Give it up.<br />
<br />
<br />
*Your explanations of "god" are inconsistent, even with themselves. I don't have a frakking clue what you are trying to say, and I doubt very much that you do either.

Best Answer

Nope. So which "God" do you not believe in. Look at above definitions.

Best Answer

Your explanations of god (each of them) are inconsistent, even with themselves. I don't have a frakking clue what you are trying to say, and I doubt very much that you do either.

Best Answer

How are the explanations inconsistent? Please give an example. I am sorry you don't have a clue. I can assure you that I do, in order to better understand what someone is saying or asking or conveying, it is a good idea to ask the person a question for clarification instead of becoming rude to them. I assume if you understand English and you can read then there is a good chance you can have at least one clue to what I am wondering. I listed two definitions of "God" ..... Which "God" do you have a lack of belief in? Easy.

Best Answer

Right on Cylon changing the definition of the word 'god' will not some how make one magically pop into existence.

Best Answer

Each of the things you listed, are completely different from each other. Example: Quantum field and universe.

Best Answer

Thisisevenlessfunnow.... These are real definitions of "God.". The reason why you are at a "loss" is because you are an atheist and probably do not go exploring philosophy of religion, etc. to learn about different definitions, right? Like Ian G. Barbour's book: "When Science Meets Religion..."? Or Max Jammer's "Einstein and Religion"? Or "God is not Dead " by Amit Goswami, PhD. (the quantum physicist)? Or "Science and Religion: Are they compatible?" by Paul Kurtz? To name a few. In my experience, once you come to a conclusion about something even if you don't know enough about it to draw to a conclusion information is no longer sought out so learning stops. Instead in atheist's case, all that happens is the focus on the word "God" and previous conclusions about "God" that the person has made stops any unbiased exploration of the material.

Best Answer

Maple10..... These are real definitions of "God.". The reason why you are at a "loss" is because you are an atheist and probably do not go exploring philosophy of religion, etc. to learn about different definitions, right? Like Ian G. Barbour's book: "When Science Meets Religion..."? Or Max Jammer's "Einstein and Religion"? Or "God is not Dead " by Amit Goswami, PhD. (the quantum physicist)? Or "Science and Religion: Are they compatible?" by Paul Kurtz? To name a few. In my experience, once you come to a conclusion about something even if you don't know enough about it to draw to a conclusion information is no longer sought out so learning stops. Instead in atheist's case, all that happens is the focus on the word "God" and previous conclusions about "God" that the person has made stops any unbiased exploration of the material.

Best Answer

Here is the thing, I understand those words you use, it is obvious that you do not and that you are just throwing around buzz words.

Best Answer

What makes you think I am at a loss? To begin with you know nothing about me and are wrong in most of your assumptions. Just because I don't wish to follow your wrong headed path doesn't mean a thing. I've been over all this with you before and your narrow minded stubbornness is legend.

Best Answer

Maple10.... A monkey who looks into a mirror only sees another monkey. .... Let's get this straight, I don't have any money in which relative truth you create. It has no bearing on my relative truth. The problem is you lack the ability to have a discussion about this point about "God", the quantum consciousness "God" without doing a classic philosophical fallacy... Attack a person's character instead of sticking to the issue, a sign that one has no argument, a sign one's argument is weak........... I did not "change" the definition of the dualistic Christian God. I am not the only one who agrees with quantum holism and/or monistic idealism which defines "God" in the way I mentioned above. This "God" definition has not been changed by me.. It has been philosophized into being by a large number of people some who have written hundreds of books about it and who have created movies. Instead of feeling attacked how about just learning about something you do not know much about. No one knows everything. Also it is clear you like many atheists, materials, and scientific materialists only disagree with the dualistic Christian God.... and the use of the name "God" when it is referring to a non-dualistic, non-Christian God which is seen as having supremacy over other ways, non-Christian ways, to define "God.". Yes, you are at a "Loss" because of this narrow minded, closed-minded way of looking at this subject.

Best Answer
7 More Responses

Erm, no, Einstein. Do you realise the HUGE error in your question? Let me help you. I don't believe in any god, so I don't believe in any god. Why does making up new gods make me suddenly believe?<br />
Can you explain what you were trying to say without copying and pasting from Wikipedia, please?

Best Answer

LOL! I can't accept that I am the only one hanging out by the philosophy section of Barnes and Noble finding out about these thing! Yikes! It is a compliment to point at me and proclaim I am the leader of quantum holism or monistic idealism by alas, I can only smile, shake my head modestly and point to a huge stack of books siting in my office. It isn't a new God, btw. It is infinite...trillions upon trillions of .... Well... Just really ancient! What have I copied and pasted from Wikipedia? Another compliment! You are full of it , aren't you? Anyway, if you believe in the Universe, reality, yourself, the Sun, galaxies, DNA, bacteria, Superstrings, M-theory, etc. than you do believe in this non-duality. Just like your Dawkins.

Best Answer

I don't even get the question! Dammit, speak canine, will ya?<br />
<br />
1st, SOMETHING must be there...would be unnatural and stupid if material level were the highest form of existence...too much "space" around and not enough sentience for logic, else.<br />
<br />
2nd: no mortal can know the nature of a godly being, cause divine entities stand over modern wolf, man vamp and alien like the said stand over an amoeba. You think amoebas could even IMMAGINE internet and nuclear capability? nope. AND, you will NEVER hear a amoeba pray to you, cause its too small. So thats useless for human/god contacts too.

Best Answer

Tell me how I have a lack of belief - I have NO belief in this myth.

Best Answer

There have been thousands of gods worshipped by humans, but there is no proof that any of them exist. I see no reason to accept the existence of any god you mention or any of thousands more. What are you trying to do here?

Best Answer

I dont believe in any god, the idea that someone created the cosmos, the universe, the planet and everything on it is Ridiculous, the whole notion of god is something that our feeble mind came up with because we couldent understand how we came to be here, and it was beyond our comprehension at the time to understand evolution.<br />
The further away we get from the dark ages where people were largely uneducated the less relavence religion has on our lives, and Im all for that

Best Answer

So which definition of "God" is the "God" you do not believe in? based on your answer, I assume it is the Wester, dualistic "God."

Best Answer

Maple 10 said it perfectly

Best Answer

This is easy there are no gods of any kind no matter how you define them or it, the whole concept of a god is flawed.

Best Answer

Maple10 ..... These are real definitions of "God.". The reason why you are at a "loss" is because you are an atheist and probably do not go exploring philosophy of religion, etc. to learn about different definitions, right? Like Ian G. Barbour's book: "When Science Meets Religion..."? Or Max Jammer's "Einstein and Religion"? Or "God is not Dead " by Amit Goswami, PhD. (the quantum physicist)? Or "Science and Religion: Are they compatible?" by Paul Kurtz? To name a few. In my experience, once you come to a conclusion about something even if you don't know enough about it to draw to a conclusion information is no longer sought out so learning stops. Instead in atheist's case, all that happens is the focus on the word "God" and previous conclusions about "God" that the person has made stops any unbiased exploration of the material.

Best Answer

Maple is telling you there is no god, of any type, in any form, none nada, and Im with him

Best Answer

ARUGH it dosen't make any difference if your definitions are real or make believe the point is that they all describe something that does not esist.

Best Answer

Your lumping together the laws of physics and calling it a god doesn't make it so. You are standing scientific methodology on it's head and trying to say it proves there is an entity you call a god. Starting with the assumption that there is a god and then cherry picking annotates that support you and ignoring things that don't makes your whole argument bogus . Try looking at all the facts and finding a proof before you come to a conclusion . you have offered no proof only speculation so the default position is there is no god or gods

Best Answer

Maple10.... Do you even know what my argument is? You haven't read anything I have written. Do you have a counter argument besides "Nah uh" or "No, it isn't", "No it doesn't"? The use of the word "entity" means you have not read my argument so you can't say anything about my "argument", can't decide intelligently whether or not my argument is valid (it is not only my argument). If you want to disprove my argument, you would also have to disprove the following: the Universe, the quantum field, the zero point field, galaxies, solar systems, the Sun, science, Earth, planets, nature, humanity, DNA, life forms, life, existence, reality, weather, animals, plants, oceans, civilization, technology, quantum physics, Newtonian physics, Super Strings, M-theory, space travel, literacy, you, me, communities, microorganisms, human central nervous systems, birth, everything..... Then you will be able to have an affective argument against mine. I can outline what this argument would look like, the first sentence would be: Existence does not exist because.... 2nd: Humanity does not exist because.... And so on. Easy right? There is so much material out there. It is good to know that non of this material will kill you to read, nor maime, or curse. Very assessible information.

Best Answer
2 More Responses

I count myself as an atheist specifically because I don't accept the first definition, which is philosophically known as "theist."<br />
I'm with your second definition. This position is philosophically known as "deist"<br />
If you check out Dawkin's website and read carefully, you'll find that from a logical standpoint he sees the deist view as essentially atheist.... because it simply takes what is known and proven by science, and then calls it god. In other words it doesn't matter whether you call it god or not.<br />
But for Hindus and Vedantists it matters very much and is the root and goal of their faith.

Best Answer

Dawkins is an interesting character. I have never seen anything written by him where he claims that Quantum holism and monistic idealism are forms of atheism. I get the feeling that what makes him uncomfortable is the use of the word "God.". He seems to agree with the second definition of "God" but is very much against calling it "God" .... which it is. His books show that he is against the Western "God.". There is not much atheists can say about the second definition besides trying to water it down, change some words, and make it more fit for their reputation as a hard-nose-God-belief-hatin' atheist. Minus names ... The second definition is the western "God" minus the Bible, minus the ancient origins, minus the religion, minus the contradiction such as the belief that God has human emotions and yet is "God" or the belief that "God" is separate yet omnipresent, minus the anthropomorphism, minus Christ, etc. I know that makes things easier to conceptualize... LOL!

Best Answer

Some atheists are wholey against the use of the term god. My father would have been. He would have laughed and said,"Why bother when it's not necessary?" I think thinking of the all-one of the universe can be a really healthy way to feel reverence and awe for the origins of life and experience.

Best Answer