that God is the creator of the universe, not the universe itself. So no, people for thousands of years have not used the word "god" as a symbol, they have believed in an entity/deity that is separate from and transcends the universe.

You're trying to rewrite the history of religion and mythology all in one go, but it doesn't work. You want to make the word "God" into something that it is not.

There is a difference between believing in something and believing it is representative of something. This was mentioned in post #30 by Byron. I really can claim no knowledge of what people have thought for thousands of years, anymore than I can claim what people "think" now. How do you do that? I have only written works, anthropology, archeology, psychology etc. The myth of a "creator god" does have rich history.
Where did you get that god created the universe? Genesis? "1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." How does that translate to universe? http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=KJV
Did translations change the meaning? I am sure this happens. Trying impose modern usages instead of referring to the primary sources is a common issue and I don't think I am alone in expressing my frustration with this. I make no attempt to rewrite anything, which is why I refer to numerous sources. Please remember, I am looking for truth as much as anyone else is. I just happen to find wisdom and practical aspects within zen christiandom. Thanks for the post.

My bold

Because the heavens and the earth were all that there was when it was written. The same goes for most other creation myths. They were describing their universe.

But since then the universe has become bigger.

What the fuck does Zen have to do with Christianity? It sounds to me like some new age bullshit.

I "studied" Zen for a few years. Thought it was pretty cool. Then one night I was reading D.T. Suzuki and ended up throwing the book at the wall. Don't tell me that I have to give up my intellect to learn; that doesn't cut it.

Zen is fucking nonsense once you get past the preamble. It's nice with the "Be here now" philosophy and that is what attracted me to it, but the deeper you go the the more absurd it becomes.

Tell me, what is the lesson when Jebu took his sandals off and put them on his head when the other master asked him how he would have dealt with monks arguing over a cat?

Zen Christiandom, give me a fucking break.

gleniedee wrote:

I consider myself a theist. Can you convince or otherwise talk me out of it?

(1) Why would I want to do that? I really don't care about your personal superstitions.

(2) The questions is a typical apologist ploy to attempt to shift the burden of proof. 'As an atheist' I offer no arguments or answers and make no claims. I assert only "I do not believe in gods due to the lack of credible evidence". I have neither the obligation nor interest to convince anyone else of anything. It is up to the person making the claims to provide proof,not to me to prove a negative.

1.Ok, I guess my response should be the equivalent - I don't care about your personal superstitions either? nyah nyah
2. Oh yes, you are very right. quite typical. I know you have no positive position. You have no opinion and can state no fact as solely an atheist. Thanks. Please read some of the posts when you get a chance!

@moonwatcher.
Good post! I think that is a proper position of understanding. I hope to express and read similar wisdom if at possible. Thanks!
@oldskeptic

Because the heavens and the earth were all that there was when it was written. The same goes for most other creation myths. They were describing their universe.

Fair enough.

But since then the universe has become bigger.

I don't think the size of the universe has changed. This is physics debate tho.

What the fuck does Zen have to do with Christianity? It sounds to me like some new age bullshit.

Heh, it does, doesn't it?

I "studied" Zen for a few years. Thought it was pretty cool. Then one night I was reading D.T. Suzuki and ended up throwing the book at the wall. Don't tell me that I have to give up my intellect to learn; that doesn't cut it.

Hehe, what did you read that made you do that exactly?

Zen is fucking nonsense once you get past the preamble. It's nice with the "Be here now" philosophy and that is what attracted me to it, but the deeper you go the the more absurd it becomes.

I find the methodology quite useful. What do you find absurd about it specifically? The attempts at suppression of particular NS mechanisms?

Tell me, what is the lesson when Jebu took his sandals off and put them on his head when the other master asked him how he would have dealt with monks arguing over a cat?

hehe, "The cat fights in the alley in springtime" couldn't resist. (I think you might be asking me what the purpose is?)

Zen Christiandom, give me a fucking break.

given.

Varangian wrote:I just looked up those bible verses DefineGod refer to in his signature:

Ephesians 2:8-11

8 God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God. 9 Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it. 10 For we are God’s masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago. 11 Don’t forget that you Gentiles used to be outsiders. You were called “uncircumcised heathens” by the Jews, who were proud of their circumcision, even though it affected only their bodies and not their hearts.

Romans 10:13

13 For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Genesis 3:16

16 Then he said to the woman,

“I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy,
and in pain you will give birth.
And you will desire to control your husband,
but he will rule over you.”

Ezekiel 23:19-20

19 Yet she turned to even greater prostitution, remembering her youth when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey’s and emissions like those of a horse.

Is it some kind of joke? Is it intended to be some sort of highlights of theism? It makes little sense to me, anyway.

Yes, this is some kind of joke. The beauty of the written word, from the simple to the profound. (Ill let you decide which to assign to which passage.)


Ephesians 2:8-11
I like these translations. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A8-11&version=YLT;NLV
Its important as it relates that we can continue to live (be saved, preserved) through understanding of the universe. (faith, faith in god) We are not human because of what we ourselves have done, we are this way, through evolution (a process of change over time, a function of the universe (god.) The useful products of work are only possible through this understanding. A message for success (proposed by JC) is successful because it utilizes understanding of the rules which govern reality ("which has been ordained through god.") Being chosen, is not about appearance, behavior, tribe membership, its about faith (ultimate concern)

Romans 10:13
Simple and important, If you understand how things work, you will be preserved, will prevail, will live,(be saved)

Genesis 3:16
One of my favorites. It expresses that the evolutionary perspective has been understood for a while. The frontal lobe has an evolutionary past. Greater self awareness is one expression of this development, this awareness was noticed and explained in this "creation" myth. (Were we really human before this level of consciousness, knowledge of good and evil etc. ?) What else happens with the development of greater intellectual capacity? How about larger head size.

Ezekiel 23:19-20
I think the porn industry tries to capitalize on basic desires like these as well.

DefineGod wrote:I believe genesis has god preexisting the "world" (as in the human experience of earth.)

Well, the opening verse has "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", which certainly sounds to me like God pre-existing everything, given that 'the heavens' refers to what's 'up there' so to speak; the heavens is the sky, including the 'stars in the firmament'.

I think deity refers to godhead, which I find to be simplification of "cosmic" properties in a form which is easy to understand.

I think deity refers to god(s). The trouble with simplifying what you call 'cosmic properties' with the word 'god', is that people assume you're talking about god, not cosmic properties. I have no problem with people regarding the cosmos as in some way 'divine', or even setting it in such terms for aesthetic purposes, but when we refer to it as god, people expect God, with all the baggage that brings.

The trouble is, when you then try to impose a tradition drawn from a theistic perspective, such as Christianity, on top of a pantheist world-view, you can no longer sustain the idea of 'God' being a mere cipher for anything. The whole house of cards falls.

Could you explain it more? I do want to understand what you mean exactly. Is cipher synonymous with symbol?

Basically, if pantheists use 'God' as a term to describe your 'cosmic properties', or to establish an aesthetic vis a vis their relationship with the cosmos, as I said above, most people expect a more traditional 'God'. When you try to impose a Christian theology on top of the use of the word God, any suggestion that it might mean something other than the traditionally understood Christian God, falls. You simply can't continue to maintain that "God' refers to the cosmos any more. In a Christian context, it becomes the Christian concept of God.

Come in late here.

@DefineGod

Do you have physical scientific evidence that this god of yours exists?
If you have you be in line for a Nobel prize.

Atheism is the default position. That is why we dont have to justify it or defend it.

Now just close the door quietly as you leave and do all us of a favour.

I hereby propose we call the universe "Is", that's a shorter name than "god" and therefore even better than DefineGod's proposal. This way we also avoid all the silly religious connotations and we don't have to assume anything.