Because theists worship an uncreated being that build the Universe. But mormon's father Elohim was not an uncreated being, he was just a homo sapien created by some other dude in the sky. So Elohim was neither created nor the originator of the Universe.

No, not really. Theism is the belief in god or gods. It is only the "worship of an uncreated being that built the universe" to those who believe that specific type of god.

My definition of god is shared by the vast majority of those in non orthodox oriental religious culture (which hardly even exists anymore), among Hindus for example, in which it happens that "Hinduism" is not even a religion at all, at least as told to me by an old friend of mine who is a native of India and has a doctorate in theology. I was speaking within the context of dominant culture of those participating in the God debate.

Oh, goody -- an appeal to popularity fallacy to justify your original straw-man used to initiate a "no true scotsman" fallacy. How original.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2017 05:21PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Just because it can fit the definition of a fallacy, doesn't mean it is false. You seem to have little knowledge on this matter.

Quizical Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just because it can fit the definition of a
> fallacy, doesn't mean it is false. You seem to
> have little knowledge on this matter.

Your assumption about my knowledge is clearly uninformed -- and wrong.

I didn't say anything was "false." I pointed out your creative and plentiful use of fallacy. Using multiple fallacies doesn't mean you're wrong...but it does mean there's no reason to think you're right.

Interesting that the Romans considered the early Christians atheists because they denied the reality of the Roman pantheon. In addition they were considered cannibals because they feasted on the body and blood of their god. And they were incestuous because they called each other brother and sister and greeted each other with a holy kiss. So... it all depends on one's perspective.

My perspective: I'm an atheist. Hi

Ethnocentric much?

In other words, your definition works when you ignore all of the people who don't agree with your definition. Nice.

Also, you must not be familiar with mormon doctrine: Elohim has always existed, like we've always existed.

In mormon doctrine, nothing is created or destroyed.

Your logic also needs work, as hie already pointed out.

Why not be humble enough to admit your idea was both unoriginal and incorrect?

Oy vey. That's not even the "my god is better than your god" argument. It is "my definition of god is better than your definition".

Actually, rather a lot of theists don't believe their gods are uncreated beings who built the universe. A billion Hindus with thousands of gods don't strictly believe that. Their gods have varying talents and jurisdictions. And lots of arms.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...and lots of arms.

If you look at the hands on those arms, they are usually holding an object of some sort, and each object symbolizes one or more of those "talents and jurisdictions."

The multiple arms are visual metaphors, and aren't meant to be taken "literally." :D

Practically no Hindus are worshipping imagined gods. Their gods are like Santa Claus and the waster bunny to us. Very few worship them as literal beings, they are fun and metaphors.

What then is Brahman?

I think your problem here is that you are not trying to know more. You are happy with what you know.

Only if you re-define "theist" to mean what you said.
Which isn't what it means.

A "theist" believes in a "god" of some kind. It doesn't have to be your kind.

Oh, and by the way, calling someone an atheist isn't an insult or a put-down...:)

It seems that you do not understand that words have no inherant definition, the best we can do is define a word by what is most commonly agreed upon definition, which my definition for theist is the most widely accepted.

You can test this by asking people from representative samples from different cultures throughout the world what theist means to them, and then ask them what god means to them.

Yea well my survey of one commonly agrees with the idea that 1,000,000,000 people don't get to tell the other 7,000,000,000 that they are wrong.

Words absolutely do have "inherant[sic] definition". It's why we can understand one another. We have dictionaries for this very purpose. You can not make up definitions and expect others to bow to your will and understand what you're talking about.

Yes, language does change and grow over time, and popular culture can force that (see the definition of "literally" which literally no longer means literally anymore, sadly, dictionaries have updated to reflect that.)

Yours is the first time I have ever heard "God" being defined as being an "uncreated[sic] being". As I've shown, there are plenty of examples of widely accepted "Gods" that were created. You may not see them as "Gods" but, most people do, even if in the mythological sense.

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yours is the first time I have ever heard "God"
> being defined as being an "uncreated being".

Nicely said, FF.

FYI, it's not the first time I've heard "god" defined that way. In fact, it's pretty standard fare for US evangelicals who try to use the (rather silly) KCA (Kalam Cosmological argument), because to remove one fallacy in that argument they need a "god" that is "uncreated." Never mind that declaring their "god" uncreated is both moving the goalposts and a bare assertion...:)

It's also, sadly, not the first time I've had someone insist their definition of "god" is the only "real" one, though it is the first time I've seen someone use the "no true Scotsman" fallacy to insist that anyone who doesn't believe in their definition of "god" isn't a "true theist." :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2017 06:29PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Who is the starter god in mormonism? and do mormons believe in them?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2017 06:00PM by nonsequiter.

So... I'm wondering, were people who believed in the Greek Gods also Atheists? Egyptian Gods? Those were gods that were created or born (Often from other gods but not always). I would think that most people would agree that they were not atheists.

Also, We do have dictionaries.

Google "define: atheist"
"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

Mormon's believe that their Elohim is the "God" of at least this world and if they've read the Pearl of Great Price, worlds without number... He is their creator, grants blessings and power to various people. That would fit most definitions of a god, regardless of their origin.

Indeed, Google has a definition for God as well:
Google "define: god"
"1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
"2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity."

The Mormon God certainly fits that definition. Note that other widely recognized dictionaries all pretty much conform to these definitions.

YOU may have a different definition, but the standard definition for atheist does not seem to apply to Mormons.

You say that "Hinduism is not a religion" at all, yet every definition I found from a quick Google search begs to differ.

From dictionary.com":
Hinduism definition. A religion of India that emphasizes freedom from the material world through purification of desires and elimination of personal identity. Hindu beliefs include reincarnation. (See Brahmins, pariah, Vishnu, and yoga.)

The vast majority of gods of classical paganism (Mesopotamian
gods, Egyptian gods, Greco-Roman gods) were considered created
beings.

If I were to start asking random people their definition of "atheist," I'm pretty sure I'd get hundreds of responses before the word "uncreated" was spoken the first time.