That’s exactly what I was going to retort.
“Generally accepted” does not automatically mean “true”. Should the general public determine definitions of specialists? No, because there’s a difference between the general population of humanity and specialists.
Just like there are theologians who spend lifetimes studying god.
Definitions of words are determined by the common populous aka the majority, like it or not. I’m not going to call myself a theist in everyday life because there’s one guy who defines God in a vague enough way that I can believe in it. It’s highly impractical and unreasonable.
Physical laws on the other hand aren’t determined by the majority. Failed analogy.
… 
… 
… 
That’s a tad too wrong for me to take seriously when Holy books are BASED on supposed interaction between God(Yahweh, Allah, whatever) and humans. I forgot for a moment that I’m trying to reason with a guy who thinks 9 out of 10 strippers will have only female children 
Bullshit. That is the hopeful fantasy of public and government manipulators and very ANTI-Science.
I had no contention with God interacting with humans. If they had not proclaimed that property already, I would have done so myself. The only issue is you insisting that God is a super-homosapian of some kind so that you can make your pointless, strawman arguments.
Again, you are merely inventing your own strawman … which is why you don’t notice what is going on all around you that are causing things to become what you couldn’t imagine.
It’s all a matter of belief and beliefs are contagious, whether they are for or against any concept of a god.
God is about belief.
Not god, is not belief at all.
what do you mean by not god…what do you mean by not lev
NOT: consisting in or characterized by the absence rather than the presence
GOD: I don’t know, I don’t belief, as not god.
.
ill give you a c+
Beliefs are contagious because many of them require only the capacity [u]to[/u] believe. And that is something that either does or does not unfold “inside the head” of any particular man or women. Existentially, in my view.
And then depending on what any particular person is able to believe, a particular emotional and psychological frame of mind tends to follow. One that either comforts and consoles them or does not.
With God and religion, that generally revolves around immortality, salvation, divine justice and objective morality.
But in order to acquire them, one is first judged. And in order to be judged in a favorable light one adopts a set of behaviors deemed to be worthy of any particular God. But since there are many, many, many different Gods [and interpretations of particular Gods] “out in the world” there will inevitably be many, many conflicts.
So, when someone such as yourself does embrace a “spiritual” attachment to God [a God? the God?] “in their head”, I am naturally curious as to how their thoughts and feelings about this particular concept or definition of God might be applicable to the question that most intrigues me: “How ought one to live?”
And then, of course, the extent to which they are able to demonstrate to others [through deduction and induction, rational discourse and empirical evidence] that what they believe “in their head” is in fact what is true objectively. That, in other words, what they believe transcends “in their head” and corresponds wholly with what all rational men and women must believe in turn.
No, wrong, existence does not require the subjective, conscious perception of a human being to exist.
Why can’t you atheists figure this out?
You atheists keep falling into the trap of “if i go to sleep then the entire universe ceases to exist while i am unconscious”.
This is how a young, stupid, retarded child thinks. How dare you atheists keep reasserting this position??? Admit that existence does not depend on human consciousness and perception.
K: There is no such thing as an “objective” viewpoint. Every viewpoint is subjective and this is why
we can say “for me when I sleep the universe no longer exists”. there is no such thing as an objective
viewpoint. This is where your argument fails. As everything is subjective and seen through subjective
eyes, yes, the universe does not exist when I am asleep. When I wake up, the universe is there.
One day, I shall die, sooner than you because I am a great deal older and on that day I die,
the universe shall end for me. It doesn’t go on because I don’t go on. It is the subjective once again.
BTW, nice use of insulting your audience.
I am guessing you flunked your “how to influence people and win friends” class.
Kropotkin
So you think that your waking up magically conjures the universe into existence? And that you going to sleep negates its existence or something? What about other people? If somebody else goes to sleep, do you cease to exist until they wake up? Or is it only you that has that talent of bringing the universe into and out of existence?
I think that based on our experience of other people going to sleep and universe still existing we can conclude that it’s very probable that when we go to sleep the universe continues to exist despite/irrespective of our inability to perceive it with our senses during sleep.
Actually there is an objective viewpoint after a person erases their “subjective” interpretations. What is a subject? After you remove a human’s indoctrination, or using a child not yet brainwashed yet as an example, there is no “subject” of the person. What is “subject” about a person is persona and personage. Subjectivity represents the iMeme. The human believes itself to be an “I”. An individual. This is often false. Any true, real subjectivity would be very, very rare. Most people are objects, obeying laws that they know little or nothing about.
Like gravity. You obey gravity. You are subject to gravity. You are a servant, a slave, to a higher power.
Understand yet, atheists???
Great quote, what a blunder, kropotkin…
“the universe does not exist when I am asleep. When I wake up, the universe is there.”
When we go to sleep that is when the Universe tries to speak.
And you atheists dare call ME an egotist?! What hypocrisy and irony!!!
That claim sounds awfully… religious, more precisely, New Age. I assume you mean that our dreams are a way for universe to communicate with us. Got any evidence for that, or is it just another empty religious claim?
I mean, you’re an atheist, just replace “Universe” with “God” and you’ll see how silly and improbable it sounds.
Well, I could tell you about a dream I once had or a few actually, but you did not witness the experience so why would you believe it? It’s the metaphysical of which is the Universes language. This does not mean it is some judging entity, it simply means we are connected to it… We are individual entities with subjective views, we each see different things while looking out of the window. It isn’t religious, no systematic faith/worship or a superhuman.
It isn’t in the literal sense of it speaking, it’s like riddles, signs, etc.
It isn’t “Hi how are you, i’m the universe.”
It’s = person dreaming - “Oh I had such a crazy vague dream last night” then watching similar events happen in reality the next day, then making the connection of “Deja vu”.
It’s not necessarily that I wouldn’t believe you had those dreams, it’s that people see what they want to see, that includes interpreting dreams.
My father’s faith in God is based on a dream he once had and wrote down immediately after he woke up. I believe that he had a dream, just not that the dream had anything to do with reality.
It’s like when I dream of interacting with a person, I don’t actually interact with that person but with my image of that person.
Or YOU could replace “God” with “Universe” and see how silly you sound. 