What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-10-2016, 05:33 AM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
Here http://www.bibleanswerstand.org/God.htm you can read about this ancient word if you want.
In my opinion, God is another myth. Although it would be wrong to say "another". It is a myth among myths, the most mythical myth in the world. I quite agree with the ideas of the German philosopher Feuerbach. He says that "God" is the essence of man, alienated to the idea. All the best human qualities, everything that a person would like to have in himself represented like a characteristic of God. God is immortal, all-good, omnipresent, loving everybody with warm father's love, all-powerful, and so on, creature. We believe in him, but in fact we just wanted to be him. That's why people write books, give birth to children, erect monuments.
They just want to "be, to be themselves and to be always" (Miguel de Unamuno's words).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 05:35 AM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(19-08-2016 02:47 PM)KerimF Wrote:  During a journey, I met some locals of a friendly town who were debating about the existence of ‘tabolano’; some said ‘tabolano’ exists while others insist that ‘tabolano’ doesn’t exist.

By curiosity, I asked some young men: “Would you please help me know what the word ‘tabolano’ refers to”.

Kerim, what the word 'tabolano' means and where is it from? I never heard such a word.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 01:20 PM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(10-10-2016 12:44 AM)SuperMarioGamer Wrote:  God refers to made up bullshit.

If this is how the word 'god' is defined in your mind, you would real surprise me if you think that such a god could exist in your reality Big Grin

Facts that don't need evidences:
Sheep for milk live in peace because it is the will of their rich owners.
Dogs obeying rich masters deserve much better food and shelters than free dogs do.
Whoever has ears will hear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 01:43 PM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(10-10-2016 06:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 12:30 AM)KerimF Wrote:  As long you, for example, have fun in insulting me continuously, you can be sure that I can't have even a slight idea about how you think when you decide to be serious. But if I am wrong, and you were serious in all your replies,

I am serious when criticizing you.

Quote:you remind me some people who told me they are so smart to the point they know how to take from others without giving them anything useful in return.

You remind me of some mentally ill people who tell me they see souls and angels and auras and gods.

Quote:Of course, I look to these people as an idiot... for not being very smart as they are Wink

Your posts mark you as an idiot.

And your posts mark you as a super intelligent being; much like the ruling god of the formal theists.
Sorry, but this is how we are created; an idiot (me) talking to a genius (you).

Facts that don't need evidences:
Sheep for milk live in peace because it is the will of their rich owners.
Dogs obeying rich masters deserve much better food and shelters than free dogs do.
Whoever has ears will hear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 02:16 PM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(10-10-2016 06:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(10-10-2016 06:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  You remind me of some mentally ill people who tell me they see souls and angels and auras and gods.

[Image: hippie%20hell.jpg]




Well, what could one say to those who are addicted to videos... when these videos became their reality?
For example, they even believe that evil and good supermen exist both in movies and reality as well. So, they are never surprised when their men on power tell them (via their monitors, hence via the modern bible) that an evil superman (as the supreme dictators we may see in movies and TV series) is discovered in this or that country.

Naturally, as theists see an atheist as being... you know Wink ... these people, addicted to movies and videos, see me the same way Big Grin

Facts that don't need evidences:
Sheep for milk live in peace because it is the will of their rich owners.
Dogs obeying rich masters deserve much better food and shelters than free dogs do.
Whoever has ears will hear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 02:40 PM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(10-10-2016 04:50 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(08-10-2016 02:57 AM)KerimF Wrote:  I hear from you that the god you heard of (via certain references) doesn't exist in your reality.
That would be an impressive feat given that that's not what I said. I'm perfectly capable of talking for myself I don't need you trying to shove words in my mouth so let me explain it again but simpler this time:
1.) No person has ever, in the entirety of recorded history, been able to demonstrate evidence for god nor a mechanism to differentiate him from imagination.
2.) Belief is ONLY justified after a demonstration of it's validity and/or accuracy. To believe something without, or indeed against, demonstrable evidence is irrational.
3.) Thus given that it's irrational to believe in something without evidence and that no demonstrable difference between a god and something imaginary the ONLY rational and logically consistent position is that god is imaginary.

Now lets talk about a few other things:
"via certain references"
No via ALL references. No one has provided demonstrable evidence nor even a way to go about collecting demonstrable evidence of a gods existence. Until so they can be rationally relegated to the realm of make believe nonsense, and to do otherwise is irrational. When the "god exists" claim has a success rate of 0% across billions of people over thousands of years it is not necessary for me to investigate every new claim made. If anyone has evidence to the contrary they are welcome to show it but until such time the view that god is imaginary is the only rational position consistent with the evidence.


"your reality"
No. There is only one reality and it is shared and in that reality there is no demonstrable, testable, or falsifiable evidence to support the belief that a god exists and thus it is an irrational and unfounded claim.



(08-10-2016 02:57 AM)KerimF Wrote:  But you also suppose that I should know how this imaginary god you heard of looks like.
No I do not as it's not a relevant point which persons god claims I have and have not heard. their are billions of them and they all say mutually exclusive things. the one thing they have in common though is a complete and total lack of demonstrable evidence and this includes you.
I frankly don't give a fuck about what kind of god it is or "what it looks like". I'm not interested in listening to the qualities and characteristics their god has until AFTER they provide evidence that it exists. Not before after. I don't even need to hear ANYTHING about their god to classify it as imaginary, because if they can't show that it exists or offer away to tell it apart from imagination well...then it's characteristics don't matter.

What it looks like doesn't matter in the slightest in determining if it's imaginary or not.

(08-10-2016 03:10 AM)KerimF Wrote:  Here again, you assume I know the image of god that you heard of and from which you concluded that such a god cannot exist.
And again, no I do not. The image is irrelevant. Not only that but I didn't say a god does not exist and can not exist. What I said is that belief comes after evidence, that to believe without evidence (or against evidence) is irrational and not logically consistent, and that because no evidence exists for any god, nor anyway to differentiate it from the imaginary, that labeling god as imaginary is perfectly reasonable and rational.

You need to actually read and comprehend what I write as I write it and not as you would like it to be written.

(08-10-2016 03:10 AM)KerimF Wrote:  I don't mind you say and repeat: "The god, I heard of, doesn't exist".
Let me be as blunt as I can: I do not give a fuck about what you do and do not mind. What you mind is irrelevant. Further more I won't be saying that because it a vulgar and simplistic strawman of what I am saying. I will say it again: it is rationally sound to say that god is imaginary as god AS A CONCEPT and in practicality has never been shown to have a SINGLE demonstrable difference from something that is purely imagination.

Here let me explain it differently:
These are birds.
[Image: eastern.jpg]
[Image: Wonder-108-Raven-Static-Image2.jpg]
[Image: hummingbird.jpg]
Now...is this a bird?
[Image: 1969Impala_12-1024x768.jpg]

The correct answer is no, it's clearly not a bird. How do we know that? Well they have clear and demonstrable differences. These differences can be identified, tested, falsified and shown to be accurate.

So what clear and demonstrable differences are their between something purely imaginary and a god?

None at all.

Of course the answer is no. One can answer because a bird and a car are both well-defined.
Anyway, men are free to believe anything. For example, millions of people (mainly in America) believe in the existence of supermen if they are given another title/name as dictators. But, to me, a good or evil superman cannot exist in reality even if he is called a dictator (as the good one, the US president, on 9/11/2001 armed by the legitimate sword over all American necks 'the Presidential Veto Right' or the evil one, the Syrian president, discovered from America in March 2011).

For instance, do you believe a dictator (as the ones we may see in movies and/or series) exists in reality? If you do, I wonder how you can prove his existence without referring to the modern bible Tongue

Facts that don't need evidences:
Sheep for milk live in peace because it is the will of their rich owners.
Dogs obeying rich masters deserve much better food and shelters than free dogs do.
Whoever has ears will hear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 02:51 PM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(10-10-2016 04:59 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(08-10-2016 03:30 AM)KerimF Wrote:  On my side, all images of Will/Power that created me offered on the world's table are not for me.
wut?

(08-10-2016 03:30 AM)KerimF Wrote:  It happens that this Creator exists in my reality and thanks to his help I was able to live with no more confusion and fear of any sort.
Right but without demonstrable evidence of this creators existence your belief is entirely irrational at best and delusional at worst. You are welcome to hold that belief as long as you recognize that it is irrational and unsupported.

Your claim is also just...demonstrably false as both of your replies which I answered in my last post showed that you don't understand what I was saying AT ALL and are rather confused about what I was even saying.

(08-10-2016 03:30 AM)KerimF Wrote:  So as long you are happy and/or satisfied the way you are, I don't see any reason for you to search your Creator as I did Wink
The vast majority of people here used to be religious at one point or another. Many of us have done just that sought out our "creator". the difference between us and you is that we didn't stop looking when we found an answer that made us happy because making us happy has NOTHING to say about if our belief is accurate or not.

WE actually care if what we belief is accurate or not, and we won't settle for happy delusions or comforting lies. Evidence matters, not ones personal feelings.

You are right; the word 'happy' here seems not a suitable English word to be used. So let me remove it Wink
"As long you are satisfied the way you are, I don't see any reason for you to search your real Creator in/by yourself as I did".

Facts that don't need evidences:
Sheep for milk live in peace because it is the will of their rich owners.
Dogs obeying rich masters deserve much better food and shelters than free dogs do.
Whoever has ears will hear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 03:30 PM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(10-10-2016 05:53 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(08-10-2016 04:36 AM)KerimF Wrote:  Well, could you tell me how a person can believe that electromagnetic waves do exist, in case he has not a single mean to detect them?
First off I'm going to point out that you entirely avoided dealing with the criticism which is dishonest but not the point I'll hammer away on because the bigger one is your question shows you don't understand the point I am making.

You are saying a soul is a thing that exists. You have to show this, and no pointless questions or dishonest obfuscations negates this. You still have to show evidence for it's existence before you can argue from it in a conversation or a debate.

Now about your question....*sigh*... it is ass backwards and demonstrates your confusion on the subject but the short answer is: because science doesn't exist in a vacuum. What I mean by is that it's perfectly fine to accept claims from people in relevant fields if you lack the materials or the interments to do so yourself. Not every mundane claim needs to be personally confirmed.
The problem is you are on the wrong side of this and the two aren't even remotely similar. Even if a person can't detect electromagnetic waves do to a lack of tools, for example, OTHER PEOPLE CAN. Those people can show how, they can provide evidence and mechanisms for how to do so, and their findings can be peer-reviewed by other people. By anyone with the means really.
However a "soul/spirit" can't be detected by ANYONE it seems. No one can provide evidence for it, no one can provide a mechanism, and their can be no peer-review.

(08-10-2016 04:36 AM)KerimF Wrote:  In this case, he, naturally, should deny their existence as long he, personally, cannot detect them (in any part of their vast spectrum) and, most of all, he cannot take advantage of using them.

Again your comparison between electromagnetic waves is garbage and doesn't work. If a person denies the existence of something that other people can provide demonstrable, testable, and falsifiable evidence for it's existence than he is irrational. The problem you have is that YOU CAN NOT DO THIS. You have no evidence of ANY kind.
The man in your example would be perfectly rational to deny the existence of electromagnetic waves if no one in the goddamn world could show any evidence that they exist. In a world where they CAN provide evidence he is irrational to reject the evidence in favor of his opinion, and there person claiming that they do exist is irrational for doing so when he can't demonstrate it.

That person is you.

(08-10-2016 04:36 AM)KerimF Wrote:  In fact, what we may call a spirit or a soul is a personal matter.
Prove it.

*Sigh* I've explained several times now that without evidence it even exists you can not begin to comment on what properties it has. You must show that a soul exists before you can make claims to what it is and is not and what it can and can not do. You have your cart before your horse as they say.

Let's be perfectly clear here though: what you are doing is attempting to assign characteristics to a thing in such away as to try and define it as not needing to be proven by you. You are trying to, dishonestly I might add, shirk your burden of proof.


(08-10-2016 04:36 AM)KerimF Wrote:  So if it happens that someone has no soul in him, he can never know what a soul (the human living soul) means to someone who has it and, therefore, perceives it, besides his human living flesh.
You are just making up shit. You have to PROVE these things for them to have any weight or importance in a discussion and you can't even do that until you demonstrate that it exists and can even have characteristics.

Your belief is not based on fact or evidence and is thus IRRATIONAL.

(08-10-2016 04:36 AM)KerimF Wrote:  "How could a man perceive the existence of his personal living soul?"
No the question you should be asking is " How do I demonstrate a soul exists?". There are mental hospitals all over the world crammed to the gills with people that "perceive" all kinds of things that are not real. Your personal perception is not always reliable which is one of the many reasons evidence has to be demonstrable and testable to and by other people. It's why peer-review exists.

(08-10-2016 04:36 AM)KerimF Wrote:  But since I respect the nature of which you are made.....*vomit*
With all due respect you don't "respect" a mother fucking thing. You are blatantly and sloppily trying to run from and avoid dealing with your burden by making your inability to prove a soul exists MY fault because of how I was born.

Your incompetence at the task and staggering lack of critical thinking or reason is your own burden, I'm not gonna carry it for you and let you off the hook. YOU must prove your claim that they exist, and if you can't they have no place in the fucking discussion.

(08-10-2016 04:36 AM)KerimF Wrote:  After all, there is no use to convince someone about something that he insists he can't perceive as he does with his human living body.
You are half right. There is no use trying to convince a person of something......when that something is an irrational belief for which you have no evidence. If you had evidence it would be rather bloody easy.

It is your right to believe that all men are created (sorry, made) as you are.

I had this exact belief till I was 30; yes, it took me a rather long time to discover what became obvious to me.
For example, I know I am not fooling myself and I also believe that you, too, have no reason to fool yourself. So it is clear that we are very different about how we see things as real or illusion.
This difference is not a problem in itself. On my side, this doesn’t imply that someone is good and the other is bad, or one is right and the other is wrong. But, it seems it is hard for many people to see the differences among the living things of the same species as being natural; mainly if it is the human race.

I am not sure why you like (insist on) that all people in the world should perceive life and believe as you do. So, I am fortunate for not having to live this situation anymore. I don’t mind hearing someone saying “God or soul doesn’t exist”. I also say: "a dictator, an evil superman, cannot exist in reality", while millions of people are made to believe he can exist Wink

Facts that don't need evidences:
Sheep for milk live in peace because it is the will of their rich owners.
Dogs obeying rich masters deserve much better food and shelters than free dogs do.
Whoever has ears will hear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 04:06 PM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(11-10-2016 05:33 AM)Dalroen Wrote:  Here http://www.bibleanswerstand.org/God.htm you can read about this ancient word if you want.
In my opinion, God is another myth. Although it would be wrong to say "another". It is a myth among myths, the most mythical myth in the world. I quite agree with the ideas of the German philosopher Feuerbach. He says that "God" is the essence of man, alienated to the idea. All the best human qualities, everything that a person would like to have in himself represented like a characteristic of God. God is immortal, all-good, omnipresent, loving everybody with warm father's love, all-powerful, and so on, creature. We believe in him, but in fact we just wanted to be him. That's why people write books, give birth to children, erect monuments.
They just want to "be, to be themselves and to be always" (Miguel de Unamuno's words).

First, I like to thank you for your serious interesting reply.
Your observation is right. In other words, when someone describes (sincerely) his god or idol, he actually describes the ideals of his imperfect characteristics.
For example, a person who has a human living body only has no choice but seeing his best being (an earthly idol or heavenly one) as an all-powerful supreme ruler. Of course, this image could have different shapes that depend on the regions and their past.
So, even if someone (who has a human living body only) doesn't like his ideal be a supernatural one, he chooses instead a person (or persons) on earth or, most likely, an ideal man-made ruling system that may exist (or not yet). So, it is natural that formal theists and formal atheists do exist together while they believe both in an ideal Justice... in heaven or on earth Big Grin

Facts that don't need evidences:
Sheep for milk live in peace because it is the will of their rich owners.
Dogs obeying rich masters deserve much better food and shelters than free dogs do.
Whoever has ears will hear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 05:58 PM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(09-10-2016 11:40 PM)KerimF Wrote:  Most members here (supposed being sane and mature) used trusting ideas, expressed and/or inherited by some trusted persons, more than their personal observations and logic.

Of course we are. We accept the theories and empirical evidence of others far more suitably qualified in what we speak of. I can't personally observe atoms flying around CERN any more than you can see and/or accept your spirit guide. I can't provide you with any personal observations, so I trust the scientists who can. But you apparently see that as less than ideal?

I can show you the observations and physical conclusions determined by the CERN particle accelerators, but you're totally incapable of showing me even a theoretical model of your so-called god.

And no; we do use our logic to weigh up the pros and cons of what scientists claim about our world. We don't just blindly accept what they say in order to define our life paths. Many theists, on the other hand, blindly accept the millennia-old dogma that their "wise men" preach, usually unquestioningly, and act upon it in their daily lives. No meat on Friday, confirmation, the confessional, no work on Sunday, no abortions, homophobia, no birth control, tithing, no sex outside marriage, no interfaith marriages, etc etc etc...

Quote:So when I talk to someone (as in other forums) I see myself talking to a sort of faithful repeater who reminds me what is already written in certain references about the subject (said scientific, religious or political).

Well, you're seeing this incorrectly. Your use of the intentionally derogatory phrase "faithful repeater" is meaningless; that term more appropriately applies to theists who simply regurgitate the 2,500-year-old writings of a group of ill-educated, disparate desert nomads who had no more knowledge of the world [sic] around them than that contained in a 200-mile radius of where they lived. And to conflate religious writings with scientific evidence is really scraping the barrel on your part Kerim.

Quote:I said 'a faithful repeater' because he does his best to avoid adding and/or removing anything from what he learnt.

If you truly think I can add anything to string theory, parallel universe theories, or dark matter theory, then you're giving me praise I don't deserve.

Quote:This attitude is not bad, but I like participating with people who don't need following any side/group in the world when looking for a complete truth (mainly about the nature of their being and how the world runs on the ground... in their reality).

Oh dear. Do you really think that theists do not "follow" groupthink? That's one of the major characteristics of all the major religions. Can you show me a Christian that obeys the Quran, or a Muslim who follows the Torah? Theists are totally locked into their religion's tenets, laws, and dogma to the point of believing that their god is the only "true" one LOL.

Quote:What concerns you, I see a person who used opposing anything said by a stranger, I guess, you likely do it just for fun, and this is also not bad.

No; we don't "oppose" your beliefs for "fun". We're serious. Atheists consider your beliefs to be ill-informed and misdirected. They're unscientific, outdated, and totally at odds with what the known universe physically embodies. There's zero empirical evidence supporting your religious beliefs, which are, at best, reliant on nonsensical pseudo-science, mythology, and superstition.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: