Steve on 702

<< < (19/29) > >>

Teleological (September 15, 2010, 07:32:50 AM):
Teleological, even if I reconfigure my idea of God to the most ethereal, wispy, and non-material shadow of a snowflake imaginable, it still does not improve his chances of existing by one iota. All it does is to move the God in my mind outside the observable universe, where he will merely sit sulking in the company of unicorns, garage dragons, teapots and that Flying Spaghetti Jobby.

Maybe that's (the bolded part) the problem?
cyghost (September 15, 2010, 07:34:53 AM):
From a P-S perspective you are a big doos, telicster. To ask why is the same to ask why the form of a round object is roundness. That is just the way it is from a P-S perspective.

You are falsely accusing mefiante of quote mining. I suspect it is because you *still* don't know what a quote mine is. Here is a link for you to read up on. Nothing has been taken out of context. You are simply whining about interpretations of words and any one with an iota of intellect can see where she is coming from. We are to assume you have no intellect or no honesty. Time will reveal but personally I think it is a bit of both.

I expect you to come back and apologize like a man and a good xtian would. False witness is a sin you know!
Teleological (September 15, 2010, 07:55:39 AM):
If muffles does not know what a theophany implies and quotes those passages to imply that God is a physical being while ignoring the fact that several passages explicitly say God is a spiritual being, then yes, those texts are taken out of context. Never mind that muffles still does not grasp the classical conception of God with regards to incorporeality/non-physicality/immateriality.
cyghost (September 15, 2010, 08:18:33 AM):
She gave the passages that does in fact imply and say God has physical aspects. That that contradicts other passages that specifies God doesn't, really isn't her problem but those who swipe such obvious contradictions under the carpet in a desperate attempt to cling to their bankrupt beliefs.

Nothing has been taken out of context. It has been provided as is. Retract your accusation of quote mining or stand revealed once more.

oh and please stick your classical conception of God where the sun don't shine. You haven't made *any* sort of impression with that bullshit other than confirming you are an arse.
Teleological (September 15, 2010, 08:32:58 AM):
And still not a single passage that explicitly states that God is a physical being, just many passages describing theophanies which are taken out of context to imply that God is a physical being. Also a complete ignorance (wilful or otherwise is irrelevant) about the classical conception of God (incorporeality/non-physicality/immateriality being a key feature) just so that people can defend the take down of a straw man version of what people believe God to be.

But you guys can carry on being sceptical about a God no believer believes in anyway. The words "sceptical crackpot" come to mind :P.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page