The horrors to reason of some atheist's arguments

LOL I love the unwavering conviction with which thedope says this, as though he has fathomed all horror. ;-D

 

The creation story satisfies the requirements of the statement, it is an allegorical representation. It is so regardless of what ever else may be believed about it. As symbols recorded in a book, the symbols must be interpreted.

For what reason other than cultural solidarity or to satisfy your sensibility on the subject?

Well, I didn't say those things. I will say the bible is book and books are interpreted.

Me too. How will you dissuade me from my position?

 

It's just that you are not scary.

 

thedope:

lol Vanity is never in defence against truth! Its curiosity gives it away! :-D

From that of mine which was deleted: - "It is not in vain that beauty is generative."

lol What do you mean? Are you calling me a horror?!

 

thedope:

The age old conceit one has when one doesn't love as ones own.

:-D

 

Then you're kidding yourself. Your identity is yours. Your self is not without its conception, ego.

lol We only have self in common because we're our selves. I am not you.

I feel sure you have experienced what people sometimes call telepathy. But I could be wrong. Am I? :-D

 

You miss the mark of my statement. I am not saying there is an entity god and only that entity is good. I am saying good or conversely bad, are ephemeral conceptions based on a sliding scale and as such are not appropriate measures for solid understanding of phenomena.

 

Explanation?

 

A commentary on Genesis 1-3 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

Thus Scripture would not wish to inform us about how the different species of plant life gradually appeared or how the sun and the moon and the stars were established. Its purpose ultimately would be to say one thing: God created the world.

Regardless of how it is interpreted it does - in the end - boil down to one belief.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p81.htm

Because it becomes slightly pointless otherwise.

I know you didn't. If you dismantle that and many others and reduce it to 'interpretation' - I think it all becomes a little pointless. Little more than a bedtime story.

 

Ego is conception of self. By egotistical I mean a certain kind of conception of self, one that overrates one individual importance in the appreciation of phenomena. The six year old that lives with me claims that his concerns are more important than the concerns of every one else. This is what I mean by egotistical.

We have in common our creature hood, homo sapiens, a species of the animal kingdom. This is the phenomena we share. Ideas of separate self are wholly subjective beyond the appearance of the body.

About your feelings, probably not. But if you have guessed it could influence your feelings. I have recognized nothing I can call telepathy but I have recognized sympathy.

 

What you quote is a statement of belief by one man, albeit representative of some portion of christian faith. I believe god created the world in the sense that our intent is the gravity around which coalesces all the circumstances of our lives and that our primary intent is inherited.

Your position is that if I do not believe as you have stated I should believe then I do not have true belief. You who do not believe, are no measure of those that do. The belief that you are is an illogical assumption. Your particular argument relies on the acceptance of this illogical assumption.

To argue a point of opposition maybe, but it is essential to abandon narrow perspectives in order to come to general terms.

Interpretations vary but the phenomena of god in the life of homo sapiens as opposed to believers , has ubiquitous themes.

 

Pardon?

That's correct.

Well, to be fair, I'm not expecting everybody to think exactly the same way.
However, seemingly believing something isn't in existence and believing something is - is a massive departure.

 

thedope:

The supposed necessity of interpretation.

 

lol :-D

 

What you were saying is that god not existing for me is my model of good. In those words, marks, symbols, whatever you want to call them.

I am not sure you know what you're saying. But I don't mind. I still like you, even if you do think I'm a horror. :-D

thedope:

Confusion. What in the life of humans is the phenomena of god as opposed to that of humans? If something, what? And if nothing, why aren't we gods?

I can be straight in my reasoning. I do not demand that you be straight in yours. Am I at fault? :-D

What is it you want with my "comprehension"? Is it peace?

 

That works the other way round too... some people like being logical - others prefer to follow their feelings.

Personally... I think the likelihood is that there is no god in the sense of the popularised religions.

On the other hand, I don't dispute that there are likely more powerful beings existing in the universe, perhaps in higher dimensions. It's possible these beings may have seeded life and/or our specific universe.

I don't see the point in "arguing" about the existence or not... theists and atheists will rarely convince the other to follow their way of thinking... it's a waste of time and effort.

On the other hand, with intelligent people - theistic debates can be quite enjoyable.

Holes can be picked in any theory.

 

Anselm's Ontological Argument... interesting. I still don't believe in a "man up in the sky who created everything" however.

http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html

 

Here is an example of the stellar powers of mind and logic that thedope is referring to.;

Brilliance posted in another thread.

My reply;

 

Do you think you are becoming too emotional in your reaction to this poster? After all, you are reaching into other threads to help build your ad-hom' attack.

 

No, this thread was started as a direct response to the ideas of the poster I quoted, or rather the erroneous logic he used.

What I quote here does exemplify the utter lack of reason or logic that is often demonstrated in these type of debates, which IS the topic of this thread.

you do see the logic error above don't you?