Hi all

I've been away for a few days and I havent caught up yet so if this has already been said then ignore it all.

IMHO there are two definitions of god;

1. The general dictionary definition - supernatural being or creator and entity to be worshipped - if you like a coarse definition

2. The very personal definition that really only exists in somebodys own mind. Its this that allows say the christian god to be a forgiving gracious god whilst a satanists god is something a whole lot nastier. For arguments sake lets call this a fine definition

Being an athiest like Richard I have no need of the fine definition - it just has no meaning for me because crucially I do not believe in a religion. For me it is the religios belief which creates the god and his-her-its abilities and characteristics. The religous believers then interpret this into a entity, character or whatever.

Therefore not believing in a religion means that I do not need to further define a god entity or character however the abstract coarse definition still has a meaning for me without me having to believe that it is an actual entity.

Angs

---

> > I don’t believe defining something and believing in it are the same at
> all,
> > and I don’t think most others would agree with you.
>
> ***Yet, you can not accept my definition that the existance of a non-entity, a
> make-believe thing/concept, something that does not exists, in effect is
> nothing.

This is different from what you have been saying. Now, you are defining "God" as "a non-entity, a make-believe thing/concept, something that does not exists, in effect is nothing", but in the past you have said that you can not or will not define "God" because it does not exist.

> ***I did write that it was a rhetorical question. I fully do not expect anyone
> to write a reply when I write such - just to contemplate a possible
> interpretation.***

Sorry, but I took it as an unfair accusation of me--that you think I am trying to convert you or others.

> Do you know any baptist ministers (or whatever their title is)?

Not that I'm aware of.

> P.S. I still do not comprehend why you want some other answer, in particular,
> from me when others are so willing to assist and seem to be able to come to
> terms with your and, seemingly, bfarrant's, need for a term for something that
> does not exist. I believe I am not the only ætheist/agnostic that has been
> posting.

In other posts I have explained that a working definition is a precursor to rational discussion. As you have said, you can not help with that definition, so now you and I have moved on to a discussion about rhetoric.

---

> IMHO there are two definitions of god;
>
> 1. The general dictionary definition - supernatural being or creator and
> entity to be worshipped - if you like a coarse definition
>
> 2. The very personal definition that really only exists in somebodys own mind.
> Its this that allows say the christian god to be a forgiving gracious god
> whilst a satanists god is something a whole lot nastier. For arguments sake
> lets call this a fine definition
>
> Being an athiest like Richard I have no need of the fine definition - it just
> has no meaning for me because crucially I do not believe in a religion. For
> me it is the religios belief which creates the god and his-her-its abilities
> and characteristics. The religous believers then interpret this into a entity,
> character or whatever.
>

Angs,
The "coarse" definition you use has some terms that many would not agree with. (I don't ageee with "entity" and you don't agree with "to be worshipped".) Carl Cuseo and I worked out the following:

God: "Some undefinable state, conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator of the universe, and unknowable by physical means of proof".

Does this work for you (in other words, is this the concept that you have in mind when you say you do not believe in "God")?

---

> Angs,
> The "coarse" definition you use has some terms that many would not agree with.
> (I don't ageee with "entity" and you don't agree with "to be worshipped".)
> Carl Cuseo and I worked out the following:
>
> God: "Some undefinable state, conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient
> originator of the universe, and unknowable by physical means of proof".
>
> Does this work for you (in other words, is this the concept that you have in
> mind when you say you do not believe in "God")?
>
>

Tom

For me the coarse definition is in effect what you might find in a dictionary. If it says worship, entity, being, creator thats all fine by me. Its just a definition of an abstract word. In some ways its like the Loch Ness Monster. It can be defined as a creature reported to inhabit Loch Ness. If you dont believe it exists you can stop there but you still know what people mean when they talk about it. If you decide you do (or might) believe then you automatically start to apply a personel definition. Plesiosaur (probably spelt incorrectly) or whatever, you start to hang fine detail around it.

For me I only see a god as an extension to a religion. I do not believe any religion therefore any flavour of god just does not exist and I do not even have to consider what that word means any further.

As for your definition - Yes it works for me when I say I dont believe in god or indeed any god. I think though it may not go far enough but we will see if some other religios believers cchoose to challenge it.

Angs

---

Here is my God.

Back to topic.I do not believe in God.I believe in good will and helping people out and understanding people and trying to understand their diff viewpoints and beliefs and respecting their views too.Respect goes along way.

---

......In Space No One Can Hear You Scream......

> As for your definition - Yes it works for me when I say I dont believe in god
> or indeed any god. I think though it may not go far enough but we will see if
> some other religios believers cchoose to challenge it.
>
> Angs

Good, I would like as many as possible (even Rachel) to use this definition when discussing their viewpoint. That doesn't mean you have to believe in "God", but it may cut down on the silly word-game riddles that people use to argue about the subject; and help us understand eachother better.

I would also like to get back to the point of this thread: discussion of religious beliefs (that was the original title, was it not).

---

> Here is my God.
>
> Back to topic.I do not believe in God.I believe in good will and helping
> people out and understanding people and trying to understand their diff
> viewpoints and beliefs and respecting their views too.Respect goes along way.

It seems to me that a thread that started out talking about religious beliefs should include all beliefs about religion, including atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, Islam, and so on.

I do believe in God, but I will not try to sway you to believe otherwise. Our beliefs are the result of personal understanding, and it would be pointless for me to change you, or you to change me.

But on topic: when religion works (often it does not) it should encourage good will, helping others and understanding differences. People get so hung up on the non-spiritual aspects of religion, that they also reject the spiritual. The flood that Noah survived may not have happened--who cares? The point had to do with leading a good or bad life. Sometimes the point is subtle, but those stories (like most books) would not have survived unless they spoke to people on a deep ethical level. Too many theologians claim these stories to be historical fact, when to me, this just makes the story more scare tactic than spiritual teaching.

Whether you believe in God or not, some profound ethical writing can be found in the Koran, the Bible, the Upanishads and the central writing of other religions. Secular writers also write about ethics--the difference being that many religious teachings have survived for millennia (so it must have been helpful to someone). Does this make sense?

---

As Voltaire said, "Even if God did not exist, man would have to invent Him". The origin of God can probably be traced as far back as 750,000 BCE, which are the earliest known burials with spiritual overtones. I would suggest that perhaps God was invented at that time to explain post-mortem issues.

Then follows the problem of defining God. I believe that the problem with defining God is similar to the definition of Zero - They are both abstract concepts that are more intuitive than explicitly defined. In most pre-Judaic religions, there is a God for a specific purpose. The Baal of the land, one of the sky, one of the sun, et al. Here there isn't any debate or fighting because the Gods are usually the same save only for their names. When monotheism kicks in, there's only one catch: God is no longer visible, and thus, harder to accept.

How can one define nothing constructively? Tough one indeed.

Here's where I start to opine: Let us assume that God is all-powerful and that anything that Man can conceive of God can do, such as being at two places at one time. Let us also add in the fact that the "Old" Testament demonstrates that Abraham's God was not Issac's God, who in turn was not Jacob's God. By taking these two concepts of simultaneous appearances and individualized divinities, I came to the conclusion that God has "chosen" all of humanity as His People. Perhaps the Hindus got one set of facets of God, while the Jews got another facet, and the Muslims got another. Essentially, each religion with a divine being gets pieces of the puzzle, but not the whole picture.

But is a God really necessary for day-to-day living? That's where I tend towards a "no". On reflection, those who cling to God do so for two reasons: The comfort and nostalgia of childhood and/or the protection from fear and uncertainty. Occasionally people need a God to side against one's enemies, but nowadays one tends to go postal and just shoot the aforementioned so that they meet their maker. Odd, isn't it? But I digress... Those to cling to God do so out of necessity, as if their life had no other purpose on this planet than to praise God in success or beg from God when in failure. In the meantime, there are 6.3 billion people on the planet who must learn to deal with each other on a daily basis - This is where Judaism got it right: There are laws regarding Man's relation with God, but there are more laws regarding Man's relationships with His Fellow Man.

The reason why any hard-core religioso ticks me off is because they tend to put so much emphasis on the human-divine relationship that they effectively ignore the inter-human fundament. In fact, the most flagrant violation of all of the Man-Man laws (Don't kill) is considered irrelevant when the quintessence of all of the Man-God laws (I am God) is "violated". What sickens me is the necessity of proving one's faith before the butcher's sword is swung. How many times have coreligionists killed their own brethren? I don't think we'll ever know. And this is one of the reasons why I don't take to certain religions. Be it Crusade or Jihad, wars of proselytization are always geared at the "not-us" group - The different even within their own group. Does it really matter if you are a Protestant or a Catholic? No. What matters is that you think Jesus is the first of two Messiahs, and that's that. Does it really matter if you are Shia or Sunni? No. What matters is that you believe Mohammed to be the Prophet of Allah. Does it really matter if you are Sefaradi or Ashkenazi? No, unless you like falafel more than gefilte.

Again, I digress, but the point is made - The relationship amongst humanity is of immediate concern, and in all Holy works, that relationship is prized. Those who do for their fellow Man are praised, while those who chintz out get to say "Humbug" a lot in a Dickens play. This is a universal thread in the tapestry of belief, and I hold it dearer than anything else.

An alternative approach: If we are the descendants of God by way of Adam and Eve who begot blah, yadda, and me, then I have inherited that holiness first granted to Adam as much as anyone else on this planet. Therefore to ignore anyone is to ignore a Son of God.

We need people now to do what God either can't or won't, but definitely isn't. Prayer doesn't solve sociopolitical and economic issues, action does. It is not beyond human ability to feed the hungry. Even if genetically modified foods are "evil", they contain higher quantities of the nutrients that are needed, and in more bountiful growth. It is not beyond human ability to delve into the sea, desalinate it liter-by-liter, and tarry it to the driest of deserts and the parchest of throats. It is not beyond human ability to investigate illnesses, to seek their cause, to prevent their afflictions, and prevent their outbreaks (Except when there's money involved, but that's for another topic). Why wait for our solutions to fall out of the sky when we are capable of solving the problems here and now?

So while the Bible Hooligans throw a hissy-fit from the bleachers of the stadium, I'll be spending my time on the field and in the game. I don't need to agree with anyone on the definition of God, or who the chosen people are. To live by spending time on seeking the "inner complexities" of a simple way-of-life? No, that I leave for others to waste their time on. But since I don't contradict any religion in my endeavours, and I aim to benefit all, don't ever get in my way by condemning me.

I'm just a Humanist looking for the common denominator of all beliefs. And as I've stated before, they're pretty obvious and consistent. After all, if life was supposed to be lived by a Book, how come there are so many of them?

That's pretty much where I stand. The rest are little things that pale by comparison.

> But on topic: when religion works (often it does not) it should encourage good
> will, helping others and understanding differences. People get so hung up on
> the non-spiritual aspects of religion, that they also reject the spiritual.
> The flood that Noah survived may not have happened--who cares? The point had
> to do with leading a good or bad life.

If we accept that most or all societies seem to have a basic ethical structure which are very similar then one question we could ask is "would those ethical values be the same if no religion had ever existed"?

It seems to me that in most religous systems there is a common thread of "if you do this bad thing" then "this punishmnet will be dealt out". Therefore we see the basis of all the worlds legal systems ie the discouragent of crime is based upon the fear of a penalty. Of course it doesnt always work that way!!

> Whether you believe in God or not, some profound ethical writing can be found
> in the Koran, the Bible, the Upanishads and the central writing of other
> religions. Secular writers also write about ethics--the difference being that
> many religious teachings have survived for millennia (so it must have been
> helpful to someone). Does this make sense?

To me yes but on the basis of providing a people with a set of values or rules to live by with religion providing the consequence of straying from those rules.

Angs

---

***OFF TOPIC***
The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel.
Thinking about joining a team?
[url=http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=113956]
------------------------------------

Hi All,
I have not come to my decision to share The Word Of God Lightly, or on a whim. I still rely on and use science and technology in the day to day advancements in this world. I am educated in a science field, and I am in need of further education to fulfill personal aspirations.
I had never attended a Church in my youth at all. I came from a "traditional" family, where the Father worked, the Mother cared for the family. Times seemed ok...but we were kids. As soon as I was old enough to Join the Navy,I left home.I wanted to go to college, the Military was my only option. Wow, My first trip in the "real World", I was free from parent rule, I was an adult.
Smoking, drinking, womanizing, oh what a Life! Yeah right!, It almost killed me and did kill my buddy Charley Hodges our first year in the Navy. Still buzzed After an all night party I came within inches of walking into a turning P-3 Orion Prop on the flight line. Three weeks later Charley got sucked up an F14 Intake not paying attention to planes inline for the catapult. He had a blood alcohol level three times higher than what's required to classified intoxicated.
Charley's funeral was probably the first time anyone "witnessed" to me.I looked at it like they were beating me over the head with God.I had just lost my best friend. I pushed them away.
I started hearing people say that "God has his purpose for everyone".I needed answers, so I started digging. I started attending Church. Started listening to the Messages. Started reading the Bible. Started buying other books to help me understand the Bible.I began my personal walk with My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on August 3rd 1994.I then Started taking classes on the Bible. "Hermanuetics" for those familiar. Just to obtain an understanding. The more I learned the more excited I got, the more I wanted to share. The more I shared , the more ridicule I faced. The more I learn and share the more Trials and tribulations I will have to endure. Most of you on this thread and the prior thread have read of my health problems. I know that there is no "scientific" reason why I am here today. It has been repeated over and over by many Medical Professionals.
I became Ordained as a Deacon in 1998. I have learned that My Body is just a Vessel for God's Work.I lost all my worldly possessions when I became ill, and I will lose all my worldly possessions again, for I will have no need for them in Heaven.
I ask that before you continue to bash anyone here for sharing The Word Of God, to just take a minute or two and examine your own personal triumphs and your own personal tragedy's. Can they all be explained away as simply as so many of you suggest?
I make mistakes, I am not perfect, and do not claim to be. I have sinned, will sin, even though I do my best not to sin, but I will be forgiven.
I will leave you with this until later.

Two friends were walking through the desert
During some point of the journey they had an
argument, and one friend slapped the other one
in the face. The one who got slapped was hurt,
but without saying anything,wrote in the sand:
TODAY MY BEST FRIEND SLAPPED ME IN THE FACE.

They kept on walking until they found an oasis,
where they decided to take a bath.
The one who had been slapped got stuck in the
mire and started drowning, but the friend saved him.
After he recovered from the near drowning,
he wrote on a stone:

TODAY MY BEST FRIEND SAVED MY LIFE.

The friend who had slapped and saved his best friend
asked him, "After I hurt you,you wrote in the sand and now,
you write on a stone, why?" The other friend replied
"When someone hurts us we should write it down
in sand where winds of forgiveness can erase it away.

But, when someone does something good for us,
we must engrave it in stone where no wind
can ever erase it."

Do not value the THINGS you have in your life.
But value the life you have!


Very Sincerely,

Rocky Cudd

---

www.boincsynergy.com

> > As you have said, you can not help with that definition,
> > so now you and I have moved on to a discussion about rhetoric.
>
> Really? Okay - but not for the next few days. I am off, hopefully, to the land
> of nod, and then on to battle with minor agrophia and cables that though come
> out of a box, very straight, then tend to knot themselves within minutes of
> being released from the confines of the box they were imprisoned in. That, for
> me, is a real mystery of life.
>

I'll be looking forward to your return. In the meantime, there've been some real religious/philosophical posts here that I am interested in examining.

---

> I ask that before you continue to bash anyone here for sharing The Word Of
> God, to just take a minute or two and examine your own personal triumphs and
> your own personal tragedy's. Can they all be explained away as simply as so
> many of you suggest?

Rocky

Firstly I'd like to say that in your words I can see the want to share the words of god whilst WW and Simeon preach them. There is a big difference. One way allows debate the other does not maybe that is why people appear hostile at times. You cannot discus topics whilst constantly having verses quoted at you. IMHO neither are a good advertisement for the christian faith.

For me the tragedys and triumphs can be that simply explained away but thats for me....

Angs

---

Rocky,

I agree with Angstrom. Sharing is fine, proselytizing (besides being largely pointless) is not. Any attempt to convert folks here seems out of place, at best, and is not appreciated. Still, please participate in the discussion--it was, after all, started by the Admiral to share ideas about religious beliefs.

P.S. I was in VP-4 from 1973 - 1978.

---

> Rocky,
>
> I agree with Angstrom. Sharing is fine, proselytizing (besides being largely
> pointless) is not. Any attempt to convert folks here seems out of place, at
> best, and is not appreciated. Still, please participate in the discussion--it
> was, after all, started by the Admiral to share ideas about religious
> beliefs.
>
> P.S. I was in VP-4 from 1973 - 1978.
>OFF TOPIC

Were you with the group from VP-4 that came to PAX River Maryland in 1976 for a short Visit.for "Technical Upgrades"

Regards,

Rocky

---

www.boincsynergy.com

> OFF TOPIC
> Were you with the group from VP-4 that came to PAX River Maryland in 1976 for
> a short Visit.for "Technical Upgrades"
> Regards,
>
> Rocky
>

No, I wasn't "smart" enough. But I knew of the group (one of my best friends was in the group).

---

Tom,
Don't sell yourself short. I had not a clue most of the time what was going on. Maybe we can start a Thread for Ex Navy?

For All Just Another Thought.

The paradox of our time in history is that we have
taller buildings but shorter tempers, wider
freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more,
but have less, we buy more, but enjoy less. We have
bigger houses and smaller families, more
conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees
but less sense, more knowledge, but less judgment,
more experts, yet more problems, more medicine, but
less wellness.

We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too
recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get
too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read
too little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.
We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our
values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate
too often.

We've learned how to make a living, but not a life.
We've added years to life not life to years. We've
been all the way to the moon and back, but have
trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor.
We conquered outer space but not inner space. We've
done larger things, but not better things.

We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul.
We've conquered the atom, but not our prejudice. We
write more, but learn less. We plan more, but
accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to
wait. We build more computers to hold more
information, to produce more copies than ever, but
we communicate less and less.

These are the times of fast foods and slow
digestion, big men and small character, steep
profits and shallow relationships. These are the
days of two incomes but more divorce, fancier
houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick
trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one
night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do
everything from cheer, to quiet, to kill. It is a
time when there is much in the showroom window and
nothing in the stockroom. A time when technology can
bring this letter to you, and a time when you can
choose either to share this insight, or to just hit
delete.


Give time to love, give time to speak, and give time
to share the precious thoughts in your mind.

AND ALWAYS REMEMBER:

Life is not measured by the number of breaths we
take, but by the moments that take our breath away.


Very Respectfully,

Rocky Cudd

---

www.boincsynergy.com

> As Voltaire said, "Even if God did not exist, man would have to invent Him".
> The origin of God can probably be traced as far back as 750,000 BCE, which are
> the earliest known burials with spiritual overtones. I would suggest that
> perhaps God was invented at that time to explain post-mortem issues.
>
> Then follows the problem of defining God. I believe that the problem with
> defining God is similar to the definition of Zero - They are both abstract
> concepts that are more intuitive than explicitly defined. In most pre-Judaic
> religions, there is a God for a specific purpose. The Baal of the land, one
> of the sky, one of the sun, et al. Here there isn't any debate or fighting
> because the Gods are usually the same save only for their names. When
> monotheism kicks in, there's only one catch: God is no longer visible, and
> thus, harder to accept.
>
> How can one define nothing constructively? Tough one indeed.
>
> Here's where I start to opine: Let us assume that God is all-powerful and that
> anything that Man can conceive of God can do, such as being at two places at
> one time. Let us also add in the fact that the "Old" Testament demonstrates
> that Abraham's God was not Issac's God, who in turn was not Jacob's God. By
> taking these two concepts of simultaneous appearances and individualized
> divinities, I came to the conclusion that God has "chosen" all of humanity as
> His People. Perhaps the Hindus got one set of facets of God, while the Jews
> got another facet, and the Muslims got another. Essentially, each religion
> with a divine being gets pieces of the puzzle, but not the whole picture.
>
> But is a God really necessary for day-to-day living? That's where I tend
> towards a "no". On reflection, those who cling to God do so for two reasons:
> The comfort and nostalgia of childhood and/or the protection from fear and
> uncertainty. Occasionally people need a God to side against one's enemies,
> but nowadays one tends to go postal and just shoot the aforementioned so that
> they meet their maker. Odd, isn't it? But I digress... Those to
> cling to God do so out of necessity, as if their life had no other purpose on
> this planet than to praise God in success or beg from God when in failure. In
> the meantime, there are 6.3 billion people on the planet who must learn to
> deal with each other on a daily basis - This is where Judaism got it right:
> There are laws regarding Man's relation with God, but there are more laws
> regarding Man's relationships with His Fellow Man.
>
> The reason why any hard-core religioso ticks me off is because they tend to
> put so much emphasis on the human-divine relationship that they effectively
> ignore the inter-human fundament. In fact, the most flagrant violation of all
> of the Man-Man laws (Don't kill) is considered irrelevant when the
> quintessence of all of the Man-God laws (I am God) is "violated". What
> sickens me is the necessity of proving one's faith before the butcher's sword
> is swung. How many times have coreligionists killed their own brethren? I
> don't think we'll ever know. And this is one of the reasons why I don't take
> to certain religions. Be it Crusade or Jihad, wars of proselytization are
> always geared at the "not-us" group - The different even within their own
> group. Does it really matter if you are a Protestant or a Catholic? No.
> What matters is that you think Jesus is the first of two Messiahs, and that's
> that. Does it really matter if you are Shia or Sunni? No. What matters is
> that you believe Mohammed to be the Prophet of Allah. Does it really matter
> if you are Sefaradi or Ashkenazi? No, unless you like falafel more than
> gefilte.
>
> Again, I digress, but the point is made - The relationship amongst humanity is
> of immediate concern, and in all Holy works, that relationship is prized.
> Those who do for their fellow Man are praised, while those who chintz out get
> to say "Humbug" a lot in a Dickens play. This is a universal thread in the
> tapestry of belief, and I hold it dearer than anything else.
>
> An alternative approach: If we are the descendants of God by way of Adam and
> Eve who begot blah, yadda, and me, then I have inherited that holiness first
> granted to Adam as much as anyone else on this planet. Therefore to ignore
> anyone is to ignore a Son of God.
>
> We need people now to do what God either can't or won't, but definitely isn't.
> Prayer doesn't solve sociopolitical and economic issues, action does.
> It is not beyond human ability to feed the hungry. Even if genetically
> modified foods are "evil", they contain higher quantities of the nutrients
> that are needed, and in more bountiful growth. It is not beyond human ability
> to delve into the sea, desalinate it liter-by-liter, and tarry it to the
> driest of deserts and the parchest of throats. It is not beyond human ability
> to investigate illnesses, to seek their cause, to prevent their afflictions,
> and prevent their outbreaks (Except when there's money involved, but that's
> for another topic). Why wait for our solutions to fall out of the sky when we
> are capable of solving the problems here and now?
>
> So while the Bible Hooligans throw a hissy-fit from the bleachers of the
> stadium, I'll be spending my time on the field and in the game. I don't need
> to agree with anyone on the definition of God, or who the chosen people are.
> To live by spending time on seeking the "inner complexities" of a simple
> way-of-life? No, that I leave for others to waste their time on. But since I
> don't contradict any religion in my endeavours, and I aim to benefit
> all, don't ever get in my way by condemning me.
>
> I'm just a Humanist looking for the common denominator of all beliefs. And as
> I've stated <a> href="http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=6183#43470">before[/url],
> they're pretty obvious and consistent. After all, if life was supposed to be
> lived by a Book, how come there are so many of them?
>
> That's pretty much where I stand. The rest are little things that pale by
> comparison.
>
>

Bravo!

---

Account frozen...