What Does 'God' Mean to You?

god is an imaginary friend. he is a security blanket for individuals who are incapable of confronting the prospect of living purposless lives.

he is also one of the most malliable and manipulatable concepts ever devised. through his name genocide, inotlerance and all manner of crimes against society can be commited.

religon is an obscene perversion of human logic. nihlism is the mature philosiphy

Alek4A wrote:

god is an imaginary friend. he is a security blanket for individuals who are incapable of confronting the prospect of living purposless lives.

he is also one of the most malliable and manipulatable concepts ever devised. through his name genocide, inotlerance and all manner of crimes against society can be commited.

religon is an obscene perversion of human logic. nihlism is the mature philosiphy

nihilism and existentialism
for a free humanity.
god is the manifestion of life with no meaning.
god is the one who takes responsibilty for all of mankinds achievements, while everything wrong in the world is human error?

grow up.
read a book.
take a look around.
the only difference between the living and the dead is that no one misses the living.

beatnikzach wrote:

god is the one who takes responsibilty for all of mankinds achievements, while everything wrong in the world is human error?

no the other way around.

Liche wrote:

no the other way around.

well really it depends whose view your looking on.
christian/people like them = god did good stuff humans did bad stuff
others would think the opposite, mainly depends on beliefs

Alek4A wrote:

god is an imaginary friend. he is a security blanket for individuals who are incapable of confronting the prospect of living purposless lives.

He could be just one of the two definitions you gave.

Else, from the perspective of those who believe in non-intervetionist gods god doesn't provide with any purpose god simply serves as an explanation for the origin.

Alek4A wrote:

he is also one of the most malliable and manipulatable concepts ever devised. through his name genocide, inotlerance and all manner of crimes against society can be commited.

I think that any subjective concept falls within this category.

Alek4A wrote:

religon is an obscene perversion of human logic. nihlism is the mature philosiphy

Not necesarily. Religion being a set of beliefs, traditions and moral codes can be well based on logical foundations depending on its particular characteristics.

beatnikzach wrote:

im actually studying to become a theoretical physicist
but you cant forget that some of the most prominent scientists were also atheist
oppenheimer
bohr
ternov
etc
but i noticed that some theistic physicists were string theorists :p

That's why I didn't say all I just find it a bit amusing when social scientists and philosophers try to use exact science as a tool for disproving god when among these exact scientists there's absolutely no consensus on the matter being this a topic in frequent debate and study. Else it's also amusing for me when someone tries to assert that the lack of evidence for something is lack of existance when we could be still far from developing the instruments that would allow us measure or detect the orgin of certain phenomena of which we already can perceive the implications.

Science is in constant development and we still got a lot to find out. In my view asserting that we already know enough or are close to doing so is sheer arrogance. In my view it's better to keep an open-minded posture.

Just because we don't YET have an explanation for the universe's beginings, does not mean we should palce any, ANY kind of deity in its place.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Just because we don't YET have an explanation for the universe's beginings, does not mean we should palce any, ANY kind of deity in its place.

And doesn't mean we should disregard that possibility either.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Just because we don't YET have an explanation for the universe's beginings, does not mean we should palce any, ANY kind of deity in its place.

And doesn't mean we should disregard that possibility either.

as a scientist it is your job to be open to new discovers, but id say from a theoretical aspect, dont dwell on it and work towards discovering something
or developing a theory.

beatnikzach wrote:

And doesn't mean we should disregard that possibility either.

as a scientist it is your job to be open to new discovers, but id say from a theoretical aspect, dont dwell on it and work towards discovering something
or developing a theory.[/quote]

God doesn't serve only as "an explanation for the begining of the universe". The idea of a god can have possitive effects when kept personal and not involving third parties forcefully.

"God did it" is not a reason. For example, before DNA was found, no more than around fifty years ago, we did not know for sure why children looked lke their parents. Now, I wasn't alive then, so I don't know if people were saying God was doing it. But gues what. Even if they did, it's wrong.

So once more, even thought you CAN place God there, you really shouldn't, because it actually answeres nothing. If we were to think like that,. why do we have science? Demons and spirits cause disease, not tiny lifeforms. There's nothing out in space. All that is is the firmament. Placing God as ANY explanation helps noone do anything. Actually TRYING does!

"God did it." (Applause.) Nice job. You solved the case. We don't need to look into it anymore.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

"God did it" is not a reason. For example, before DNA was found, no more than around fifty years ago, we did not know for sure why children looked lke their parents. Now, I wasn't alive then, so I don't know if people were saying God was doing it. But gues what. Even if they did, it's wrong.

So once more, even thought you CAN place God there, you really shouldn't, because it actually answeres nothing. If we were to think like that,. why do we have science? Demons and spirits cause disease, not tiny lifeforms. There's nothing out in space. All that is is the firmament. Placing God as ANY explanation helps noone do anything. Actually TRYING does!

"God did it." (Applause.) Nice job. You solved the case. We don't need to look into it anymore.

It's as simple as saying that all the principles and constants reigning these phenomena were made by god. Where does the circle start?

And God itself needs to have a start by that same mettle. Oh, God is eternal? Why can the universe itself not have been eternal? God has to have a begining, too.

Simply, why did the circle have to start at all?

Oh, and I read a bit before. Einsteind did not believe in a personal God. He was Jewish in his race, not faith. He called the unkown God, if only to name it, not in the magical sky daddy sence. Or magical pasta sence.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

And God itself needs to have a start by that same mettle. Oh, God is eternal? Why can the universe itself not have been eternal? God has to have a begining, too.

Simply, why did the circle have to start at all?

Oh, and I read a bit before. Einsteind did not believe in a personal God. He was Jewish in his race, not faith. He called the unkown God, if only to name it, not in the magical sky daddy sence. Or magical pasta sence.

And who said he did believe in such a kind of god? As I say the concept "god" is much broader than just an etereal bearded man pulling strings.

And that would be?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

And that would be?

It is as broad as imagination can be within the boundaries of science.

So, you mean it's nothing to worship as any kind of divine? You mean it's just naming the unkown, instead of saying unknown. Like calling a ham sandwinch a glabeesh for no other reason than you want to? Works for me.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

So, you mean it's nothing to worship as any kind of divine? You mean it's just naming the unkown, instead of saying unknown. Like calling a ham sandwinch a glabeesh for no other reason than you want to? Works for me.

Could be or could not be that way. For me it is something that lacks the three following carachteristics:

It can be studied by science
It can be understood by science
It can be controlled by science.

Yet it has implications in phenomena with those characteristics.

And every time someone has tried to place said being into anything, so far, with obvious exceptions, (that we can't explain EVERYTHING yet) it has proven to be false. Again, DNA, age of the Earth, (unless you're one of those young Earth creationist retards who says carboin dating doesn't work, which I know YOU'RE not, Zealot) etc. JUST because we can't explain it YET doesn't mean it's any kind of divine. Lightening is NOThurled down to Earth by Zues, and earthquakes are NOT created by a God angry at the number of homosexuals in the area.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

And every time someone has tried to place said being into anything, so far, with obvious exceptions, (that we can't explain EVERYTHING yet) it has proven to be false. Again, DNA, age of the Earth, (unless you're one of those young Earth creationist retards who says carboin dating doesn't work, which I know YOU'RE not, Zealot) etc. JUST because we can't explain it YET doesn't mean it's any kind of divine. Lightening is NOThurled down to Earth by Zues, and earthquakes are NOT created by a God angry at the number of homosexuals in the area.

Those are what I call "misuse" of god.

For me in would be awful that something as sacred as identity could be changed at will by those with the means to do so, that is, if such means were ever created which would happen if idenity could be controlled scientifically.

What do you mean changing identity?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

What do you mean changing identity?

In the context in which I am speaking it would something like someone could engineer you into liking country music, hating black people and making you a homophobic repressed homosexual who finds pleasure in raping cats. That you can today love a girl but you could be engineered into feeling the same passionate love for an empty bottle of wine instead of her.

So... you have an issue with genetic augmentation? You really could have said that a lot easier, and it has nothing to do with anything Godlike.

And yeah, yeah. It CAN be used for evil. Doesn't mean you should dissallow it. Knives can be used for horrible acts of evil, but we still allow their use. Genetic augmentaion can destroy disease, and make us better, smarter, faster.

Incidentally, we're not at that level yet, so it becomes moot.

god means to me, nothing