Sacredness and holiness, those reasons to worship...yet another common characteristic of gods, but not of the universe or spinoza's "god".

(June 23, 2017 at 10:42 am)nosferatu323 Wrote: The existence of the god that I believe in is a tautology. It cannot be false, hence does not need any positive evidence of its own.

Then we are perfectly valid in dismissing it without evidence.

Game over - thanks for playing.

Quote:That's not something to take pride it. That's a reason for us to reject your assertion.

I don't know how you can say something like "I don't need any evidence" and expect to be taken seriously.

Do you need evidence to know that white is white, black is black and 1 is 1?

Quote:If you count the hits and ignore the misses, sure.  

This is not the case. I just provided the comment of scholars stating that Spinoza's ideas are exactly the same to the extent that one can assume he had borrowed his concepts directly from Hindus. 

Quote:Judaim and islam, and all of their sects, are monotheistic religions..not pantheistic religions.  It seems as if you're trying to liken the two above (or some sect of the above) to pantheism, or to spinozas "god" - but I have to be reading that wrong.........

Monotheism and pantheism are not mutually exclusive. Monotheism asserts "God is one" Pantheism asserts "All is God" these two assertions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Sufism is a branch if Islam and is Pantheistic AND Monotheistic. But I suggest not bringing Sufism up here. Spinozism and Vedanta are enough for our argument.

Quote:That they have been placed in the same category does not imply or demonstrate that they were accurately or correctly placed in that category.  The biblical writers, for example...thought that whales were either fish...or dragons. No one, in case you misunderstand, is arguing that no one has ever believed this nonsense.....Nos.

If a person uses a term or terms ambiguosly and variably throughought an argument, particularly so in the case of those two terms being categorically distinguishable..one has commited the fallacy of equivocation even if one -has- accurately communicated their actual beliefs. Believing in something, or that someone, somewhere, somewhen -has- believed in something, does nothing to establish that beliefs accuracy or falsifiability. You, for example...have been presenting many beliefs you have about pantheism, atheists, proper use of logic, the nature of words...etc; none of which are unfalsifiable simply for your having believed in them, most of which seem almost entirely innaccurate.

Unfortunately we are reasserting our positions. I think this means we are in a dead-end. We just keep repeating the same thing again and again. And I don't have any answers but to repeat what I said, this is as far as I can go with language and logic to communicate in the present moment:
The statement that "god and the universe cannot fall into the same category" is merely a subjective opinion.
god has been identified as the universe throughout the human history by: 
1. millions of people - mostly in the east (Including Hindus, Sufi Muslims, etc.) 
2. Prominent western philosophers (from ancient greek to modern times) 
4. Prominent easter philosophers (I'm relatively well-versed in eastern philosophy and I can say with a degree of confidence that MOST eastern philosophers who have talked about god have identified it with the universe in a way or another)
3. Prominent mystics
and  also
4. God of the pantheist is referred to as "God" in dictionaries and encyclopedias.
These are more than enough to consider "god as the universe itself" as a valid definition.
If millions of people start using the term dragon to refer to a whale and various writers and scholars also refer to whales by the term dragons, a new definition of the word dragon will be added to dictionaries and encyclopedias and the collective knowledge will adjust itself to that new definition over time and anyone who refers to whales as dragons will have a valid and acceptable position.

Quote:Sacredness and holiness, those reasons to worship...yet another common characteristic of gods, but not of the universe or spinoza's "god".

There have been times when I've had experienced the universe as being extremely divine and holy I believe there are many human beings that experience universe with these qualities in various occasions. I worship the universe which means I deeply and genuinely admire it more than anything else including myself etc. I also see no problem in expressing my admiration in the form of religious rituals. In fact I sometimes participate in various religious rituals and I find them very effective in helping me "be connected" with my deity. I do not worship my deity out of fear or for reward or whatever. But worship does not need to be for such reasons. It can be out of mere admiration.

Quote:Then we are perfectly valid in dismissing it without evidence.

Game over - thanks for playing.

I think you got me wrong. I do not have any intention that you should believe in my god. I'm just trying to logically infer that there are certain gods which's existence cannot be negated. I mostly focused on "God as the universe itself" but there are many more definitions which have the same property. Let's not make it about my personal belief that somehow diverts us from the main point of this topic. It's perfectly fine if you dismiss it. I can dismiss white is white. I can dismiss 1=1. There is no problem in merely dismissing it. We are free human beings.

This has swiftly gone from an ostensibly-honest question straight down the rabbit hole of ultra-woo eastern-inspired mumbo jumbo.

Just because people have believed things for a long time does not make them true for factual. So those millions of people and philosophers you identify were incorrect as far as I'm concerned. They believed in something that, for me, no longer has any merit.

You might need the fantasy to feel good about your existence. I don't need magical mystical supernatural in the universe. 

You have not convinced me in any way that your belief is anything but the product of mans mind, as any god(s) have always been.

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

Quote:If you count the hits and ignore the misses, sure.  

This is not the case. I just provided the comment of scholars stating that Spinoza's ideas are exactly the same to the extent that one can assume he had borrowed his concepts directly from Hindus. 

Look, I'm not going to waste any time arguing with you over there being differences between hinduism and what is taken to be spinozan pantheism, had there been no differences, we'd call spinoza a hindu...and we know that he wasn't.  Many religions share many things..and most religions share at least some things with non-religion.  The same is true of gods, of concepts of the divine.

Quote:Monotheism and pantheism are not mutually exclusive. Monotheism asserts "God is one" Pantheism asserts "All is God" these two assertions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Sufism is a branch if Islam and is Pantheistic AND Monotheistic. But I suggest not bringing Sufism up here. Spinozism and Vedanta are enough for our argument.

Again, counting hits and ignoring misses.  If you wish to contend that in either judeo-christian or hindu beleif sets there are elements of pantheism (and vv)..fine...but to describe them as therefore, pantheistic is..I think, an imprecise use of precise language.  The judeo-christian belief set is monotheistic, and the hindu belief set is pan-en-theistic.  

Quote:Unfortunately we are reasserting our positions. I think this means we are in a dead-end. We just keep repeating the same thing again and again. And I don't have any answers but to repeat what I said, this is as far as I can go with language and logic to communicate in the present moment:
The statement that "god and the universe cannot fall into the same category" is merely a subjective opinion.
god has been identified as the universe throughout the human history by: 

Oh good god, now we're on to subjective opinions?  Okay, so what, I supported and explained my subjective opinion...and I expect that you would be able to support and exoplain your subjective opinion in a similar wayu.  -We- are not merely reasserting our positions...I am responding to your continued reassertian in the face of my elaboration and arguments.

Quote:1. millions of people - mostly in the east (Including Hindus, Sufi Muslims, etc.) 
2. Prominent western philosophers (from ancient greek to modern times) 
4. Prominent easter philosophers (I'm relatively well-versed in eastern philosophy and I can say with a degree of confidence that MOST eastern philosophers who have talked about god have identified it with the universe in a way or another)
3. Prominent mystics

all of the above is an appeal to the mob,  to authority, and to tradition.  Each one it;s own logical misstep.  No one disputes that there were such mobs, such alleged authorities, and such traditions.  Their existence does not establish their accuracy.  

Quote:and  also
4. God of the pantheist is referred to as "God" in dictionaries and encyclopedias.

-and we've seen many ways, just in thread, that the pantheist god is not like the others in the set of gods.  That it has been placed in the category, does not demonstrate that it;s placement was accurate.  

Quote:These are more than enough to consider "god as the universe itself" as a valid definition.

I already agreed that there was nothing preventing anyone from considering whatever they want to be a god.  But appeals to popularity, and authority, and tradition..in the face of contradictory populations, authorities, and traditions..and in as much as you have formed your [position almost entirely out of logical fallacies precludes any possibility that your position as stated can be valid, let alone a valid definition.  

Quote:If millions of people start using the term dragon to refer to a whale and various writers and scholars also refer to whales by the term dragons, a new definition of the word dragon will be added to dictionaries and encyclopedias and the collective knowledge will adjust itself to that new definition over time and anyone who refers to whales as dragons will have a valid and acceptable position.

Because language in common use is not constrained by the same rules that logic is constrained by.  We cannot establish the accuracy of some position by reference to how many people believe it, or that people believe it at all, logically.

If millions of people started referring to whales by the term dragon, millions of people would be grade A idiots not engaging in logical discourse, only creative euphimism. If one person..yourself specifically, then refers to their euphimisms as proof of it;s own accuracy, one has gone beyind being a grade a idiot.....and into the realm oif intentional obfuscation.  You are not trying to engage in the discussion..you are trying to avoid it.  You are not establishing -why- anyone should accept the euphimism or it's accuracy.  

Quote:There have been times when I've had experienced the universe as being extremely divine and holy I believe there are many human beings that experience universe with these qualities in various occasions. I worship the universe which means I deeply and genuinely admire it more than anything else including myself etc. I also see no problem in expressing my admiration in the form of religious rituals. In fact I sometimes participate in various religious rituals and I find them very effective in helping me "be connected" with my deity. I do not worship my deity out of fear or for reward or whatever. But worship does not need to be for such reasons. It can be out of mere admiration.

-and there we have it.  Your god is -not- just "the universe".....it;s the universe -plus- your fee-fees in contemplating it.  I see nothing divine or sacred in the universe.  I only see the universe.  We aren't even having the same discussion..and you don't even seem to understand your own beliefs that well.

The spinozan universe, btw, "god" if you insist, does not contain us as free beings.  It's explicitly deterministic.  Predictably, we find our woo...ofc what you meant was "my woo is not woo, my magic is not magic"....just as you meant "god is my god"..not "the universe is my god".  You have given it attributes from that other category of gods..the one which you maintain you do not believe in.

Quote:You are not trying to engage in the discussion..you are trying to avoid it. 

As I mentioned in my previous post, this is as far as the capabilities of my mind in the use of language and logic allows me to communicate and I genuinely feel there is a language barrier that prevents us to reach further than this on this topic. I'm sorry if you are frustrated or feel that I'm evading or whatever. This was not my intention at any point during the discussion. Thanks for sharing your insights. I consider our argument a constructive one, at least for myself. Despite the fact that arguments between a theist and atheist usually end-up being destructive. I have no more arguments to add to what I've already said. 

I appreciate everyone's answer so far.

(June 23, 2017 at 12:59 pm)nosferatu323 Wrote:

Quote:You are not trying to engage in the discussion..you are trying to avoid it. 

As I mentioned in my previous post, this is as far as the capabilities of my mind in the use of language and logic allows me to communicate and I genuinely feel there is a language barrier that prevents us to reach further than this on this topic. I'm sorry if you are frustrated or feel that I'm evading or whatever. This was not my intention at any point during the discussion. Thanks for sharing your insights. I consider our argument a constructive one, at least for myself. Despite the fact that arguments between a theist and atheist usually end-up being destructive. I have no more arguments to add to what I've already said. 

I appreciate everyone's answer so far.

There's no language -barrier-..other people have managed to communicate these disparate ideas about gods to me.  I can accurately identify, for example..pantheism when it's expressed.  You simply refuse to agree to precise terms and so we can never get past the assertion.

I can even deduce pantheism when it's -poorly- expressed.  I knew, for example, that your god wasn't just "the universe" long before you ever got around to acknowledging that to either me, or, yourself..at least in this thread.

I'm glad you found it constructive. I intended for it to be, though I'm routinely acerbic in how I express myself. I actually enjoy the subject of gods, it's why I came here. Imagine me with a smile on my face and a beer in my hands no matter what it is I say, it'll go a long way. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to talk about gods, and to express my uncommon position (among atheists) that no gods exist.

(June 23, 2017 at 10:42 am)nosferatu323 Wrote:

Quote:Show us actual scientific proof that the god YOU believe in exists and then we will have something tangible to talk about

The existence of the god that I believe in is a tautology. It cannot be false, hence does not need any positive evidence of its own.

Your word salad is exhausting. And your strawmanning and shifting of the goalposts in order to suit your own agenda just ended this discussion.

/thread

(June 23, 2017 at 10:42 am)nosferatu323 Wrote: The existence of the god that I believe in is a tautology. It cannot be false, hence does not need any positive evidence of its own.

If it cannot be false, it can't be true either.  It's a disembodied concept floating in null space with no referent in the real world, and therefore IMO not a particularly good topic for discussion.

Quote:

Quote:I wonder if there will ever be a theist visiting us, opening with 'I want to know what you think', who will ever actually ask us what we think without telling us what we think?

I'm sorry that you don't like the way it went.

Typical not-pology.

I have gleaned one useful concept from parsing this thread, however, and will be starting a discussion on it shortly -- the link between worship and emotion.  Stay tuned.