'True lies of new Atheism'.

Back to the basics then: Define what 'God' is and leave nothing to the imagination of another person with regard to forming a definition.

 

God is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Then you admit that God exists.

 

not sure why you conclude that.

 

Because you stated that God exists in the eyes of the beholder. Your statement was expressed as a matter of fact, leaving no margin for error... exclusively existing in the eyes of the beholder. Therefore, you have either:

told the absolute truth;
told an absolute lie;
have spoken through a condition of ignorance.

 

the lie is in the mind of the reader - not in what I said, and ignorance is chosen by the reader, not reflective of what I said.

 

When people say beauty is in the eye of the beholder are they saying beauty exists? No. They are saying beauty is whatever anyone thinks it is. God is whatever anyone thinks it.

Now the level of idiotic simplicity of your attempt at an argument makes me wonder if you are being deliberately obtuse or if you have some sort of physical brain incapacity to handle metaphors. Have you ever heard of the proverb test? You just failed it.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0920996404004323

 

funny dude. I have answered this question for you perhaps 4 or five times and you keep asking it again.


God: ALL mass, ALL energy, ALL time; ALL of it as ONE (existence itself)

THE beginning/ending (alpha/omega), your breath, your creator, your everything; existence itself.

The mathematical rendition sharing how the transition occurs between the three (trinity of mass, energy, time) is the name of god.

We all live within the body of god (existence itself).

my god created your god with the 'words' created by mankind.

I am the the name holder. (upon the head)

The "name" (math) is what enables mankind (existence itself) to comprehend itself.

With the principles of life understood, mankind (each of consciousness) can understand.

the math IS the name to know


Anything else you want to ask, straight up?

 

Strictly speaking, that's not up to us. It's your responsibility as a theist to define your God.

 

Strictly speaking, then it is also safe to conclude (based on your language above) that you have no idea of what you are speaking about when you speak in reference to God. Therefore, your input, relative to the subject of God is spoken/written through a condition of ignorance of the subject matter.

 

Then you also admit that God exists... perhaps in a differing manner of description than what I would offer, but still placing God in existence.. Verrrrrry goooooood.

 

Then perhaps you should quit writing and then a bunch of lies would be eliminated from the list of those being exposed to the readers. I cannot speak for the other readers on this forum, but personally, I have never heard you say anything and therefore, because you have exclusively restricted your writings as being distinctly different from what you have "said", then the ignorance would and could still be found in your writings.

 

Still struggling with your reading comprehension or was that a deliberate straw man?

All I said was that as a follower of a particular god, it is up to you to define said god. That in no way means or implies that I do not understand your God as it has been defined.

 

mother nature herself. (ie... he is a she)

you havent really offered much except random ranting without much progress except to share how the mind set-on incorporeal selfishness, makes for a good example of how anyone can judge a beast

'as' existence itself

not in/out or some utter place..................... but 'we' are 'it' itself comprehending itself (well trying to learn with the exceptions of the selfish idiots who still looking elsewhere for a god that dont exist elsewhere.

and thank you, even as i dont need the "atta boys"

 

Still finding yourself enslaved to the need to initiate the first volley of insults?

Obviously you are in error, as my God has not and cannot be defined by the infantile minds of mankind. So, if you think that my God has been defined, your declaration of such only serves as a confirmation that you are ignorant of the subject matter to which we speak. For you to further state or infer that you 'understand' my God would also infer that you possess a personal relationship with my God, which would subsequently fly in the face of your personal claim of being an Atheist/Agnostic/non-Theist.

 

I for one just don't care. The topic fascinates me so I love to read this stuff. I just really don't think there's a god. It sure seems to me like there isn't. I don't care if anyone else agrees with me. Heck, I'd rather people believe in god. I can start going to church and delude myself into believing too. I have done it before. I will start doing that again one day because it's a good way to live. Deep down I'll know it's all crap though. It just doesn't make any sense. Where is this thing?

 

Ironically, all you have contributed is your own delusional rendition of what you perceive God to be. In doing what you are doing, you are not denying the existence of God, but are merely changing the title and the attributes. Both of which you cannot offer any proof that will validate and or verify your claims. Tit for tat...

 

as I said, the lie is in the mind of the reader.

stop reading and you won't confuse yourself by trying to read lies into what other people have written.

 

funny..............

i can prove mother nature is your creator.

And all you can offer is an incorporeal idea, that aint even yours to begin with.

Then again, YOU can prove mother nature is your creator too!




Name one thing your god can do, that nature cannot? The show an example.

For example; nature enabled mankind to evolve, then natures mankind created words and with words mankind created your god. All that is a fact of nature that anyone of any common sense could figure out in a few minutes.

But share to me, something your dude on a thrown (zeus, with a new name) can do, that nature did not (could not) do.

 

Oh really? So there have never been any claims made about any of the three forms of your god? I was going to write up this who deal proving you wrong, but you're just not worth that much of my time. So, these websites cover at least some of it (writen by Christians), that'll have to do.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=165
http://www.allaboutgod.com/attributes-of-god.htm

However, I wish to point out that they only seems to refer to "God the Father". Much more has been said regarding Jesus, but as I said, you're not worth that much of my time. By trying to deny it, you're only fooling yourself.

 

As I said before,,, I don't allow anyone else to dictate to me other than my God. Therefore, what you or others say about my God is irrelevant because you cannot define my God and you cannot name my God. So unfortunately for you and those others... you are completely in the dark with regard to my God.

BTW: You don't want to spend any time on my posting due to the fact that you realize that I am right, in that you cannot define my God in such a manner as to prevent any other person from contributing some other aspect of my God that you have overlooked ... if you were even able to begin such a task.

 

I read what is printed. If what is printed is a lie then, guess what... ???

 

Create nature. Create life when there is no form of life. Create a universe when there is no universe.

Now pay attention to this one. In your request for examples, you failed to contain within that request 'proof' of my claim... So any subsequent requests are hereby denied as privileged information. Privileged only to those who are the called according to His purpose. Ya know kinda like Corporate secrets... cannot divulge those 'trade secrets'.

 

as I said .. the lie is in the eye of the reader.

you can think its a lie, it doesn't make it a lie.

as someone else pointed out - to say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is not to say whether beauty exists or not, merely that the interpretation of beauty is subjective.

same applies to the interpretation of what "God" is.

why you should try to pretend I am saying something else is known only to you.

it is not my problem,

 

And the only way that the 'lie' can appear in the eye of the reader is that it is printed.... so, like I said, quit printing lies.