Do Gods Exist?

RIS said:

Everyone I know is an atheist. None of them would spend a moment doing what any of the atheists online do in forums on the subject of atheism. None of them care about prayer in school, separation of church and state, in God we trust, or the 10 commandments and nativity scene at the courthouse. None of them care about evolution or believe in evolution, none of them care about politicizing abortion or homosexual marriage.

They are apathetic atheists.

Click to expand...

They sound like dead atheists to me.
But hey - they might be gods, right? How do you even know they're atheists? Or alive?
If they constitute "everyone [you] know" I'd venture that you don't know many actual people.

Elixir said:

They sound like dead atheists to me.
But hey - they might be gods, right? How do you even know they're atheists? Or alive?
If they constitute "everyone [you] know" I'd venture that you don't know many actual people.

Click to expand...

Like you reject the Oxford definition of gods, I reject their definition of atheist. Atheism, to me, is like apolitical. I believe politics exists, but I don't believe in politics. I'm without politics. Atheists are without theism. Without gods.

RIS said:

Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:

That makes no sense.

The purpose of the forum is not the discussion of money as a god, i.e. sense 3 or 4. To do so and then say "Aha, see gods exist!" is the fallacy of equivocation.

Click to expand...

The Sumerian kings were deified upon their deaths. Tammuz (Ezekiel 8) was such a god. Gods only need to be worshipped.

Click to expand...

No one denies the existence of Sumerian kings that people thought were gods and so that is easy evidence that such example is not what this forum is about. It is not about humans that people thought were gods nor about money as a god nor about Arnold Scharzenegger the God of Bodybuilding. Using such senses of the word "god" takes the forum meaning out of context and then gives you permission to engage in the fallacy of equivocation "Aha, see, I told you gods exist!"

Like you reject the Oxford definition of gods...

Click to expand...

Hmmmm...

Oxford Dictionary said:

The word "god" has multiple meanings, including:

A supernatural being that is considered sacred and worthy of worship
An image of a deity, such as an idol
A deified person or object
A powerful force that is imagined to be responsible for one's fate
The Supreme Being, who is worshiped as the creator or ultimate source of the universe
A person or thing of supreme value
A powerful ruler

Click to expand...

I do not contest that people have many ways to use the word "God".
Most of them however, do not apply to a deity.
The Oxford Dictionary of English defines a deity as a god or goddess, or anything that is revered as divine.
Not as both.
Obviously conflating gods of religions (deities) with things that exist, reliably leads to unproductive discussion - if you can even call it discussion. Yet you seem determined to drag this forum into that rat hole. Wake me up when you have something to discuss other than what is in my signature: English is complicated.

RIS said:

Like you reject the Oxford definition of gods, I reject their definition of atheist.

Click to expand...

Great. I reject your definition of reject.
You EMBRACE their definition of atheist in order to elevate yourself, as the only holder (that you know of) of an idiosyncratic definition.
Congratulations. That a $5 will get you a latté.

RIS said:

pood said:

Unless, of course, he wants to play more word games, like, “I’m a biblical believer in the sense that the bible exists, and since you all must believe that the bible exists, then you are all biblical believers just like me, nyah nyah nyah!”

Click to expand...

You should maybe try breaking away from the us vs. them mentality. I wonder what sort of effect that has on the lives of you and others of the same worldview.

Click to expand...

RIS, I posted a thread about the various definitions of God and the various kinds of entities real, assumed, and non-existent as the case may be for each of them some time ago.

Your mistake is probably in assuming the people you're discussing it with have spent as much time, less time, or less effective time on it than yourself.

Among atheists there is a subset of individuals who sincerely just want to be as right as they can about as many things as they can, and to do that honestly we recognize that we have to do it without "belief" and the biases that introduces to thought.

I would say to my point to Pood, I see no difference philosophically between the God of a universe existing as functionally detached vs completely detached: I see "Dwarf Fortress played by a bot" as "just as detatched" as anything else, in that "they" can't reach out and "we" won't reach in (and if we do, we cease to observe the base system and detatch from it entirely, only observing from then on the system that is consequent to the contact).

I posted a thread some time ago "ripping open the mysteries of God" specifically to discuss the fact that "God" is a word that *requires* disambiguation in such conversations as this.

RIS said:

pood said:

Just more word games. Gets boring.

Kim Jong Un is NOT a god in the sense of Oxford 1 and 2. The sense of 3 and 4 is idiomatic and colloquial. If I say, “Money is my god,” it does NOT mean that money created the world and exists supernaturally. Or do you think that it does?

Click to expand...

"Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things." - Philippians 3:19

All of the definitions given by Oxford are examples. It doesn't give the meaning. All of the examples are gods for a reason. Might/veneration. Not necessarily supernatural, or natural, spirit or material, idiomatic and colloquial. They don't all fit into any category except for might/veneration.

He thinks he is a science god means he things he is mightier than any other and deserving of veneration. Clapton and Frodo were commonly referred to as God in late 60's early 70s graffiti, because they were thought to be mighty/venerated. The Christian God, Jehovah, isn't God to people who don't know of him or venerate him. They have other gods.

Money is probably the most common form of God.

Click to expand...

Great, so you’ve identified all the idiomatic ways “god” might be used. None of them refer to Oxford 1 and 2. So I don’t know what point you hope to make. Once again, unless you believe Eric Clapton or money or people’s bellies are supernatural world-creating entities, all you’ve done is shuffle around some semantics. What’s the point?

RIS said:

pood said:

Except nothing I wrote that you quoted had anything to do with us vs. them. So more gas lighting, semantics, evasion and equivocation, got it. Yawn.

Click to expand...

Everything you say is about us vs them. You don't respond to me, you respond to them.

Click to expand...

I’ve responded to you repeatedly, as I am doing right now. More word games?

RIS said:

pood said:

Also, I’m not a “militant atheist,” so you’re wrong about that, too.

Click to expand...

I was an atheist for 27 years. Everyone I know is an atheist. None of them would spend a moment doing what any of the atheists online do in forums on the subject of atheism. None of them care about prayer in school, separation of church and state, in God we trust, or the 10 commandments and nativity scene at the courthouse. None of them care about evolution or believe in evolution, none of them care about politicizing abortion or homosexual marriage.

They are apathetic atheists. They see what I'm doing and shake their heads at the atheists I talk to. They think they're stupid and militant. A militant atheist, like a militant theist, myself, is outspoken on the subect. You don't get any militant atheists or theists bitching online at other atheists and theists. Only militant ones. Militant atheists and theists are a tiny minority of atheism and theism.

Click to expand...

And you’re wrong again. This is a discussion board. Most of the discussion these days is an actually about politics and social affairs and some science and philosophy. And I don’t believe you when you say none of the atheists you know care about that stuff or “believe in evolution.” But anyway, what difference does all that make? You came here because you wanted discussion, no? Or did you just hope to preach?

RIS said:

Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:

This forum is about supernatural god(s), not money. No one on the planet except for an insane lunatic would be arguing that money does not exist. Your thread is a prime example of the fallacy of equivocation.

Click to expand...

Deification, that is gods, supernatural or not, are not defined as such due to anything other than their veneration. The forum makes no distinction between supernatural and material because there isn't any.

Click to expand...

Of course this is, and it’s simply false to say we have not made that distinction. I’ve made it myself, several times. Oxford definitions 1 and 2, which you brought up, are NOT the same as definitions 3 and 4. Did you fail to notice that?

Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:

RIS said:

Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:

That makes no sense.

The purpose of the forum is not the discussion of money as a god, i.e. sense 3 or 4. To do so and then say "Aha, see gods exist!" is the fallacy of equivocation.

Click to expand...

The Sumerian kings were deified upon their deaths. Tammuz (Ezekiel 8) was such a god. Gods only need to be worshipped.

Click to expand...

No one denies the existence of Sumerian kings that people thought were gods and so that is easy evidence that such example is not what this forum is about. It is not about humans that people thought were gods nor about money as a god nor about Arnold Scharzenegger the God of Bodybuilding. Using such senses of the word "god" takes the forum meaning out of context and then gives you permission to engage in the fallacy of equivocation "Aha, see, I told you gods exist!"

Click to expand...

You agree that gods exist, just doubt that supernatural gods exist.

See how easy that was?

I'll try to explain why I'm not engaging in the fallacy in question.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Since only man [human] is rational.
And no woman is a man [male].
Therefore, no woman is rational.

In the Biblical Hebrew this wouldn't be possible because a woman is a female man. That's just an aside. Sorry, we'll carry on.

If I were making the fallacy, it would be like this:

Since some gods are material.
And material exists.
Therefore, all gods exist.

What I'm saying is what you agree with:

Some gods are material.
Some gods are supernatural.
Therefore, some gods are certain to exist and some aren't.

There's no "Aha, see, I told you gods exist." That was your atheistic projection. You can't accept the actual data because of your ideology.

RIS said:

Unsupported claim. No substance. Your uninformed opinion. We could debate those claims in another thread. You would lose.

Click to expand...

No, the unsupported claim is that this supernatural entity of Oxford No. 1 exists. You have the burden of proof to show that it does. But you’re evading that burden by sideshows over whether money or the ruler of North Korea is god. It’s really quite silly and boring.

RIS said:

Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:

That makes no sense.

The purpose of the forum is not the discussion of money as a god, i.e. sense 3 or 4. To do so and then say "Aha, see gods exist!" is the fallacy of equivocation.

Click to expand...

Gods only need to be worshipped. There is no other requirement to be a god.

Click to expand...

You’re wrong. This claim does not fit the definitions of Oxford 1 and 2 that you gave.

I’m beginning to think you want to be worshiped.

You’re not doing a very good job of attracting disciples.

But I commend to you once again Krishnamurti’s astute observation that those who worship, are worshiping only themselves.

Nothing is better than heaven.
A peanut butter and jelly sandwich is better than nothing.
Ergo, a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is better than heaven.
WOWZER!, right?
So far we have gained from RIS' insights:
* Gods exist, but supernatural ones don't.
* People call lots of things that are not supernatural, "gods".

Good thing you stopped by to bring so much to these fora, RIS. I have a secret to let you in on:
Semantics are magic!

So magic exists. I believe in magic.
And it's really AWKWARD, you know - going around announcing that I believe in magic, telling people I'm a believer - they all look down on me, THE FOOLS! They just don't understand that "magic" covers a lot of ground, including the ground they stand on!
I think I'll go to a Magicians' Forum and see if I can get a rise out of the people there by telling them they're out to lunch because MAGIC IS REAL!!
Yeah - magicians - or most of them - don't think magic is real, and only really believe in sleight of hand. Fools!

RIS, I would like you, going forward, to disambiguate each and every time you use the utterance g-o-d.

You don't have to use MY disambiguation patterns, and I haven't in this conversation because I doubt you know them and that would just be confusing.

This is necessary at this point because as pood points out you are playing semantic games at this point.

I'm not gonna lie... People who play semantic games like this don't usually last very long.

I will note that I am probably THE longest lasting member of these forums who has claimed they are literally a god (lower case g, if you actually read my thread) and who claims "gods" are observably extant (note the ""), who claims gods-of-this-world are possible but can it be proven and do not brook belief, and who rightly recognizes the concepts of tri-omni and "set of all sets" God as straight up nonsense.

It is impossible to have a polite conversation about any such topic, however, when some jackass (not saying you, but we get a lot through here) fails to understand the difference between such attachments to the utterance g-o-d.

Elixir said:

RIS said:

Like you reject the Oxford definition of gods, I reject their definition of atheist.

Click to expand...

Great. I reject your definition of reject.

Click to expand...

Why, I oughta . . . .

Elixir said:

You EMBRACE their definition of atheist in order to elevate yourself, as the only holder (that you know of) of an idiosyncratic definition.
Congratulations. That a $5 will get you a latté.

Click to expand...

Not a coffee drinker, but the "thought" was nice.

pood said:

No, the unsupported claim is that this supernatural entity of Oxford No. 1 exists.

You have the burden of proof to show that it does. But you’re evading that burden by sideshows over whether money or the ruler of North Korea is god. It’s really quite silly and boring.

Click to expand...

That is my claim (state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof). I've made that claim. That's all I have to do. Claim requires no burden.

Ideological fixation blinds people to the facts, negates their capacity for logical thought. I claim God exists; you reject that claim. It's a matter of opinion.

The reason this subject is more important than you can understand is ideological fixation. You have to insist upon your opinion as fact even though you can no more prove your position is true than mine. So, you demand evidence (the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid) and proof (evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement) without fully understanding what those things are. The burden of proof in faith isn't required of the faithful to the skeptic. His skepticism is his responsibility, and the proofs are testimonial (eyewitness accounts like that of the disciples), documentary (written documents like the Bible), physical (life, the universe and everything) and demonstrative (historical, archeological, astronomical).

You won't accept the evidence otherwise you wouldn't ask for it. If you had any sense, because I have all of the evidence and proof while you have none.

The atheist argument is that gods don't exist. Even if you limit that to one specific supernatural alleged being it's moot because it's only opinion, and it doesn't matter if the alleged being literally exists in the first place. Like we discussed earlier with Santa and Superman. You aren't going to waste your time. Well, then, why waste it on this one belief? Because of the sociopolitical influence the alleged being has over your society. Whether he exists or not.

RIS said:

pood said:

No, the unsupported claim is that this supernatural entity of Oxford No. 1 exists.

You have the burden of proof to show that it does. But you’re evading that burden by sideshows over whether money or the ruler of North Korea is god. It’s really quite silly and boring.

Click to expand...

That is my claim (state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof). I've made that claim. That's all I have to do. Claim requires no burden.

Click to expand...

You claim God exists. Present the evidence, please. The burden is entirely on you. Negative claims bear no burden.

RIS said:

Ideological fixation blinds people to the facts, negates their capacity for logical thought. I claim God exists; you reject that claim. It's a matter of opinion.

Click to expand...

It’s a matter that you lack evidence for your claim, otherwise you’d provide it.

RIS said:

The reason this subject is more important than you can understand is ideological fixation. You have to insist upon your opinion as fact even though you can no more prove your position is true than mine.

Click to expand...

I have no burden of proof. This is a matter of logic. You do.

It’s fine to believe that God exists, without offering evidence. You may believe it as a matter of faith, and that is fideism. But don’t expect others to go along.

RIS said:

formation indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid) and proof (evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement) without fully understanding what those things are. The burden of proof in faith isn't required of the faithful to the skeptic.

Click to expand...

Fine. See above. But don’t expect others to go along.

RIS said:

His skepticism is his responsibility, and the proofs are testimonial (eyewitness accounts like that of the disciples), documentary (written documents like the Bible), physical (life, the universe and everything) and demonstrative (historical, archeological, astronomical).

Click to expand...

None of those things are proof or even evidence.

RIS said:

You won't accept the evidence otherwise you wouldn't ask for it.

Click to expand...

I’d evaluate the evidence if you had any, but you don’t.

RIS said:

If you had any sense, because I have all of the evidence and proof while you have none.

Click to expand...

Unsupported assertion and, of course, the usual insult from the sort of theist who thinks he possesses truth and is enraged when others beg to differ.

RIS said:

The atheist argument is that gods don't exist. Even if you limit that to one specific supernatural alleged being it's moot because it's only opinion, and it doesn't matter if the alleged being literally exists in the first place. Like we discussed earlier with Santa and Superman. You aren't going to waste your time. Well, then, why waste it on this one belief? Because of the sociopolitical influence the alleged being has over your society. Whether he exists or not.

Click to expand...

The above is just more word salad/games.

Words exist.
God is a word.
God exists.

RIS said:

There's no "Aha, see, I told you gods exist."

Click to expand...

Post#1 takes the forum, meaning of God, the website and history of these out of context and is therefore in effect "ahah. See?":

RIS said:

Yes. Piece of cake. Don't understand the confusion.

Click to expand...

RIS said:

That was your atheistic projection.

Click to expand...

This is you gaslighting everyone.

RIS said:

You can't accept the actual data because of your ideology.

Click to expand...

You don't have data, you have a meaning that you have taken out of context, engaged in the fallacy of equivocation, and anyone who disagrees you gaslight.