Reason To be athiest?

[Aqueous Id]

The questions was ''Now who in invented God, and when did this invention take place?

Since you don't say "Brahma" or "Zeus" or "Yahweh", you've opened a new question. This word "God" is middle English, evolved from "guth", an androgyneous name for a Gothic deity. It appears to have evolved from the Indo-Iranian word for "pour", although it seems to have been exclusively used in translating the Greek word "Theos" which probably meant "to run" (or "the flow"). BTW Plato may have coined the term, in his account of the trial of Socrates, as a sort of literary device, to infer Zeus, while meaning something perhaps more akin to "creator God". In that case, all Christian Gods have an invention of Plato (or Socrates, if he's a real person) to thank for inventing their God.

For the Goths, their invention of "The Pouring" occurred probably around 321 AD when the Codex Argenteus (oldest Gothic New Testament) was written.

It was at the fall of Rome, or the Goths might not have been involved in this part of the puzzle.

The Goths may not have understood much about Yahweh during the era ca 300-700 AD when "God" was coined to mean the Gothic Christian deity. Prior to that era it was the name of their deity, at times androgynous, and perhaps in its animist inventions (the trees, the water, etc.) to substitute for natural phenomena for which they had no science.

Shortly after the "Guth" or "Gudth" or "Gud" came into use in this manner, the Vulgate began to propagate, and the Romanized name for Zeus and/or Theos, "Deus", would have been used in parallel among the Christianized Goths. So again "The Pouring" and the "The running" may have fused at that time.

You use the word in a modern vernacular that is probably invented in the King James Anglicization of Theos (The Pouring) and/or Yahweh (a possible reinvention of the Phoenician deity, and Canaanite husband of goddess Ashereh). Under that criteria, God as you use the word was probably invented in ca. 1611 in England.

It would be sometime later when God would be used generically, to span inventions as widely as from Yahweh to Brahma, for example. That would be a good exercise to figure out. Was it maybe in the era that England was losing its hold over India that "God" began to be used interchangeably with their deities?

 

[kx000]

What is God? What does that word really mean?

The only way to press forward is for who people understand the debate to formulate a definition. I can help do this.

 

[spidergoat]

Please do.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Since you don't say "Brahma" or "Zeus" or "Yahweh", you've opened a new question. This word "God" is middle English, evolved from "guth", an androgyneous name for a Gothic deity. It appears to have evolved from the Indo-Iranian word for "pour", although it seems to have been exclusively used in translating the Greek word "Theos" which probably meant "to run" (or "the flow"). BTW Plato may have coined the term, in his account of the trial of Socrates, as a sort of literary device, to infer Zeus, while meaning something perhaps more akin to "creator God". In that case, all Christian Gods have an invention of Plato (or Socrates, if he's a real person) to thank for inventing their God.

For the Goths, their invention of "The Pouring" occurred probably around 321 AD when the Codex Argenteus (oldest Gothic New Testament) was written.

It was at the fall of Rome, or the Goths might not have been involved in this part of the puzzle.

The Goths may not have understood much about Yahweh during the era ca 300-700 AD when "God" was coined to mean the Gothic Christian deity. Prior to that era it was the name of their deity, at times androgynous, and perhaps in its animist inventions (the trees, the water, etc.) to substitute for natural phenomena for which they had no science.

Shortly after the "Guth" or "Gudth" or "Gud" came into use in this manner, the Vulgate began to propagate, and the Romanized name for Zeus and/or Theos, "Deus", would have been used in parallel among the Christianized Goths. So again "The Pouring" and the "The running" may have fused at that time.

You use the word in a modern vernacular that is probably invented in the King James Anglicization of Theos (The Pouring) and/or Yahweh (a possible reinvention of the Phoenician deity, and Canaanite husband of goddess Ashereh). Under that criteria, God as you use the word was probably invented in ca. 1611 in England.

It would be sometime later when God would be used generically, to span inventions as widely as from Yahweh to Brahma, for example. That would be a good exercise to figure out. Was it maybe in the era that England was losing its hold over India that "God" began to be used interchangeably with their deities?

Okay. By the word ''God'' I mean ''The Supreme Being'', ''The Original Cause'', you know, the one you don't believe in, which is understood to mean the same thing by the majority of theists.

Now that you have an idea of what I mean by God, can we stop with the stalling?
If I change my meaning I will literally spell it out. How's that?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

kx000,

We can't simply call him the greatest. We have to put reason. What in t,e universe is greatest, exactly? Is there anything that could possibly be beside it the universe? Love.

You say that because you don't believe in God, or at least God as defined in the scriptures.
If God is the ''The Supreme Being'', or defined as such, then He is The Greatest, and we begin to understand Him
from that perspective. Of course we don't have to believe this, hence we go on our way.

A few consistencies between love, and God.

There is only one Love for each of us, but think of all the things you love besides that one.
There is one God, but he would have gods, and he has a greatest god.

Define ''Love'' in the context you speak of?

To find love you best have faith to look.
God. Same thing.

What is ''love'' without God? Survival of the fittest?
There are some of us humans who are aware that that position is inferior to compassion, and empathy,
two elements needed to fully express the human capability (IMO). I believe that's where we will understand more
about God. We have to draw upon our ''human-ness, or our human intelligence, as opposed to our animalistic one.

Love brings pacifism.

The kind of love that I think you are speaking of here, is ultimately God (of scriptures), a person who serves God, while on earth, does not wish to harm any living creatures what so ever. And will sacrifice there personal activity in a bid to reduce any form of killing. In the old days, yogis would sit in one position for great lengths of time (some still do), and cease activities save the workings of their body.

There is so much stuff out there which has been censored by institutionalised religions, who wanted to destroy real religion, so they would have no competition in bringing as many people has they could, under their sway.

Nowadays we can't even have a decent discussion about religion because of this divide.


jan.

 

[Grumpy]

Jan Ardena

Okay. By the word ''God'' I mean ''The Supreme Being'', ''The Original Cause'', you know, the one you don't believe in, which is understood to mean the same thing by the majority of theists.

You are still being too vague, as there is no concept of a Supreme Being that the majority of theists agree with. In fact the majority of theists worship either Bhudda or the cow walking down the middle of the street. 2000 years ago the majority of theists would look at you funny if you claimed there was only one god. Monotheism was an invention that the Bible is a partial history of, an invention most scholars attribute to Abraham. Most believers in the history of man believed in many gods, whole soap operas in the sky, so to say.

Grumpy

 

[spidergoat]

Okay. By the word ''God'' I mean ''The Supreme Being'', ''The Original Cause'', you know, the one you don't believe in, which is understood to mean the same thing by the majority of theists.

Now that you have an idea of what I mean by God, can we stop with the stalling?
If I change my meaning I will literally spell it out. How's that?

jan.

I understand the word "supreme" and I understand the word "being", but when you put those words together it changes the meaning, now referring to something to which I have no frame of reference.

 

[SciWriter]

Karma, soul, God, etc.

The problem with a universal-negative-type idea is that it is an idea of the imagination, as is anything added on to it, none of which can be used as input to what is trying to be shown, plus the showing is not ever possible in the first place. This bids one to move on to scientifically study just what it is in the cognitive nature of some to persist in strong belief and how that belief can even cause one to state opinion as fact and truth rather endlessly.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I understand the word "supreme" and I understand the word "being", but when you put those words together it changes the meaning, now referring to something to which I have no frame of reference.

The term Supreme Being is often defined simply as "God",[1] and it is used with this meaning by theologians of many religious faiths, including, but not limited to, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Deism....

Here!


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Karma, soul, God, etc.

The problem with a universal-negative-type idea is that it is an idea of the imagination, as is anything added on to it, none of which can be used as input to what is trying to be shown, plus the showing is not ever possible in the first place. This bids one to move on to scientifically study just what it is in the cognitive nature of some to persist in strong belief and how that belief can even cause one to state opinion as fact and truth rather endlessly.

That doesn't really make any sense given the subject matter.
You're merely explaining it away, so that you don't have to consider it.

You're problem is that you view ''religion'' AS Christianity, using it as THE standard, and therefore you've no philosophical
basis for who and what is God, regardless of belief status. This means you cannot really understand all of what I'm saying
because I'm drawing from a much older, and complete religious system.
Christianity, or Islam, only scratches the surface.

In Christianity they regard God as formless, using Jesus as a physical incarnation of God, Islam definately regard God as formless. While those are legitimate forms of worship, they are not the topmost.

In short, you have a Greek/Roman representation of who and what God is. Their representaion come from bits and pieces of established religious traditions. They do not have a full understanding of God, and as a result the Bible is bits and pieces, which for the best part, make no sense untill you have a broad-based picture.

jan.

jan.

 

[SciWriter]

You're merely explaining it away, so that you don't have to consider it.

I am explaining it, having considered it, which does do away with it, and cognitive science can say why it happens. This may be useful for the fence-sitters.

In Christianity they regard God as formless, using Jesus as a physical incarnation of God, Islam definately regard God as formless. While those are legitimate forms of worship, they are not the topmost.

Do the top believers say that it is a Being and/or that it created the universe and All?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I am explaining it, having considered it, which does do away with it, and cognitive science can say why it happens. This may be useful for the fence-sitters.



Do the top believers say that it is a Being and/or that it created the universe and All?

To really explain it, there must be some understanding, and from there you can seek to refute it.
All you're doing is saying God/religion/anything that is not supported by your idea of science, doesn't exist
because intelligence can't be first. Fine, but now you're stuck. You've come to the end of your philosophy.
But there's so much more.

Believers are individual people like non-believers.
Your question implies that we are all the same bunch, who think the same way.
This alone screams heaps about the state of your understanding of the subject matter.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I have full understanding, but I have a little. You appear to
have none, save that which you glean from Christianity, which is more or less,purely faith based, with very little
philosophical basis. Most Christians I meet, have no philosophical basis at all. They only have faith.

That is not to say that all Christians don't have a philosophical basis, because some do, but their religion does not allow them to go beyond
a certain boundary. For example they cannot consult vedic literature, the source of religion, because they have it in their minds that Jesus Christ is the only way to God, and all other candidates are tools of the devil.

You guys have a similar programme, which acts in the same way, but the key-words differ. You cannot accept anything for knowledge save that which you have been told to accept.
The instruction isn't necessarily a written or verbal one, even though such instructions are encoded in your language. It's more of a mindset.
That's how it comes across to me.

jan.

 

[absolutely]

you are judging him instead of the argument, while u r not justifying him being a liar kind or hypocrit to do that
which reveal the assumption that u could b a liar kind that mean to abuse the known limits of individual expressions in meaning smthg that concern everyone and everything

atheism is precisely for those kind of reasons

atheism or the opposition to theism is for pluralism out of the conscious knowledge that existence dimensions facts realize necessarily always evolutions of states matters

which reveal truth intelligence which in principle is a reason of intelligents beings to become real

intelligence of superiority truth, what is superior is never in connection with inferior dimensions bc superiority is by definition unlimited so cant b related nor relative to any one, while always more existing as a fact out of true objective perspective constancies

 

[SciWriter]

For example they cannot consult vedic literature, the source of religion, because they have it in their minds that Jesus Christ is the only way to God, and all other candidates are tools of the devil.

Do the top believers say that it is a Being and/or that it created the universe and All? Or it is a Being that is the universe and All? Or is not a Being and just the actual substance/waves/material making up All?

 

[Jan Ardena]

absolutely,

..appologies, but I can't really grasp the point you're trying to make, but would like to.

jan.

 

[SciWriter]

absolutely,

..appologies, but I can't really grasp the point you're trying to make, but would like to.

jan.

He wants you to judge the argument rather than the person.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I recognised that bit, but I'm not sure of the entirety of what he's saying.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Do the top believers say that it is a Being and/or that it created the universe and All? Or it is a Being that is the universe and All? Or is not a Being and just the actual substance/waves/material making up All?

I don't know what a ''top believer is''. Is is somekind of atheist terminology?
Regarding the different understandings of God, simply put ''different beliefs/understanding of God'' in your search engine
and press enter. I'm sure you'll find the answers you seek.

jan.

 

[SciWriter]

In Christianity they regard God as formless, using Jesus as a physical incarnation of God, Islam definately regard God as formless. While those are legitimate forms of worship, they are not the topmost.

What are the 'topmost' and what do you say they believe as the top?

 

[SciWriter]

I recognised that bit, but I'm not sure of the entirety of what he's saying.

Are you able to judge the argument?