What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-10-2016, 06:00 PM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(11-10-2016 02:40 PM)KerimF Wrote:  Of course the answer is no. One can answer because a bird and a car are both well-defined.
And they can be clearly defined because they exist and have evidence to support their existence and their differences. What you are trying to do NOW is excuse your inability to meet your burden of proof by intentionally keeping your god vague and ill-defined and I'm sorry kiddo but that's just not going to fly. Not only that but you are not being consistent because you HAVE given several definitions about thins, for example calling the soul "personal".
You have to prove these things, and I'm frankly not interested in your trying to obfuscate your burden by talking about your simplistic and ignorant view of world events. We are talking about god and your inability to show him as having any difference from make believe.


I don't know if your just not getting my point or if you are actively ignoring it so I'll ask again:
What clear and demonstrable differences are their between something purely imaginary and a god?

(11-10-2016 02:40 PM)KerimF Wrote:  Anyway, men are free to believe anything.
Yes they are, I have said that many times. However just because you can believe what you want doesn't mean that whatever you choose to believe is correct or rational. Which has been my damn point for a while now.
Your belief that god exists, despite having NO demonstrable evidence, makes your belief irrational. You don't get your own special reality with it's own special rules where that magically becomes not the case. If you are willing to accept that what you believe is not rational or based on evidence then fine, nothing I can say against that and you can carry on your merry way.... but if you wanna sit there at your computer and tell me that your belief is rational and justified then you are either lying to me or to yourself and I'm gonna take you to task over that.

Not all beliefs are justified and those that are not are irrational.


(11-10-2016 02:40 PM)KerimF Wrote:  For example, millions of people (mainly in America) ....
I can not express in words how little I fucking care to talk about your personal views on world politics when I still can't get you to answer basic and fundamental questions on the ACTUAL topic. We can move on to your person ignorance of the complexities of world politics after you deal honestly with your burden of proof and not before. I'm not interested in your distractions.

(11-10-2016 02:40 PM)KerimF Wrote:  For instance, do you believe a dictator (as the ones we may see in movies and/or series) exists in reality?
Yes I do because I've lived in countries while they were going on and the evidence of the existence both in modern times and throughout human history is categorically demonstrable.

(11-10-2016 02:40 PM)KerimF Wrote:  If you do, I wonder how you can prove his existence without referring to the modern bible Tongue
Yaaaa.... you can talk to me about proving shit when your done proving your own shit.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
11-10-2016, 06:03 PM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(11-10-2016 02:51 PM)KerimF Wrote:  "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".

What part of:
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".
Did you not understand?

Don't make statements that have already been debunked in the bloody post you quoted. Stop telling people what they fucking think and do/don't do and start actually reading what people write.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2016, 06:27 PM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(11-10-2016 03:30 PM)KerimF Wrote:  It is your right to believe that all men are created (sorry, made) as you are.
And now you are just dishonestly misrepresenting my position, and I'm beginning to find that very rude.

(11-10-2016 03:30 PM)KerimF Wrote:  For example, I know I am not fooling myself
No you do NOT "know" that you believe that, knowledge is demonstrable and I've been asking you to demonstrate that belief for several pages now. You have a belief that is not based on fact or evidence and thus that belief is irrational and unjustified until such time as you CAN demonstrate it.

(11-10-2016 03:30 PM)KerimF Wrote:  and I also believe that you, too, have no reason to fool yourself.
You and I we are not the same, I don't fool myself by actively believing in things without justification and against good evidence. You do. You ARE fooling yourself if you believe in things that are not supported by the evidence and you further fool yourself if you pretend to have justification when you don't.

I'm rational on this topic, you are not.

(11-10-2016 03:30 PM)KerimF Wrote:  So it is clear that we are very different about how we see things as real or illusion.
that is true, I require evidence for a things existence before i accept it as true and you do not. I'm rational and you are not, my opinion is informed and logically consistent and yours bares all the hallmarks of wishful thinking.

(11-10-2016 03:30 PM)KerimF Wrote:  This difference is not a problem in itself.
Yes it is, and the fact you think it is not is another whole separate problem in it's self. When you accept something as true without a demonstration of the validity of that thing you are irrational. Belief comes AFTER evidence not before.

(11-10-2016 03:30 PM)KerimF Wrote:  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.
It's not about right or wrong, it's about if your views (right or wrong in the end) have support, evidence, and justification. Yours do not. they are irrational.

(11-10-2016 03:30 PM)KerimF Wrote:  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.
The ability that you have to believe things without justification is entirely natural and common in humans, I'm not saying it's not. However I'm not talking about "how people are made" I'm talking about YOU making fucking claims about reality and YOU not backing them up.

YOU.HAVE.TO.PROVE.YOUR.SHIT.

(11-10-2016 03:30 PM)KerimF Wrote:  I am not sure why you like (insist on) that all people in the world should perceive life and believe as you do.
I've never once said that they do or even implied it you dishonest asshole. You can perceive life as made from fucking liquid sunshine and lollipop handjobs for all I goddamn care, I'm talking about if your perceptions accurately map to reality and if you can demonstrate that they do.
The fact that after days of posts you utterly refuse to even go near my question about demonstrable differences between your god and imaginary is very telling about how well you know you don't have anything to present. All your little distractions don't change the fact that you can't provide a single shred of evidence.

(11-10-2016 03:30 PM)KerimF Wrote:  So, I am fortunate for not having to live this situation anymore.
Being a deluded coward who can't face reality as it demonstrably is is not a fortunate thing to anyone other than someone who WANTS to believe what they believe irregardless of how little evidence there is.


(11-10-2016 03:30 PM)KerimF Wrote:  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
This is fucking stupid, humans actually exist, dictators have existed throughout history and we have clear demonstrable evidence of their actions and their existence, and the corresponding effects those actions have had. . This can NOT be said for gods or a soul. Your comparison is entirely flawed.

I'm left in awe how you will criticize people for believing what the media reports and turn around and believe something that has absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
12-10-2016, 01:30 AM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(11-10-2016 05:58 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(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.

You, like many others here, give me the impression that you see me a formal theist. A formal theist follows a certain group whose members believe in a ruling god and, therefore, try their best to obey his rules (claimed being divine). Also a formal atheist follows the group of people who used repeating: "God doesn't exist", while he, in his sub-conscience, refers, in the least, to one of the many ruling gods that were offered on the world's table, along history.

As I used saying, I personally don't believe that a ruling god can exist, mainly in my reality. But, as a designer, I also know that to take full advantage of what I am given in my being, I had to search for my true Creator; as I try my best knowing the makers of any important device/tool I may have (by getting their datasheets, for example). On the other hand, no one can stop someone if he likes acting as a kid who enjoys playing his given PC games without the need to know anything from their developers other than the user's game rules (instincts, in case of playing with the human living flesh Wink ).

Just believing in Science doesn't make someone a scientist.
Also, Just believing that a certain Creator does exist doesn't make someone knowing his true Creator.
And almost all living things on earth (close to 100%, including the human beings) can live normally (thanks to the embedded pre-programmed instructions) without hearing anything from the Will/Power that created them (forced them to exist temporarily in the realm that we call life and is limited by time/space).

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
12-10-2016, 02:39 AM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(11-10-2016 06:27 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  ... dictators have existed throughout history and we have clear demonstrable evidence of their actions and their existence, and the corresponding effects those actions have had.

Since it happens I was born in Syria, more than 6 decades ago, I wish you help me know demonstrable evidence that the Syrian president is indeed an evil superman, a dictator, who is able controlling millions of Syrians (civilians and national troops) for about 6 years so far. But please, don't act as a formal theist and refer blindly to what the modern bible tells you. But I am afraid you were likely made to believe in the powerful/rich representatives of the modern non-existent god whose non-existent idols are 'Freedom and Democracy'. For example, you likely believe that the US elections now are free and democratic... right? But, the first time I heard that H. Clinton was among the candidates for the US presidency, I knew in advance that she will win (actually be hired by the real American rulers working behind the scenes). I didn't need to be a prophet for being sure about this. Soon after Obama had to sing, in March 2011 on TV and in front of the entire world, the broken song of his bosses 'Let's save the people from a dictator', the 9/11 terror was launched in Syria. And the role of our dear H. Clinton was to stand, almost daily via TV, with any foreign long dark beards who were sent to save Syrians from their dictator (discovered from America, as it is the case for many other countries that all had to live the American 9/11 terror since then). I personally met some of these Islamist terrorist saviours, coming from Chechnya, who occupied my small land (Spring 2012, with many other ones) under the pretext to surround Aleppo city and save us as requested exactly by the White House (requested till these days). So it became very clear to most Syrians that H. Clinton is one of the best actors who were trained to play in the American International endless series "War on Terror". But the American rulers (not their hired actors, known as politicians) are fortunate that both formal theists and atheists in the world believe in the non-existent idols/ideals (Freedom and Democracy) to the point more than a hundred thousand American troops were sent to risk their lives in Iraq in the name of these great idols! Only too late, most of these troops, the honest ones who didn't accept the mission just for money, realised that they were just used to serve the economical/political agenda of some big corporations (starting from the ones that are related to oil).

But I am sure that, as a formal theist believes in the existence of a ruling creator based on his holy trusted books, you have no choice but believing that the imaginary dictator (a sort of an evil superman that we usually see in movies) does exist too since the modern bible (actually an audio/visual extension of the Hollywood movies and series) says he does... with proofs on videos of course Wink Please, don't tell me you don't know how a video could be made (see for example, the action movies or of horror). Also please don't tell me that true honest people are allowed to be sincere while addressing millions in the world unless they are already ones of the formal theists or atheists... or playing their roles 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
12-10-2016, 04:11 AM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(12-10-2016 01:30 AM)KerimF Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 05:58 PM)SYZ Wrote:  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....

You, like many others here, give me the impression that you see me a formal theist. A formal theist follows a certain group whose members believe in a ruling god and, therefore, try their best to obey his rules (claimed being divine). Also a formal atheist follows the group of people who used repeating: "God doesn't exist", while he, in his sub-conscience, refers, in the least, to one of the many ruling gods that were offered on the world's table, along history.

There's no such things as a "formal" theist or a "formal" atheist. You're simply one of either. And atheists, like me, do not "follow" any group of other atheists, or refer to any "ruling gods"—which is a ludicrous notion. You seem to have no intimate knowledge of what atheism actually involves. Its one and only tenet is that there's no viable evidence supporting the purported existence of supernatural entities. That's it. One single, defining, and complete characteristic of atheism.

Quote:And almost all living things on earth (close to 100%, including the human beings) can live normally (thanks to the embedded pre-programmed instructions) [...]

I can only assume that you're referring to innate (existing in one from birth; inborn; native) human characteristics such as fear, happiness, sensuality, self-preservation, love, anger, morality etc. Nobody or no thing "programs" these sorts of things; being innate or instinctive, they're intuited as we mature, age-wise. And we don't need a guide, or a teacher or priest or rabbi or imam to teach us these sorts of things. These blokes are simply utilised as a visible enforcer of the churches' power over its believers.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2016, 06:59 AM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(12-10-2016 04:11 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 01:30 AM)KerimF Wrote:  You, like many others here, give me the impression that you see me a formal theist. A formal theist follows a certain group whose members believe in a ruling god and, therefore, try their best to obey his rules (claimed being divine). Also a formal atheist follows the group of people who used repeating: "God doesn't exist", while he, in his sub-conscience, refers, in the least, to one of the many ruling gods that were offered on the world's table, along history.

There's no such things as a "formal" theist or a "formal" atheist. You're simply one of either. And atheists, like me, do not "follow" any group of other atheists, or refer to any "ruling gods"—which is a ludicrous notion. You seem to have no intimate knowledge of what atheism actually involves. Its one and only tenet is that there's no viable evidence supporting the purported existence of supernatural entities. That's it. One single, defining, and complete characteristic of atheism.

Quote:And almost all living things on earth (close to 100%, including the human beings) can live normally (thanks to the embedded pre-programmed instructions) [...]

I can only assume that you're referring to innate (existing in one from birth; inborn; native) human characteristics such as fear, happiness, sensuality, self-preservation, love, anger, morality etc. Nobody or no thing "programs" these sorts of things; being innate or instinctive, they're intuited as we mature, age-wise. And we don't need a guide, or a teacher or priest or rabbi or imam to teach us these sorts of things. These blokes are simply utilised as a visible enforcer of the churches' power over its believers.

Well, while you don't believe there is any form of supernatural beings (and you have the right to be so), you don't mind believing there are supermen instead.

In brief, every person believes what suits his personal nature/structure he is made of and, therefore, could serve his main priorities in life.

For instance, if you knew, or you will know, any sane mature person who agrees that one (or more) of his personal beliefs (or disbeliefs) is wrong, please notify me Wink During my rather long journey in life, I couldn't meet, face to face, such a person. But, truth be said, I met many people who played before others and for certain times different roles (as movies actors do) for money, fame and/or power (also for... you know 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
12-10-2016, 09:05 AM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2016 12:04 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(12-10-2016 02:39 AM)KerimF Wrote:  Since it happens I was born in Syria, more than 6 decades ago.....

What part of:
(11-10-2016 06:00 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I can not express in words how little I fucking care to talk about your personal views on world politics when I still can't get you to answer basic and fundamental questions on the ACTUAL topic. We can move on to your person ignorance of the complexities of world politics after you deal honestly with your burden of proof and not before. I'm not interested in your distractions.
Did you not understand?

We are talking about gods not your ass backwards view of politics. You want to talk politics you can make a thread in the politics forum. In THIS thread I'm talking about your inability to show a single fucking difference between your god and an imaginary friend, how your belief without evidence is irrational, and how given your (or anyone else) inability to distinguish between imaginary and reality it's perfectly acceptable to call god imaginary until you demonstrate a difference.

All of the above you have repeatedly and dishonestly avoided discussing in any substantive manner. I'm not fucking interested in your tin foil hat conspiracy theory bullshit. I'm not interested in your word games, your distractions, or your attempts to avoid the question.

So for the 8th or 9th time:
What clear and demonstrable differences are their between something purely imaginary and a god?
Answer the question.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2016, 09:20 AM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(12-10-2016 06:59 AM)KerimF Wrote:  Well, while you don't believe there is any form of supernatural beings (and you have the right to be so), you don't mind believing there are supermen instead.
How many times have I told you not to tell people what they think? I've also demonstrated the faulty logic that is inherent in your comparison what...twice now? Three times?

Comparing supernatural beings of which there is no evidence at all to dictators, a thing that has existed throughout history all over the globe for which we have piles and piles of evidence both ancient and modern is fucking ridiculous. They are not comparative at all.
Are you saying Hitler didn't exist? Pol Pot? Mao Zedong? Stalin? These were all real people that were dictators of the worst kind. Do you think they did not exist?

(12-10-2016 06:59 AM)KerimF Wrote:  In brief, every person believes what suits his personal nature/structure he is made of and, therefore, could serve his main priorities in life.
No, that is not how rational human beings work. I myself have had what I believe RADICALLY change over the years in many many matters. You are making excuses and trying to legitimize your desire to believe what you want to believe and not what the evidence shows to be accurate.

(12-10-2016 06:59 AM)KerimF Wrote:  For instance, if you knew, or you will know, any sane mature person who agrees that one (or more) of his personal beliefs (or disbeliefs) is wrong, please notify me Wink
Many of the beliefs I held to fervently years ago were wrong and I changed them based on the available evidence. I'm sorry lad but just because YOU can't accept that your beliefs are wrong/irrational, even when the evidence clearly shows they are, doesn't mean that everyone else acts that way too.

(12-10-2016 06:59 AM)KerimF Wrote:  During my rather long journey in life, I couldn't meet, face to face, such a person.
I think that has more to do with your inability to listen to what people are ACTUALLY saying instead of trying to tell them what they think and believe.
Rational people all over their world change and modify what they believe all the time based on the evidence. Your inability to do is is exactly what makes you irrational and hold irrational beliefs.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
13-10-2016, 01:52 AM
RE: What does the word ‘god’ refer to?
(12-10-2016 09:05 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 02:39 AM)KerimF Wrote:  Since it happens I was born in Syria, more than 6 decades ago.....

What part of:
(11-10-2016 06:00 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I can not express in words how little I fucking care to talk about your personal views on world politics when I still can't get you to answer basic and fundamental questions on the ACTUAL topic. We can move on to your person ignorance of the complexities of world politics after you deal honestly with your burden of proof and not before. I'm not interested in your distractions.
Did you not understand?

We are talking about gods not your ass backwards view of politics. You want to talk politics you can make a thread in the politics forum. In THIS thread I'm talking about your inability to show a single fucking difference between your god and an imaginary friend, how your belief without evidence is irrational, and how given your (or anyone else) inability to distinguish between imaginary and reality it's perfectly acceptable to call god imaginary until you demonstrate a difference.

All of the above you have repeatedly and dishonestly avoided discussing in any substantive manner. I'm not fucking interested in your tin foil hat conspiracy theory bullshit. I'm not interested in your word games, your distractions, or your attempts to avoid the question.

So for the 8th or 9th time:
What clear and demonstrable differences are their between something purely imaginary and a god?
Answer the question.

Don't you see?
While I fully understand your situation (as an atheist in the least), you seem not getting the natural rule that, in vain, I try reminding you of.

It is not bad at all if you don't perceive in you a soul that has its own set of rules in order to survive. So, you are somehow lucky that you have a human living flesh only to feed and to take care of properly in order to let it fulfil its role in serving the world/life in a way or another.

This explains why your mind can believe (imagine) that super-individual-men, good or bad, could exist in the world (as the existence of a dictator in Syria). On my side and since I perceive a soul in me (so I don't need anyone to prove me it exists in me), my mind discovered that an individual superman (or a super being) on earth or in heaven doesn't (cannot) exist. Now you know why I agree that God (as a supernatural ruling being, much like a heavenly dictator) doesn't (cannot, logically speaking) exist, also in my reality.

So while you are free to tell me I am wrong because we have to perceive our beings differently (since they are different), I have no reason to tell you the same because, actually, you are totally right, to me in the least.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: