Athiest what do you believe?

by real one 108 Replies latest jw friends

  • inrainbows
    inrainbows

    burn the ships

    God has no beginning therefore he did not come from anything.

    Says who; says you, or rather, says a long string of people making the same assertion that ends up with someone who just decided god doesn't need a begining without having any proof of it.

    Please don't tell me you consider this satisfactory proof of the assertion you're making or anything other than presupposition?

    Caedes

    If you wish to limit your god to a concept or an idea rather than an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent supernatural being that created the universe

    An existing idea is far less limited than a non-existent piece of stone-age supersticion acting like it's not re-heated savagery.

    I quite agree that ideas can be almost unlimited, but however you cut it your concept of god is not as 'large' as the concept of god as understood by most people.

    Ah, but mine exists, be it through semantic trickery or valid argumentation. Tangible reality is larger than trumped up unreality.

    Fair point, you are free to define theism as you wish, that doesn't change the fact that the accepted definition is a belief in a supernatural god.

    Yes, and the previously accepted definiton of an acceptable sexual relationship was between married people of different genders. Doesn't mean the definiton is right.

    I have an imagination, that I can conceive of something does not make it real.

    But if your idea is PURELY an idea, does that mean it is not real?

    It might not have external reality, but it still has power.

    It is not unfounded as every church I drive past can testify to.

    Testify to without proof. They all claim to have the franchise. You don't accept the Borgs BS as a real claim to represent god, why accept the others' claims?

    Whilst I wouldn't deny that for some people their spirituality does not require a church or specific acts of worship does not change the fact that for the majority of theists the connection is very real indeed.

    Doesn't make them right. They may be for them of course, but the minute they take it outside their head they get it wrong.

    So you are saying it is all just in your mind? that was my original point wasn't it?

    Yes, but the fact it IS all in my mind doesn't mean it isn't real, to me, or others, or have the power to effect others or inspire me.

    It's a no-fat god.

    I'm just having fun with ideas here, using a smart person to bounce stuff off. It is as much a technicality against atheism (god is a variable definition, ideas are real, therefore if god is an idea god is real, ha ha, ho ho, and indeed he he) as it is a way of swating at religious conceits over having any right to monopolise (or Cludoise, or Trivial Pursuitise) god.

    I am having what is commonly termed 'a laugh', having come from cultist to hard-boiled atheist and then a little way back again.

    Lastly, I would rather just call it communication rather than use loaded terminology that everyone uses for something else. I don't suppose Nickelodeon would want to change all their merchandising.

    Communication of thoughts is one thing; what the thoughts do ONCE communicated is something different. See? My definitons get better (for me) the more I get to play with them. God is the capacity we have for belief in stuff.

  • nvrgnbk
    nvrgnbk

    I believe we have to do the best we can with what we have- ourselves.

    Sero's recent thread about the bionic eye illustrates what we can do if we quit praying and waiting for God to show up and fix things.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    inrainbows.

    Time began with the Universe. Without Time, causality starts to lose its meaning.

    You can define "God" however you like, but "God" as I understand it is by definition eternal. And "eternal" in this context does not mean infinite regression, but timelessness.

    Please don't tell me you consider this satisfactory proof of the assertion you're making or anything other than presupposition?

    It is satisfactory for my definition of "God".

    Burn

    Edited to add:

    I deal with the subject more throughly here:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/154142/2820707/post.ashx#2820707

  • Caedes
    Caedes

    Inrainbows

    An existing idea is far less limited than a non-existent piece of stone-age supersticion acting like it's not re-heated savagery

    Whilst I personally have no problem with your definition of yahweh, you have to accept that if you are allowed to redefine god as you wish then so is any other theist. If your concept is to have any validity then so must everyone else's. I somehow doubt that theists will find your concept god very appealing compared to their god who is supposed to forgive them their sins, reunite them with loved ones and provide an eternity of cloud dwelling harp twiddling blissfullness.

    Tangible reality is larger than trumped up unreality

    Hear hear, but is your concept god tangible?

    Yes, and the previously accepted definiton of an acceptable sexual relationship was between married people of different genders. Doesn't mean the definiton is right.

    I agree that human beings make these definitions and are free to change them, whether it be marriage or god. I sincerely wish you the best of luck in convincing theists your definition is better than what they have.

    But if your idea is PURELY an idea, does that mean it is not real?

    It might not have external reality, but it still has power.

    You may have a point there, my first thought was of the placebo effect which seems vaguely appropriate if a little orwellian. The problem is that without anything tangible the effects of your concept god may be short lived.

    Testify to without proof . They all claim to have the franchise. You don't accept the Borgs BS as a real claim to represent god, why accept the others' claims?

    I don't accept any of their claims, or yours come to that! Since you have no proof of your claim any more than they do. You have exactly what they have, a belief without empirical evidence.

    Doesn't make them right . They may be for them of course, but the minute they take it outside their head they get it wrong

    Again I agree.

    Yes, but the fact it IS all in my mind doesn't mean it isn't real, to me, or others, or have the power to effect others or inspire me.

    It's a no-fat god.

    I'm just having fun with ideas here, using a smart person to bounce stuff off. It is as much a technicality against atheism (god is a variable definition, ideas are real, therefore if god is an idea god is real, ha ha, ho ho, and indeed he he) as it is a way of swating at religious conceits over having any right to monopolise (or Cludoise, or Trivial Pursuitise) god.

    I am having what is commonly termed 'a laugh', having come from cultist to hard-boiled atheist and then a little way back again

    In that sense the placebo effect is real too, but I would still rather have a doctor prescribe nothing than a placebo. Whilst I find your fat free god infinitely more appealling than the one of a bunch of goat burning bronze age age nomads with delusions of grandeur, does not make it any more truthful or tangible. I like reality, the world is a wonderful enough place without a god (of any flavour) Probably what I understand the least is why you would wish to use such a loaded phrase to express something that would work much better without the baggage and implications of the word god.

    Nothing wrong with kicking ideas about, people should do it more often.

    I was lucky enough to only having to put up with the JW thing for 16 years whilst living with what I shall laughingly refer to as my parents. Still a hard-boiled atheist since I realised that my parents didn't know squat.

    God is the capacity we have for belief in stuff.

    Or is that gullibility? ...Sorry couldn't resist!

  • Tuesday
    Tuesday
    Tuesday are you serious? there are over 500 prophesies that have been fufilled. heres one: Isaiah 7:14

    Are you serious? You're telling me that was fufilled?

    Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

    What exactly is the proof of this? Let me guess...this is a prophesy of Jesus being born right? Well then it wasn't fufilled because he was named JESUS, not Immanuel. You know I told the story to my younger cousin about the virgin birth, I said "and who was Jesus' father?" and he said "Joseph" so I responded "No Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant with Jesus, she was only engaged to Joseph" so he said "Yeah sure, that's what she said." You're basing your fufilled prophesy on a woman who REALLY stuck to her story. Plus it's fufilled in the same book, I used this EXACT example in my post asking you to prove a fufilled prophesy. I said that The gospel writers had access to this prophesy and simply had to change their legend to fufill these old prophesies.

    Keep giving me examples of the "over 500" fufilled prophesies and I'll gladly go through every one of them to show you that they're not proven as being fufilled.

  • real one
    real one

    Sero's recent thread about the bionic eye illustrates what we can do if we quit praying and waiting for God to show up and fix things.

    now think of this on another level....what if we obeyed God, the bionic eye wouldnt be necessary

  • real one
    real one

    Yes my 'ideas' or atheism (whatever you wish to call it) is limited, to empirical facts and reason and the natural universe we see around us.

    Caedes, does your mind go beyond your front door?

  • lonelysheep
    lonelysheep

    real one

    My guess is that between you typing what you type and your mention of obeying god re:the bionic eye--you are not visually impaired with or without help. no?

  • real one
    real one

    Tuesday, you want me to do all the work? ok well you do this tell me what Immanuel means. You can shoot down all the info i give you that is to be expected. you speak about God you get opposition. some of us can't see whats right in front of us. if you are an ex-jw then you know what i mean

  • real one
    real one

    My guess is that between you typing what you type and your mention of obeying god re:the bionic eye--you are not visually impaired with or without help. no?

    i dont understand your question. if you are asking me if i am visually impaired the answer is yes

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit