Moving on the God debate(s)

[tomgwyther]

Of late there have been many topics concerning the nature and existence of a supernatural deity whom either has exerted or still does exert some influence over the universe and untimately ourselfs.

Most recently, pictures set to music and the behaviour of aquatic mammals have been put forth as assertions or hypotheses to support the idea of divine intervention.

In the interests of scientific endeavour and to move such hypotheses forward - past the first hurdle - I would like to ask that those making such claims, or putting forward ideas of this nature, plus choose which deity they are refering to.

I have compiled a list of major deistic figures to help people to move their argument forward.

 

Agdistis

Ah Puch

Ahura Mazda

Alberich

Allah

Amaterasu

An

Anansi

Anat

Andvari

Anshar

Anu

Aphrodite

Apollo

Apsu Ares

Artemis

Asclepius

Athena

Athirat

Athtart

Atlas

Baal

Ba Xian

Bacchus

Balder

Bast

Bellona

Bergelmir

Bes

Bixia Yuanjin

Bragi

Brahma

Brigit

Camaxtli

Ceres

Ceridwen

Cernunnos

Chac

Chalchiuhtlicue

Charun

Chemosh

Cheng-huang

Cybele

Dagon

Damkina (Dumkina)

Davlin

Dawn

Demeter

Diana

Di Cang

Dionysus

Ea

El

Enki

Enlil

Eos

Epona

Ereskigal

Farbauti

Fenrir

Forseti

Freya

Freyr

Frigg

Gaia

Ganesha

Ganga

Garuda

Gauri

Geb

Geong Si

Hades

Hanuman

Hathor

Hecate (Hekate)

Helios

Heng-o (Chang-o)

Hephaestus

Hera

Hermes

Hestia

Hod

Hoderi

Hoori

Horus

Hotei

Huitzilopochtli

Hsi-Wang-Mu

Hygeia

Inanna

Inti

Iris

Ishtar

Isis

Ixtab

Izanaki

Izanami

Jesus

Juno

Jupiter

Juturna

Kagutsuchi

Kartikeya

Khepri

Ki

Kingu

Kinich Ahau

Kishar

Krishna

Kuan-yin

Kukulcan

Lakshmi

Liza

Loki

Lugh

Luna

Magna Mater

Maia

Marduk

Mars

Mazu

Medb

Mercury

Mimir

Minerva

Mithras

Morrigan

Mot

Mummu

Muses

Nammu

Nanna

Nanna (Norse)

Nanse

Neith

Nemesis

Nephthys

Neptune

Nergal

Ninazu

Ninhurzag

Nintu

Ninurta

Njord

Nugua

Nut

Odin

Ohkuninushi

Ohyamatsumi

Orgelmir

Osiris

Ostara

Pan

Parvati

Phaethon

Phoebe

Phoebus Apollo

Pilumnus

Poseidon

Quetzalcoatl

ama

Re

Rhea

Sabazius

Sarasvati

Selene

Shiva

Seshat

Seti (Set)

Shamash

Shapsu

Shen Yi

Shiva

Shu

Si-Wang-Mu

Sin

Sirona

Sol

Surya

Susanoh

Tawaret

Tefnut

Tezcatlipoca

Thanatos

Thor

Thoth

Tiamat

Tianhou

Tlaloc

Tonatiuh

Toyo-Uke-Bime

Tyche

Tyr

Utu

Uzume

Venus

Vesta

Vishnu

Volturnus

Vulcan

Xipe

Xi Wang-mu

Xochipilli

Xochiquetzal

Yam

Yarikh

Yhwh

Ymir

Yu-huang

Yum Kimil

Zeus

 

A typical post might read something like this:

"I believe that love cannot be explained by nuero-chemichal processes alone, I therefore have reason to asert that Aphrodite may help to explain logically or empirically how such emotional states occur."

[rigney]

Of late there have been many topics concerning the nature and existence of a supernatural deity whom either has exerted or still does exert some influence over the universe and untimately ourselfs.

Most recently, pictures set to music and the behaviour of aquatic mammals have been put forth as assertions or hypotheses to support the idea of divine intervention.

In the interests of scientific endeavour and to move such hypotheses forward - past the first hurdle - I would like to ask that those making such claims, or putting forward ideas of this nature, plus choose which deity they are refering to.

I have compiled a list of major deistic figures to help people to move their argument forward.

 

Agdistis

Ah Puch

... snip ...

Yum Kimil

Zeus

 

A typical post might read something like this:

"I believe that love cannot be explained by nuero-chemichal processes alone, I therefore have reason to asert that Aphrodite may help to explain logically or empirically how such emotional states occur."

 

I'm not about to bring a slingshot to a gunfight Lad. Your stance tells me that you want to be cock of the walk and that's fine with me. But what you fail to understand is that perhaps many of us are not nearly as smart as you and perhaps no where near having the capacity of your intellect. I honestly believe a few folks on the forum would like to respond to some of these religious posts but are intimidated by the sheer venom of your words. "Moving on the God Debates". Wow! You must really feel good about your prowess? Hitlers boys took that same attitude back in the thirties and forties.

PS. If the list of deities was meant for someones edification, you missed the point completely.

Edited July 25, 2010 by Sayonara³
Snipping out deity list

[Moontanman]

Very good point tom, there is always a hidden agenda when some one assets the power and majesty of God, it's always their idea of God and to me at least kind of condescending to anyone who believes differently as in my god is great, I feel sorry for those who worship some other less great God

[Klaplunk]

Pointless thread and wrong interpretation of the word God.

[John Cuthber]

Poe's law demonstrated in the first post and Godwin's in the second post.

Is this a record?

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6408927/Internet-rules-and-laws-the-top-10-from-Godwin-to-Poe.html

[tomgwyther]

You're right John. From Poe's to Godwin's law in two posts... that's got to be a record!

My wit is dry, even by British standards.

Though I do still feel that more clarity is needed in propositions put forth in the religion forum.

 

I'm flattered that Rigney considers me intellectually superior to himself, or anyone else for that matter.

I've never considered myself superior or inferior to other people

I personally find intellectual inferiority/superiority an abstraction of a person's true character.

[john5746]

Pointless thread and wrong interpretation of the word God.

 

 

quite right - Spaghetti Monster, the Boyardee variant, is the correct interpretation. No need to think about the others.

[Klaplunk]

I used to see the good in education, where learning wasn't just to earn the grade - but to open our mind and elevate our brains to new heights. My love for learning has been stripped down, and now I see what truly goes on. How can one sit there and ridicule God? When no-one would be here without God's love. We live our lives with all the signs in front of our eyes, and we ignore it. It's not at all fair, especially to those who understand. If you don't believe in God, then you're blinded. If you insult those who do, then you're evil. Where would you be without God? You wouldn't 'be', no-one would.

 

I sincerly hope that one day your eyes are opened, before it's too late.

[Moontanman]

I used to see the good in education, where learning wasn't just to earn the grade - but to open our mind and elevate our brains to new heights. My love for learning has been stripped down, and now I see what truly goes on. How can one sit there and ridicule God? When no-one would be here without God's love. We live our lives with all the signs in front of our eyes, and we ignore it. It's not at all fair, especially to those who understand. If you don't believe in God, then you're blinded. If you insult those who do, then you're evil. Where would you be without God? You wouldn't 'be', no-one would.

 

I sincerly hope that one day your eyes are opened, before it's too late.

 

 

Thank you for your concern, if I want my eyes to be put out by religion I'll let the crazies in when they knock on my door.... here I think it's a science forum, even in the religion section

[Klaplunk]

Still, you interpret God wrong, so you're in no position to throw insults. If you picture God as a supernatural being then you're ridiculing your OWN interpretation; that's dumb but fine - however, don't ridicule religion, just because your eyes aren't opened to the correct God image. If this section wasn't on these boards the topic wouldn't have come up, but it is, so stop crying about it and show some respect.

[Moontanman]

Still, you interpret God wrong, so you're in no position to throw insults. If you picture God as a supernatural being then you're ridiculing your OWN interpretation; that's dumb but fine - however, don't ridicule religion, just because your eyes aren't opened to the correct God image. If this section wasn't on these boards the topic wouldn't have come up, but it is, so stop crying about it and show some respect.

 

 

Who are you to say what is the correct interpretation of god, who are you to demand respect? DNKSFA

Edited July 23, 2010 by Moontanman

[Klaplunk]

I'm 'me' and you're 'you', and we both have differen't interpretations. The difference? I wasn't taught mine, I found it. You on the other hand, like cattle, believe in the educated 'God', which isn't correct. God can't exist if you picture the supernatural being in the sky, sitting on a cloud - hahaha, people who believe that are funny - people who don't believe in that God, but still think that's what God means, are even funnier. The sick, boring, blind, kind of funny.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm 'me' and you're 'you', and we both have differen't interpretations. The difference? I wasn't taught mine, I found it. You on the other hand, like cattle, believe in the educated 'God', which isn't correct. God can't exist if you picture the supernatural being in the sky, sitting on a cloud - hahaha, people who believe that are funny - people who don't believe in that God, but still think that's what God means, are even funnier. The sick, boring, blind, kind of funny.

 

You would do well to pay attention to the SFN Forum Rules, rule #8.

[Klaplunk]

I understand the rules, however I'm not preaching, I'm sticking up for my beliefs. If someone insults my beliefs then I have a right to state my opinion. I'm not saying believe in God, I'm saying please don't insult religion, and if you're going to do so then atleast admit or come to terms with the fact that it's your own interpretation you're insulting, not that of other people. It's unfair if one is going to aim insults at a majority, marking them a dumb or silly - just because one can't interpret God in the correct way. If you don't want discussion about God then the best plan of action would be to remove this section all together. What were you hoping for exactly? Football discussion?

[rigney]

You're right John. From Poe's to Godwin's law in two posts... that's got to be a record!

My wit is dry, even by British standards.

Though I do still feel that more clarity is needed in propositions put forth in the religion forum.

 

I'm flattered that Rigney considers me intellectually superior to himself, or anyone else for that matter.

I've never considered myself superior or inferior to other people

I personally find intellectual inferiority/superiority an abstraction of a person's true character.

 

 

Gotta tell you Tom, I probably made the statement to placate or sudue my own ignorance, but I'm learning! Went back and reread the forum rules again today and realized what an ass I've been making of myself. You and most of the guys are actually interested in debate while I thought most of it was meant as offensive. Dumb! I apologise.

[forufes]

i think the op can be something like an inverse loaded question.

 

that list of yours which length makes me cower in fear is a list of proposed names for god.

 

pretty irrelevant to whether god exists or not.

 

let's find god, then find a suitable name for him from that very long list. saying a god doesn't exist because people call him different names is like saying a car didn't pass a certain road because the witnesses differ in their accounts of its color.

 

but nice try though, you get points for hard work

[Moontanman]

i think the op can be something like an inverse loaded question.

 

that list of yours which length makes me cower in fear is a list of proposed names for god.

 

pretty irrelevant to whether god exists or not.

 

let's find god, then find a suitable name for him from that very long list. saying a god doesn't exist because people call him different names is like saying a car didn't pass a certain road because the witnesses differ in their accounts of its color.

 

but nice try though, you get points for hard work

 

Lets find some evidence of God then we can argue on a name, the point is that there as many definitions of god as there are names and none of them have any evidence to back them up.... There are no eye witnesses and no road much less a car or a color....

[forufes]

moontanman, i see you always miss the point, which is why i usually don't reply to you.

Lets find some evidence of God then we can argue on a name,

yup, glad that was simple enough.

asking about God's name in a stage of evidence validation for god and hoping it would pass as anti evidence is fallacious.

the point is that there as many definitions of god as there are names and none of them have any evidence to back them up....

those definitions must have something in common to be all called god.

that common ground is the target of evidence providing.

saying there is no any god in general because you can't pick one from the list is as i said, fallacious.

There are no eye witnesses and no road much less a car or a color....

we are aware of your ignorance of the subject

however, that does not make the witnesses disappear.

Edited July 26, 2010 by forufes

[Moontanman]

moontanman, i see you always miss the point, which is why i usually don't reply to you.

 

Your witty reparte' simply blows me away

 

yup, glad that was simple enough.

asking about God's name in a stage of evidence validation for god and hoping it would pass as anti evidence is fallacious.

 

I don't think that's what the OP was doing, I think, and I hope he comes back and clarifies this, I think he was just pointing out that the concept of god is ethereal and pretty much depends on the believer and not some bona fide definition.

 

those definitions must have something in common to be all called god.

that common ground is the target of evidence providing.

saying there is no any god in general because you can't pick one from the list is as i said, fallacious.

 

I don't think he said that, he just asserted that there of quite a bit of iffiness about the concept of god and to assert that there this is one absolute god goes against the very idea of God across cultures

 

 

we are aware of your ignorance of the subject

however, that does not make the witnesses disappear.

 

The witness does not disappear, it's the evidence that is non existence, the witness believes, I can respect that, I might not agree with his methods but the belief deserves respect, its the people who try to twist science and logic to justify their belief that disgust me. Religion requires belief, religion is separate from the idea of god, religion is an attempt to justify the concept of God. Religion is mans attempt use the concept of god to take advantage of the people. i am ignorant in many things due to lack of education but stupidity is simply the inability to learn.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Moontanman

[jimmydasaint]

I understand the rules, however I'm not preaching, I'm sticking up for my beliefs. If someone insults my beliefs then I have a right to state my opinion. I'm not saying believe in God, I'm saying please don't insult religion, and if you're going to do so then atleast admit or come to terms with the fact that it's your own interpretation you're insulting, not that of other people. It's unfair if one is going to aim insults at a majority, marking them a dumb or silly - just because one can't interpret God in the correct way. If you don't want discussion about God then the best plan of action would be to remove this section all together. What were you hoping for exactly? Football discussion?

 

I believe in God, a reasonably personal way, according to my understanding and have stated that in previous posts. The whole reason for this sub-Forum is to discuss matters in a rational and easy going way. I don't think this section should be removed but I think if you are unable to behave or react in a calm and well-thought out manner, YOU should leave this and go to another Forum. No offence to you, brother, but you cannot go around insulting others.

 

Incidentally, I see atheism as a position of rationality and truth - it shows that people are thinking about faith.

 

I see organised religion, as it is presently, as 'jobs for the boys'. People can find gainful employment for life based on apparent belief in God, which is not questioned by the 'flock'. To my believing mind, priests or ministers are an insult to true faith. A priesthood which claims authority from God and misuses it as it does deserves the reproach it receives from the general thinking public. I deplore the idea of a 'priesthood' intervening between you and God. That is a very personal relationship which needs no-one in the middle. Your idea of God can develop from the viewpoint of an intelligence that can create a Universe or Universes. That is a pretty awesome starting point.

Edited July 26, 2010 by jimmydasaint

[tomgwyther]

Apologies, I was away from my post for a while, It's proved quite popular.

The original post is essentially a polite ask that those putting forward ideas of a speculative nature (including but not exclusively: God, Gods, ESP, telekinesis, supernatural stuff, metaphysical continuums etc) Would elaborate on their ideas more, as would be expected in any of the other SFN forums, and as is generally good practice in a healthy debate.

Quite often, someone will put forward an idea "I believe X is true" without going into any detail and without fielding questions about their hypothesis.

My original post is to ask that there be clarification of concept in any idea put forward.

The simplest and most ubiquitous would be the belief in a supernatural agent or agents, so, to clarify that concept; "To which supernatural agent are you referring?" seems a legitimate question to ask in order for a progressive debate to take place.

 

e.g

"I believe God created the world"

"To which God are you referring?"

"The Christian God"

Already, those involved in the discussion have an idea of the type of God being discussed.

 

Or

 

"I believe God created the world"

"Which God?"

"Allah"

Again we have an idea as to what's being talked about. both examples refer to a monotheistic supernatural agent with an active interest in us.

 

Or

"I believe God created the world"

"Which God?"

"A deistic God"

Now we know that a supernatural agent is involved in the debate, but his/her role in it has drastically changed, A deistic God 'Sets the ball rolling' an then has nothing to do with the concerns of people on Earth.

 

After we have established what the original poster means by the term God, the debate can move on. e.g.

"I believe God created the world"

"Which God?"

"Brahma"

 

Now we know we're in the area of a single creator in a polytheistic overview.

 

"Why do you hold this view?"

"I see creation of the conscious soul as inexplicable by science, and so created via supernatural means"

"Would you describe the working of the natural world in a similar way?"

"Yes, hence my belief in Vishnu, the God of maintenance, moreover my belief in Siva, the God of destruction"

 

And so on and so forth. Once we know the poster's interpretation of God, - or their idea on what-ever subject - the debate can move forward.

 

The opposite of these would go something like this:

 

"I think Daffodils have souls and can talk to us, if only they could harness the power of dark matter black holes."

"Why do you think this?"

"I just do, because I do."

"Can you elaborate?"

"No because I didn't go to a posh university, the Daffodil thing is my belief and you're insulting me to question it."

"Why are you linking Flowers to dark matter?"

"Because flowers are made of matter, you're the scientist,you figure it out. No body understands me."

 

And so on and so forth until the thread gets closed, users get banned or suspended, no-one is any the wiser for it.

Edited July 26, 2010 by tomgwyther

[forufes]

 

 

 

 

I don't think that's what the OP was doing, I think, and I hope he comes back and clarifies this, I think he was just pointing out that the concept of god is ethereal and pretty much depends on the believer and not some bona fide definition.

while a believer can choose anything to be his god...

...everything is NOT a god.

 

anything has to comply to some crieteria to be called a god.

like the term "friend"..

if you debate whether friends exist or not, and then one who doesn't believe friends exist comes up with a looooong list of what different people think constitutes a friend..

 

and then goes, "see, people can't agree to what a friend is, and so, there is no such thing as a friend"

what would you think of his argument?

 

I don't think he said that, he just asserted that there of quite a bit of iffiness about the concept of god and to assert that there this is one absolute god goes against the very idea of God across cultures

we're not even concentrating about monotheisms at all, we're discussing theisms in general, all kinds of gods, those he listed and others and some which are not yet born, including personal ones.

 

 

The witness does not disappear, it's the evidence that is non existence, the witness believes, I can respect that, I might not agree with his methods but the belief deserves respect, its the people who try to twist science and logic to justify their belief that disgust me. Religion requires belief, religion is separate from the idea of god, religion is an attempt to justify the concept of God. Religion is mans attempt use the concept of god to take advantage of the people. i am ignorant in many things due to lack of education but stupidity is simply the inability to learn.

um,

what should i say and where do i start?

i hope what i already said would clarify things.

[jimmydasaint]

Unfortunately, it is a bit more complicated than that. I have read the Quran and Torah and believe that the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam is the same, with a few variations. Therefore, you would have to refer to the Abrahamic God then to specify the others. I am attracted to the deistic concept of God, with a twist of this and that. Why does it matter to you that we specify the identity of God as a Creative metaphysical entity? Surely the relationship with God is a personal one, preferably without the intercession of a 'priesthood'?

[Moontanman]

if i felt the need to choose a God or the need for a God I would choose paganism, no priests, no churches, no claims of superiority or authority over reality that simply do not match up, a few rituals often performed in the nude Works for me but i know the total bogus nature of God as defined by the abrahamic ideal and it's parasitic nature on society. I'll go with naked girls dancing around a fire in the forest or a pentgram in the light of the full moon anyday....

[jimmydasaint]

if i felt the need to choose a God or the need for a God I would choose paganism, no priests, no churches, no claims of superiority or authority over reality that simply do not match up, a few rituals often performed in the nude Works for me but i know the total bogus nature of God as defined by the abrahamic ideal and it's parasitic nature on society. I'll go with naked girls dancing around a fire in the forest or a pentgram in the light of the full moon anyday....

 

Each to his own, my friend. Certainly sounds more interesting than listening to long and boring sermons.