British Theism And Atheism

[Owlswing]

Note to the reader: they have no argument. At all.

Oh yes, they do Sunshine!

Read back over the thread "Searching for God" and you will find that just about every facet has been well and truly debunked!

Except, of course, for the terminally Biblically brainwashed.

Bright Blessings, Love and Light and May the Old Ones watch over you and yours always.

Owlswing

)O(

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Oh yes, they do Sunshine!

Read back over the thread "Searching for God" and you will find that just about every facet has been well and truly debunked!

Except, of course, for the terminally Biblically brainwashed.

Bright Blessings, Love and Light and May the Old Ones watch over you and yours always.

Owlswing

)O(

Hell hath no furry like a witch scorned, huh?

Biblically brainwashed . . . excellent!

The argument isn't Biblical.

[Owlswing]

Hell hath no furry like a witch scorned, huh?

Hmm - that would be the Black Moggy that rides on the handle of my broom, I suppose?

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Hmm - that would be the Black Moggy that rides on the handle of my broom, I suppose?

Traditionally. But you see, often tradition is only distorted reality. So, God isn't a magic man in the sky etc. 

[Owlswing]

Traditionally. But you see, often tradition is only distorted reality. So, God isn't a magic man in the sky etc.

I'm sorry to ask the question, but do you identify yourself as a Christian?

Because, if you do, your beliefs are the weirdest version of Christianity I have ever encountered.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

I'm sorry to ask the question, but do you identify yourself as a Christian?

Because, if you do, your beliefs are the weirdest version of Christianity I have ever encountered.

Well, thank you. I wouldn't identify myself as Christian because Christianity has become something other than what it was long ago.

I identify as a Bible believer. I reject traditional mainstream modern day Christianity. My beliefs are similar to, but not exactly the same as the Jehovah's Witnesses because they got rid of the rubbish. They created their own in time, so I'm not a JW. I wouldn't be a part of any organized . . . sorry . . . organised religion. Ever.

[torridon]

In other words you don't have any real argument. You see, the Bible says God created the heavens and earth. (Genesis 1:1) Let us create man in our image. (Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Proverbs 8:30; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16) So, you have people in 1513 BCE using the term God. But then you have that same god saying that those people shouldn't ambiguously, if you will, worship other gods; that is they shouldn't put other gods before him. Who are they? Was it a competition to see who was the real creator like that old American game show?

You're still not making any sense.  Atheists don't have an argument, here's the way it works : theists make claims, atheists dispute them.  It is for theists to make a robust case, one that stands up to scrutiny.  You are just dancing around with word games is all it seems.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

You're still not making any sense.  Atheists don't have an argument, here's the way it works : theists make claims, atheists dispute them.  It is for theists to make a robust case, one that stands up to scrutiny.  You are just dancing around with word games is all it seems.

Oh, okay, never mind then. It was a typo.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're still not making any sense.  Atheists don't have an argument, here's the way it works : theists make claims, atheists dispute them.  It is for theists to make a robust case, one that stands up to scrutiny.  You are just dancing around with word games is all it seems.

You seem to be saying that atheists have a burden of disputation here.
That certainly smacks of making it up as you go along. There is certainly really only one set of grounds on which one can have the burden of disputation. Careful now. It might be dangerous to the cause to find more than one.

[Gordon]

You seem to be saying that atheists have a burden of disputation here.
That certainly smacks of making it up as you go along. There is certainly really only one set of grounds on which one can have the burden of disputation. Careful now. It might be dangerous to the cause to find more than one.

'Burden of disputation': what does that actually mean, Vlad?

[torridon]

You seem to be saying that atheists have a burden of disputation here.
That certainly smacks of making it up as you go along. There is certainly really only one set of grounds on which one can have the burden of disputation. Careful now. It might be dangerous to the cause to find more than one.

No doubt that means something to you.

[ekim]

You're still not making any sense.  Atheists don't have an argument, here's the way it works : theists make claims, atheists dispute them.  It is for theists to make a robust case, one that stands up to scrutiny.  You are just dancing around with word games is all it seems.

I think he is dismissing both theism and atheism on the grounds that 'theo' god is a vague term used to cover a multitude of objects of worship.  Some are represented by a physical form and some are not.  I prefer the ignostic approach that if there is not a clear definition then discussion is pointless.  TS has suggested that Jehovah (JHVH) is his object of worship and so a starting point would be finding out what that name represents for him and take it from there.

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

In other words you don't have any real argument.

Yes he has. The argument is that some terms have multiple and epistemically very different meanings, and that you can’t just pretend otherwise.

You see, the Bible says God created the heavens and earth. (Genesis 1:1) Let us create man in our image. (Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Proverbs 8:30; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16) So, you have people in 1513 BCE using the term God.

And lots of other creation myths have their own but different narratives. That’s how their authors made sense of their worlds. So?

But then you have that same god saying that those people shouldn't ambiguously, if you will, worship other gods; that is they shouldn't put other gods before him. Who are they? Was it a competition to see who was the real creator like that old American game show?

“They” presumably were the gods of other tribal myths. Of course you’d want your god to be the only enchilada in town – it reinforces group solidarity.     

Note to the reader: they have no argument. At all.

That’s dishonest. Just ignoring the argument that undoes you doesn’t invalidate it. 

I identify as a Bible believer.

Just out of interest, why?

I reject traditional mainstream modern day Christianity. My beliefs are similar to, but not exactly the same as the Jehovah's Witnesses because they got rid of the rubbish. They created their own in time, so I'm not a JW. I wouldn't be a part of any organized . . . sorry . . . organised religion. Ever.

Fair enough. 

[Theoretical Skeptic]

I think he is dismissing both theism and atheism on the grounds that 'theo' god is a vague term used to cover a multitude of objects of worship.  Some are represented by a physical form and some are not.  I prefer the ignostic approach that if there is not a clear definition then discussion is pointless.  TS has suggested that Jehovah (JHVH) is his object of worship and so a starting point would be finding out what that name represents for him and take it from there.

The name means he causes to become.

He is Creator of life, the universe and everything. He is Sovereign Lord. He alone is capable of deciding what is good and what is bad. By capable I mean properly equipped.

God isn't a vague term, it specifically refers to anything that is venerated. It is, in a sense, not unlike love. Just because one loves pistachio ice cream doesn't mean that everyone else loves it too or that pistachio ice cream has some mystical or metaphysical quality because many people love it.

Just because one loves their wife doesn't mean that love has lost it's meaning because not everyone loves your wife the same as you do.

The word god isn't meaningless because it applies to things other than the Abrahamic god prevalent in Western culture, or other supernatural creator gods.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

Lots of mistakes here:

The name means he causes to become.

He is Creator of life, the universe and everything. He is Sovereign Lord. He alone is capable of deciding what is good and what is bad. By capable I mean properly equipped.

These are just unqualified assertion, not arguments.

God isn't a vague term,…

It is when you combine its various meanings into one all-encompassing one.

…it specifically refers to anything that is venerated.

One definition of it may do, others though don’t.

It is, in a sense, not unlike love.

Oh-oh…

Just because one loves pistachio ice cream doesn't mean that everyone else loves it too or that pistachio ice cream has some mystical or metaphysical quality because many people love it.

No, but one of the various meanings of the term “god” specifically does require “some mystical or metaphysical quality”. That’s your problem.

Just because one loves their wife doesn't mean that love has lost it's meaning because not everyone loves your wife the same as you do.

True but irrelevant. Love conceptually exists regardless of who feels it about whom. Again, you’re confusing the language used to describe something with the object itself. The relationship between language and reality is your problem here.   

The word god isn't meaningless because it applies to things other than the Abrahamic god prevalent in Western culture, or other supernatural creator gods.

No-one said it’s meaningless – it’s multiply meaningful in its various contexts. Where it becomes meaningless is when you attempt to smash those meanings together because the result is incoherent – there’s no way to know which of the various meanings is the one you’re trying to discuss.   

[Theoretical Skeptic]

TS,

Lots of mistakes here:

These are just unqualified assertion, not arguments.

Given that the "starting point would be finding out what that name represents for him and take it from there" you are then suggesting that you are more qualified than I for those assertions?

It is when you combine its various meanings into one all-encompassing one.

There aren't various meanings, there are only various applications all meaning the same thing. Mighty venerated. "He thinks he's a god." "He is a god to them." "The gods smiled upon me and my call was put through." "My God created the heavens and earth." "God created the heavens and earth." "There are many creator gods throughout history." "Buddha said no God exists, and if they did they wouldn't concern themselves with the workings of man" "Man has been given the earth by God." "The carving was a god to the primitive people." "God damnit!"   

They aren't all the same beings. Like man.   

One definition of it may do, others though don’t.

Your is limited to the Abrahamic or supernatural. 

No, but one of the various meanings of the term “god” specifically does require “some mystical or metaphysical quality”. That’s your problem.

Others don't. 

Love conceptually exists regardless of who feels it about whom. Again, you’re confusing the language used to describe something with the object itself. The relationship between language and reality is your problem here.

No it isn't. Ignorance of the language is your problem.     

No-one said it’s meaningless – it’s multiply meaningful in its various contexts. Where it becomes meaningless is when you attempt to smash those meanings together because the result is incoherent – there’s no way to know which of the various meanings is the one you’re trying to discuss.

Wrong, which I demonstrated above. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

Given that the "starting point would be finding out what that name represents for him and take it from there" you are then suggesting that you are more qualified than I for those assertions?

No, I’m explaining to you that unqualified assertions do not justifying arguments make. For all I know you’ve read the Bible forwards, backwards and sideways and memorised every word of it too. That though would take you not one one jot of a scrap of an iota toward finding out whether any of it was actually true. “A book is true because it says it’s true” isn’t a good look. Sorry.

There aren't various meanings, there are only various applications all meaning the same thing. Mighty venerated. "He thinks he's a god." "He is a god to them." "The gods smiled upon me and my call was put through." "My God created the heavens and earth." "God created the heavens and earth." "There are many creator gods throughout history." "Buddha said no God exists, and if they did they wouldn't concern themselves with the workings of man" "Man has been given the earth by God." "The carving was a god to the primitive people." "God damnit!"
They aren't all the same beings. Like man.

Clearly not. You think someone saying “Clapton is god” makes Clapton “the same being” as the (supposedly) non-material god of the Christian faith? You need to give your head a wobble.   

Your is limited to the Abrahamic or supernatural.

Again, no it isn’t. It’s only “limited” to the various, fundamentally different definitions and meanings of the term.

Others don't.

Yes, which is why – if someone wants to discuss their notion of “god – they need to establish which of the various meanings of that term they have in mind. 

No it isn't. Ignorance of the language is your problem.

An “ignorance” you have yet to demonstrate.     

Wrong, which I demonstrated above.

Not even close. You can’t falsify a problem by ignoring it.

By all means give it a go though.   

[splashscuba]

Nonsense. If that were it you would have only 1 post.

I keep having to repeat myself. It gets a little tiresome. Either you are wilfully ignoring it or ..... hmmm

[Theoretical Skeptic]

I keep having to repeat myself. It gets a little tiresome. Either you are wilfully ignoring it or ..... hmmm

Atheists are CONSTANTLY saying that their being atheist means ONLY that they don't believe in gods. How stupid and myopic. That's like saying being a theist means ONLY I believe in gods.

First of all, it involves more. Open your eyes.
Secondly, in a strictly literal sense it's obvious.

In other words of course the words atheist or theist imply strictly only one thing but that one thing involves and effects who knows how many things. Either it's pointless to be either atheist or theist and it effects no aspect of your life in any way or your just stupid and of course it effects many aspects of your life.   

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Clearly not. You think someone saying “Clapton is god” makes Clapton “the same being” as the (supposedly) non-material god of the Christian faith? You need to give your head a wobble.

How many times do I have to say this? 300 - 400 times? Anything or anyone can be a god. Being a god only means that one is considered mighty or venerated. That is what the words MEANS! The word means NOTHING ELSE! It is applied to ANYONE OR ANYTHING that qualifies simply by being MIGHTY or VENERATED according to the PERSON or PERSONS who's GOD IT IS!

Saying that an idol is a god doesn't mean there is any confusion about it being any other god. If you are Jewish or Christian or apparently residing in Western culture then you say God which means that to you or in context to your statement the god of the bible is the specific God to which you refer but that doesn't mean IN ANY WAY that that is the only GOD and any quality of any other God or god or goddess or deity is necessarily the same as any other.

Fucking hell it isn't that difficult to understand. It's the same thing as lord, or man, or king.   

You people act like you're mentally retarded.

If someone from one place says King, their King or a king, that is the same as saying God, their God, a god. Except for a God instead of a King.

GET IT?

[Gordon]

How many times do I have to say this? 300 - 400 times? Anything or anyone can be a god. Being a god only means that one is considered mighty or venerated. That is what the words MEANS! The word means NOTHING ELSE! It is applied to ANYONE OR ANYTHING that qualifies simply by being MIGHTY or VENERATED according to the PERSON or PERSONS who's GOD IT IS!

Saying that an idol is a god doesn't mean there is any confusion about it being any other god. If you are Jewish or Christian or apparently residing in Western culture then you say God which means that to you or in context to your statement the god of the bible is the specific God to which you refer but that doesn't mean IN ANY WAY that that is the only GOD and any quality of any other God or god or goddess or deity is necessarily the same as any other.

Fucking hell it isn't that difficult to understand. It's the same thing as lord, or man, or king.   

You people act like you're mentally retarded.

If someone from one place says King, their King or a king, that is the same as saying God, their God, a god. Except for a God instead of a King.

GET IT?

You seem to be hung up on what a word means, definitionally, as opposed to how it is generally used: most people, here in Scotland anyway, would use the word 'God' to refer to a supernatural agent as portrayed in religious beliefs and superstitions, where in the Christian tradition this involves claims of being able to work miracles, not stay dead, and where its characteristics comprise the 'omnis'.

The 'Clapton is God' thing was just a bit of enthusiastic support from his fans back in the day, and even if this would meet one of the definitions you seem so fond of, that usage of 'God' is so clearly different from the religious usage that you seem to be flogging a dead horse. Personally, I would subjectively regard the late (and very great) Joe Pass as being greatest guitar player I've ever encountered whose playing is worthy of my veneration* - but I wouldn't use the term 'God' to refer to him. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_kUJa1PueM

* respect or awe inspired by the dignity, wisdom, dedication, or talent of a person.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veneration

[Stranger]

How many times do I have to say this? 300 - 400 times?

Repeating nonsense is not going to make it suddenly make sense.

You people act like you're mentally retarded.

From somebody who doesn't seem to grasp basic English Language, this is rather comical. Words mean different things in different contexts, that's why dictionaries list different senses of a word separately.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

You seem to be hung up on what a word means, definitionally, as opposed to how it is generally used: most people, here in Scotland anyway, would use the word 'God' to refer to a supernatural agent as portrayed in religious beliefs and superstitions, where in the Christian tradition this involves claims of being able to work miracles, not stay dead, and where its characteristics comprise the 'omnis'.

That's fine as long as you don't propose that that would negate any other god. That example isn't the definition it is an example. One of many different examples.

The 'Clapton is God' thing was just a bit of enthusiastic support from his fans back in the day, and even if this would meet one of the definitions you seem so fond of, that usage of 'God' is so clearly different from the religious usage that you seem to be flogging a dead horse. Personally, I would subjectively regard the late (and very great) Joe Pass as being greatest guitar player I've ever encountered whose playing is worthy of my veneration* - but I wouldn't use the term 'God' to refer to him. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_kUJa1PueM

* respect or awe inspired by the dignity, wisdom, dedication, or talent of a person.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veneration

I understand the nuance of Clapton being god but you have to understand that that doesn't mean Clapton isn't a god. There are many Guitar Gods. And I understand that those aren't gods in a strictly religious sense but that doesn't matter.

You don't get it. The King reference is the best I can do. If you don't get that you won't ever get what it means to be a god.

Clapton is God. Elvis is King. Michael Jackson is the King of pop. Do you not understand that the word king doesn't mean either King of England or a flippant metaphoric or colloquial application. King means ruler of something. Saying that Elvis is King doesn't mean there is some confusion about whatever formal ceremonial nonsense has to take place to be the King of England and Elvis having participated in that, it means Elvis is the king, or King, i.e. ruler of Rock 'n roll.

So when you use the term God, Godparent etc. whether you know it or not what you mean is someone or something that is mighty / venerated.

When you use the term king you mean someone as the ruler of something.

When you use lord you mean someone having authority, usually but not always granted by another. Landlord. Lord Melbury.

God means mighty / venerated.  It doesn't mean anything else.  It's applied to various forms. Mighty, respected guitar player. Mighty / respected ruler. Mighty / respected fertility. Mighty / respected whatever. Clump of shite.  Doesn't matter.   

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Repeating nonsense is not going to make it suddenly make sense.

From somebody who doesn't seem to grasp basic English Language, this is rather comical. Words mean different things in different contexts, that's why dictionaries list different senses of a word separately.

You're a waste of space.

[Gordon]

That's fine as long as you don't propose that that would negate any other god. That example isn't the definition it is an example. One of many different examples.

Nope - I'm not trying to negate any claim of 'God': if a claim of 'God(s) is made and not substantiated then it is a failed claim, so there is nothing to negate.

I understand the nuance of Clapton being god but you have to understand that that doesn't mean Clapton isn't a god. There are many Guitar Gods. And I understand that those aren't gods in a strictly religious sense but that doesn't matter.

You don't get it. The King reference is the best I can do. If you don't get that you won't ever get what it means to be a god.

Clapton is God. Elvis is King. Michael Jackson is the King of pop. Do you not understand that the word king doesn't mean either King of England or a flippant metaphoric or colloquial application. King means ruler of something. Saying that Elvis is King doesn't mean there is some confusion about whatever formal ceremonial nonsense has to take place to be the King of England and Elvis having participated in that, it means Elvis is the king, or King, i.e. ruler of Rock 'n roll.

Not being English I would be delighted if the claims of the current UK monarch were confined to England, but that aside all you're really doing here is riffing on equivocation again.
 

So when you use the term God, Godparent etc. whether you know it or not what you mean is someone or something that is mighty / venerated.

As regards this discussion I understand the term 'God' to refer specifically to the claims of supernatural agency made by theists, and when used it that context I regard the term as being meaningless. That some might use the term to refer to guitar players is a different category of usage that is mutually exclusive from theistic usage.

When you use the term king you mean someone as the ruler of something.

When you use lord you mean someone having authority, usually but not always granted by another. Landlord. Lord Melbury.

God means mighty / venerated.  It doesn't mean anything else.  It's applied to various forms. Mighty, respected guitar player. Mighty / respected ruler. Mighty / respected fertility. Mighty / respected whatever. Clump of shite.  Doesn't matter.

I understand that terms like 'King' have different meanings, but I also recognise that these involve different usages, hence I don't confuse reading about a monarch with the use of playing cards.