Which version of god is closest to the real thing?

As stated, no belief in this "god" you reference needs no definition. It is like believing in nothing.

The rest of your post just runs on assumptions that you have made and nonsensical notions you have "faith" in, for whatever reason. You have questions that have no answer, so you resort to the old "god did it" thought patterns which have been proven erroneous by scientific advances.

 

Why does the ability to be credulous about religious ideas somehow give one a monopoly on all matters of faith?

When faith is equal to credulity then I don't see much value in it.

I do see value in warranted belief. Warranted belief is a matter of having valid reasons to consider that one thing is more likely than another.

It is very probable that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have no specific evidence that it will but since the planet has completed its rotations in the past it is is reasonable to plan out today with the assumption that it probably will. That is a warranted belief, not faith.

As a philosopher I avoid making definitive statements like "there is no God". I do have enough information to form the opinion that "it is unlikely that there is a god." That is a warranted belief but since it's a statement about a non-falsifiable premise I tend not to consider it a belief.

Faith, to me, is more about human behaviour. I have faith that my wife is there for me. I have faith that my employer will deal honourably with me. When my tenant has a history of being late with his rent I lack faith in his ability to pay. I think it only becomes entangled into discussions about the nature of reality because some people have a tendency to personify things like "god".

 

All deities are man made with human failings and frailties.

Without those shortcomings it would be impossible to relate to a deity at all. Even the fallacious concept of a "loving god" or one that "makes sacrifices" are just human shortcomings projected onto the deity in question.

If an omnipotent and omniscient deity did exist it would have no interest at all in being worshipped and never bother to respond to prayers or entreaties to intervene in the affairs of humanity.

This deity would have no morality nor would it dictate "laws" on how people should live or what they should eat and/or wear or what they should be doing on certain days or at certain times of the day.

 

Dear @Arjay51
since your definition refers to and uses the word "god" you would have to define it to be fair.
Do you mean "personified god"?

If you don't define "god" this could mean
"Atheists don't belief in any source of life"
"Atheists don't belief in universal truth"
"Atheists don't believe in an abstract collective or absolute"

What do you mean by the "god" you say Atheists don't believe in?
Can you spell that out in secular terms to explain what it is that Atheists don't believe in?

"Atheists don't believe in a personified omniscient creator"

How would you spell out this "god" in secular terms?

 

My, you really are dense. I use the word "god" so that you have a reference point to know what does not exist.

Once again, I do not define "god", that is what you are doing and doing a pretty poor job of it.

You keep insisting that any terms you supply must be correct and irrefutable. They are not. They are made up assumptions that you comfort yourself with, being afraid to face reality.

You continue to try to play the "gotcha" game and continue to fail completely. You demand definitions after being told that there are none. Hence the dense comment.

But keep trying, if it makes your precious self feel better. It won't come true, but your belief harms only yourself.

 

Why do the weak minded fools continue, no matter how many times it is explained to them, to the atheist there is NO god yet it continues to be insisted that atheists do have a god. Complete cognitive dissonance.

 

Or perhaps if one actually believes that ones brain is god ANY belief can be construed as a manifestation of that gods existence.

Too nuanced perhaps?

 

Atheists simply do not believe in any of the "Gods" of men and Agnostics do the same but leave open the possibility that something else exists.

Regardless...neither believe in YOUR God.

 

A theist is the same but believes one less is fake.

 

Only if one believes in lies.

Is that too nuanced for you?

 

As God is a theological intangible it is not possible to assess the above objectively other than to say it is all a matter of belief, faith or a lack thereof.

 

A baseless claim just as those who claim that God does exist. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence as opposed to proof of nonexistence.

 

You missed my point entirely. Definitely too nuanced.

 

No, I got your point, stupid as it was.

 

YourBrainIsGod claims god actually resides in the grey matter between a person's ears.

If that is so God simply represents an abstraction of an individuals perception of his existence.

If that is so then EVERY abstraction of an individual's preception of his existence can be considered "god" regardless of the form that specific abstraction may be.

IOW, we all have the same questions, but each individual creates a very personal set of answers to those questions. My contention is that all of those answers be they some form of "god exists" or "no god exists" ALL attempt the same intellectual and emotional resolution of one's existence.

Unfortunately as history has proven, faith in specific answers leads to self righteous exclusionary attitudes towards others of different mind.


PS. I shall defer to your superior knowledge of stupid.

 

Speaking of stupid, you imply that I claimed 'YourBrainisGod".

Care to supply an actual quote, or to admit that you continue to lie?

You continue to make up claims as to situations that have no basis in fact. Just because you say something doe not make it true.

In the same vein, your "contentions" are merely that, yours. Again, does not make them true, makes them even an effort to distort the truth. But you know that. It is why you continue with your drivel.

Pointing out your level of stupid reinforces my knowledge of stupid as exposed in you.

 

Well speaking of stupid, I believe I was refering to the poster YOU were responding to. His alias is "YourBrainIsGod".

As to my contention - I violently agree its merely mine and equally merely a logical progression from the starting point "your brain is god" assuming the poster's alias was in fact an accurate statement of his/her beliefs.

reinforced to the point of entrenchment it seems.

 

Then why did you quote it as attributed to me? Stupid and slanderous. Your typical procedure.

As for your alleged "logic", you seem to be lacking in that also. Perhaps go to school and take a course in logic would be a good thing for you.

The only "reinforced" point is that you understand nothing but claim to know all.

 

If three eye witnesses give three slightly different descriptions of a person or event, than by your reasoning, what they witnessed doesn't exist.

 

I didn't attribute any quote to you.

I specifically referenced "YourBrainIsGod" but it seems you didn't make the connection. As for slander, what are you like 12 or something?


As to my logic I can understand you not getting the notion that if god is a mental construct then ANY personal philosophy is ALSO an mental construct designed to "get us thru our day and our lives".

Perhaps you shouldn't kneejerk your reply, if any.

 

Dear @Arjay51
if it's your definition of Atheist, then you specify what you mean by the word "god" that Atheists don't believe in.

I would say Atheists believe there is no PERSONIFIED god but that is MY defintion, not yours.

If you cannot even define what you mean by the word "god" then how can you base your definition of Atheist on an undefined term?

I could say Atheists don't believe in worshipping a "Personified Deity,"
or believe in a "source of life or creation."

@Arjay51 I'm not trying to be stupid, dense or adverse.
Just trying to pinpoint where you and I might agree.

Would you agree to equate "god" with "personified deity"
is that close enough to what you mean?

Thanks and no offense or denseness intended!
I really do try to understand each person I meet, including online. So I am serious when I ask what you mean!

Thank you,
Emily

 

Dear @Arjay51 I would also say that as long as you can define god, then if God refers to something infinite, then the description of god can only be a subset or representation but not the entire nature or whole of God that is beyond human capacity.

See, I would AGREE with you that the definition of god is problematic, but not that this negates the existence or nature of God as independent.

the most we can do is pinpoint WHICH aspects of God we do or do not believe in. That's why i was asking you to be specific about which ones you refer to with the term god.

 

Dear @Dirty Rotten Imbecile: All we may be able to prove is that people enjoy better health by focusing on the present and keeping a positive attitude rather than holding on to stress or resentment from the past that circulates negative energy and chemicals through the brain and body.

So regardless what we believe about the future, it is the quality of our attitudes that correlates with better quality of life and health, as studies tend to show.

Faith and forgiveness tend to correlate with the better health statistics. I even have atheist friends who forgive and focus on the present and making the most of current resources, including time and relationships, in order to maximize health and happiness. All religions I have studied seem to point toward spiritual harmony, and this unity of the human family as one is my understanding of what it means to join in agreement in Christ or by conscience and receive the Holy Spirit or spiritual peace.

Whether we are secular gentile/nontheist following natural laws, or religious believers following scriptural laws, the "language" we may use for these concepts may differ, but the meaning and message is the same. There is only one universal message or messiah for all humanity -- So that message of "Justice and Peace for All" is what I understand it means for all humanity to receive "Christ Jesus" and be rejoined with God laws for heavenly peace.

 

Yet there are no eye witnesses to god. Makes your point worthless.

 

Perhaps you shouldn't post nonsense as is your habit.