• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why God is God Alone, and No One Else

Ethnikos

Illuminator
Ethnikos
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
3,499
Is it possible for people to agree there is one God?

Can people give up partisanship enough to agree that God is
far away somewhere, in a place we can not go, and that God
does no come here and that we can not know His name?

Would the world be a better place if we could?
 
I for one think it's a far better idea to agree to disagree and learn to live with one and another, because in the end people are going to believe what they wanna believe regardless of any facts put in front of them.

[/thread]
 
Ethnikos said:
Is it possible for people to agree there is one God?

Can people give up partisanship enough to agree that God is
far away somewhere, in a place we can not go, and that God
does no come here and that we can not know His name?

Would the world be a better place if we could?
Click to expand...

Is it possible for people to agree that there is no god?
 
dafydd said:
Is it possible for people to agree that there is no god?
Click to expand...

Not at this time I guess. As a race we haven't mature pass the point of Linus and his security blanket I guess.
 
I've no need to imagine gods. I can't understand why anyone needs to.

Ethnikos said:
Can people give up partisanship enough to agree that God is
far away somewhere, in a place we can not go, and that God
does no come here and that we can not know His name?
Click to expand...

Then what good would it be, if it did exist? What you describe is exactly the same as no god at all.
So, why bother?
 
Last edited:
Ethnikos said:
Is it possible for people to agree there is one God?

Can people give up partisanship enough to agree that God is
far away somewhere, in a place we can not go, and that God
does no come here and that we can not know His name?

Would the world be a better place if we could?
Click to expand...

no, no, no and no
 
Mudcat said:
I for one think it's a far better idea to agree to disagree and learn to live with one and another, because in the end people are going to believe what they wanna believe regardless of any facts put in front of them.
Click to expand...
Right, learning to live with each other.
I imagine it would be easier to get along if we all could agree to say, "Gods by name are, by definition, gods of this world. You can have the god of your choice and name him whatever you want."
For example, people A, over here with god 55, and people B, over there with god 65. If A says that 55 is god over 65 because 55 is the true god, by agreement B could counter, "No, because we understand the true God is not named."
People A could come back with, "But 55 is really great."
Everyone else in the world could say, "That's nice and worship 55 all you want, amongst yourself. B has a god already, that they think is pretty good too.
 
Wowbagger said:
I think the world is a better place when people are free to believe or not believe whatever they want about any gods, as long as they are not hurting anyone.
Without that freedom, pointless wars tend to crop up.
Click to expand...
People do hurt other people over gods all the time.
Backing off on a claim for ownership of the world by one particular god would seem to be an improvement.
It would have to be an agreement that is voluntarily arrived at, otherwise it defeats the purpose.
 
Ethnikos I am a living breathing human being and if you are going to quote me have the decency to not quote me out of context. I'm right with the other posters that say that it would be far better if everyone could wrap their minds around the fact that are no gods.

But there will always be people who believe what they want, regardless of what evidence is put before them.
 
Mudcat said:
Not at this time I guess. As a race we haven't mature pass the point of Linus and his security blanket I guess.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really being serious,it was a vain attempt to show ethnikos just how vapid his question was.
 
Ethnikos said:
People do hurt other people over gods all the time.
Backing off on a claim for ownership of the world by one particular god would seem to be an improvement.
It would have to be an agreement that is voluntarily arrived at, otherwise it defeats the purpose.
Click to expand...

You are over estimating the importance of gods The only time that I ever come across the word god is here. Nobody I know is interested in it.
 
slingblade said:
I've no need to imagine gods. I can't understand why anyone needs to.
Then what good would it be, if it did exist? What you describe is exactly the same as no god at all.
So, why bother?
Click to expand...
Some people are happy with no god and others are happy with an unnamed entity that may not even reside inside this universe. Some people are happy with a god who is not even a person.
People who need a picture of a god or story books about this god, can keep their icons as long as they don't try to conquer the world for this iconic god, which is obviously a product of their imagination.

The new Conan movie is coming out with this barbarian of the god, Crom. Should he tell the world that it belongs to Crom. He could do that if he is prepared to kill everyone in the world.
 
Ethnikos said:
The new Conan movie is coming out with this barbarian of the god, Crom. Should he tell the world that it belongs to Crom. He could do that if he is prepared to kill everyone in the world.
Click to expand...

In fantasy there is usually abundant evidence to support the existence of one or more gods, in reality there is usually zero evidence to support the existence of one or more gods. Why is this difficult for people to grasp?
 
dafydd said:
You are over estimating the importance of gods The only time that I ever come across the word god is here. Nobody I know is interested in it.
Click to expand...
I think it would be worthwhile to find out. Have everyone take a poll.

Would you like it if no god of any religion will have any earthly representative attempt to take the world on behalf of that god?

Would you like it if the supreme God, creator of the Universe was content in that He already owns everything and has no use for conquest in His name?
 
Ethnikos said:
I think it would be worthwhile to find out. Have everyone take a poll.

Would you like it if no god of any religion will have any earthly representative attempt to take the world on behalf of that god?

Would you like it if the supreme God, creator of the Universe was content in that He already owns everything and has no use for conquest in His name?
Click to expand...

No, just no. Polls aren't exactly scientific.
 
Ethnikos said:
I think it would be worthwhile to find out. Have everyone take a poll.

Would you like it if no god of any religion will have any earthly representative attempt to take the world on behalf of that god?

Would you like it if the supreme God, creator of the Universe was content in that He already owns everything and has no use for conquest in His name?
Click to expand...

Cthulhu?
 
Ethnikos said:
I think it would be worthwhile to find out. Have everyone take a poll.

Would you like it if no god of any religion will have any earthly representative attempt to take the world on behalf of that god?

Would you like it if the supreme God, creator of the Universe was content in that He already owns everything and has no use for conquest in His name?
Click to expand...

You left out one,namely God does not exist.
 
Mudcat said:
In fantasy there is usually abundant evidence to support the existence of one or more gods, in reality there is usually zero evidence to support the existence of one or more gods. Why is this difficult for people to grasp?
Click to expand...
Embrace the zero evidence god.
A much more people friendly sort of God.
Conan is not such a good analogy because he was no a zealot bu just recognized it was what his tribe said God was and the name stuck with him.
Like people who say, Jesus! but not in a worshipful way.
But Conan was ready to take the world and would have for Crom, if he needed a god to do it in the name of.
 
Ethnikos said:
Embrace the zero evidence god.
A much more people friendly sort of God.
Conan is not such a good analogy because he was no a zealot bu just recognized it was what his tribe said God was and the name stuck with him.
Like people who say, Jesus! but not in a worshipful way.
But Conan was ready to take the world and would have for Crom, if he needed a god to do it in the name of.
Click to expand...

What is the point of this?
 
dafydd said:
What is the point of this?
Click to expand...

The rest of the world, having come to an agreement concerning God, would join together to tell Conan, "The true God, by agreement has no name, so your god has no legitimate claim to the world. We decided that the world was created by and still owned by the One who created the Universe."
 
Ethnikos said:
The rest of the world, having come to an agreement concerning God, would join together to tell Conan, "The true God, by agreement has no name, so your god has no legitimate claim to the world. We decided that the world was created by and still owned by the One who created the Universe."
Click to expand...

there is no evidence anyone has created the universe. Why would we agree on nonsense.
 
Ethnikos said:
The rest of the world, having come to an agreement concerning God, would join together to tell Conan, "The true God, by agreement has no name, so your god has no legitimate claim to the world. We decided that the world was created by and still owned by the One who created the Universe."
Click to expand...

You'll never get 'the world' to agree to anything. Who is Conan? Conan The Barbarian?
 
RandFan said:
Is it possible for educate skeptics who have learned critical thinking and are capable of rational and objective analysis of emperical evidence?
Click to expand...
They may be the minority. The majority have at least a vague concept of a god out there, somewhere.
I'm not saying create a new theology but put a limit on what is being done by religionists of the world in the name of whatever.
All the people with a fuzzy god concept, unite in favor of adoption of that god as the official world God, for political purposes, not for actual worship because the fuzzy God needs no worship.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom