-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The word and meaning of (A)theist sounds weird to me
Can anyone explain to me how to interpret the OP? Those "1 2 3" things particularly?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Apparently, you are not aware that the prefix "a" means "not." If something is "atypical," it's not typical. If someone is "apolitical," he is not politically-inclined. If someone is "amoral," he is lacking in morals. And a "atheist" is someone who does not believe in God, i.e. he is not a theist.
First sentence is wrong. Atheist is from ancient Greek, the "A" meaning without, theist meaning gods. So atheist is without gods or godless
After reading that first error i didn't bother continuing?
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
@lewisnotmiller: I see you have 12.000 posts already. I'm smart enough not to debate you.
I didn't bring up dragons. You did. So I can say with certainty "Dragons exist in your mind". That is all I can say about this. And that I accept that you believe in dragons (at least in your mind). Whether or not it is truth I don't know.
The other one. I explained already:"I wrote it's a play of words. Might be coincidental, or not". That's all that I said about this. Don't read more into it. Of course you are free to do so. We are on the debate forum, so understandable even, otherwise nothing to debate on
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
First of all, welcome to the forums. We're glad to have you here!
Please apply that logic to the statement "Unicorns do not exist.", and tell me what you conclude. Have a great day!
Thanks for the welcome. Great forum. I started with God, and get all unicorns and dragons flying around here. I know the concept of God is till today not proven. So maybe it's easier first to find out whether unicorns and dragons exist. As mentioned before. From your words I conclude that "Unicorns at least exists in your mind". Never gave it a thought before. But after all these posts the unicorns even get bit sticky in my mind now. So as a concept they are now, thanks to you++, also in my mind. This thought = energy has not yet materialised (according to Einstein's E=m.c.c) into reality. So till this moment it's only a personal mental truth. Nothing more, nothing less. Not a universal truth. If you happen to see a unicorn, please take a picture and post it. Would be nice. I will do the same.
I admit my initial post was a bit clumsy, but later on it got clearer to me. I don't believe in universal truth on earth (with regard to concept God). That's why I don't use "God exist (not)", but rather use "I believe God exist (not)". Thereby respecting other peoples view/religions/believe systems. I think that sums it up. And seems clear to me. My view also includes that other people can believe "God exist (not)", then I see that as their personal view put in a kind of "universal Truth".
I don't claim to know anything about God. I have not even seen a solid definition. So it is even funny to try to explain if "God exist (not)", if we don't even have a definition of God. That was how and why I started this post. To get my basics straight before posting here on the forum.
I think unicorns are figment of imagination that caught on. I love your quote below your message, and totally agree with this. As such they can be real to the people who indulge in them
. Some even dream about it, or see them with eyes wide open. What is real, what is not. Some say all this world is an illusion. Quite interesting all these different view of thoughts.
Last edited:
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Maybe apparently is not correct here.You forgot that I also mentioned "But this is just a play of words". Just to open up my post. Please don't read more into this. But if you like to debate, I understand you read more into this. But I won't be able to tell you anything useful then.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
So I am new. I feel this post is done now. Can
I see you have 40.000 posts in your name. I have full confidence in you, and I am sure that you can figure that one out on your own
[especially remembering your previous remark: I am not seeing the problem. It is fairly simple really.]
I see you have 40.000 posts in your name. I have full confidence in you, and I am sure that you can figure that one out on your own
[especially remembering your previous remark: I am not seeing the problem. It is fairly simple really.]
Nope. I can't figure that out on my own. I don't think I was ever meant to, either.So I am new. I feel this post is done now. Can
I see you have 40.000 posts in your name. I have full confidence in you, and I am sure that you can figure that one out on your own
[especially remembering your previous remark: I am not seeing the problem. It is fairly simple really.]
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Nope. I can't figure that out on my own. I don't think I was ever meant to, either.
@LuisDantas: Good to hear, that it got solved; kind of miraculous, without being answered. Though strange and funny you asked a question, already knowing "I don't think I was ever meant to, either".
@LuisDantas: Good to hear, that it got solved; kind of miraculous
, without being answered. Though strange and funny you asked a question, already knowing "I don't think I was ever meant to, either".
I am good at weighting odds on how to answer nonsensical questions.Nope. I can't figure that out on my own. I don't think I was ever meant to, either.
@LuisDantas: Good to hear, that it got solved; kind of miraculous
It is still better if I can make some sense out of them.
Care to explain the "1 2 3"s now?
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I am good at weighting odds on how to answer nonsensical questions.
It is still better if I can make some sense out of them.
Care to explain the "1 2 3"s now?
@LuisDantas: I am sure you are good at that, having written so much already. I still have to learn a lot [first spiritual forum, first post for me].
Sorry that I didn't reply serious before to you. I thought you were just kidding me [some people I saw on the forum enjoy being smart-a s s and trying to find fault instead of common ground [interested to learn things]; not surprisingly being on "debate part"]. I got this impression out of your and others' replies. My mistake.
I really thought it was such a simple and logical thing I was explaining. But seems very illogical to all others I see now.
I thought I explained it quite well, but obviously not enough [my shortcoming, being my first post]. I just meant exactly what I wrote, no hidden difficult mathematical or mental tricks. If you want to understand what I mean, just think very simple, try to read in between the lines. Don't try to find mistakes [because those i make also; to outsmart-a s s one is easy, but to understand is more interesting].
1 + 2 = 3
God Exist = False
a): If there is no solid definition of the word God, then it makes no sense to talk about "God Exist = False"
First create a proper definition otherwise it's talking in thin air [that is my feeling]
b): Furthermore if you have a proper definition then it makes no sense to deny it exists
That may be little tricky, but I see different levels of truth:
1: On earth I don't see absolute truth as regard to God [God is bigger than biggest, smaller than smallest and all that is in between some scriptures declare; for the sake of understanding I use this thought. so it makes more sense to me that there is no universal truth on earth because the earth is so infinitesimal small as compared to the universe; not even taking into account it is expanding or ...]
2: Personal truth: a)mental + b)emotional + c)physical + d)astral + e)spiritual [and many more, most probably]
So if someone has a mental picture of God I acknowledge this as a personal truth for that person. Not meaning that I have the same. But because I don't have it, doesn't mean that it is also gone out of the mental body of the other. There the mental picture still exists
So the moment there is a mental, verbal, emotional or whatever picture, you can't say "this does not exist" [you can, but does that makes sense to you?]. Of course you can say "I don't have or believe that". And that was the whole point I tried to find out
"I believe God exists (not)" feels for me correct, and with "God exists (not)" you deny mental truth of others [already even if there is only 1]
It's how I feel it. Others think different, so if they can't relate to "mental, emotional, physical" personal truth as separate from each other, but only believe and see physical truth then of course that is their reality. So their truth. I will not say "that is wrong", because then I go against what I just explained (I might make mistake now and then, I am not perfect).
But also if this is my truth then it feels not correct that others tell me "your truth is wrong". Of course I understand that they speak this way, because they have a different perspective than me [so I understand them, because their perspective is within the scope of my perspective]. So no need to debate about it.
I can try to explain in 1 more way. All people know Einstein and his formula: E=m.c.c, meaning energy equals matter. I am not at Einsteins level at all. And maybe this example makes no sense. But my thought was this. Mental thoughts are energy, so it's only a matter of time that it will materialize according to the formula. I have seen those kind of materializations [at like 10cm from my eyes]. So for me that is real [it was not magic]. If you have never seen, I know it can be impossible to comprehend [it blew my scientific mind when I first experienced this]
Any better than this I can not explain. And if people don't get what i mean it's oke with me. Then just leave it at this. I am fine with that. I thought it was so simple, but seems that I am on a totally different wavelength.
It is still better if I can make some sense out of them.
Care to explain the "1 2 3"s now?
@LuisDantas: I am sure you are good at that, having written so much already. I still have to learn a lot [first spiritual forum, first post for me].
Sorry that I didn't reply serious before to you. I thought you were just kidding me [some people I saw on the forum enjoy being smart-a s s and trying to find fault instead of common ground [interested to learn things]; not surprisingly being on "debate part"]. I got this impression out of your and others' replies. My mistake.
I really thought it was such a simple and logical thing I was explaining. But seems very illogical to all others I see now.
I thought I explained it quite well, but obviously not enough [my shortcoming, being my first post]. I just meant exactly what I wrote, no hidden difficult mathematical or mental tricks. If you want to understand what I mean, just think very simple, try to read in between the lines. Don't try to find mistakes [because those i make also; to outsmart-a s s one is easy, but to understand is more interesting].
1 + 2 = 3
God Exist = False
a): If there is no solid definition of the word God, then it makes no sense to talk about "God Exist = False"
First create a proper definition otherwise it's talking in thin air [that is my feeling]
b): Furthermore if you have a proper definition then it makes no sense to deny it exists
That may be little tricky, but I see different levels of truth:
1: On earth I don't see absolute truth as regard to God [God is bigger than biggest, smaller than smallest and all that is in between some scriptures declare; for the sake of understanding I use this thought. so it makes more sense to me that there is no universal truth on earth because the earth is so infinitesimal small as compared to the universe; not even taking into account it is expanding or ...]
2: Personal truth: a)mental + b)emotional + c)physical + d)astral + e)spiritual [and many more, most probably]
So if someone has a mental picture of God I acknowledge this as a personal truth for that person. Not meaning that I have the same. But because I don't have it, doesn't mean that it is also gone out of the mental body of the other. There the mental picture still exists
So the moment there is a mental, verbal, emotional or whatever picture, you can't say "this does not exist" [you can, but does that makes sense to you?]. Of course you can say "I don't have or believe that". And that was the whole point I tried to find out
"I believe God exists (not)" feels for me correct, and with "God exists (not)" you deny mental truth of others [already even if there is only 1]
It's how I feel it. Others think different, so if they can't relate to "mental, emotional, physical" personal truth as separate from each other, but only believe and see physical truth then of course that is their reality. So their truth. I will not say "that is wrong", because then I go against what I just explained (I might make mistake now and then, I am not perfect).
But also if this is my truth then it feels not correct that others tell me "your truth is wrong". Of course I understand that they speak this way, because they have a different perspective than me [so I understand them, because their perspective is within the scope of my perspective]. So no need to debate about it.
I can try to explain in 1 more way. All people know Einstein and his formula: E=m.c.c, meaning energy equals matter. I am not at Einsteins level at all. And maybe this example makes no sense. But my thought was this. Mental thoughts are energy, so it's only a matter of time that it will materialize according to the formula. I have seen those kind of materializations [at like 10cm from my eyes]. So for me that is real [it was not magic]. If you have never seen, I know it can be impossible to comprehend [it blew my scientific mind when I first experienced this]
Any better than this I can not explain. And if people don't get what i mean it's oke with me. Then just leave it at this. I am fine with that. I thought it was so simple, but seems that I am on a totally different wavelength.
Last edited:
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Okay, fair enough. If I misinterpreted your play on words, I apologize.
Heh. Number of posts is more an outcome of having been here for a while, rather than any particular intelligence.
Debate away. I'm pretty easy going, but nutting through things is interesting/informative.
That's my point, though, if perhaps poorly made. I don't believe in dragons, but I can both name them and have a concept in my head of what a dragon is. Beyond that, I can even speak to a variety of dragons from different cultures, myths, etc.
Much like God. I can speak with some accuracy about a variety of God beliefs, and a variety of definitions of God. One of the reasons I came here first was to better understand some of the non-pagan, non-Abrahamaic beliefs, as I lacked some knowledge in those areas.
But being able to name God(s) and speak about them suggests nothing of their existence, apart from as a concept. Just like mermaids, unicorns, and bipartisanship in politics...
No problems. Play on words is all good. It's not coincidental, though, but more about word origins. The meaning they appear to have in basic English is not what they mean, and further, meaning changes through time.
Sorry, I used to lecture in English Language Development. Ignore me geeking out a little.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
@LuisDantas: Thanks for this insight into myself [outsiders see often more clear than I do myself] . I never thought of myself as a poet. I even don't read poems. But I know I am also not very much into logic when it's about spirituality. So your remark makes a lot of sense. Very useful.
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
I think you will find that most atheists do not subscribe to the statement "God does not exist". Rather, you will find that they subscribe to the view which states "I don't believe that god exists". When I say "exist", I of course mean it in the sense of a physical presence or an existence that can be proven repeatedly using the Scientific Method. Of course, what someone personally believes is up to them, and I would not presume to tell them that they are wrong. I can only state my own personal belief, as can any other reasonable person.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
@FlyingTeaPot: Thanks for the respectful and clear answer. I was for 10years in India. There they have all those extra dimensions (mental, astral bodies etc). For me as true as an aching toothache. But get it that here we just stick to the physical. Point taken. A lot easier, also for me.
Maybe you can help me out here. Curious what you think about:
For me, being total logical in the physical sferes now (no mental, emotional images of God), it makes no sense to say "I don't believe in God, because there is no proof", when there is not even a scientific definition of God and therefore there can never be given any proof (IMHE). Being a scientist I learned to first take Step 1 "define the problem properly". No step 2 if step 1 is not taken yet.
I think it makes more sense for an atheist to say to the theist "Please give me first a good definition, scientific, of God in the physical sense". Then I will tell you whether or not I believe in it. And personally I believe nobody will ever be able to give you that.
Please proof me wrong and give me a scientific definition of God in the physical sense.
Else, if I don't have a definition of God, than this whole post is useless. And we can stop it now. More precise "I will stop it now". I am new here. Couldn't find a button which said STOP. In other forums I put "Solved". How does that work here. Just refrain from answering (I am a decent guy who answers questions asked, especially when starting a post). But this post is totally cooked and done I think.
At least I found my answer here "Stick to the physical dimension". I like to get my Basics straight. Don't like to talk in thin air.
Maybe you can help me out here. Curious what you think about:
For me, being total logical in the physical sferes now (no mental, emotional images of God), it makes no sense to say "I don't believe in God, because there is no proof", when there is not even a scientific definition of God and therefore there can never be given any proof (IMHE). Being a scientist I learned to first take Step 1 "define the problem properly". No step 2 if step 1 is not taken yet.
I think it makes more sense for an atheist to say to the theist "Please give me first a good definition, scientific, of God in the physical sense". Then I will tell you whether or not I believe in it. And personally I believe nobody will ever be able to give you that.
Please proof me wrong and give me a scientific definition of God in the physical sense.
Else, if I don't have a definition of God, than this whole post is useless. And we can stop it now. More precise "I will stop it now". I am new here. Couldn't find a button which said STOP. In other forums I put "Solved". How does that work here. Just refrain from answering (I am a decent guy who answers questions asked, especially when starting a post). But this post is totally cooked and done I think.
At least I found my answer here "Stick to the physical dimension". I like to get my Basics straight. Don't like to talk in thin air.