For the sake of argument, let’s admit that God exists.

reply to post by Dr1Akula


God comes from an old English word that means to invoke. So basically, God can apply to any spirit or entity capable of being invoked. Kinda kills the exclusivity aspect, huh?

Aphorism

For the sake of argument, let’s admit that God exists.

 

If it doesn’t exist, then what are we talking about? What is it that atheists are denying? What is it that theists pray to? What is it agnostics care not to decide about?

Atheists do not pray. Why would they need to?

Agnostics have not decided to not care about anything. That is their very definition..NOT deciding. Where are you going with this as you have already set out by claiming all the wrong things about people.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Dr1Akula

 

God comes from an old English word that means to invoke. So basically, God can apply to any spirit or entity capable of being invoked. Kinda kills the exclusivity aspect, huh?

You mean "god" not "God." Unfortunately there is a difference.

itsallgonenow
reply to post by Aphorism

 

If I believe in god and you don't and he does not exist, I lose nothing. But If I am right and I believe in god and you don't, you lose everything.

That makes your god sound like an evil, jealous little girl. Is that really the god you all worship? There are still people that have never heard of your god. Will he really punish them for that? If so, he sounds like a prick.

Sly1one
reply to post by Aphorism

 

Interesting perspective and as what you would call an "agnostic" one I can agree with for I cannot deny the CONCEPT of god that is illustrated in writing and art.

I've always thought atheism was more of a challenge to religion than anything else...Religion making conclusions of destination determined by beliefs rather than actions. Ie: believe in Jesus go to heaven deny him and go to hell. (heaven and hell again being sub-concepts of a more general concept). The atheists challenge to religion being that believing in Jesus doesn't make one a "good" person...it is not a prerequisite for kindness, love or any other attribute monopolized by religion.

You have Atheism all wrong. It is not about denying or challenging. While I will admit there are people that challenge religion, that is not what Atheism means. It just means not believing. There is no challenge there. The only challenge is the people that need to convince Atheists they are wrong. Atheism just simply means not believing. It has nothing to do with challenging.

This is a word in the dictionary, not a malleable concept. An Atheist may not have ever heard of your god, not be familiar with it, just not understand it. They simply do not believe in a god they do not know.

Aphorism
reply to post by Ghost147

 

So you're saying words don't have concepts behind them? I seriously have no clue what you're trying to say.

That's exactly what you implied in your Original Post, Do you dont even comprehend what your own words mean?

You have stated that you believe the word "god" itself exists, there for you believe "god" exists because you believe the word exists. Yet you do not apply your belief to any other concepts that the word implies, which is what you say is illogical to discuss about because it's unknowable.

You then ask those who have said the same things that I have, what we discuss in the topic at all? Many have responded, and with those honest and logical answers, I see no reply other than ridiculous insults of the likes you continuously throw in every single one of your posts.

Hence, you created a pointless thread. Your opinion is faulty and ridiculous, and you refuse to acknowledge that fact, while also insulting those that point out those faults and ridiculous points.

vethumanbeing
Its all about the individual observation/perspective, this is key; the individuals perception/perspective, (for its own soul growth). I will give you a roan as example. "You are sitting at your kitchen table and witness this": (looking out of your window) someone is leading a cow halter roped; you see the head of that cow its horns, the neck of same cow the backbone of that cow; and its hindquarters walking by in rhythm. You missed witnessing the tail . Why or what did you miss ? Is it logic that doesnt hold or faulty human observation? Or did the cow ever exist? Any answer works, because its about you in the first place.

edit on 5-1-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

As soon as you walk a god past my window, you might have a point. Not seeing something does not mean it does not exist. 2000 years of claiming something NO ONE ever saw is a tad different. Wouldn't you say?

reply to post by Ghost147


I also said it exists in art, rhetoric, scriptures, and all forms of human expression—all of which involve the concept of God in one form or another. I didn't think it would be that difficult to grasp. Sure, I used the term "word" rather than "symbol", or "representation".

Show me where I went wrong in my logic. Answer any of the questions in the OP. For once, let's talk about what we do have of God instead of what we don't have.

Saying God doesn't exist while at the same time using it as a subject of our propositions is a contradiction. Subjects of propositions exist. When we say the word God, we're not talking about nothing. Then what are we talking about?

Here is my OP broken down.

!. We can only find God and learn about him from the bibles, scriptures, rhetoric, verse, literature, art etc.
2. Bibles, scriptures, rhetoric, verse, literature, art etc. is composed of words, symbols and representations.
3. Therefor, God is words, symbols, and representations.

This syllogism is simplest logic I can put it in for you.

The point of the thread is, by accepting that God at least exists in this format, with evidence to back it up, the burden of proof shifts back to the theist, who will then have to prove that it exists as something more. Rather than argue about what he says is nothing, the atheist has an actual something to argue about, with evidence, and he could even use scripture to validate his arguments if he so chooses. Open the first page—there's God in all his glory.

ETA: by the way, here is your so-called logical, not ridiculous, not pointless, contribution to this thread:

So what you're saying is, this topic was pointless?

You respect a kind response to that? Only trolls write like that.

reply to post by Buttonlip

Atheists do not pray. Why would they need to?

I never said they did.

Agnostics have not decided to not care about anything. That is their very definition..NOT deciding. Where are you going with this as you have already set out by claiming all the wrong things about people.

What? Are you saying they care to decide but don't? Where are you going with this?

reply to post by Dr1Akula

Everything that people couldn't understand or explain was attributed to God.

True enough. God is used as a placeholder for where we are most ignorant. I do agree.

As far as I am concerned, I would rather have faith and believe in God. Like one poster said. If I am wrong I lose nothing. Eternity is an awful long time to be on the wrong side. I dont try pushing my faith onto others and you are entitled to believe how you want, but as for me I will continue to worship my God as I see fit and nothing any of you can say will make me change my mind.

reply to post by concerto2917

As far as I am concerned, I would rather have faith and believe in God. Like one poster said. If I am wrong I lose nothing. Eternity is an awful long time to be on the wrong side. I dont try pushing my faith onto others and you are entitled to believe how you want, but as for me I will continue to worship my God as I see fit and nothing any of you can say will make me change my mind.

Worship away, my friend. But I'm curious, what is it you actually worship?

concerto2917
Like one poster said. If I am wrong I lose nothing. Eternity is an awful long time to be on the wrong side.

I don't believe that. I think when you believe in something out of fear or for the wrong reasons you have no courage and you lose your self worth.

Can't think of a worthwhile God that would find much value in that.

Aphorism
reply to post by concerto2917

 

As far as I am concerned, I would rather have faith and believe in God. Like one poster said. If I am wrong I lose nothing. Eternity is an awful long time to be on the wrong side. I dont try pushing my faith onto others and you are entitled to believe how you want, but as for me I will continue to worship my God as I see fit and nothing any of you can say will make me change my mind.

Worship away, my friend. But I'm curious, what is it you actually worship?

Excellent question. Much of my reservation stems from examining the sort of personalities and mindsets that recognize and appreciate the various deities held to be good and holy in today's world.

It would seem that many have no idea what their respective deities reveal about themselves. After all, one doesn't just choose the worst possible divine authority they can find and start worshipping it. They want to believe the best about the world, but since what is "best" is purely a subjective opinion, they are left with their own ideas regarding what constitutes as "progress" and what constitutes as "unhelpful". Which means that deities of the modern world are direct reflections of who their followers are.

I've said this before in threads like this, and I'll say it again...

If you cannot comprehend the SPECIFIC TERMINOLOGY in the debate, you shouldn't even waste your time trying.

Agnostic does NOT mean a person refuses to take sides.
Agnostic DOES mean that the person MAINTAINS the belief that "absolute knowledge of god (real or imaginary) is impossible to have". Or put another way, it is me saying "We may never know if god exists or not".

ATHEISM is NOT a belief in any way, shape, or form. By its very definition it is the absence of a belief.

When people confuse these definitions they slander their opposition in debate.

Besides, the christers in the debate have been instructed not to participate in fruitless debate in the first place. Which this is.

reply to post by JayinAR


All of them are positions on the subject of God. But thanks for clarifying. Either way, this isn't a discussion on religion and belief.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

It would seem that many have no idea what their respective deities reveal about themselves. After all, one doesn't just choose the worst possible divine authority they can find and start worshipping it. They want to believe the best about the world, but since what is "best" is purely a subjective opinion, they are left with their own ideas regarding what constitutes as "progress" and what constitutes as "unhelpful". Which means that deities of the modern world are direct reflections of who their followers are.

You make a great point. But can this be used on the inverse? Could deities become the direct reflections of the opponents of their followers?

reply to post by Aphorism


Yes, but there is an important distinction to be made. Agnostics are perfectly capable of believing in god. Or not.

Yes, they are all positions, but it is possible to maintain some of them in combination.

I, for instance, used to be an agnostic atheist. Then it switched to agnostic theist. Now more in line with gnostic theism.

Anyways, carry on. I just saw that mistake numerous times in this thread. As I said, its slanderous to simply say "an agnostic just refuses to pick a side". Because the implication often made is that they sit on the fence so nobody can attack their position.

Silliness.

reply to post by Aphorism

You make a great point. But can this be used on the inverse? Could deities become the direct reflections of the opponents of their followers?

I'm not positive about what you're asking, but I'll have a stab at it. Between the followers and the opposition of a deity, who is more likely to determine the finer details of that deity? Who is more given to studying, comparing, translating, sharing, and otherwise relating with such a being? The man who appreciates it, or the man who despises it?

And in the processes of such interactions, who would be more inclined to flesh out a character found to be a little too distant? Who would be more compelled to embellish on the livelihood of such a being, in order to feel more in touch? Who would dig deeper and deeper in order to realize as tangible a relationship as possible with this figure, never realizing exactly where they were drawing their inspiration from and why they found such qualities and attributes so admirable?

I think I've made my point.

reply to post by JayinAR

I, for instance, used to be an agnostic atheist. Then it switched to agnostic theist. Now more in line with gnostic theism.

I personally think religious denominations are silly. It should really be either we have an opinion on God or we don't. Atheist, agnostic, gnostic, theist, are really no different insofar as they are all opinions and positions on the same concept of a magical super-being.