What is with some peoples' perversion/semantic manipulation of the term "god"? It generally is understood to mean "diety". Anything else seems to be an attempt to rationalize ones atypical belief system.

How are constant, orderly laws of physics, for example, "god"? That is arbitrary and not even thiestic unless you personify the universe itself as a single, sentient entity, which makes absolutely no sense. (There are a bunch of others uses, but I can't think of them now).

People often create a definition of "god" that make their arbitrary thiestic beliefs seem "logical". What really pisses me off is when people use the term bizarrely with a random, implied definition that appears to justify their beliefs yet in the same context as one would use the term diety. They always think they are so clever too, with their "diverse" and "unique" beliefs.

I'm looking for honest, sober discussion, not the rant of mindless, semi-psychotic, self-deluding fundamentalists of there own personal religion (that of course rips-off a dozen others).

I'm not refering to people who use the term in the traditional way. Nor am I implying that any thiestic belief is rational, that's beside the point.

The "to each his own" thing is bullshit, I mean come on. Organised religion is one thing, but should we really bend over for (equally respect and tolerate) every nut-job that craps out a mutated spin-off?

Organised religion is one thing, but should we really bend over for (equally respect and tolerate) every nut-job that craps out a mutated spin-off?
Organized religion is one thing? Why should religion get more respect just because it's more organized than a "mutated spin-off"? In what ways should we show it less respect and tolerance? What sort of respect should organized religion get?

Organized religion is one thing? Why should religion get more respect just because it's more organized than a "mutated spin-off"? In what ways should we show it less respect and tolerance? What sort of respect should organized religion get?

Organised religion just has lots of followers, that's all I meant. As opposed to some douche that thinks they are the "enlightened true believer" with the shit they made up/ripped-off for themselves to feel unique and special.

Yes, organised religion is organised religion, unlike unorganised religion. And I just mean by respect in comparison to some shit a random person recently made up for themselves. Thiesm as a whole should be ridiculed and discouraged, but they are the majority.

Organised religion just has lots of followers, that's all I meant.
O...kay, but that can't be all you meant. "(equally respect and tolerate)"


Yes, organised religion is organised religion, unlike unorganised religion.
Ahh, gotcha. Thanks for clearin' that up.


And I just mean by respect in comparison to some shit a random person recently made up for themselves.
What's the comparison in the two levels of respect?

I don't feel the need to respect every nut job be it a theist, an atheist, a neo-agist-pagan-law-of-attraction-idiot. I have every right to tear their argument apart as they do to mine. I however do not have any right to coerce my beliefs on them just as you think that you don't feel the need to bend over for them.

The misuse isn't in the term but rather the attributes given to IT, namely human ones. A thing that lives in the sky because supposedly things are purer the higher one gets off the ground; something with emotions, when the CONCEPT of emotions would have to be created, and IT being subservient to them wouldn't make IT all powerful; something that lives in time and space, being subservient in the first place to the CONCEPT of a beginning and an end.

The creator can't be subservient to it's creation and as far as I see it, every I have experienced thus far is a part of the creation. The creator isn't dependent on the creation, but even the creation's BEING is dependent on the creator.

I will now leave you with a ripped off, mindless, semi-psychotic, self-deluding, fundamentalists interpretation of my own reason.

"The Reason that can be reasoned is not the eternal Reason. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. The Unnamable is of heaven and earth the beginning." Lao-Tze

I'm not refering to people who use the term in the traditional way. Nor am I implying that any thiestic belief is rational, that's beside the point.

What do you mean?

OP raises a valid point. However, since "God" is by deifnition, infinite, any limiting definition or label will fall short.

That said, it would be helpful if posters could mention what sort of God they speak of--even when you are dealing with the Christian god, there are seven levels of consciousness which reflect seven different and mutually exclusive aspects of deity. (see thread "seven faces of God."

Personally, I speak of God in the same sense used by Sufi Muslims, Christian mystics such as St John of the cross, and modern writers such as Deepak Chopra, N. D. Walsch and dozens of others I don't even know about.

"God" has many, many definitions. This sounds like more of a discussion for Eat Your Words than here.

Who's OP to determine when someone is using it "improperly"? Does he even know the origins of the word?

... or ...

"The Ten Horned Beast who's Number is 666 is full of Names of Blasphemy."

I think this phenomena is simply more evidence that theists simply don't know what they're talking about. This is why it is so easy to find 100 different and incompatible definitions of one entity. If it really spoke to them or revealed itself, it would seem there would be a coherent idea of what this thing is all about.

I don't feel the need to respect every nut job be it a theist, an atheist, a neo-agist-pagan-law-of-attraction-idiot. I have every right to tear their argument apart as they do to mine. I however do not have any right to coerce my beliefs on them just as you think that you don't feel the need to bend over for them.

The misuse isn't in the term but rather the attributes given to IT, namely human ones. A thing that lives in the sky because supposedly things are purer the higher one gets off the ground; something with emotions, when the CONCEPT of emotions would have to be created, and IT being subservient to them wouldn't make IT all powerful; something that lives in time and space, being subservient in the first place to the CONCEPT of a beginning and an end.

The creator can't be subservient to it's creation and as far as I see it, every I have experienced thus far is a part of the creation. The creator isn't dependent on the creation, but even the creation's BEING is dependent on the creator.

I will now leave you with a ripped off, mindless, semi-psychotic, self-deluding, fundamentalists interpretation of my own reason.

"The Reason that can be reasoned is not the eternal Reason. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. The Unnamable is of heaven and earth the beginning." Lao-Tze

So essentially, belief in a creator makes no sense, and you have to delve into dubious philosophical sayings in order to rationalize such a belief.

What do you mean?

I mean I'm not referring to people who mean "diety" or a traditional mythological enitity when they say "god". And I'm saying I'm not implying thiestic beliefs are rational or logical, that that is beside the point.

OP raises a valid point. However, since "God" is by deifnition, infinite, any limiting definition or label will fall short.

That said, it would be helpful if posters could mention what sort of God they speak of--even when you are dealing with the Christian god, there are seven levels of consciousness which reflect seven different and mutually exclusive aspects of deity. (see thread "seven faces of God."

Personally, I speak of God in the same sense used by Sufi Muslims, Christian mystics such as St John of the cross, and modern writers such as Deepak Chopra, N. D. Walsch and dozens of others I don't even know about.

"God" isn't necessarily infinite, it would depend on your definition. In being truely infinite by definition, that would make a god absolutely meaningless as it could mean anything. In the traditional sense, god is limited to an entity, albeit with the ability to transcend all things etc.

I don't know about your 7 faces thing but it seems like just another arbitrary set of definitions that someone, who evidently has some credibility in peoples' eyes, made up. Are those the "offical" Christian God aspects?

"God" isn't necessarily infinite, it would depend on your definition. In being truely infinite by definition, that would make a god absolutely meaningless as it could mean anything. In the traditional sense, god is limited to an entity, albeit with the ability to transcend all things etc.

I don't know about your 7 faces thing but it seems like just another arbitrary set of definitions that someone, who evidently has some credibility in peoples' eyes, made up. Are those the "offical" Christian God aspects?

The concept of infinite has to be created.

How is your "traditional" definition of God any different then any other definition? You don't think there were definitions before the "traditional" ones?

Which traditional Gods do you mean? If Brahman is included, then the definition used by myself and Arms and others is very close to a traditional definition.

Nearly all major religion today can be attributed to astrotheology and ritual entheogen use. Traditional religious stories and beliefs were based on star study and spiritual experiences. Over time, these stories and experiences became anthropormorphized into your "traditional" Gods.

How then is "God" being misused, when the traditional definitions are metaphorical, not to mention the work of hundreds and thousands of years of alteration and the telephone game? How can you pin-point the "correct" use of the word?

How is your "traditional" definition of God any different then any other definition? You don't think there were definitions before the "traditional" ones?

Which traditional Gods do you mean? If Brahman is included, then the definition used by myself and Arms and others is very close to a traditional definition.

Nearly all major religion today can be attributed to astrotheology and ritual entheogen use. Traditional religious stories and beliefs were based on star study and spiritual experiences. Over time, these stories and experiences became anthropormorphized into your "traditional" Gods.

How then is "God" being misused, when the traditional definitions are metaphorical, not to mention the work of hundreds and thousands of years of alteration and the telephone game? How can you pin-point the "correct" use of the word?

Because Psilocybe is a Prophet, silly.

All hail Psilocybe!

How are constant, orderly laws of physics, for example, "god"? That is arbitrary and not even thiestic unless you personify the universe itself as a single, sentient entity, which makes absolutely no sense. (There are a bunch of others uses, but I can't think of them now).


We do this to piss off theists and insinuate that it is a more convoluted (and therefore less likely) that 'a creator created himself and created the universe', rather than 'the universe created itself'.

We do this to piss off theists and insinuate that it is a more convoluted (and therefore less likely) that 'a creator created himself and created the universe', rather than 'the universe created itself'.

I personally believe "God/Reality is", without a before or an after for 'creation' to take place during, is a less convoluted scenario then "the universe created itself" one.

The concept of infinite has to be created.

That's bullshit. It existed before it was conceived by human minds. Just like the laws of physics. They were not magically "created". Their origins, like the origin of the universe itself are unknown. And what about the origins of their origins? Nothing implies a creator necessarily and because it's unknown, discussing it in any more detail is psychotically pretentious.

How is your "traditional" definition of God any different then any other definition? You don't think there were definitions before the "traditional" ones?

Which traditional Gods do you mean? If Brahman is included, then the definition used by myself and Arms and others is very close to a traditional definition.

Nearly all major religion today can be attributed to astrotheology and ritual entheogen use. Traditional religious stories and beliefs were based on star study and spiritual experiences. Over time, these stories and experiences became anthropormorphized into your "traditional" Gods.

How then is "God" being misused, when the traditional definitions are metaphorical, not to mention the work of hundreds and thousands of years of alteration and the telephone game? How can you pin-point the "correct" use of the word?

All early religions that I know of (Pagan etc.) involved a god in the traditional sense. If some do not mean "diety" or a somehow embodied supreme entity that is beside the point. Most "gods" are of the traditional sense. It is not "my" definition, it is the generic, most common one.

Traditional definitions are most certainly not metaphorical ones according to your average thiest. They take a god as a literal being, that cannot be percieved except through ethereal methods (prayer etc.). The alterations are primarily in the form of arbitrary specific details and not the general nature of the god. Ex. God's name is Jehovah, Jesus is his only son; God's name is Yahweh (sp), Moses is his ultimate prophet guy; God's name is Allah, Mohammed is his ultimate prophet guy.

When I say the “correct” definition I simply mean a deity that has a body and has other human-like attributes, such as individual thought, along with super-powers. I don’t mean anything more specific than that. I simply want to differentiate from definitions like “morality incarnate somehow” or “physicals laws” or “the universe itself somehow as a sentient cumulative being”.

We do this to piss off theists and insinuate that it is a more convoluted (and therefore less likely) that 'a creator created himself and created the universe', rather than 'the universe created itself'.

Some thiests use that definition though, and label themselves as religious. Some even try to personify the laws a bit, which is just rediculous.

I personally believe "God/Reality is", without a before or an after for 'creation' to take place during, is a less convoluted scenario then "the universe created itself" one.

Yeah, that's the only sensible thing. Shit just is, anything else is mystical bullshit. The mysterious origin of shit bothers people though, so they make shit up to feel more secure at the price of rationality.

The absolute origin of stuff cannot be determined as an origin would have to have an origin and so on. People need to think when they wonder, as opposed to just believe.

What is with some peoples' perversion/semantic manipulation of the term "god"? It generally is understood to mean "diety". Anything else seems to be an attempt to rationalize ones atypical belief system.

It's deity.

How are constant, orderly laws of physics, for example, "god"? That is arbitrary and not even thiestic unless you personify the universe itself as a single, sentient entity, which makes absolutely no sense. (There are a bunch of others uses, but I can't think of them now).

It's not personification unless there is anthropomorphism involved. Most religions which use a term like God for all of existence see it as something truly inexpressible and nearly unknowable by humans. All we can understand is that the dualistic tendencies we use to discriminate one thing from another are illusions brought on from our limited perspective. When you study the order of existence you see that while there are many different parts within it, it functions as an organic whole. This doesn't mean the laws of physics are "God," but that they are part of "God."

People often create a definition of "god" that make their arbitrary thiestic beliefs seem "logical". What really pisses me off is when people use the term bizarrely with a random, implied definition that appears to justify their beliefs yet in the same context as one would use the term diety. They always think they are so clever too, with their "diverse" and "unique" beliefs.

I don't mean to nitpick, but please work on your spelling. Hell, when you are typing your post there is a spell-check which automatically underlines misspelled words. Your statements reek of jealousy and misunderstanding as well.

I'm looking for honest, sober discussion, not the rant of mindless, semi-psychotic, self-deluding fundamentalists of there own personal religion (that of course rips-off a dozen others).

Many people find that all religions (although corrupted at times) are essentially searching for the same thing, knowledge. What this has led to is the science of comparative religion and syncretic studies into the unknown. Personally I acknowledge this first point, but feel compelled to encourage indigenous religion as it not only seeks to answer the questions of humanity as a whole, but also integrates into the ancestry, genetics, society, and lifestyle of the practitioner.

I'm not refering to people who use the term in the traditional way. Nor am I implying that any thiestic belief is rational, that's beside the point.

What tradition are you referring to? The Judeo-Christian I assume? Even there, there is a variance in concepts of God. There is the populist personified personal God, then there is the esoteric panentheistic conception of God referred to as Logos.

The "to each his own" thing is bullshit, I mean come on. Organised religion is one thing, but should we really bend over for (equally respect and tolerate) every nut-job that craps out a mutated spin-off?

Unless you're being forced to convert, you really shouldn't have a major beef with any religion. I agree that the cult of the individual is harmful to society as a whole, but who exactly is compelling you to respect or tolerate the subjects of your little tirade here?

All early religions that I know of (Pagan etc.) involved a god in the traditional sense. If some do not mean "diety" or a somehow embodied supreme entity that is beside the point. Most "gods" are of the traditional sense. It is not "my" definition, it is the generic, most common one.

Please refrain from using the word tradition in relation to religion when your understanding of it doesn't extend any farther than the Abrahamic religions and what you call "pagan." In Hinduism and other Indo-European religions, the supreme deity if you will was the totality, the absolute.. the universe. The pantheons you are familiar with represent the forces of nature, which are subordinate to this greater reality. Beyond that they are metaphorical symbols, which may or may not have historical reality, used to simplify existence into human terms. You may notice that they also correspond to personality types/castes, and their hierarchy represents the order of the universe paralleled to the order of human societies.

Now that I'm done picking through the posts in this thread, I'd like to return more to the original topic. A very simple answer to your question is, God is the simplest way to refer to a deity or ultimate reality in the English language. You seem to be associating the word too much with Christianity, when the word itself most likely comes from the sacrifice rituals of the proto-Indo-Europeans. It's evolved over time in the Germanic languages which the English tongue sprang from. The only reason you know Yahweh as God is because that's how the Bible is translated into English. Much meaning is lost in translation, especially when it comes to religious texts which use highly figurative and metaphorical language. You see the same thing with Logos/Word. The Greek word Logos has multiple meanings, only one of which is word. What it meant in ancient religion and philosophy was the order of the cosmos. Thus when the Word is referred to in biblical texts, modern Christians see it as giving authority to scripture, when really it's speaking of God aka the Universe.

I propose that whenever someone uses the term "god" they define what god is to the best of their ability. Like they do in laws.

I propose that whenever someone uses the term "god" they define what god is to the best of their ability. Like they do in laws.

"Oh my God! (That is, the being or force which set in motion the creation of the universe) What a cute puppy!"

I like it.