>> "Yes I believe in god, if by the word, god, you mean the embodiment of the immutable laws that govern nature." Sagan

>> I prefer that definition of the word, god, to the Judeo Christian definition, because it more closely aligns with the ancient Greek, Eastern and Native American concepts of the divine.

>> If the greatest scientific geniuses who ever lived use the word god, to mean a very specific thing, laws of nature, why not use their definition instead of the Judeo Christian definition?

This recurring topic seems to boil down to one simple question…..why not align with XXX definition of god? Below is my honest attempt to provide answers.

1) Because their definition isn’t my definition.

2) Because I prefer something other than your preference.

3) Because I don’t have to align with any definition.

4) Because I’m OK with and can accept however a person wants/ needs to define god.

5) Because an appeal to authority doesn’t mean anything me.

6) Because an appeal to the ancients doesn’t mean anything to me.

7) Because using the theist definition makes the subject of belief in god and religion much simpler to discuss.

8) Because not using god as a definition makes the subject of nature and the cosmos much simpler to discuss.

9) Because no one, atheist A**H*** or otherwise, is telling me not to use the word god.

10) Because religion has usurped the word god and the tainted the definition to the point that I prefer not to use it for describing anything else, especially something I love and respect as much as nature and the cosmos.

11) Because through my searching and studying, maybe I’ll end up defining god as Bill

I don't care how you define god. There are probably as many definitions as there are human beings.

But as for me, when I see the word, god, printed on every coin and bill I ever spent or received, or recite it in the Pledge of Allegiance, or hear it in conversation, I choose to think of it in non-Monotheist (Patriarchal White Supremacist) terms, the same way Einstein described it.

If people ask me if I believe in God, I generally tend to use the same answer as Carl Sagan, "Yes I believe in god, if by the word, god, you mean the embodiment of the immutable laws that govern the Cosmos."

I'm with NdGT, even though I don't believe in the cartoon Santa Claus for adults God of the most of my neighbors, I don't identify as an atheist, because like he said, they're generally kinda assholes who think they can tell you what words you can't use if you're an atheist. So he's not an atheist because he doesn't want to associate himself with the behavior of atheists.
The behavior of atheists on this board is a perfect example of what he's talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2itlUlD10M

>> I don't care how you define god......

>> But as for me, when I see the word, god.......

>> If people ask me if I believe in God, I generally tend to.....

>> I'm with NdGT.....

>> I don't identify as an atheist.......

I notice your reply is all about you. I think everyone discussing this with you, or at least trying to have a discussion, gets where you are. You've made it very clear, many times over.

Yet, you continue to pose the question..."why not align with XXX's definition of god" and people continue to tell you why they don't. No one has told you can't define god how you want, but they don't define god the same way for any number of reasons.

Isn't that enough for you? You don't care how I or others define god and others don't care how you do. What are you hoping for as far as an outcome? What is there left to discuss about it? Can't you just let it go now?

Seriously?

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> I don't care how you define god......
>
> >> But as for me, when I see the word, god.......
>
> >> If people ask me if I believe in God, I
> generally tend to.....
>
> >> I'm with NdGT.....
>
> >> I don't identify as an atheist.......
>
> I notice your reply is all about you. I think
> everyone discussing this with you, or at least
> trying to have a discussion, gets where you are.
> You've made it very clear, many times over.
>
> Yet, you continue to pose the question..."why not
> align with XXX's definition of god"

I never asked that.

Seriously

What are you trying to get, Kori? What are you looking for?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What are you trying to get, Kori? What are you
> looking for?
Eebunking the bogus myth perpetuated in this forum, that the only choice an Exmo has is between the Patriarchal God of Judeo Christianity and identifying as the opposite of that.

Damn it!!! Thanks for that, Kori!

So now all we have to do is take YOUR choice!

How easy you've made it for us. You get all the glory...

Kori, I think you present a false dilemma. I and many (or most) others are between the extremes of theism and atheism.

That adjustment is independent of what famous people say. The mystery of the cosmos is the mystery of the cosmos. It doesn't rely on anyone's advocacy of any view.

Yes, you did ask that.

>> Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
Date: September 10, 2019 04:52PM
Re: Is there a god? scientists weigh in....Tyson and Kaku

>> If the greatest scientific geniuses who ever lived use the word god, to mean a very specific thing, laws of nature, why not use their definition instead of the Judeo Christian definition?

Seriously.

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, you did ask that.
>
> >> Posted by: schrodingerscat ( )
> Date: September 10, 2019 04:52PM
> Re: Is there a god? scientists weigh in....Tyson
> and Kaku
>
> >> If the greatest scientific geniuses who ever
> lived use the word god, to mean a very specific
> thing, laws of nature, why not use their
> definition instead of the Judeo Christian
> definition?
>
> Seriously.

Its just how I think of the word, like Einstein, and others.
You and other atheists want to restrict the definition to the naive Christian (Patriarchal, white supremacist) definition, because it is an easy strawman to knock down.
Not as easy to knock down the impersonal god of Einstein, Hawking, Sagan, Kaku.

> Not as easy to knock down the
> impersonal god of Einstein,
> Hawking, Sagan, Kaku.

Yes, it is! Watch:

"When it comes to knowing and talking about ghawd, Einstein, Hawking, Sagan, and Kaku are full of crap!" said ElderOldDog.

And the world rolled on...

Hey. Those are celebrity endorsements you are calling crap. What's next? Saying Christie Brinkley's skin cream is bogus? Next thing you'll be saying the hot pockets Snoop Dog endorsed are are not only not nutritious but are bad for you. Don't you know that when people are that famous you must not question them and anyone who quotes them is always right?

Good thing none of them know where I live!

>> >> What are you trying to get, Kori? What are you looking for?

>> Eebunking the bogus myth perpetuated in this forum, that the only choice an Exmo has is between the Patriarchal God of Judeo Christianity and identifying as the opposite of that.

>> You and other atheists want to restrict the definition to the naive Christian (Patriarchal, white supremacist) definition, because it is an easy strawman to knock down.

This is just absurd Bill.

Amen.

One good reason for avoiding use of the word god altogether is that it has all kinds of unpredictable preconceived definitions to work around with everyone. Why bother adding all that confusion and inference? I'm not writing books so I don't need to be ambiguous to avoid offense. :-)

I'm not sure Bill Dammit has a good ring to it for swearing purposes.
Screaming "Oh Bill" during lovemaking might not cut it either.
"Thank Bill" might work though.

I totally agree. XXX is God.

And Dos Equis is first runner-up.