Bullshit, most concepts of God back then were far more specific, as are most of them even now. Do people pray to the “force behind what is” or “the way it is” or do they pray to a personal deity who listens to their prayers and who they think will possibly answer them? Do they sing to “the way it is” or “The Force behind what is” every Sunday?
You’re just making everybody who believes in God and isn’t a deist look silly.
Why would atheists pretend to be honestly religious? What? And why would it be taught poorly?
Teaching children only nice stories from the book and completely forgetting to mention the horrible ones is good, objective teaching as opposed to poor?
No there are tons of gods… which hence it is a PERSONAL god(s) that anyone can relate to, anyone can pray to, anyone can worship, etc.
“Oh I don’t like your god… let’s create my own then.” Which is what you’re all doing, hence personal god of which Einstein did not believe in. He may have admired the universe and all of it’s mystery but he didn’t follow a deity. Reality is no deity either.
Actually use, we are “god” in it even did exist. We have the capacity to obtain new knowledge and create new things out of that knowledge. Two characteristics of a ‘deity’.
No. You are confusing a deity with a living being.
To “obtain new knowledge” means something like “to learn” and to “create new things out of that knowledge” means something like “to apply what has been learned” - thus: both mean two characteristics of living beings.
Living beings can learn and apply what they have learned. Have you forgotten that?
Human beings are also living beings, very specific living beings: animal-not-wannabes on the one side and god-wannabes on the other side. Humans are pretty much animals, but do not want to be animals, and they are not pretty much god(s), but want to be god(s). Humans are not able to be real animals and not able to be real god(s) - they are between the two, so a human being means a being between an animal and a god.
Knowledge is what makes a deity. With proper knowledge, something we do not know right now. We could be omnipotent. In the future we may be able to create new races, we may be able to birth without having to have sex and a lot more things on top of that. We already breed new domesticated animals. It is only a matter of time and knowledge.
Living beings can also be ‘gods’. Since that is what a “god” is. An aware all powerful controlling entity. Power is through knowledge, we are already aware and awareness can increase to great(er) heights, we are naturally controlling, for the good or bad it can be either.
Just because we’re animals does not mean we cannot be ‘gods’ as well. Not really anything wannabe about it honestly. We’re both. A “god” may create through expanded knowledge and awareness. We can do the same things, just on a smaller scale because we’re not at the required knowledge and awareness to do so.
Where did Artimas say that Einstein didn’t believe in a god? I don’t know what you were referring to but what he did say was that "most scientists do not believe in a personal god - meaning the judaic/christian god.
I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. (Albert Einstein, Letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946)
Just to cut to the chase here, was that what DeGrasse said or Einstein? My quotes from Einstein reveal that he did “see” a god, but just not a personal one. I don’t like the word belief too much.
So in other words nature. Yet I don’t define nature or reality as god, neither should anyone else so they don’t mix things up and confuse everyone else. Like they always do and is always fucking done. Just like they took away the genius from the Arabic a long time ago by shoving religion down their throats. That’s also what DeGrasse was talking about, being scared of losing our intelligence and wanting to discover new things due to people being coerced/scared by religion.
And yes, it was a quote from Einstein. Not just DeGrasse lying. He isn’t going to lie in front of 900 scientists and scholars. People here are just science and DeGrasse haters.
I don’t hate science and I’ve liked and admired DeGrasse Tyson since his mini-series Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey - which was utterly beautiful. I hung on every word and every image. How could anyone hate science?
I still think that Einstein “saw” some impersonal Something which is responsble for having created the universe[s] - he just couldn’t actually name it. He called himself an agnostic. I call myself an agnostic which doesn’t mean that i see nothing just that i can’t say what it is…
What? You, Artimas, can’t define what a god is (perhaps until your death). But you tried it - of course: falsely. The definition of “god(s)” is absolutely clear:
You tried to define “god(s)” in a new way, of course: falsely. See above.
Now you start the next error with the term “human beings”. That’s ridiculous. “Human beings” are very well defined and can be experienced too.
Human beings are mortal beings - by definition and by experience (a human can experience that e.g. one of the other humans is dead and conclude that all humans are mortal). Gods are no mortal beings - by definition. See above.
I forgot, you know gods personally and can define what they are because you know them.
A god is whatever we define it to be, hence which is why I don’t like when people define reality and nature as it. We created “god” and it’s definition because we have no other proof of what it is. You don’t know if it’s immortal or mortal and you also don’t know if we are mortal or immortal, physically perhaps, consciousness and energy, maybe not.
Anyone can define god, regardless of being dead because it’s a creation of humans to make them feel better. I also don’t even know what wiktionary is, but the definition I got off google just by typing in the word says nothing about immortality, that’s just another added on trait to a “God” to make it seem omnipotent when it really isn’t.
Just because something dies physically in a obvious physical world does not mean there is nothing happening in formlessness. No not heaven or hell. But if you haven’t noticed, in this physical world already of which we live. There are cycles, obvious ones and ones out in space as well. The logical conclusion is that there are also cycles in death as well, why wouldn’t there be when nearly everything is as we see it. Yes a human can experience in the physical aspect, and this makes you think you know the answers just because of this physical aspect? For all you know there is an entire other cycle going on. Which brings to the quote “As above ~ So Below”
Point B. You also don’t know that with knowledge and a long time later on if we could give ourselves immortality by fixing our aging/organic organs problem.
Human beings are not very well defined because they are constantly changing. You must be quick on your updating the definition of human then.
Again: The definition of “god(s)” and the definition of “human being(s)” are very well defined.
So you are denying the generally accepted definition of “god(s)” and the definition of “human being(s)”, probably also of e.g. “earth”, “moon”, and “sun”. That means that you are a nihilist.
Are according to your “opinion” human beings at least living beings or does that also depend on the definition of “anyone”?
B.t.w. It was not you but me who told that there are cycles, especially spiral cycles, in the universe and in life: