You won't find God in the dictionary.

Homepage Forums Atheism You won't find God in the dictionary.

This topic contains 171 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Reg the Fronkey Farmer 11 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 172 total)
  • Author
  • #27461


    Dear Theists,

    Has one or any God spoken to you, personally, and described their self? If not, then every conception or declaration of what God is is merely hearsay, unless you also believe that God personally wrote or dictated scriptures that people, mere mortals, pen and print to this day. Did the angel Gabriel really relay God’s word to Mohammed in a cave, with no other witnesses present?

    Claims regarding the validity of various scriptures (or of the validity thereof of) their various interpretations have been in force for over a thousand years, with penalties as harsh as torture and execution for people with doubt, or even for people merely suspected of having doubt.

    Any definition of God is merely speculation, at best backed up by word of mouth from generation to generation of mortal human beings. There is not a shred of first-hand evidence to stand on, like the myth and memes of Santa Claus, except at least adults promulgating the myth of Santa Claus are not subject to ridicule or worse penalty when they say it’s just a myth. And there is plenty of evidence of some people making outrageous claims of all sorts, yet collecting large audiences of gullible human beings willing to believe, in spite of common sense or lack of evidence.

    To this day, members of a culture are pressured to believe in the God (or whatever) that the culture has traditionally believed in for hundreds or thousands of years. The finer details of what you believe in without first hand evidence is almost always dictated by your culture, unless of course you grow up in a liberal, tolerant culture that doesn’t penalize you for thinking for yourself and questioning the basis of its traditions.

    • This reply was modified 11 months, 1 week ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: Upon further reflection I felt the urge to add "(or of the validity thereof of)"
    • This reply was modified 11 months, 1 week ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: I had to add that superfluous/faux period at the end before the editor allowed me to add the following clarification for your reading pleasure (which is important to us): Never mind, now I can't even remember the original reason for the fricken edit!
    • This reply was modified 11 months, 1 week ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: Removed the superfluous (and now COMPLETELY meaningless faux/superfluous period, making these last two edit disclosures completely superfluous and/or meaningless. I mean really, do I need a semicolon now?)


    Do we use such diarrhea language in any other moment than when we purposefully try to avoid defining something?

    Ok, due to Mother Nature, which generally limits what’s possible in Human Nature (not counting Artificial Intelligence that begins innocently/innocuously generated by nerdy/hormonally challenged and philosophically naive programmers and then takes on a life of its own that is at this time in the historical arc of humanity completely unpredictable in nature), diarrhea (your spelling which I assume is correct) is notoriously uncontrollable.

    Holy shitskies, I’m sorry, what were we talking about? Oh, right, God, where anything under the Sun is possible. Including the definition of God.

    Now if I could just make all of the above rhyme in hexadecimalilic pentameter then add catchy melody to it that people can dance to with mindblowingly repetitive movements…

    • This reply was modified 11 months, 1 week ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: Removed/redacted potentially embarrasing disclosure/admission: "(Full disclosure, I am currently under the influence of Johnny Walker Double Black, from Costco.)"

    Simon Paynton

    Do you know what “positive” means in this context?

    If “positive” means “godlike” then it’s a tautology.  “God has god-like properties”.


    Simon Paynton

    @ivy – you might be interested in this book by Steve Taylor, about his theory that the universe is pervaded by consciousness (which I don’t believe in, although I subscribe to most of the other stuff he says).


    Steve Tyler the “Panspiritist” guy? Spiritual Science is an oxymoron. As I mentioned above spiritual = supernatural. As he gives credence to creationism he should have called the book “Supernatural Science”.


    Simon Paynton

    Steve Taylor might be the “Panspiritist” guy, I don’t know.  His main area is “spiritual awakening“, which is a real thing, and not supernatural, but psychological.  It’s kind of like a state of enlightenment.  People don’t give two fucks any more about things that don’t matter, and enter some kind of state of bliss, even though they still feel negative emotions.

    He’s a psychology professor at Manchester University.

    he gives credence to creationism

    Where does he do this?  I was unaware of this.  I don’t think he does.



    Ideas are just ideas and nobody’s perfect. Everybody has their flaws. Even the most prolific thinkers of our time are not perfect. What does it mean we can’t learn from other people who we hold opposing views with. When you say you won’t even read something because they take a position you disagree with, that’s like the antithesis of critical thinking. Critical thinking is you can look through an argument objectively. And if you truly are open to learning something different or new, then you are at least open to considering it. But if you sit there and say that you are so open minded, but when push comes to shove, the evidence would actually suggest that you’re very close minded. I haven’t read any of the guys stuff except for that article I linked. There were some really great ideas in it I thought. Ideas worth consideration. I think atheist label anybody who believes in God as creationist. It’s kind of like all those racist people who think anybody who speaks Spanish is from Mexico LOL!

    • This reply was modified 11 months, 1 week ago by  Ivy.

    Reg – Could you just once agree with somebody??


    Reg – Could you just once agree with somebody??

    No. That’s no fun.


    I think atheists label anybody who believes in God as creationist…

    Wrong. A creationist is someone who does not accept that Evolution is a fact and that we are an evolved species. Often they also think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Muslims and Christians can still believe in their versions of God without being Creationists. In fact most theists are not Creationists and I don’t think I have ever met an atheist who would think otherwise. The only ones I know who think we do are Creationists themselves.


    Simon here is a video from Tyler.

    He says that “there is no evidence that consciousness is produced by brain activity”. He is a psychologist, like JP.


    Simon Paynton

    Simon here is a video from Tyler.

    Where does Steve Taylor say that he believes in Creationism?

    He says that “there is no evidence that consciousness is produced by brain activity”.

    He’s entitled to his opinion.  Maybe he’s right.  I don’t know.



    So why should you take panspiritism seriously as a philosophy of mind, and regard it more favourably than competing approaches such as materialism, idealism and panpsychism?

    To be viable, any metaphysical framework needs to be inclusive and have explanatory power. It should provide an all-encompassing way of thinking or paradigm through which the major facets of human experience and of the nature of reality can be coherently interpreted, understood, and interrelated. I believe that panspiritism can perform this role. It can contribute to understanding mind and matter and the relationships between them, and provide insights into the origins of life and the processes of evolution. In addition, panspiritism can help us make sense of a wide range of seemingly anomalous phenomena, such as the placebo effect and physiological influence under hypnosis, mystical experiences of oneness with the universe, near-death experiences, as well as altruism and morality. (See my book Spiritual Science for details of how panspiritism can explain these phenomena).

    Of course, there are crucial areas which remain unexplained. I have not explained, and perhaps it is not possible to explain, the process by which matter arises out of fundamental consciousness, or the process by which cells channel it. In this sense, you might say that the hard problem of consciousness has simply been reversed: that the mystery of how consciousness arises out of matter is replaced by the mystery of how matter arises out of consciousness! Nevertheless, I believe even simply as a broad approach that synthesises what we do know about consciousness and matter, panspiritism holds a good deal of promise. In comparison, despite its elegant reframing of the hard problem of consciousness, the range and explanatory power of panpsychism seems limited.

    In addition, I believe the full attraction of panspiritism lies in the value it places on all phenomena. Whereas materialism denies the ultimate reality of mind, and idealism denies the ultimate reality of matter, panspiritism sees both as equally real and valuable. Whereas materialism sees the world as a machine, and idealism sees it as a mirage, panspiritism sees the world as a vibrant, interconnected whole.

    © Dr Steve Taylor 2019


    Simon Paynton

    So, he believes in evolution.  I understand that he believes in “guided” evolution of some kind, but I’m not sure about the details, although he can provide credible evidence.



    How special ! Give that man a Nobel Prize and fast. As we go extinct;  do we get to watch our robots run around in circles from heaven?  The babble doesn’t say.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 172 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.