Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Deleted...
Subtopic already addressed.
Subtopic already addressed.
God is defined, not described.
- Thread starter Ted Grant II
- Start date
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
What's the difference between God(s) and Deities?
Theism - WikipediaTheism
Theism, in the field of comparative religion, is the belief in the existence of deities. In popular parlance, the term theism often describes the classical conception of god(s) that is found in the monotheistic and polytheistic religions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
As usual the issue is hopelessly confused and makes no logical sense at all!
A mean what?
Has a purpose . That purpose is to control the populas .
You really should learn English.
Your use of the word "mean" doesn't relate to what you just "explained".
Mean is not a noun (which is how you used it) unless used in statistics (e.g. mean, median, mode).
It's an adjective (e.g. he's a mean man) or a transitive/ intransitive verb (e.g. what did you mean/ I mean business).
Oh, and (FYI) the word is spelt "populace". Do install a spell checker.
Otherwise you agree .
Don't talk crap - I can't agree because I have no f*cking clue what you're talking about.
"God" - so far as I can see - has no purpose (by dint of not existing). The idea of "god" (i.e. religions made up by humans and promoted by humans) however...
Gees guy ease up . You were in post #247 , more concerned with grammer than the idea . And I understand my mistake . Mistake by me noted .
god is mean , in actions , the flood for example .
god is enlil . Annunuki being
Jan Ardena:
This is why atheists do not say they are "without God". Unlike you, atheists do not assume that God exists, and no definition of yours will force them to make that assumption.
Sooner or later, Jan, you will have to face the truth that you can't define God into existence, any way you try. This bizarre method in which you try to argue that the existence of atheists somehow brings God into existence won't work any better than any other method you can up with that involves defining what you actually need to prove.
Yes, to be without something, as Baldeee has clearly explained to you, is to assume that the something exists in the first place.
This is why atheists do not say they are "without God". Unlike you, atheists do not assume that God exists, and no definition of yours will force them to make that assumption.
Sooner or later, Jan, you will have to face the truth that you can't define God into existence, any way you try. This bizarre method in which you try to argue that the existence of atheists somehow brings God into existence won't work any better than any other method you can up with that involves defining what you actually need to prove.
Wrong. You just admitted that when you say "without God", you're implying that God exists.
You argued that because many generations have believed in God, it is therefore impossible for God not to exist.
You have it backwards. God does not exist as far as I am aware. Therefore I am an atheist. You keep getting the causation wrong. The problem is that you start at the wrong end of the question, as I explained previously. Because you start by assuming that God exists, therefore for you atheists are not aware of God. But, as I have now pointed out many times, the truth is that the existence or non-existence of God is up for debate in the real world. Nobody needs to buy into your assumption that God exists. Atheists don't have to play the Jan God Game.
What are you talking about? Most of this thread has merely been a fruitless attempt to school you in things like basic logic and the meaning of the subjective/objective distinction. Nobody here has tried to argue that God does or does not exist. You certainly haven't, and neither have I.
I've merely exposed your little game for what it is. Sarkus and Baldeee, to mention just two other readers/participants, also see through you.
I'm not "without God" if God doesn't exist. Not in the sense you're using the term. Stop begging the question.
There are no "official" definitions. There are only the ways different people use words. No atheist uses the term "atheism" the way you use it, which shows that the way you use it is dead in the water.
Last edited:
Only according to cranks like Hancock et al.
But to the tablets that have been deciphered . Both enki and enlil did exist . Its not about Graham Hancock .
It is about the tablets from ancient times , and the knowledge these tablets give us , about the ancient past .
Jan Ardena:
In general, "real" means something like "Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verified existence; not illusory".
Because it's you, I need to add that we can distinguish the term "real" (unqualified) from expressions like "real for you" and "real for me", with the former being an objective claim and the latter two being mere subjective expressions of belief. The later form of language in no way implies the former. You can believe in Garg all you like. Garg can be as "real for you" as you want. But none of that will make Garg real (objectively real).
I also said previously, that you can assume that when I write the word "real" by itself, I always mean objectively real, and not your wishy-washy subjective version of "reality" than is indistinguishable from your personal beliefs.
I didn't avoid anything.
And yes, I think you should stop assuming and start investigating, instead.
I already told you. You can read "God is real" to mean "God exists", or "God Is" if you prefer.
In general, "real" means something like "Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verified existence; not illusory".
Because it's you, I need to add that we can distinguish the term "real" (unqualified) from expressions like "real for you" and "real for me", with the former being an objective claim and the latter two being mere subjective expressions of belief. The later form of language in no way implies the former. You can believe in Garg all you like. Garg can be as "real for you" as you want. But none of that will make Garg real (objectively real).
I also said previously, that you can assume that when I write the word "real" by itself, I always mean objectively real, and not your wishy-washy subjective version of "reality" than is indistinguishable from your personal beliefs.
Indeed we have been through this. Nothing you have said implies that God is real. Just like you believe God exists, you also believe that atheists are "without God" in the sense of lacking connection to the God that exists. But all this speaks only to your beliefs, not to anything objective. And certainly not to how atheists describe atheism and themselves.
I didn't avoid anything.
I know too. You mean "exists for me". A subjective expression of your personal belief.
Try to keep up. Here's the section for - what? - the third time now?
How do you make this "observation" of yours? I see three possibilities.
One is that you just "call" it an "observation" to mask the fact that it's merely an assumption you make, in which case you're merely playing your usual word games.
The second is that you think you observe God with your normal senses, like sight, hearing, touch etc. But if that were the case, you'd be able to share with us some of the objective evidence that your senses provide you. You can't offer anything along those lines. Instead, we get platitudes like "Everything that exists comes from God" and "We are all part of God". Those aren't observations, Jan. They are conclusions that you have come to based on your a priori assumption.
The third possibility is that you believe that you, as a theist, have a special, magical God sense that atheists don't have, and that this magical sense gives you the special power to "observe" your God while atheists are unable to do so. But there's no reason for anybody to believe that you have special powers, Jan. The simpler explanation is that you don't "observe" God at all, but just assume God.
To answer your question: your "observation" is unfounded because (a) it's not really an observation at all but an a priori assumption; and/or (b) because there's no objective truth to your observation that you are able to offer; and/or (c) it's a delusion brought on by the false belief that you have a superpower that atheists don't have.
One is that you just "call" it an "observation" to mask the fact that it's merely an assumption you make, in which case you're merely playing your usual word games.
The second is that you think you observe God with your normal senses, like sight, hearing, touch etc. But if that were the case, you'd be able to share with us some of the objective evidence that your senses provide you. You can't offer anything along those lines. Instead, we get platitudes like "Everything that exists comes from God" and "We are all part of God". Those aren't observations, Jan. They are conclusions that you have come to based on your a priori assumption.
The third possibility is that you believe that you, as a theist, have a special, magical God sense that atheists don't have, and that this magical sense gives you the special power to "observe" your God while atheists are unable to do so. But there's no reason for anybody to believe that you have special powers, Jan. The simpler explanation is that you don't "observe" God at all, but just assume God.
To answer your question: your "observation" is unfounded because (a) it's not really an observation at all but an a priori assumption; and/or (b) because there's no objective truth to your observation that you are able to offer; and/or (c) it's a delusion brought on by the false belief that you have a superpower that atheists don't have.
OK then. So, according to you, theists don't have any special sense that atheists don't possess. That rules out option 3, above, and we're left with option 1 or 2. That's progress. So what have you got to say about the remaining options?
Once you throw away the a priori "God Is", you'll find that "without God" goes away of its own accord. After all, "without God" in your sense of the term is entirely reliant on the prior "God Is".
And yes, I think you should stop assuming and start investigating, instead.
James R said:
No."God Is" and "God does not exist" are conclusions. When one is being honest, one starts an investigation with a question, not a conclusion.Jan Ardena said:
This is a change of tune from you. Previously, you agreed that the existence of God couldn't be established using evidence, but now apparently it can be. Can you explain how?
The truth or falsity of a proposed explanation for something does not depend on how many people accept the explanation. Once again, you conflate subjective belief with objective fact. It's a blind-spot area for you; you seem to do it unconsciously.
Either that, or God doesn't exist and there's therefore nothing that can be "accepted" or "denied". The existence question is logically prior to your assumption that God exists.
That's a different observation from observing that "God Is" and there is "with0ut God". Just like you, I too observe that there are theists and atheists, but unlike you I do not observe that "God Is". And your "without God" is therefore irrelevant to me.
Still wrong, Jan. How many times do atheists have to explain this point to you? Most atheists do not believe there is no God. They simply do not believe that there is God. God remains a logical possibility.
Why?
Start a separate thread on why religious stories tend to "stick" if you like.
Are you unfamiliar with the idea of the power of myth in culture? Why don't you try again?
It's your evasion - this continual smudging of the distinction between objective fact and subjective belief that you engage in.
Source?
Who deciphered them?
Jan Ardena:
You didn't? Fine. My mistake. So we agree that the longevity of religious belief says nothing about whether God exists or not. Good.
Who knows? There are many possible reasons. How is your question relevant to the idea of what a "false belief" is? Are you still claiming confusion about what the term "false belief" might mean?
Evidence, perhaps? (Surprise!)
Indeed. But I understand your world view. You seem unable or unwilling to connect to the atheist worldview. Instead you're trying to set up a straw-man version of atheism that leaves you sitting pretty with your a priori assumption. In the end, you're only deluding yourself, you know. You ought to try swapping comfort for reality some time.
Which question?