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

[tsig]

I love this sentence. It has many fine attributes.

You forgot the second "the attributes".

Sorry no Yerreg Award for you.

(The attributes, the attributes, they made me deaf you know.)

Hunchback of Notre Dame

 

[tsig]

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. "

No, that's the Catholics.

 

[Elizabeth I]

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?

Mine is the first verse. Yours is the second, coming after this:

Now if the words sound queer
And funny to your ear,
A little bit jumbled and jivy,
Sing mares eat oats...
etc.

"Mairzy Doats" is actually the name of the song.

 

[X]

Mine is the first verse. Yours is the second, coming after this:

Now if the words sound queer
And funny to your ear,
A little bit jumbled and jivy,
Sing mares eat oats...
etc.

"Mairzy Doats" is actually the name of the song.

I never knew that.

Huh. Learned something from an yrreg thread.

 

[AndyD]

Is that your position that nothing led to something which is the start of everything?


Isn't that against intelligent thinking?

If I can travel south to the South Pole, I must be able to travel further south from there. Do you agree or is it your position that there is nothing south of the South Pole? Isn't that against intelligent thinking?

 

[cyborg]

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.

Not that I expect anything sensible from yrreg but in what sense is it that because one type of theist sees a need to devote itself to $DEITY that this means that an atheist defines $DEITY as an empty string rather than simply not touching any code referencing $DEITY?

 

[Mojo]

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."

ZARNIWOOP:
Look, don’t you see that people live or die on your word?

MAN IN SHACK:
It’s nothing to do with me, I’m not involved with people. The Lord knows I am not a cruel man.

ZARNIWOOP:
Ahhhh! You say, "The Lord." So you believe in -

MAN IN SHACK:
My cat. I call him "The Lord".

From The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 2nd series, Fit the Twelfth.

 

[yrreg]

There is a psychology of reasoning or unreasoning that is typical with atheists.

There is a psychology of reasoning or more correctly unreasoning that is typical with atheists of the kind like vocally hostile belligerent writers.

They are impassioned but it is a kind of passion that one cannot call enthusiasm.


You get an atheist writer propounding on the origin of the universe and life and everything, and a theist propounding on the origin of the universe and life and everything.

Examine their language as expression of their emotions, what do you see in the language of the atheist writer compared to that of the theist writer?


Think of submitting this topic for a doctoral dissertation on the passion of atheist writers to point out that there is indeed a heightened emotion in them that can be more properly called a frenzy but not an enthusiasm.


So, do we have psychology major students here who are working on a doctoral dissertation concentrating on the frenzy of vocally hostile belligerent atheist writers of which there are a conspicuous number in the publishing world today in the West?

I will help them to look for materials in the web.




Yrreg

 

[paximperium]

There is a psychology of reasoning or more correctly unreasoning that is typical with atheists of the kind like vocally hostile belligerent writers.

They are impassioned but it is a kind of passion that one cannot call enthusiasm.


You get an atheist writer propounding on the origin of the universe and life and everything, and a theist propounding on the origin of the universe and life and everything.

Examine their language as expression of their emotions, what do you see in the language of the atheist writer compared to that of the theist writer?


Think of submitting this topic for a doctoral dissertation on the passion of atheist writers to point out that there is indeed a heightened emotion in them that can be more properly called a frenzy but not an enthusiasm.

Ah, Gerry. Down to insults. Nothing intelligent to say...oh wait, you never did say anything intelligent. Nevermind.

So, do we have psychology major students here who are working on a doctoral dissertation concentrating on the frenzy of vocally hostile belligerent atheist writers of which there are a conspicuous number in the publishing world today in the West?

I will help them to look for materials in the web.

Why would any doctoral student want the help of someone who has no idea what he is talking about and is nothing more than a joke?

 

[ElightenMe]

There is a psychology of reasoning or more correctly unreasoning that is typical with atheists of the kind like vocally hostile belligerent writers.

State your statistical survey please, that has brought you to this conclusion.

They are impassioned but it is a kind of passion that one cannot call enthusiasm.

Why not? Is an atheist unable to be delighted in debunking unsound reasoning of theists to justify their god(s)?

You get an atheist writer propounding on the origin of the universe and life and everything, and a theist propounding on the origin of the universe and life and everything.

Examine their language as expression of their emotions, what do you see in the language of the atheist writer compared to that of the theist writer?

Absolutely dependent on the writer. Sweeping generalizations.

Think of submitting this topic for a doctoral dissertation on the passion of atheist writers to point out that there is indeed a heightened emotion in them that can be more properly called a frenzy but not an enthusiasm.

Why can it be called a frenzy but not an enthusiasm?

So, do we have psychology major students here who are working on a doctoral dissertation concentrating on the frenzy of vocally hostile belligerent atheist writers of which there are a conspicuous number in the publishing world today in the West?

I will help them to look for materials in the web.

 

[yrreg]

I wanted to start a new topic on atheists cannot escape the God of reason, but the...

I wanted to start a new topic on atheists cannot escape the God of reason, but the God of devotion, most probably yes because they do exercise free choice.


That is a new approach to the study of atheists, but as can be already seen by readers here who are not atheists they don't want to talk about anything except what they claim that God is no different from the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And readers here who are not atheists, when you go into the psychological profile of atheists as writers on no God, they will accuse you of being ad hominem and insulting them.

Isn't human behavior all human psychology, unless you want to treat human behavior as akin to the programmed robot.


Here is one trait with atheists who care to discuss about God or no God, they will eventually bring in the "we don't know" card, by which they mean in the last analysis they don't know anything by which God can be accessed from empirical avenues of knowledge.

For example, what comes before the Big Bang, they will insist they don't know nothing or cannot know anything, therefore end of discussion.



If you go further they will complain that you are too proud to claim to any capacity or propensity to speculate on what brought about the Big Bang.



Try asking them this question, and see whether they will come forth with a straight answer:

Has matter always been around from the very beginning or there was something before the appearance of matter?​

Yrreg

 

[Elizabeth I]

That is a new approach to the study of atheists, but as can be already seen by readers here who are not atheists they don't want to talk about anything except what they claim that God is no different from the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Am I wrong, or is this a glimmer of...something?



Nah.

 

[cyborg]

Has matter always been around from the very beginning or there was something before the appearance of matter?​

No, matter has not always been around and therefore must have been created by something that requires no explanation as to its creation by definition.

Is that the kind of answer you're looking for?

 

[Paulhoff]

Has matter always been around from the very beginning or there was something before the appearance of matter?



Yrreg

Simple, energy was around before matter, in the very beginning it was too hot for matter to exist.

So, yrreg, what was around before that so-called god of yours?????

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

Also the term "Big Band" was coined by..............

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1503721.stm

Paul

 

[X]

For example, what comes before the Big Bang, they will insist they don't know nothing or cannot know anything, therefore end of discussion.

Wrong.

We say "we don't know, therefore let's withhold judgement until we know more."

Which, technically, is not an atheist position but a skeptic one.
Atheists are not necessarily skeptics.

However, your position, yrreg, seems to be that "I don't know, therefore God, end of discussion."

But God is not an answer. It explains nothing, it adds no new knowledge. Just questions.


As an example from history:

skeptical positon:
Q: "What causes disease?"
A: "I do not know. Let's find out"
Q: "Okay"
* after much investigation, experimentation and research, germ theory is developed, explaining disease and allowing us to fight it *

yrreg-ian logic
Q: "What causes disease?"
A: "God"
Q: "Okay"
* and the answer remains, nothing changes, nothing is learned *

 

[SumDood]

That is a new approach to the study of atheists, but as can be already seen by readers here who are not atheists they don't want to talk about anything except what they claim that God is no different from the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And just for the record, specifically, how is a belief in your god different from belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Here is one trait with atheists who care to discuss about God or no God, they will eventually bring in the "we don't know" card, by which they mean in the last analysis they don't know anything by which God can be accessed from empirical avenues of knowledge.

Is that not exactly what christians do? "Why do children get cancer?" "Why do natural disasters kill thousands of innocents?" "Why is god doing this to me?" Christians say "We don't know why, its just his will. He works in mysterious ways. Who are we to question him?"

 

[Robert Oz]

You don't want to call that first ever ultimate particle God, why not?

Is God omnipotent?
Is God omniscient?
Is God omnibenevolent?
Does God have any intelligence?
Does God have any consciousness?
Does God have any will?
Does God love his creation?

If the answer to any of the above questions is 'yes', then atheists don't believe in God. If the answer to all of them is 'no', then you are the first theist I know of that has defined God as such.

Examine their language as expression of their emotions, what do you see in the language of the atheist writer compared to that of the theist writer?

What do I see in the language of many of the atheists on this forum?

Reason, reliance on evidence and courage to say 'I don't know, yet'.


What do I see in the language of many of the theists on this forum, including you?

A strong desire to believe in the God you were raised to believe in, ignorance of what atheists believe and don't believe and why, ignorance of science and an irrational phobia of not knowing something.


As I have posted on another thread, it would be just as easy to explain the universe and our existence as follows:

I can't think of a better explanation for the origin of the universe than a causal loop caused by a time-traveller who went back in time to create the universe and then forward in time to tell himself that he is destined to create the causal loop. Therefore, the time-traveller must exist. He's called Zortron and he loves us.

Such a creator would still not be a god since it is not supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient nor omnibenevolent and such a creator would eliminate the problem of infinite regress.

Do I believe in such a creator? Of course not. It would be ridiculous to do so, since there is no evidence that he exists. How is believing in Zortron (who is not a god) any different to believing in 'God, the creator of everything'.

 

[Mojo]

Also the term "Big Band" was coined by..............

Paul Whiteman? Fletcher Henderson?

Pixie of key?

 

[godless dave]

Yrreg, how many guitars do I have in my basement?