lol, I've been trying to find this out since my second post on this topic... good luck getting an answer

God as in poop?  Or God as in Jimi Hendrix?

Beelzebub is an alteration of Baal-Zebub (Owner of the Flies). The early Christians had a play on words with the non Biblical Hebrew word zevel, which means dung, changing the name to the satirical "Owner or Lord Of The Dung." Shit.

I don't know why they use Hendrix as the Guitar God, it was Clapton who first had the title. Graffiti was posted all over London saying: "Clapton Is God."

Well, actually, fun and sarcasm aside, you make a good point. At least indirectly. Those with faith have to remind themselves that the demons have faith and yet shudder. The demons know there is a god, they don't need faith. They have faith in the sense that they know they are fighting a loosing battle. Just because you are a theist, which means you believe in God or gods, doesn't mean that you are on their side.

Do you see that, Sapient? You see that battle line drawn in the sand washed away with what is really rational?

If you want to view it as "preaching" I think that is pathetic and stupid.

Galileo "The earth rotates around the sun"

Church "stop preaching, we know the earth is flat and the sun rotates around the earth".

You are not going to get away with that bullshit here. I see  nothing wrong with, AND EVERYTHING VALUABLE about facing people with reality. If our species never questioned social norms our species would have never  left the caves. Get over yourself and grow up.

You don't know much about science, do you? The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, who's geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept endured for 2,000 years, primarily as a philosophy, even as late as the 16th century when Jean Bodin insisted upon it.

It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

Galileo's heliocentric concept flew in the face of Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture. Thus the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and might I add, accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admited to their error in their judgement of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by science, philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible.

The modern day atheist seems oblivious to this portion of science history. They read somewhere or were indoctrinated with the idea that the Bible stated that the earth was the center of the universe, when the Bible said nothing of the kind. The verses which the church used to support their theory were Ecclesiastes 1:4 and Psalm 104:5. Metaphoric terms which we still use today. This is the sort of outdated ignorance one has to keep in mind when responding to the atheistic skeptic, because it is the primary obfuscation of accurate knowledge of the Bible. Not very scientific, to say the least.

Let me take this opportunity, as a side issue, I hope you are not trying to sneak in the argument "This historical figure was smart, so my deity is real"

If either Galileo or Aquinas had been Muslim, would you argue for the existence of Allah?

Religious people of all labels, and we even have a Buddhist here, who try to prop up their club by pointing to their club writings going "this seems to fit with nature".

The Egyptians, just like humans today can, pointed to the sun, and said "That is the sun". SO WHAT, it did not mean they knew what the sun was made of at that time.

It sickens me today that humans of any label still try to treat their writings/and or holy books, as science textbooks.

NO, no ancient religious writing OF ANY LABEL should be treated like a modern science textbook because they are NOT.

A broken clock can be right twice a day, but it doesn't make god/s real.

Newton got some science right, but he also postulated alchemy. And that smartness would not make his personal pet god real anymore than it would if a Muslim had been the one to discover what he did, instead of him.

Ancient Arabs invented algebra, that doesn't make Allah real.

NO religious club of those times invented science. Any thing that hold true today was not the result of gods or clubs being valid, but because HUMANS tested shit. Their labels were not required at that time to make those observations.

Scientific method is not dependent on holding a religious label OF ANY KIND. And saying the "the sky is blue" does not demonstrate you know why we scientifically perceive it as being blue.

Muslims have attempted to quote the Koran while pointing at Red Nebulas as proof that Mohamed knew about space expansion because of "red sky".

NO, that was meant back then to mean "the blood of dissenters will turn the sky red".

I fucking HATE this fallacious tactic. No one can retrofit what we know now in modern science which is independent of labels or the personal whims of even scientists to prop up ancient myths. Science is independent of labels.

Wish I had HBO.

Not to get off the subject, but most top 100 influential guitarists lists have Jimmy as number 1.

1 - you use labels and you are a militant atheist.

2 - thanks for noticing me

3 - the only club i'm a member of is the "he-man-woman-haters-club" and I got my secret decoder ring to prove it

4 - I reject all buddhist writings.

5 - you still haven't answered my questions.. like "what is beyond this universe?"

NO you dont, aren't you the one who pointed out the Nobel Truths? The Nobel Truths are not Hindu or Christian or Zoroastrian writings. They arn't the writings of the Ancient Egyptians. If they were written by Buddha and you buy into them, you ARE  a Buddhist.

You just get angry at me because I am pointing out that Buddha was not a  psychologist because you like the pretty words he wrote. All he said was shit happens, accept that shit happens, try to avoid harmful shit. Being the first to put it in the words he did, or making those words popular, would not have changed evolution if they had never been written.

You want to believe falsely "I am not like the others"

Then try to pull the same "Since you don't know, I am right by default" crap. Do I know what lies beyond the Universe? No, but gap answers such as "Jesus" "Vishnu" "Allah" "Pantheism"  "Buddha" will NOT fill in gaps in scientific knowledge. Those are human predilections, not tools.

But do not use that fallacious slur of "militant"  with me merely because you have an emotional reaction to my word choice. I am not super human and I shit and pee and will die just like anyone else.

If there's no scientific evidence for a Creator it can still be reasoned for by making inferences from scientific, subjective, and publicly observable data.  It's called theology, and I'd rather debate a theologian than a fideist.  The theologian isn't using faith to believe in God, he's using reason.  But I've yet to hear a convincing argument.

                                                                             .....how do you define "REAL" ?

I don't know if I should continue being sarcastic with you or if I should just keep going... I'll think I'll stop.

You know that those attributes have primarily been established by apostate Christianity? They sort of make God into an unapproachable. You can use the words omnipotent and omniscient much like you use the term omnivore. An omnivore doesn't actually eat everything, does it? The term omnipresent is wrong because God has a fixed position in heaven.

People tend to think of a god as this. A god is this and this only. A supernatural being. Hello God. Hey God. They don't understand that those Gods have names. They think there is just God, and any other application is to a metaphorical replacement for this God. 'Oh, Eric Clapton is a God to me!' or 'I didn't realize Professor Lagonavitch was your God!'

They don't realize that the word god applied to anything or anyone that was mighty or venerated. When a primitive picked up a piece of wood or stone and worshiped it or imagined some special power, either symbolic or real to the beholder or representing some external power source which he attributed might, that thing was a god. People can't get that modern myopic definition of God out of their head. 'Ha! Ha! Poop can be god! Duh!' Some primitive man coming upon a dry heap of buffalo shit and discovers its the only thing around he can get to burn to cook on or light and heat his world, yeah. The Poop becomes a god. They can't get that the same look towards the poop is the same as to Jehovah in the sense that in their eyes they are both very important in some way to the beholder.

Jehovah's Witnesses will often need counseling from elders in the congregation because some trivial or mundane past time becomes their God. This means that something like knitting, or boating, or gaming, or hunting, or TV or anything that becomes more important to the JW than Jehovah. Her reading gets in the way of her attendance at meetings, her study, her field service. The Jehovah's Witnesses understand this, they wouldn't be at all confused by my definition of god.   

Heh. Well . . . I guess that's one way to look at it. Really, to me, having studied this stuff pretty extensively for nearly two decades, and having known atheists and having been one for most of my life, I can say . . . it isn't about proof in as much as you want proof, but rather that you don't. Other than being almost completely uninformed that is why there is always such a vehement protest to my definition of gods. They don't just ignore it and dismiss it as stupid, they wrestle with it, and deny it and laugh at it, and ridicule it.

I did it because it needed to be done. The things I wrote here were true. And they are important to a fuller comprehension of what it means to be a god, what a god is. My response to the video is a good example of how it becomes something more important than just the common definition of atheism. The concept of a god or gods is a very simple one and people are blinded to it by a narrow perception presented through ignorance and superstition.

Yeah.

Well keep in mind that I take my name from the story on my website. Originally the story was to be called The Atheist, but it didn't have the same punch to it, the logo didn't look as good [Laughs, though it is true]. To me, simply, theist means for gods and atheist means against gods. I try and avoid overusing or even using at all much of the terminology describing religious schools of thought. You know, I hear someone like Jean, I noticed right off, uses those terms like some over intellectualized prescription to something that should be really simple. "These people are monotheistic." Well, not really, they are henotheistic, "And these people believe in the great white buffalo poo, so they are albinosynceruscafferexcrementalist." That's just bullshit, isn't it?

As I may have said. What you actually are is a disingenuous hypocrite. 
You clearly ascribe to the Judeo-Christian god of Abraham, yet you toss up a smokescreen of idiotic false definitions and then claim it's what WE must accept as 'ours'.
 And sonny... faith is a mental defect masquerading as a virtue. 

LC >;-}>

Most of us on this site do not.  We don't need faith when we can use reality to determine our positions.  Faith is what you use when you can't prove something.  If I can't prove something or don't have good reason to believe it, I don't.  Saying I use faith is more offensive to me than calling me smug and dumb.

I must admit that there are times when I go climbing that I need to make a "leap of faith" for a rock hold. I can't see it, but from past experience I assume that it is still there.

I only hope that either my memory is correct with remembering it's location, that no one has damaged it from previous climbs or that a god hasn't come along and decided to play a trick on me by removing it.

THOR FUCKING DAMN IT DUMBASS!

I do not think all theists are mean, where the fuck do you get that pathetic view?

Getting angry at absurd claims does not mean I am going to go on a killing spree dumbass. It just means I am tired of the claims.

Go tell a gay man or a Christian living in Iran they shouldn't get "uppity" when the majority says stupid shit and incorporates it into law.

I think Galileo had every right to be pissed when he got imprisoned for merely saying that the earth rotated around the sun.

I think Susan B Anthony had every fucking right to bitch about not having the right to vote.

YOU STILL DON'T GET THE CONCEPT OF CONTEXT

This is a message board, it is not a government. You came here. I did not put a gun to your head to force you to come here.

Separate yourself from the words that come out of your mouth.

I DO HATE YOUR CLAIMS

I also hate soccer. I don't hate soccer fans.

Again, if you really want me to hate you, I will if you keep stupidly confusing my word choice falsely as some call to stick you in an oven.

You would never make it as a kicker in the NFL, they have to deal with the defense trying to take their head off along with the fans in the stands shouting and waving their hands.

I HATE YOUR CLAIMS, not you, YET, but if you keep this up, I will hate you the individual.