Note: If you don’t wish to click the Research Gate Link above, see a screenshot of the 3 points below. (Although the screenshot does not contain the portion of the PDF with proof of the name change)
Notably, Research Gate is usable by people with university email addresses, although also readable by anyone with the link in this case.
Uhhhhh… … Because you want people to pray to you? (Just taking a wild guess here. I don’t click on stuff like your link without good reason. Why don’t you just tell us yourself in your own words? (Reader’s Digest version preferably, please.)
Why? How the fuck should I know and why on earth should I care?
Of the top of my head,I’d say because you are suffering from delusions of grandeur/ hubris and /or a narcissistic personality disorder .
Perhaps post your reasons in brief bullet points. People might then think of taking you seriously rather than seeing you as just another self promoting dick. This is my first impression. I will gladly apologise if I’m mistaken .
I never thought you existed in reality…huh, and there you are. However, I have a shitload of questions for you…
The first one that comes to mind, is why you need to officially change your name to god…can’t you just wave your hand and voila?
I might suggest typing out why you changed your name…in hand typed text…to most, that is optimal. People here are not into click bate posts. Just a heads up.
It certainly sounds like his brand of bat shit craziness. What was it he claimed he’d invented? Was it non-beliefism? Hilarious stuff, well for a short while anyway.
Mankind has updated many old things, like asthma that was once supposedly a sacred disease associated with divine punishment, and we saw progress because of these updating events.
Why do you feel is it crazy to try to update yet another sacred old concept, namely the God concept, as I aim to help do as underlined in the Op?
Why do you feel a “need” to redefine the “god label”. We know what “god” implies and redefining “it” doesn’t make “it” go away (nice try )
And quoting your own “materials” to support your own idea, and adding “scientific” (a word you are using without evidence) again, doesn’t make it science.
Edited to add: YOU say the old God concept to a modern one. Anything of human level intelligence or greater
LOL - have fun defining THAT - and then you SAY somewhat average brain function … didn’t you just remove the “god” label from yourself???
It sounds like an idiotic stunt to me, and the idea it will affect any theists or their beliefs is ludicrous sorry. Don’t get me wrong, you can call yourself anything you want, I genuinely don’t care.
When we redefined asthma, the old mythical description certainly changed the well known understanding of asthma, so essentially, the old concept’s description did “go away”.
Science doesn’t care who the author is. As Neil Degrasse Tyson says, science is true regardless of anybody’s feelings or opinions. Albeit, just as scientists trigger redefinitions of things, I seek to help trigger a redefinition of the old God concept.
As the redefinition signifies, a God is “any thing of human level intelligence or greater”, which includes people of average brain function. That includes myself, who is somewhat average in brain function.
As I point out above, asthma was once defined as a sacred disease related supposedly to divine punishment.
Everyone here notices that nowadays, even theists subscribe to the understanding of asthma as a medical concept, not a concept related to divine punishment, as observed in the past. This means sacred things can come to be seen even by theists, in the realm of modern understanding.
Asthma retains the same definition it had when Hippocrates was the first to use the term “Asthma” (Greek for “wind” or “to blow”) 400 BC.
IMO I do not see any requirement to redefine “god”. Strangely enough, an atheist attempting such. I can envision some bat-shit crazy Jimmy Jones type of character redefining his faith and doctrinal practices. The current definitions i extracted from the internet never trend towards your definition.
I can accept someone proclaiming that we are all gods. But apart from just preening the ego, what purpose does this serve GodBennet?
Notably, Hippocrates is mentioned in the source I cited in the OP. So, that’s right, Hippocrates triggered a redefinition of asthma. Asthma did not always have the modern description associated with medical respiratory issue:
“Everyone here notices that nowadays, even theists subscribe to the understanding of asthma as a medical concept, not a concept related to divine punishment, as observed in the past. This means sacred things can come to be seen even by theists, in the realm of modern understanding.”
…and as I said the idea your rather silly stunt will affect any theists, or their beliefs is ludicrous. You’re talking about the conception of the cause of disease altering due to advances in science, and the objective evidence it demonstrated to show asthma is a natural phenomena, as of course are all diseases. How on earth is that remotely comparable to you arbitrarily calling yourself god? It’s risible nonsense sorry, I hope it was at least a cheap stunt, and I advise you to reverse it ASAP, as it is beyond silly.
"Everyone here notices that nowadays, even theists subscribe to the understanding of asthma as a medical concept, not a concept related to divine punishment, as observed in the past. This means sacred things can come to be seen even by theists, in the realm of modern understanding.”
So, regardless of your opinion about my name change, we have demonstrably seen where theists now take priorly supposedly sacred things, in modern terms.
… Because you want people to pray to you? (Just taking a wild guess here. I don’t click on stuff like your link without good reason. Why don’t you just tell us yourself in your own words? (Reader’s Digest version preferably, please.)
)
