Would you please help me: an experiment for theists and atheists alike

[Kungfuzed]

Emotional bond... with what? You claim you never saw anything. With prayer?

An emotional bond to the message, the church, and the idea of a Heavenly Father who loves me. To a 14 year old boy looking for the purpose of life, it can be very comforting. I wanted it to be true so I made it true in my own mind.

Tell me. How much do you think your image of God is influenced by all the other images you've seen elsewhere, like paintings and statues and books and TV?

 

[lilithu]

Note that I said evidence, far from proof

Suffice it to say that some evidence is far more compelling than others. And some people interpret things to be "evidence" that other people do not.

For example, from my perspective what people picture in this "experiment" provides no evidence whatsoever regarding the existence of God. If participants all report the same thing, it does not suggest God's existence. That can be easily explained by social conditioning. (For example, your inability to see God as a woman.) If otoh, participants all report different visions, that does not suggest God's lack of existence. That can easily be explained by the differences in our individual experiences and way of interpretation.

Well, most atheists definitely don't see God. Please see Storm's excellent posts on this above. The short version is that normal, sane, rational people see "visions of God." Note that I'm not claiming this God is real. But the question remains, why don't atheists see the same thing?

Because theists and atheists interpret what we see differently.

Excellent, I love to hear things like this. Would you please elaborate if possible?

I was referring to this world. As Einstein said:

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."

I see God in everyday life. Existence itself is proof of God to me. But as I said, it's all a matter of interpretation. I can fully understand how an atheist can see the same world that I see and not interpret it as evidence of God.

I have had, a few times in my life, experiences of transcendence, which may be closer to what you're talking about. But I never saw God, as an old man or a woman or a ball of light, etc. I experienced God, in a way that was different from day to day experience. These experiences cause me to interpret my day to day experience through a lens of faith, but I reiterate that I see God everyday, in the day to day.

I see no point in looking for evidence of the "supernatural" or "paranormal" when the greatest miracle of all is right here, right now.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

My first instinct is to say no, my image of God has very little to do with imagery. I guess I couldn't say if I picked up the "image of God" from a particular movie and then forgotten the movie. I am not an expert on everything I've experienced, I only have my memory, which is normally pretty good, but obviously not perfect.

Anyway, for one thing, I would expect God to look like an old man (Biblical) or a ball of light (movie, tv, films).

God doesn't really look like anything normally. God feels like more of a presence, like when I just know someone is behind me. This exercise is about trying to impose an image upon God to see what happens. I've gotten a lot of "I can't", "it's not working." Which I take as an interesting sign.

Again, I don't jump to any conclusions, but I personally, believe some sort of deity exists. Although I'm not sure it's a higher power, just I think it is a power of some sort. Might be lateral or subordinate though

CV

 

[Chevalier Violet]

I only dictionary-burn people to expand definitions, not to restrict them. Which is why I don't feel bad doing this:

Theism /ˈθi

ɪz

əm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-iz-uh

m] 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

Yipee! I was using the word correctly!!!

Suffice it to say that some evidence is far more compelling than others. And some people interpret things to be "evidence" that other people do not.

I agree with you that what compels us is a matter of personal choice, and can differ from person to person. Modern philosophers are more and more coming to the conclusion that both art and science are a matter of esthetic or beauty, where personal taste looms large.

For example, from my perspective what people picture in this "experiment" provides no evidence whatsoever regarding the existence of God. If participants all report the same thing, it does not suggest God's existence. That can be easily explained by social conditioning. (For example, your inability to see God as a woman.) If otoh, participants all report different visions, that does not suggest God's lack of existence. That can easily be explained by the differences in our individual experiences and way of interpretation.

This is a quote from another website:

Notes on a possible epistemology of religion:

-I will be the first to say that creating an epistemology of religion is like trying to pull a submerged car out of a swamp with your bare hands. Pretty good chance I'll be muddy before I'm done - if I'm not submerged myself.

-One can properly define a "religious experience" as any experience that could very possibly be entirely imagined.

In fact, one of the characteristics of religious experience is that it is always *plausible* that it was an imaginary "vision", that is, that what was seen has no correspondance to reality, but only to our own minds.

It is also equally possible that any religious experience could reflect something outside of our own heads.

I will assume that religious experiences are not always imaginary, but reflect the metaphysics of the universe. But we must always grant that it could all be a dream.

One thing to remember though: just because it could all be a dream doesn't mean it IS a dream, or that we can't discuss anything in any useful way. Quite the contrary.

Why don't we assume there may be some substance to it outside of our own minds, and see what happens?

- Conversely, one element of religious experiences is that they never EVER feel like a dream. Indeed, it feels like the revelation of "something we've always known." That's what makes religious visions so scary - and so powerful.

From the beginning I agree and will always agree that what we see as God could be a vision and social conditioning. Or it could be real. I don't know. What one believes is a matter of personal taste, because I don't see a way of being certain.

I choose to believe an atom or this mug is real too, but I could just as easily say that it's not. Sometimes, something will happen that will compel me to believe in God which wouldn't compel another person. This seems fine to me. I am not interested in everyone agreeing on one truth. I am focused on my truth - the best I can be on this earth. So feel free to draw different conclusions.

Now as for this experiment. Like I said, from the beginning, a religious vision, a presence of God, could very easily be imaginary or socially constructed. Then again, it could turn out that it's not.

That is the square one of talking about religion as far as I'm concerned. I don't think that means, as most people seem to believe, that experiments like the one I'm doing have no merit.

We don't know that our universe isn't all a dream or a figment of imagination or whatever. Yet if we assume it's not, we get useful laws of the universe. I think the same applies here. Maybe God is imaginary, but let's assume he's not for a moment, just for the sake of argument, and see what kind of interesting things we may be able to discover.

But at the end of the day, we're still at square one.

I don't see that as unique to a religious domain, but universal to all domains of knowledge and inquiry.

CV

Because theists and atheists interpret what we see differently.

On the contrary, some people perceive a deity and others don't. Some theists are pantheists of course. But Christians I know interact with this thing they perceive, like a perceived person, or deity or God or Jesus Christ. And I really don't get the impression that atheists have any contact with whatever that thing is. So I don't see this as a difference of interpretation but a difference first and foremost of evidence.

You don't have to agree, but I confess I don't really see how interpretation comes into play here. Now there are a few people who can interact with God, and like me, fully believe could be all illusionary or whatever. It sounds as though you're of this bent as well. But almost every other atheist I've talked to with the exception of one has never encountered this deity before.

I was referring to this world. As Einstein said:

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."

I see God in everyday life. Existence itself is proof of God to me. But as I said, it's all a matter of interpretation. I can fully understand how an atheist can see the same world that I see and not interpret it as evidence of God.

I have had, a few times in my life, experiences of transcendence, which may be closer to what you're talking about. But I never saw God, as an old man or a woman or a ball of light, etc. I experienced God, in a way that was different from day to day experience. These experiences cause me to interpret my day to day experience through a lens of faith, but I reiterate that I see God everyday, in the day to day.

I see no point in looking for evidence of the "supernatural" or "paranormal" when the greatest miracle of all is right here, right now.

Yeah, I see what you mean. Most people would call that pantheism, but whatever you want to call it, I definitely don't disagree. As far as I'm concerned, you're probably right.

Now this is an old experiment of mine and since then, I have decided to become a lot more clear about what sort of encounter with God I'm talking about. It's evident that under your definition of God, which is very well described here and by Einstein, God is everywhere. What I'm trying to do is collect people's experiences with a deity.

Again, I don't know if this deity actually exists or is imaginary. I just know that people report interacting with a deity, a presence, a figure.

Correct me if I'm wrong and please do share, but I don't believe you have ever encountered whatever this thing is.

The Purple Knight

 

[lilithu]

I only dictionary-burn people to expand definitions, not to restrict them. Which is why I don't feel bad doing this:

Theism /ˈθi

ɪz

əm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-iz-uh

m] 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

Yipee! I was using the word correctly!!!

At what point did I say that you were using the word incorrectly??

On the contrary, some people perceive a deity and others don't. Some theists are pantheists of course. But Christians I know interact with this thing they perceive, like a perceived person, or deity or God or Jesus Christ. And I really don't get the impression that atheists have any contact with whatever that thing is. So I don't see this as a difference of interpretation but a difference first and foremost of evidence.

You don't have to agree, but I confess I don't really see how interpretation comes into play here. Now there are a few people who can interact with God, and like me, fully believe could be all illusionary or whatever. It sounds as though you're of this bent as well. But almost every other atheist I've talked to with the exception of one has never encountered this deity before.

Because if they had anything approaching that type of experience, they would interpret it differently. Interpretation doesn't just happen after experience. Interpretation also happens during experience, and it influences what we experience.

Correct me if I'm wrong and please do share, but I don't believe you have ever encountered whatever this thing is.

You are wrong. You are so set in your preconception of what this "thing" is that you would dismiss any testimony to the contrary. It's easy to do "experiments" that prove your point if you only allow the "data" that supports your "theories."

 

[Storm]

I only dictionary-burn people to expand definitions, not to restrict them. Which is why I don't feel bad doing this:

Theism
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Yipee! I was using the word correctly!!!

>sigh<

You'll note that the first definition - the one you omitted, now why is that - supported my usage, and indeed took it further than I did:

the·ism
1.the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2.belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

Furthermore, take a look at the definition of "god." It completely fails to distinguish deities from any other God-concept, or even note that other concepts exist:

God –noun
1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.(lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6.(lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7.(lowercase) any deified person or object.


In summation: yes common usage conflates theism with God-belief. I do not contest that. I merely point out that it does so inaccurately, and I am not a freaking theist! Why is that so difficult for everyone? :banghead3

Not much of a "dictionary burn," now was it?

 

[Chevalier Violet]

At what point did I say that you were using the word incorrectly??

That wasn't directed at you. I was thinking aloud. Sorry.

Because if they had anything approaching that type of experience, they would interpret it differently. Interpretation doesn't just happen after experience. Interpretation also happens during experience, and it influences what we experience.

Yes yes yes, I know. Philosopher of science, I know. But I can't interpret the Mona Lisa if I've never seen it. I think we can agree on that. And if my theory is correct, that many atheists have never actually spoken to this thing that I have seen and many others have experienced which appears to be a deity (quite unlike the pantheism you appear to be describing), then "interpretation" would not play a factor in any way, shape or form.

You are wrong. You are so set in your preconception of what this "thing" is that you would dismiss any testimony to the contrary. It's easy to do "experiments" that prove your point if you only allow the "data" that supports your "theories."

You're wrong.

I have no preset definition of what this thing is. It is you who is set in your preconceptions of this "thing". I dismiss no testimony, but I am looking for testimony of a certain type. I'm not saying your experiences are invalid, but as you have pointed out repeatedly, the experiences you have posted so far say nothing about a sentient deity.

I am worried that this "experiment" excludes certain types of experience which may skew my results. I have outlined this in excruciating detail on a different site. If I could but copy and paste from there to here, I would, but there is some glitch on this site.

Again, I find it difficult to do "experiments" on religion, and there are lots of built-in problems that we don't have playing with tennis balls. And if you're looking for the scale of "objectivity" you get playing with tennis balls, you may want to discuss something else.

If you have encountered a deity as opposed to a pantheist universe, I'm very interested to hear your experiences.

We do define this deity differently. I am actually more of a pantheist, but this experiment is directed at the possibility of a sentient God. I am aware of the infinite variety of possible definitions of God. It sounds from your words like you have never interacted with this type before.

If I'm wrong, instead of saying "you're wrong" please post experience. Show don't tell.

You're right that I worded this post vaguely. I wasn't used to pantheists, or whatever you are at that time.

CV

 

[Storm]

I was a member of the LDS church, an Elder in the preisthood, and at the time I was giving that paticular blessing I was a missionary in Canada. I try not to mention the church in most of my posts because I don't want people to think I'm anti-mormon. I still love the church, I just don't believe in God anymore. That was just one example of many blessings I tried to give during my membership in the church. Anyway, you don't need to be sorry about it. I don't regret my experiences in the church. It was a valuable learning experience that has helped to make me what I am today.

OK, glad to hear it.

I think the only way I'll ever get a vision of God is to do like YmirGF and take some acid hits. If God is the one giving the vision than anyone should be able to recieve it regardless of their brain chemistry or how they are wired.

It's not about brain chemistry or wiring, but activity. That's why most people have to learn it.

Think of it as any other skill. Take drawing for example. Some people have an innate talent for it, but most have to be taught, and learning takes time, practice, and most of all the belief that you can. It doesn't require drugs, though I have no opinion on the effectiveness of entheogens, never having tried them.

Just as the vast majority of people can't just pick up a pencil and create a realistic depiction of a person, the vast majority can't experience trance states simply by wanting to. Belief is necessary, and desire is helpful, but they're not enough. For some reason, at some point Christianity in general stopped teaching its members how to do this, but still teaches them that they should be able to.

If you want to try, I'd be happy to help as much as I can. If I'm just reading too much into your posts, nevermind. Either way, I suggest you read Why God Won't Go Away. If nothing else, it's a fascinating, well written book on why people believe so strongly.

 

[Storm]

At what point did I say that you were using the word incorrectly??

I'm pretty sure she was referring to me, lilithu, even though she didn't say so. I'm picking my bone again.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

>sigh<

You'll note that the first definition - the one you omitted, now why is that - supported my usage, and indeed took it further than I did:

the&#183;ism
1.the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2.belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

Furthermore, take a look at the definition of "god." It completely fails to distinguish deities from any other God-concept, or even note that other concepts exist:

God &#8211;noun
1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.(lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6.(lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7.(lowercase) any deified person or object.


In summation: yes common usage conflates theism with God-belief. I do not contest that. I merely point out that it does so inaccurately, and I am not a freaking theist! Why is that so difficult for everyone? :banghead3

Not much of a "dictionary burn," now was it?

Of course the first definition supports what you're saying. I didn't need to include the first definition because I was expanding our use, and supporting my original usage.

Like I said I'm expanding the definition. That is the only time I bust out the dictionary. Aka we're both right.

If you're not a theist what are you? You just said you're a pan-theist. In my book, that makes you a theist.

What is inaccurate. I just truly don't know, and I would like to know what you think is inaccurate. Either you believe in God, defined in any way you choose, so you're a theist. Or you don't believe in God, defined in any way you choose, and you're an atheist. I do not use the first definition, because I don't know what a deist is.

I'm not surprised the dictionary is useless for a definition of God. I find dictionaries useless for most discussions of religion, God, and science.

CV

 

[Baerly]

Back in the 70s many had visions of all kinds of things,but it was with the help of mushrooms and other chemicals. Beyond that, the bible says that those things (visions,miracles,prophecies,knowledge,miracles) would cease when the complete revelation had been finished in the first century (1Cor.13:8).

Baerly

 

[Storm]

Of course the first definition supports what you're saying. I didn't need to include the first definition because I was expanding our use, and supporting my original usage.

Like I said I'm expanding the definition. That is the only time I bust out the dictionary. Aka we're both right.

You call it expansion, I call it loss of precision. Since precision is important, this is bad (to me).

If you're not a theist what are you? You just said you're a pan-theist. In my book, that makes you a theist.

Gah.

1) No, as I have already pointed out, I'm not a pantheist, either. I am a panentheist. PanENtheist. Please, pay attention.

2) Then your book is wrong. I. am. NOT. a. theist. The term outdates new ideas. I do not believe in a deity.

Put it this way, people used to use the word "man" to describe all humans, women included. That was inaccurate, but is still in use today, though less prevalently. I am a human, but I am not a man, I'm a woman. Likewise, I believe in God, but I am not a theist, I'm a panentheist.

What is inaccurate.

The common usage conflation of "theism" with "God-belief," as I have already explained at length, repeatedly, so please don't play dumb.

Either you believe in God, defined in any way you choose, so you're a theist. Or you don't believe in God, defined in any way you choose, and you're an atheist.

Wrong. It's not an either/or situation; there are other options. Neither of those terms is an accurate description of my worldview.

I do not use the first definition, because I don't know what a deist is.

A deist is someone who believes in an impersonal creator deity.

I'm not surprised the dictionary is useless for a definition of God. I find dictionaries useless for most discussions of religion, God, and science.

Then I suggest you stop relying on it for your understanding of theology.

I have demonstrated that while the dictionary does define theism as simple belief in God, it also defines God as a deity. Theism is deity-belief, which I do not hold. I am not a theist, so please stop telling me that I am.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

You call it expansion, I call it loss of precision. Since precision is important, this is bad (to me).

You're right, precision is important. Good thing you know precisely what I mean by the word theist now.

Gah.

Gah yourself. Offers *Cherry Coke*

1) No, as I have already pointed out, I'm not a pantheist, either. I am a panentheist. PanENtheist. Please, pay attention.

You pay attention. I will define my words however I want. It's official, in my book you're a theist. Thank you for your time.

2) Then your book is wrong. I. am. NOT. a. theist. The term outdates new ideas. I do not believe in a deity.

YOUR book is wrong. You . are . a . theist.

I am using the term in a new way. And yes I'm aware you don't believe in a deity. Good job. I still reserve the right to use any word anyway I choose and I have made its meaning clear.

Thank you!

Put it this way, people used to use the word "man" to describe all humans, women included. That was inaccurate, but is still in use today, though less prevalently. I am a human, but I am not a man, I'm a woman. Likewise, I believe in God, but I am not a theist, I'm a panentheist.

Hmm, interesting.

I have just decided that for the purpose of my language, a panentheist falls under theist. Thank you.

The common usage conflation of "theism" with "God-belief," as I have already explained at length, repeatedly, so please don't play dumb.

Hmm, well for my purposes, I find this useful. Use the word however your want for your own purposes.

Wrong. It's not an either/or situation; there are other options. Neither of those terms is an accurate description of my worldview.

Wrong.

A deist is someone who believes in an impersonal creator deity.

Please, please pay attention. If you're not an atheist, to me, you're a theist. I have the right to categorize my universe any way I choose, and I as I mentioned before, I am being very clear about this.

I've decided that you're using the word "the" incorrectly. Sorry.

Then I suggest you stop relying on it for your understanding of theology.

Done and done. Which is why looking up the definition of panentheism did me no good at all. Keep explaining.

I have demonstrated that while the dictionary does define theism as simple belief in God, it also defines God as a deity. Theism is deity-belief, which I do not hold. I am not a theist, so please stop telling me that I am.

Hmm, well, I don't use that definition. Stop telling me that you aren't one.

Offers a sandwich.

So do you have any personal experience to post, or do you prefer defining words I don't care to argue with you?

I'm really hoping this will lead somewhere more tangible.

 

[Storm]

So do you have any personal experience to post, or do you prefer defining words I don't care to argue with you?

And that would have nothing to do with the fact that I can actually back up my point, and you cannot, of course.

1) No, as I have already pointed out, I'm not a pantheist, either. I am a panentheist. PanENtheist. Please, pay attention.

You pay attention. I will define my words however I want. It's official, in my book you're a theist. Thank you for your time.

When reason fails, resort to playground tactics. "No, you are!!11!!

You can't even get the word right, but I'm the one who needs to pay attention. Your understanding of my beliefs is superior to mine even though I had to correct you twice before you even got the word right. Ah, the arrogance of ignorance.

Please, please pay attention. If you're not an atheist, to me, you're a theist. I have the right to categorize my universe any way I choose, and I as I mentioned before, I am being very clear about this.

So, an agnostic is a theist? Anyway, what did that have to do with deism? You said you didn't know what it was, so I told you. Don't you even pay attention to what you're saying?

I'm really hoping this will lead somewhere more tangible.

It might have, had you foregone the attempt to tell me what I believe. I do have quite a bit of personal experience that I was hoping to share. However, since you're more interested in shoving me into a conveniently labelled box regardless of whether I fit in it or not than actually exchanging ideas...

No. You're obviously not trying to understand anything, but prove something. What your agenda is, I neither know nor care. I'm through wasting my time on you.

 

[lilithu]

You're right that I worded this post vaguely. I wasn't used to pantheists, or whatever you are at that time.

I'm not a pantheist. I'm a panentheist, like Storm. But unlike her I agree with you that a panentheist is a kind of theist. :beach:

I also agree with you that it's a matter of definition and that both definitions are valid.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

And that would have nothing to do with the fact that I can actually back up my point, and you cannot, of course.

Wow your words are so arrogant.

When reason fails, resort to playground tactics. "No, you are!!11!!

You know what a playground tactic is? Think about this for a moment. Really think. That's right, name-calling.

Ok ignoramus?

You can't even get the word right, but I'm the one who needs to pay attention.

Yes, yes you do. I told you like 10 posts ago that if I believe in God in any form, however defined it, even if I define my cat as God, I would be a theist. But I would not be a theist as opposed to a deist, that is completely different and I am completely ignoring this part of the word's meaning, which I said from square one, right away, long before I started feeling angry with you.

Your understanding of my beliefs is superior to mine even though I had to correct you twice before you even got the word right. Ah, the arrogance of ignorance.

This arrogance is written all over your posts.

I don't know what you believe. As Lu pointed out, if you believe in panentheism that would make you both theist and not theist at the same time.

So, an agnostic is a theist? Anyway, what did that have to do with deism? You said you didn't know what it was, so I told you. Don't you even pay attention to what you're saying?

Agnostic can be a theist. In fact, I happen to be an agnostic-theist. Don't you even pay attention?

It might have, had you foregone the attempt to tell me what I believe.

I'll stop saying what you believe if you stop telling me what my words mean. Deal?

Anyway, instead of following your stupid agenda that panentheism isn't theism (it has the word theism in it?!), how about just being quiet?



I do have quite a bit of personal experience that I was hoping to share. However, since you're more interested in shoving me into a conveniently labelled box regardless of whether I fit in it or not than actually exchanging ideas...

Oh waaaa waaa waaa!

No. You're obviously not trying to understand anything, but prove something. What your agenda is, I neither know nor care. I'm through wasting my time on you.

Yeah, who is obviously not trying to understand anything. That's right playground girl. So if you're done insulting me, and you think you can play nice, maybe come back and say something that benefits both of us, rather than miring both of us in abstractions.

The only person here with an agenda is you. Stop trying to impose your definition on me, I don't want it. I don't care if most people use the word, think that way. I think my own way and I don't want to think your way.IF that's what's socially accepted, fine, go away.

I'm done wasting my time on you too.

Plus I am new to this board so would you please be nice to me? I had never seen the word panentheist before. And even though I still believe it is not atheism, you still have the right to categorize it however you see fit. You had obviously never seen the word theism used in a way that calls panentheism a theist before. MMMMMK?

Also, your name is way too cool, and your posts far too excellent for me to keep disagreeing with you.

You're still a big cultish Gobbedldy Goor. Tell me what that means too.

CV

 

[Chevalier Violet]

I'm not a pantheist. I'm a panentheist, like Storm. But unlike her I agree with you that a panentheist is a kind of theist. :beach:

I also agree with you that it's a matter of definition and that both definitions are valid.

Right, that's all I'm saying...

 

[Chevalier Violet]

Back in the 70s many had visions of all kinds of things,but it was with the help of mushrooms and other chemicals. Beyond that, the bible says that those things (visions,miracles,prophecies,knowledge,miracles) would cease when the complete revelation had been finished in the first century (1Cor.13:8).

Baerly

Ooook, did any of these visions involve a deity?

Oh man, I'm sorry guys, but I am really not getting much out of these types of responses.

And as for panentheism for the love of Pete, I just want to know what God looks like to you as a physical entity if anything. If you don't believe in a deity then YOU CAN'T HELP ME! (this isn't directed at you bro, but just general frustration I feel with storm right now, like telling me what to think. I am just so shocked, and I expected better from this person. But also I know she's doing her best and probably just misread what I wrote in some bizarre way. Internet communication is hard.)

CV

 

[Storm]

Chevalier Violet, kindly keep arguments confined to a single thread, or - if you absolutely must - take them to PM. Derailing other threads by carrying over is rude.

Storm, I have deeply disliked your attempts to define my words for me, and to impose your definition of words upon me. That strikes me as a profoundly arrogant thing to do. Even if you were the greatest lexicographer and writer in the world, you would still have very limited right to tell me what words "mean." All you know is how you use them.

I beg your pardon? You were the one trying to impose a label which I reject onto me and my beliefs. I am not a theist, I have explained why I am not a theist repeatedly and at length, and yet you simply ignored all of my points to insist that I meekly accept that you have the right to misrepresent my beliefs. Well, tough ****.

I really dislike what I read as an "I'm-smarter-than-you" tone, and your apparent belief that somehow you speak English better than other people. If you don't understand something I say, please feel free to ask for clarification. But to tell me what words mean when you understand my meaning, I really don't appreciate that, and I don't see that as based in humility, love, or a spirit of respect or acceptance for that matter.

I really dislike people trying to misrepresent me, or tell me what I believe. The fact is that I do speak English better than a lot of people, but that's neither here nor there. My issue with you is that you refused to acknowledge my right to reject an inaccurate label.

I know you're doing your best to express yourself, and to guide discussion on here. I find the discussion here extremely imprecise as well.

Then what exactly is your problem? Why can't you accept that there is another, more precise definition of "theist" and it doesn't describe me? BTW, yes, lillithu and I disagree on this same issue. OTOH, take a look at the "What is theism" thread.

I also find a lot of philosophical poverty around here. Not that I'm saying people are wrong, just I'm surprised at how unfamiliar people seem with the standard terminology that people use in philosophical circles.

And you accuse me of an "'I'm smarter than you' tone"?

At least toward me, please have a more understanding and respectful tone in the future.

I was perfectly courteous until you inanely started insisting on misrepresenting my beliefs. Even then, I'm not the one who resorted to playground tactics and gibberish. At this point, you have shown absolutely no respect for me or my beliefs, and no interest in understanding those beliefs, so why should I curry your favor?

 

[Prometheus]

Panentheism is the theological position that God is immanent within the Universe, but also transcends it.

Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more gods or deities.
There is also a narrower sense in which theism refers to the belief that one or more gods are immanent in the world, yet transcend it, along with the idea that God/(s) are omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

...

Storm is a Theist. Now let's all stop fighting.