It would probably be useful, at this juncture, to point out that you have not accurately represented pantheism Nos.  Pantheism does not hinge upon the assertion that the universe is god, left hanging and unsupported out there in the wind.  The case cannot be made by mere assertion, no case can.

It explicitly seeks to establish that the universe possesses those characteristics, or enough of them, attributed to those other, totally woo, "actual" gods.  In this way, the universe is said to be like them in order to be justifiably placed within the set (and in so doing avoids equivocation - things shown to be equivalent are not things to which the fallacy of equivocation applies)...but in doing so, it's no longer "just the universe"..it's a universe, with the attributes of a god. Which, yet again, is something that I don't believe in.

Quote:We find out that people think that the term means many different things, but that those things share some commonalities which justify their inclusion in the set of x.  We also find, that some people, include things in the set of x that are not like the others.  Things like...the universe.

I think our latest conversation shed some light on where exactly our disagreement lies, so I make another attempt to resolve it.
Here you are ambiguous. You must be more clear. What exactly are those commonalities? assume we have 10 different sets each sets corresponds to a definition of god. S1, S2, S2,..., S10, let's assume the universe is S1. You are claiming that S1 has very little in common with the intersection of the other 9 sets. You need to justify it. My common sense tells me that your claim is not true. Actually I think Zeus has much much less in common with the God of major religions than the universe. This is just my assumption though. This claim cannot be easily justified.

What I want to highlight is that your feeling that the universe have very little in common with other definitions of god might be a subjective opinion and you have not supported your argument by actual evidences.

In fact I find the universe to have many of the features that other gods have: It's basically our creator, she created us through evolution. The moral laws that we have invented are also rooted in evolution and ultimately rooted in the laws of the universe. So basically the universe has given us our morality. The universe is our sustainer it's gives us food and energy to continue living, we will return to the universe after we die, the universe is constantly watching us through ourselves, the fact that I'm aware of myself can also mean the universe is aware of me, because I'm part of the universe, not separate  etc.

The only thing that might be (just a guess) a big deal for you is the matter of consciousness  maybe (just maybe) you have this assumption in the back of your mind that a god must have consciousness  the way we do and be a person like us. But why is that?! in fact there are very few religions that have these assumptions, among them is Christianity.

Quote:Bold mine. This is why it is meaningless. Instead of just calling something "god" and expecting that to make it more special somehow, it's far more meaningful to tell me what it is (not just what you call it) and why you believe it. Even if it is something that I believe exists (like the universe), I might just have a more accurate word for it that actually gives it individual value (like universe). We already have a word for these things.

No it's not meaningless. Please read the paragraph in italic above. You see when you refer to universe as god it's not just a choosing of words and as absurd as you assume it to be. It can give you different perspectives which are not necessarily unscientific. For a pantheist both the universe and god are useful words. (s)he uses universe when (s)he is referring to it from a specific perspective and (s)he uses god when (s)he is referring to the same thing but from another perspective.

As an analogy, when I call my wife Honey I'm seeing her from a certain perspective when I call my wife Jennifer I'm referring to the same thing but from a different perspective.

As an another analogy, when a physicist refers to light as particles it's looking at it from a certain perspective, when he refers to light as wave he is referring to the same thing but from a different perspective. 

Quote:There's that strawman argument again. Stop that. I am not just pulling god from one culture. I am not pulling any definition of any god from anywhere. You tell me what you believe and I will give you my feedback on it no matter what it is.

I never meant to use Strawman argument. I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, so maybe that's why I'm repeating it. You can explain more clearly what you mean next time if you care. I'd be glad to learn a thing or two about logic here!

Quote:I may have missed this because I'm not going to bother reading through every page here, but please describe the god that you do believe in. I don't care about the god(s) that you don't believe in.

The above arguments and descriptions might be my best attempt to try to describes it. But the way those words portray it is really farm from how I perceive it. The best way to perceive the god that I believe in is to see him/her in silence. I might be able to help a friend who has some trust in me to see the god that I believe. But I can not go much further describing god than it is on this post. Which I admit is not much at all. BTW, I assume this is off-topic. You know the rules here better than me. If you think it doesn't fit the rules here and you are interested in further discussion, let's discuss this in a different thread or through privet messaging.

Quote:In all honesty, even the off the shelf religions have got so much filler in them to make them palatable with the modern world, that every person who tries it also describes a different unique taste as you do... As we are emotional (we don't like using "spiritual" here, (more meaningless woo)) creatures, A belief in god should always be a customised god for those that need one.

The way I have understood religions is that most of the major religions are talking about the same god in which I believe. The need for belief in transcendental and woo stuff is to help you let go of some of your prejudices in your mind which greatly helps you through the path of the specific religion. Of course believing in woo things can have negative effects also and not always lead the individual in the path designed by the creator(s) of the religion. This is my subjective understanding and derived from my personal experience and I do not insist on any part of it to be true.

Quote:It would probably be useful, at this juncture, to point out that you have not accurately represented pantheism Nos.  Pantheism does not hinge upon the assertion that the universe is god, left hanging and unsupported out there in the wind.  The case cannot be made by mere assertion, no case can.

You are right. I was not accurate. Pantheism itself is a broad term and refers to various beliefs. The pantheism of Spinoza matches my argument. Also various traditions of Hinduism which believe in a non-personal gods are compatible examples. Yes there are some examples of pantheistic beliefs that attache woo characteristics to the universe, but there are also beliefs that don't do that.

Quote:Spinoza was considered to be an atheist because he used the word "God" [Deus] to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional Judeo–Christian monotheism. "Spinoza expressly denies personality and consciousness to God; he has neither intelligence, feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose, but everything follows necessarily from his nature, according to law...." Thus, Spinoza's cool, indifferent God differs from the concept of an anthropomorphic, fatherly God who cares about humanity.

(June 22, 2017 at 5:03 pm)nosferatu323 Wrote: Hello everyone,

I'm trying to understand the Atheist's point of view and I came across a question, I'd be grateful if you guys help me figure it out.

As you know there are many different gods in various cultures and religions which are significantly varied. The term "God" does not refer to a specific entity. So when you guys say "I don't believe in God" which god(s) are you referring to?

All of them, and every future definition too.

(June 22, 2017 at 5:03 pm)nosferatu323 Wrote:  What is the definition of that god which does not exist? There are certain gods that clearly do exist . Like the Pantheist's god which is the universe itself, so I assume you are referring to a "certain group of gods" I'd like to know what defines that certain group?  

Thanks for reading and sorry for any mistakes or inaccuracies in my use of the English language. 

Cheers.

That isn't a god and the word, for such a "pantheist god", loses its meaning.

(June 22, 2017 at 5:03 pm)nosferatu323 Wrote: Hello everyone,

I'm trying to understand the Atheist's point of view and I came across a question, I'd be grateful if you guys help me figure it out.

As you know there are many different gods in various cultures and religions which are significantly varied. The term "God" does not refer to a specific entity. So when you guys say "I don't believe in God" which god(s) are you referring to? What is the definition of that god which does not exist? There are certain gods that clearly do exist . Like the Pantheist's god which is the universe itself, so I assume you are referring to a "certain group of gods" I'd like to know what defines that certain group?  

Thanks for reading and sorry for any mistakes or inaccuracies in my use of the English language. 

Cheers.

I don't believe in any god ever imagined by human conception, some (like yhwh) which clearly cannot exist and the rest because there has never been shown one single scintilla (I love that word) of evidence for their existence.

Nice word.
Being Greek, I like Iota myself!

(June 23, 2017 at 12:08 am)nosferatu323 Wrote:

Quote:Wait. You acknowledge that there are people who do not believe that the universe is god and you seem fine with it. Why then are you insisting that we accept the same thing? Do you call the universe god?

I think you got me wrong. I'm just saying that there are some definitions of god which's existence cannot be negated like these:
- God is being
- God is consciousness 
- God is the existence itself
- God is the universe itself

You asserting that X is true does not make X true. You making unfalsifable statements does not make god real.

Quote:I don't think that's true. When I say "X does not exist" I must define X, otherwise my sentence does not have any meaning.

Evidence is not required to negate a claim unless that claim is backed by evidence. Your claims are not backed by any evidence, therefore we don't need evidence to dismiss them.

(June 23, 2017 at 6:50 am)ignoramus Wrote: Nice word.
Being Greek, I like Iota myself!

Why, iota..!

(June 22, 2017 at 9:17 pm)nosferatu323 Wrote: [edit]

Quote:Welcome.

For me no gods exist, never have, except in fantasy. In fantasy anyone can make the most ludicrous things exist. 

Thank you :-) As I explained in my initial post, there are gods that clearly do exist. Like this definition of god: God is the existence itself. So the assertion that "existence does not exist" is clearly non-sensical. So you must be more definite. "I don't believe in any gods" doesn't seem to work.

[edit]

bold mine
That is still a man made fantasy belief. Why does existence need a god or divinity? The only reason that it does not work for you is that, for what ever reason, you need the fantasy to be comfortable with your existence.

---

(June 23, 2017 at 12:41 am)Khemikal Wrote: To be fair, atheists can and do believe in all sorts of woo.  Crystal therapy, woo...but not a god, so..kosher.

The crystal therapy I believe in is Crystal Light, and maybe their dancers. This is NOT woo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeMJOPlK-0E

(June 23, 2017 at 3:15 am)nosferatu323 Wrote:

(June 23, 2017 at 3:03 am)ignoramus Wrote: Holy shit! Now you're just being sneaky! lol

Not really, I was being honest. The god that I believe in is not magical, transcendental, etc. and I find not believing in any woo, as you put it, a good trait. My personal faith requires seeing the world and my self in a different way which differs from many people. But it does not require me to believe in things that are beyond, transcendental, magical, etc. Just like how a scientist might start seeing himself and the world as bags of particles and atoms which might be different to how people usually see themselves and their world.

bold mine

Exactly.. that's the god that YOU believe in. Show us actual scientific proof that the god YOU believe in exists and then we will have something tangible to talk about. Otherwise, you are just sharing your opinion on your belief of a deity. 

The cool thing about science is that it is true whether or not you believe it.

nosferatu323 Wrote:Hello everyone,

I'm trying to understand the Atheist's point of view and I came across a question, I'd be grateful if you guys help me figure it out.

As you know there are many different gods in various cultures and religions which are significantly varied. The term "God" does not refer to a specific entity. So when you guys say "I don't believe in God" which god(s) are you referring to? What is the definition of that god which does not exist? There are certain gods that clearly do exist . Like the Pantheist's god which is the universe itself, so I assume you are referring to a "certain group of gods" I'd like to know what defines that certain group?  

Thanks for reading and sorry for any mistakes or inaccuracies in my use of the English language. 

Cheers.

Every god I've heard proposed so far, and every god I haven't heard of (why would I believe in a god I haven't heard of?). I don't believe calling a cat, or the universe, a god makes it one, though the cat has a better case going for it, at least it's a conscious being.

---

nosferatu323 Wrote:I appreciate your answers. 

Quote:All of them.

Right, so, not a god..just "the universe". 

Do you like chocolate?  If I told you that liking chocolate was being an atheist...-that's just what I meant by the terms..would you then agree that you were also an atheist?  
Welcome aboard. You talk good and everything.

Thank you. 

You asserted that you lack the belief in "all gods". I just presented you the Pantheist's god which is the universe itself. For pantheist, god is another term to refer to the universe. You are claiming that universe cannot be god and these two cannot be unified. I assume this is your subjective opinion. This is a fact that the universe is considered as god in various beliefs.

It is a fact that Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, is considered a god by some. Why should it follow that I agree Prince Philip was/is actually a god?

nosferatu323 Wrote:As for your analogy, I suppose this is a false analogy. Unlike god, Atheism has a very clear definition and nobody would accept your definition " liking chocolate was being an atheist". But "god is the universe" is a valid definition of god, it might be different from the version of god that you have known, but that doesn't mean it's an unacceptable definition.

You not liking an analogy doesn't make it false. Analogies don't have to be perfect to work. If I came up with a better analogy for you being considered an atheist, would you agree that you are an atheist?

nosferatu323 Wrote:When you state "I do not believe in any gods" you are implying that you are aware of all gods and you deny their existence. But I just presented the pantheist's god which's existence cannot be negated. 

He didn't state that he denied their existence. You stuck that in, dishonestly in my opinion. What god that you haven't heard of do YOU believe in?

---

nosferatu323 Wrote:"God is the universe itself" is a definition of god. I'm giving you the definition you do not need any other definitions of god, just consider god is another word to refer to the universe, so I assume you do believe in this god. What I'm asking from you is the definition of those gods in which you do not believe.

I don't consider god as another word to refer to the universe so I don't believe in this 'god', I don't believe the universe is a god. If I define atheism as not believing in the supernatural and you don't believe in the supernatural, that makes you an atheist, right? Because that's what you're trying to do with us: you're trying to get us to say we believe in some god or other, because then, by definition, we would be theists. That's a pretty shitty tack to take, if you ask me.

nosferatu323 Wrote:As an atheist (I assume you are an atheist since you answered my question) you are asserting that "I don't believe in god(s)". The burden is upon you to provide the definition for god, not anyone else. Otherwise you are denying the existence of something which you cannot define which is non-sensical.

You keep saying 'denying' when we say 'not believing'. Do you believe in Bigzypop? If so, I'd really like you to explain how you manage that.

nosferatu323 Wrote:Thank you. That's what I'm asking. What are those things that an Atheist denies their existence?

'Does not believe in the existence of' is not synonymous with 'denies the existence of'.

---

Jesster Wrote:I can call my left shoe a god, but that doesn't make it any more special than it was before. The same applies to the universe. What does calling it a god do for it?

It's just a way some theists or deists try to define natural things into deities, so they can say deities are real. Like naming your Ottoman Bugs Bunny so you can say Bugs Bunny is real. It's a form of exhibitionistic mental masturbation.