Do any atheists truly escape "God"?

[MuniAddict]

Originally Posted by trickcyclist

Hey Billy the Mountain! Don't you knock my religion.

I believe in the holy trinity - one God with three manifestations...

Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, and the Holy Tooth Fairy.

Just believe. Santa has yet to inspire a holy book, but he is collaborating with Dr. Seuss, and I hear there is one in the works.

T'was the night before christmas, with eggs on the ground, and kringle, hare, tooth fairy, all fooling around!

[trickcyclist]

Originally Posted by MuniAddict

T'was the night before christmas, with eggs on the ground, and kringle, hare, tooth fairy, all fooling around!

Quiet Tooth! Said the Fairy; don't make a sound.
Santa's bitterly jealous, and his suspicions are well found,
...?

[BillyTheMountain]

I like it. We're not going to let FeelTheLight thread jack this into another one of his Christian threads, he can start his own!

This one is about GOD (Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc).

[johnfoss]

Originally Posted by phlegm

For people who revere the flag of America most, I would say what it represents is their "God". Aren't people who revere nature most (as God) called pantheists?

I don't know much about pantheists. Don't they have to be women of a certain age? But to take the approach that one determines one's own God, does that not suggest God is created by Man?

Originally Posted by phlegm

Now, I realize that there's no guarantee that what one calls "God" is the one true God (assuming one exists)...

Why must there be just one? Or, why can't the One be many things to many people, hence taking many forms?

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Indirectly, I'm asking the question: Why do scientists target GOD?

Which ones? Links, please.

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Except for MichaelGoRound, no one here is talking about Christ. This is a GOD thread. I checked the original post:

Is that a new rule, that anything that comes up after the first post is not relevant to the discussion? If that were true I think you might retroactively cease to exist. Otherwise, please note that phlegm has referred to Jesus quite a bit, as an important part of how he describes his interpretation of God.

[feel the light]

Show me your god. In the world of science, evidence we all can see is heralded.

Or debate your magic book logic.

Tell me why you have this God. To the OP I ask where he found Christ.

[hugo]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

It's funny to religious people because it's just a silly stereotype of how persons-of-NoFaith view persons-of-Faith. And it's funny to persons-of-NoFaith because it's just funny.

I'll make a test: I'll tell my mother and watch her reaction

[hobo_chuck]

Originally Posted by feel the light

Show me your god. In the world of science, evidence we all can see is heralded.

Or debate your magic book logic.

Tell me why you have this God. To the OP I ask where he found Christ.

I found Christ in some rust stains in my bathroom. It took me three days to remove him.

[nimblelight]

Oh Richard Dawkins,

Grant me the serenity to quit whining about not being a child, the courage to show people where they can put it, and the wisdom to know when to ignore them and focus on input, which apparently is most of the time. Because any of that would be better than being the world’s b***h.

In the name of Karl Popper,

EOF.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Is that a new rule, that anything that comes up after the first post is not relevant to the discussion? If that were true I think you might retroactively cease to exist. Otherwise, please note that phlegm has referred to Jesus quite a bit, as an important part of how he describes his interpretation of God.

Not a new rule.

But if you claim 4-legged animals do not exist, then bring up one such 4-legged animal to back up your argument (eg., unicorns), it simply confuses the argument and lends nothing of substance to it.

To go to the Christian Bible stories as proof no GOD exists is just silly.

What? You're not allowing objections to thread jacks anymore?

[BillyTheMountain]

"I believe the very purpose of our life is to seek happiness.

That's clear.

Whether we believe in a religion or not,

whether one believes in this religion or that religion,

we are all seeking something better in life.

So, I think the very motion of our life is towards happiness."

~ Dali Lama & BillyTheMountain

[dumbkat]

god is like the master clock maker. Once he sets us in motion, all the gears and cranks work properly in a harmonious fashion. After such he leaves us alone, not tampering with us anymore. So the universe would work in a logical and computable way.

This is my opinion

[BillyTheMountain]

Like the IT guy.

Whenever something isn't working, GOD tells you to shut everything off and turn it on again, and that fixes most problems.

[phlegm]

Originally Posted by justtysen

The practical judge derives value only through the observable consequences of the concept, and conceptions only stand to represent similarities in particular concrete examples, which are themselves considered the basis of existence. Hence someone could value an object only for its personal utility and not elevate it to a status of metaphysical value. They do not even consider meeting personal needs to be of metaphysical value. These are the people who might not meet the definition of reverence put forth, and so would be the atheists who can escape Phlegm's God.

Nihilists, perspectivists, relativists, hard skeptics, postmodernists, and poststructuralists all have the potential to escape Phlegm's God, but I'm not sure they're the only ones. There are probably plenty of people who operate as if they've escaped Phlegm's God to the point that it is a non-issue for them, and they don't adopt a monicker.

What you say brings out an important point in what I've been trying to express. I'm not saying that what I revere most is necessarily metaphysical. I tried in the original post to emphasize living in reverence, not just having an idea of reverence.

As a Christian by the statement "Jesus is God" I mean that the love historically lived by Jesus is what I call "God", and I actually try to live in reverence toward it. What I call "God" is actual because I see those who share my reverence actually loving others.

What you name as ways to escape reverence seem to all be mere intellectual positions. Could you please provide a specific example of a way to live without reverence?

Originally Posted by feel the light

If the KVG fans are nuts, from where do you get your Christ knowledge ?

I said "KJV-only". There are those who believe that all Bible translations other than the KJV are "not of God", and they are nuts.

My knowledge of Jesus comes from the Christian Bible, which contains every known major source of history surrounding Jesus. I shouldn't have to say this, but seeing as you seem unreasonably antagonistic, I would never claim that everything in the Bible correlates to a real historical event. Yet, it is plainly clear that the biblical narrative is woven around historical accounts. There is no evidence that the Bible is merely a "magic" book, and such a position is just as nutty as the KJV-only position.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

But to take the approach that one determines one's own God, does that not suggest God is created by Man?

Not necessarily. Just because you recognize and/or label something doesn't mean you created it, unless you're willing to make the counter-scientific claim that all of reality is simply our creation.

Originally Posted by johnfoss

Why must there be just one? Or, why can't the One be many things to many people, hence taking many forms?

Sure, why not? The One versus the Many is a complex philosophical problem. Do you really need me to write God/Goddess/Gods/Goddesses/etc.?

[feel the light]

"My knowledge of Jesus comes from the Christian Bible, which contains every known major source of history surrounding Jesus. I shouldn't have to say this, but seeing as you seem unreasonably antagonistic, I would never claim that everything in the Bible correlates to a real historical event. Yet, it is plainly clear that the biblical narrative is woven around historical accounts. There is no evidence that the Bible is merely a "magic" book, and such a position is just as nutty as the KJV-only position." - phlegm

Actually no, the bible contains only a small portion of known ancient Christian texts. Also, I am not antagonistic, it just feels that way when someone corrects you on the knowledge of your own religion. In my own nutty way I am trying to be helpful.

If you want to learn about how your magic book was really made, you tube can help.

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...ospel+of+Judas

YouTube- Banned From Bible 1 of 12

Actually, bible historians have a lot to teach you. If your Jesus comes from your bible, and that is an important fact to you, why are you so ignorant about bible history ? Are you protecting your love of Jesus by being antagonistic to learning the history of your magic book ?

[Michaelgoround]

Originally Posted by feel the light

"My knowledge of Jesus comes from the Christian Bible, which contains every known major source of history surrounding Jesus. I shouldn't have to say this, but seeing as you seem unreasonably antagonistic, I would never claim that everything in the Bible correlates to a real historical event. Yet, it is plainly clear that the biblical narrative is woven around historical accounts. There is no evidence that the Bible is merely a "magic" book, and such a position is just as nutty as the KJV-only position." - phlegm

Actually no, the bible contains only a small portion of known ancient Christian texts. Also, I am not antagonistic, it just feels that way when someone corrects you on the knowledge of your own religion. In my own nutty way I am trying to be helpful.

If you want to learn about how your magic book was really made, you tube can help.

Actually, bible historians have a lot to teach you. If your Jesus comes from your bible, and that is an important fact to you, why are you so ignorant about bible history ? Are you protecting your love of Jesus by being antagonistic to learning the history of your magic book ?

As is mentioned in the history chanel video there are many reasons why these books were not accepted into the main cannon we call the Bible. Which would be dissagreement with the scriptures and teachings we (Christians) hold to be most holy. A lot of the books clearly go against the teachings of jesus and scripture.

And i would not call the bible magic at all. I think God is more "naturalistic" then people tend to think. If God created everything we see then could he not alter it to his liking? Induce "miracles"?