Religion

cbayer

(146,218 posts)

65. Everyone's explanation for what they mean by god is different.

Sun May 24, 2015, 09:09 AM

May 2015

There is not a single definition. Just look at the rather silly thread going on right now about what people would do if they were god.

I believe that the concept of god develops within those that believe. A concept also develops within those that don't believe, but that is only purpose of that is so they can reject it.

No one will ever give you a coherent explanation that you can accept because you don't believe, and you will likely never accept that their explanation is coherent because it will not make sense to you.

I don't have a belief in god, but I'm not certain that this thing does not exist in some form. I like to hear other people's descriptions of what they believe in.

What I don't need to do is set up complicated theses which will lead to the conclusion that god does or does not exist, because it makes absolutely no difference to me and I think it's impossible anyway.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

86 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The surprising links between faith and evolution and climate denial — charted [View all] cbayer May 2015 OP

"At the other extreme, meanwhile, is the view that religion has no conflict with science at all." trotsky May 2015 #1

Two arguments from religious dogma expressed by leadership exboyfil May 2015 #2

That is true, but I think the data here is hopeful. cbayer May 2015 #5

"there appears to be far more support for evolution than denial of it" trotsky May 2015 #24

Not sure how the questions were asked, but there are important differences... Buzz Clik May 2015 #3

I would suggest that support for more regulation is even strong than cbayer May 2015 #7

"Surprising"?... NeoGreen May 2015 #4

Here, let me explain. trotsky May 2015 #6

Right, how could I forget Rule #1... NeoGreen May 2015 #8

It's pretty much binary, it appears. trotsky May 2015 #21

Well, I rather like Chris Mooney. longship May 2015 #9

I think the point of this graph is that it shows that there is no cbayer May 2015 #10

But the anti-evolutionists and the climate deniers... longship May 2015 #15

Yes, there is no question that there are religious underpinnings for those cbayer May 2015 #18

I hope you are correct, my friend. longship May 2015 #22

Of course, not all religious people are republicans, right? cbayer May 2015 #23

I don't think the graph shows there is no inherent conflict between science and religion. eomer May 2015 #33

Well, I think we may be saying the same thing. cbayer May 2015 #34

There's a difference between not having scientific proof and being outside of science. eomer May 2015 #38

I agree that there is a difference and I think that somethings cbayer May 2015 #41

Right, we agree on most of this, just not the last part (but that part is critical). eomer May 2015 #42

We will have to disagree. cbayer May 2015 #43

I too like a feeling of mystery but I can get that and still have definitions of science and nature eomer May 2015 #46

I'm not drawing artificial lines around reality in order to get a pleasant feeling of mystery. cbayer May 2015 #51

Okay, but that leaves my point intact, I believe. eomer May 2015 #53

Perhaps it is the definition of supernatural that is the problem here. cbayer May 2015 #54

That definitely isn't the definition of supernatural. eomer May 2015 #56

No, that is the definition and gravity would not fit it. cbayer May 2015 #57

Electricity wasn't ever supernatural, not before we understood it, not before we existed. eomer May 2015 #58

Of course it was not supernatural. cbayer May 2015 #59

No, that's not what I say. eomer May 2015 #60

Does nature include things that may not be physical? cbayer May 2015 #61

My definition of nature was everything that exists, so yes. eomer May 2015 #64

Everyone's explanation for what they mean by god is different. cbayer May 2015 #65

My thesis is actually simpler than yours. eomer May 2015 #66

I don't really have a thesis. That was kind of my point. cbayer May 2015 #67

That's not the more logical position because it includes a word that we don't know what it means. eomer May 2015 #68

You can't reach a logical position if you cbayer May 2015 #69

I can't think of any definition of supernatural that means anything. eomer May 2015 #70

I find it fascinating to see one argue for the existence of something can't or won't define... cleanhippie May 2015 #72

And you reject my definition. cbayer May 2015 #73

I don't reject your definition, it just doesn't get to what I'm talking about. eomer May 2015 #74

Your argument is so circular eomer. cbayer May 2015 #75

No, I just insist that you explain what you mean by supernatural. eomer May 2015 #76

I gave you my definition. cbayer May 2015 #77

Yes, I do think there is a scientific explanation for love. eomer May 2015 #78

Well, if "Your Amazing Brain" says so, it must be true. cbayer May 2015 #79

Oh, sheesh, you really think that's the only source for the science? eomer May 2015 #81

Of course you can. I said i my reply that you could... cbayer May 2015 #82

Okay, we're narrowing down the part that we disagree about (by eliminating some things we agree on). eomer May 2015 #83

I think we can agree on this. cbayer May 2015 #84

Thanks for telling me about that documentary film, I watched it last night. eomer May 2015 #85

I'm really glad you like it. cbayer May 2015 #86

I'm not really interested in a "logical position" when it comes to the supernatural/god question Yorktown May 2015 #80

"A logical position would require using words in a way that they convey some coherent meaning..." cleanhippie May 2015 #71

It doesn't show that at all. gcomeau May 2015 #37

I think this chart is scary as hell. The RcC holds as official doctrine that AtheistCrusader May 2015 #48

I agree that parts of it are scary and it clearly points out where the work needs to be done. cbayer May 2015 #52

Cool chart Gothmog May 2015 #11

Once again we see edhopper May 2015 #12

That's one take away and not a surprising one….. cbayer May 2015 #13

My brother is sort of Buddhist edhopper May 2015 #14

Of course you are. cbayer May 2015 #16

Kidding asisde edhopper May 2015 #17

I think it's pretty good news, actually. cbayer May 2015 #19

That's the best part. AtheistCrusader May 2015 #49

He doesn't note the color coding, but it is telling in many ways. cbayer May 2015 #55

I think it calls into question the balance. AtheistCrusader May 2015 #62

Yes, the chart does make me optimistic. cbayer May 2015 #63

Gotta love you, Ed. longship May 2015 #20

I share your respect for ed…. cbayer May 2015 #25

OMFG, you are correct. longship May 2015 #26

Both you and ed really keep it civil and stay above the personal attacks. cbayer May 2015 #27

As long as it's not Corona. longship May 2015 #28

I've developed a fondness for IPA's. cbayer May 2015 #29

Hops! That's fine! nt longship May 2015 #30

True edhopper May 2015 #45

Thanks edhopper May 2015 #44

Be aware that "free market fundamentalism" is a dogma, similar to religion. immoderate May 2015 #31

IMO, fundamentalists can be found anywhere. cbayer May 2015 #32

Neat. trotsky May 2015 #35

This post contains another Rob H. May 2015 #39

Oh my, I can't believe I brainfarted on that one. trotsky May 2015 #40

I'd wager the force holding atheists from pegging the AtheistCrusader May 2015 #50

I'll just re-post what I commented there yesterday... gcomeau May 2015 #36

Good Chart. hrmjustin May 2015 #47