• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

What's wrong with this definition of God: maker of heaven and earth and everything?

yrreg said:
You see, my insight is that atheists cannot escape from the God of reason
Click to expand...

Who, Thoth? For a nonexistent god, he is much niftier then YHVH. I would rather have Thoth sit in judgement over me than YHVH any day.

yrreg said:
, so they suppress in their heart and mind the God of devotion.
Click to expand...
Who, Rama? Also a much niftier nonexistent deity than YHVH.

Of course, as an atheist I have no problem with my nonbelief in any of the above mentioned deities other than as myths.

yrreg said:
Man cannot blind himself to reason
Click to expand...
Oh, the irony.

yrreg said:
but he can suffocate within his heart and mind by abuse of free will devotion to the rational, the intelligent, the good, the true, and the beautiful.
Click to expand...
Blind adherence to dogma does that.
 
Let me see if I understand this correctly: having failed to prove that the god of the Bible exists, yrreg is now attempting to arrive at a definition of something that atheists can't deny exists, and then call it "God." I can't quite see the point of this excercise. Also, you could just make a cheese sandwich and name it "God." We'd all agree then that your "God" exists.

ETA: I thought quite a bit about that post, Pure Argent. I hope it isn't in violation of the MA, but it was too good to pass up. And surely by saying "there are intelligent people who..." yrreg isn't including himself in that group?
 
Last edited:
Sledge said:
Let me see if I understand this correctly: having failed to prove that the god of the Bible exists, yrreg is now attempting to arrive at a definition of something that atheists can't deny exists, and then call it "God." I can't quite see the point of this excercise. Also, you could just make a cheese sandwich and name it "God." We'd all agree then that your "God" exists.
Click to expand...

But then I would eat it, and then god would be... unpleasant. After a few hours, anyway.

ETA: I thought quite a bit about that post, Pure Argent. I hope it isn't in violation of the MA, but it was too good to pass up. And surely by saying "there are intelligent people who..." yrreg isn't including himself in that group?
Click to expand...

Hey, if you get banned, at least remember that you had me choking with laughter as you went out.
 
That would be a fantastic moment.
"Where is your god now, hmm?"
"About halfway through someone's digestive tract. Damn atheists keep eating my gods. :( "
 
I always see psychology to be the more rewarding discipline to study atheists.

I always see psychology to be the more rewarding discipline to study atheists.

And atheists will reply that they also see psychology to be the more rewarding study of theists.


So, let us both study the devotion of atheists to nothingness of the kind that leads to nothingness, as also the devotion of theists to God as the transcendental nothingness that leads to everything in the universe of life and everything that has a beginning.

In particular the God of nothingness that gives rise to man possessed of consciousness and who exercises intelligence as to produce satellites orbiting the earth and even achieved landing on the moon.




Yrreg
 
Pure_Argent said:
Okay, okay, I know we're probably not supposed to nominate personal attacks, but seriously... that there, that was funny.

So I nommed it anyway.
Click to expand...


Timing was good, it was pithy, and most importantly, dead-on accurate.
 
Ok, yrreg? Atheists don't believe in gods. Not the Christian god, not the Islamic god, not the Norse gods, nothing. If you're going to persist in labelling random concepts "god," I'm going to have to ask what the point is?
 
yrreg said:
Is that your position that nothing led to something God which is the start of everything?

Isn't that against intelligent thinking?

Yrreg
Click to expand...

Let me pare it down to the essential point. It is not the atheist position that nothing led to something. It is your position that nothing led to your god.

I'm agreeing with the part where you say it's against intelligent thinking.
 
yrreg said:
I conceive of God as the maker of everything.
Click to expand...
Well, since I'm getting email for this thread now.

Which so-called god yrreg, I want to know which one, yours, your neighbor's idea of one, the guy down the street from you, the one that you have heard about on TV some Sunday. Which one, because you all start out saying "Maker of everything", but when you start talking about the fine points about your so-called god, you all start going every which way on how this so-called god of yours thinks.

And when you start telling about how it thinks, I really know how you think, because that so-called god is only use as an excuse to prove that you are right, because in fact it is only really you.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
The problem with atheists then are the attributes people ascribe to God like omnibenevolence and omnipotence, which atheists cannot psychologically reconcile with man's knowledge of evil and free will.


Are there not many things of science which scientists themselves cannot reconcile with science?


About not knowing at happened at t=0, we know what happened after t=0, and from that knowledge we can intelligently draw on the implications at beyond t=0.

Anyway, let us for the present prescind from any concern about not knowing what happened at t=0, because we cannot talk on the basis of not knowing, except as a ground for not thinking, which ground for not thinking is not a universal attitude of mankind.


Let us for the present focus on the attributes people ascribe to God which atheists cannot psychologically reconcile themselves to or reconcile the attributes among themselves, the attributes.

But there are intelligent people who are not psychologically troubled about their incapacity to reconcile the attributes people ascribe to God, because God is above everything else maker of everything, and you have got to be God Himself to be able to know God in Himself as to appreciate the compatibility of God's attributes among themselves and with God's nature.

And they will tell you that attributes of God come from man's thinking, which is intrinsically limited and deficient whatever the reliability of man's intelligence for living and acting in his human circumstances.
Click to expand...

OHHHH, mairzy doats and doazy doats
And little lamzy divy
A kiddly divy too
Wouldn't you?

What? It makes as much sense as what he said.
 
Sledge said:
Ok, yrreg? Atheists don't believe in gods. Not the Christian god, not the Islamic god, not the Norse gods, nothing. If you're going to persist in labeling random concepts "god," I'm going to have to ask what the point is?
Click to expand...


I'll answer this for you.

Yrreg believes that if he can get atheists to admit belief in a concept, and not object to his arbitrary labeling of it as "god", he will have proven that atheists really do believe in God, and are denying it in order to practice guiltless masturbation.
 
Elizabeth I said:
OHHHH, mairzy doats and doazy doats
And little lamzy divy
A kiddly divy too
Wouldn't you?

What? It makes as much sense as what he said.
Click to expand...


Mares eat oats and does eat oats
and little lambs eat ivy,
a kid'll eat ivy too,
wouldn't you?

(alternate: "goats" instead of "does")
Although for a long time I thought the words were as you have them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom