believe in a god/gods

18AD

iUseVi wrote: »

Umm, you say "God" refers to one of the monotheistic ones. None of them think God = the universe = energy, AFAIK. Not sure about Islam, but I seriously doubt it. They all have anthropomorphic Gods, who have characters and emotions.

Relilgions don't think.

Or are you refering to the people who consider themselves part of one of the religions that were mentioned and claiming to know what they all think?

The idea of anthropomorphic gods is an interpretation made by people. Some people seem to think they have the right interpretation.

I can define 'god' however I want. As long as people know what the words they use are refering to, there shouldn't be too much of a problem.
The dictionary is a collection of useful definitions for group communication. The dictionary doesn't control language.

Using a new word for different definitions is probably a good idea at this stage. The word god has become an incredibly loaded word... too much for my liking.

Exhaustedly.
AD.

iUseVi

18AD wrote: »

Relilgions don't think.

Or are you refering to the people who consider themselves part of one of the religions that were mentioned and claiming to know what they all think?

The idea of anthropomorphic gods is an interpretation made by people. Some people seem to think they have the right interpretation.

OK "think" was a bad choice. I talking about religious dogma. Yeah sure there are many denominations and sects etc., of course I cannot know what they all believe. But AFAIK they don't have any dogma concerning God = energy. If I am wrong about this, please correct me and supply references. Thanks.:)

Indeed the anthropomorphic thing is a fairly recent development, and it is not found across the board. It is fairly widespread though. I admit I was making sweeping generalisations here, but I can't account for every single different view, would be here all day.

18AD wrote:

I can define 'god' however I want. As long as people know what the words they use are refering to, there shouldn't be too much of a problem.
The dictionary is a collection of useful definitions for group communication. The dictionary doesn't control language.

Using a new word for different definitions is probably a good idea at this stage. The word god has become an incredibly loaded word... too much for my liking.

Exhaustedly.
AD.

Good point. And that was what I was really getting at. My sweeping generalisation assumed that most people would be confused by this unorthodox use of the word god, and that a new word might be better. Of course other people would think the word god suits their use better.........you can't please everyone.

Any suggestions for a new word? For either context? :eek::pac:

di11on

Mulan wrote: »

Ya

I equate god to love, peace, harmony etc...

I believe in the goodness of people...

What nonsense. The concept that goodness is something that thrives naturally and without effort is fundamentally wrong and dangerous, in my opinion.

A very good example of the goodness of people is during the aftermath of the tsunamis in southeast asia. Orphaned children were kidnapped and sold into the sex trade. That's how good people are.

Goodness is the result of the actions of human beings motivated by a moral code either inherited or discovered. Goodness doesn't come naturally.

I believe in God. But unfortunately, this is a meaningless statement statements like God=harmony=the universe.. etc. etc. have devalued the term. To put some context on the discussion - we need a definition of God. I'll use the Miriam Webster definition. We're talking about God with a capital G, so this is the deinfition from the Miriam webster dictionary that is relevant:

Miriam Webster Dictionary wrote:

1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

This discussion is meaningless unless you tie down your definition of God. Using the definition above, statements like God="The Universe" are ludicrous, because by definition, God created the universe. I don't mean to say that I believe God created the universe... I mean that by definition, by using the word God, I have to accept that God created the universe because that's what the English language word: "God" means. If you don't believe in God that's fine. But if you believe in God, the English langauge says you have to accept that God created the universe. If you believe in a supreme being that didn't create the universe, then you need a new word, or perhaps, you mean god (small g).

18AD

di11on wrote: »

What nonsense. The concept that goodness is something that thrives naturally and without effort is fundamentally wrong and dangerous, in my opinion.

A very good example of the goodness of people is during the aftermath of the tsunamis in southeast asia. Orphaned children were kidnapped and sold into the sex trade. That's how good people are.

Goodness is the result of the actions of human beings motivated by a moral code either inherited or discovered. Goodness doesn't come naturally.

It could equally be argued that evil comes through social conditioning.
Basing the inherent goodness of the whole world on one area which has vastly different social structure to the rest of the world is a pessimistic generalisation.

Do you think the people of WWII Germany were inherently evil or were they socially engineered to be that way?

How about doctors/vets/volunteer workers? Are these people fundamentally good or just socially engineered to be so?

It's quite possible that people are not good or bad. The culture they are born into and subsequent cultures visited, with their morals and social structures, could determine their lives. This allows good people to become evil and vica-versa. People can change. They are not fundamentally anything.

This discussion is meaningless unless you tie down your definition of God. Using the definition above, statements like God="The Universe" are ludicrous, because by definition, God created the universe. I don't mean to say that I believe God created the universe... I mean that by definition, by using the word God, I have to accept that God created the universe because that's what the English language word: "God" means. If you don't believe in God that's fine. But if you believe in God, the English langauge says you have to accept that God created the universe. If you believe in a supreme being that didn't create the universe, then you need a new word, or perhaps, you mean god (small g).

People were asked for their definition of God and they gave it. I see no problems here. Problems arise when people are discussing God without clarifying which God they are talking about.
We could just as easily have a discussion on God=Universe.
If I believe in a personal version of god and I wish to show it respect, then I think I'll use a capital G if I want.

God by one definition created the universe. People make up words and their definitions. There is no authority on words, like a dictator (dictionary:eek:), imposing language on everyone. Although the dictionary is convenient for widespread use.
This shouldn't destroy your personal creativity with these symbols called letters. After all, you are the only species on the planet who has the capability to create complex symbol patterns. Don't waste it.

iUseVi wrote:

Any suggestions for a new word? For either context?

Uberman and Uberset. (A set being a maths term, not the ancient egyptian god)

Peace.
AD.

raah!

Perhaps we should open a topic about he best type of morality here? Would be a very interesting one Imo, and really deserves its own topic (although it is obviously related to things such as belief in gods etc)

iUseVi

18AD wrote: »

Uberman and Uberset. (A set being a maths term, not the ancient egyptian god)

Peace.
AD.

Not bad. Not bad.

di11on

18AD wrote: »

It could equally be argued that evil comes through social conditioning.
Basing the inherent goodness of the whole world on one area which has vastly different social structure to the rest of the world is a pessimistic generalisation.

First of all, I don't believe in "Inherent goodness" that was one of the points of my post. I believe goodness is something which is a result of a conscious effort. This, in many cases, I believe is motivated by something outside of the person. I didn't specify a particular moral code or a specific method of aquiring one. It can be as simple as being told what's good behaviour and what's bad by your parents. I agree that people can equally be motivated to do bad if they've been conditioned that way. However, if left to themselves, I believe mankind tends towards the "bad" end of the bad-good spectrum.

Why does society need laws and order imposed? Mankind just isn't capable of being "good" without it being imposed. I suppose it's like the moral, or anthropological equivalent of the second law of thermodynamics - the entropy of an isolated system when left to itself will increase over time. I believe moral entropy also increases unless consious actions are taken to control it... thus... I beleive, the fundamental nature of mankind is not good.

But this, I believe is because God created us that way. I believe he consciously relinquished part of his omnipotence to create beings like you and me who have the ability to make real decisions. That's why when we actually
do something good, it matters to Him and it has some value. Most importantly, when we seek him out of our own will it means something to Him.

The God I believe in created us to have a meaningful relationship. He didn't write the answers in the back of the book... we've got to work them out ourselves.

18AD wrote: »

There is no authority on words, like a dictator (dictionary:eek:), imposing language on everyone. Although the dictionary is convenient for widespread use.
This shouldn't destroy your personal creativity with these symbols called letters. After all, you are the only species on the planet who has the capability to create complex symbol patterns. Don't waste it.

This is ok, to a certain extent. It just annoys me when people ask silly questions like "Who made God". The questions doesn't make sense logically because of what the word means. If we abandon the defined meaning of words completely, then it becomes very difficult to communicate!

18AD

di11on wrote: »

Why does society need laws and order imposed? Mankind just isn't capable of being "good" without it being imposed. I suppose it's like the moral, or anthropological equivalent of the second law of thermodynamics - the entropy of an isolated system when left to itself will increase over time. I believe moral entropy also increases unless consious actions are taken to control it... thus... I beleive, the fundamental nature of mankind is not good.

But the government is part of this isolated system. How can you look to them if they are becoming increasingly chaotic?

Laws are made by people. Surely these people have some sense of what is right for many people seeing as most people have the same basic needs? Then you have laws which infringe on people's basic rights. So if you can't always look to the law, where do you look?

Either way, today the human species continues to survive. So apparently we're doing something right. Even tribes who aren't subject to law are still alive today.
This would lead me to believe that the will to survive is more important than doing good or evil. So a persons environment may lead a person to do what they must to survive regardless of moral values.

To do good at odds with survival is a rare trait and seems to be what revolutions are made of. And in these cases what is right or good is not imposed on anyone. It is brought about by the realisation that life could be collectively better for people. Revolutions do not involve small amounts of people either.
They are a counter attack on evil itself. And the people who lead these evils are generally selfish people who see themselves as saviours.
Compared to the collective strive for betterment by the revolutionaries.

I think good and evil are inherent parts of nature. Both express themselves in people.
But somehow, I think good is winning out.

Peace.
AD.

18AD

raah! wrote: »

Perhaps we should open a topic about he best type of morality here? Would be a very interesting one Imo, and really deserves its own topic (although it is obviously related to things such as belief in gods etc)

Yes, but a discussion without using personal belief as an actual argument is usually a more productive one.

I'd be interested anyway. If you have a starting point in mind, by all means, go ahead.

Article43

Religion is a very personal thing - it is not nice to joke about it as some people may be offended.

Maybe we can all clean up our act and help our fellow man on his journey thru life!

Article43

What the hell is going on here -someone has deleted all my posts?