South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

October 24, 2019, 03:27:51 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the posting guidelines before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Steve on 702

 (Read 22753 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #90 on: 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.

Mintaka
Maybe that's (the bolded part) the problem?
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #91 on: 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!
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #92 on: 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.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 08:08:21 AM by Teleological » Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #93 on: 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.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #94 on: 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 Tongue.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #95 on: September 15, 2010, 08:55:57 AM »

Still no apology or retraction eh?

I am skeptical about the bloody *idea* of God in the first place, no matter how you imagine pabi to be or what characteristics pabi may have. There is simply nothing, not a single thing, that suggests *any* God whatsoever in the first place. All you have are humans capable of asking questions and making shit up. This waffle about CTG is just so much bollocks. You may as well waffle on about the grundybrook or the fluzzyskopr, it has the exact same fucking substance. Nothing.

Until you provide robust and empirical data for us to critically examine you are talking out of your arse with the audacity to feel smug and superior about it. It is daft beyond my ability to put into words.

There is but one crackpot here currently and it is wallowing in the ignorance it is trying to sell as gold.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3753


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #96 on: September 15, 2010, 08:56:19 AM »

Thank you, cyghost – I was busy framing a reply but yours cuts to the meat of it.

And once again Teleological pulls a not-so-fast one.  Let’s recap the present situation, shall we?

Teleological says, “My god isn’t a physical being.  He isn’t, he isn’t, he isn’t!”  In support, Teleological says, “Exegesis.”

I say, “Hold on, your bible also contains verses that strongly indicate the opposite.” (Important emphasis added.)  I cite several verse references that show both aspects.

Teleological says, “Theophany” as if that addresses the point.  He then tries to hide behind a “standard philosophical concept” of his own god, pretending as if it was a coherent, uncontentious notion.  He asks how many verses of each kind I can quote mine.  I reply that he can count them himself.

“Theophany!  Theophany!” Teleological smirks, “Oh, and did I mention theophany?”  I am also accused of evasion.  Teleological then smuggles “explicit” into the argument.

I refine the argument by providing 30+ links to excerpts from his allegedly god-inspired book of Eternal Truth™ that unmistakeably challenge Teleological’s non-physical god.  I agree that I don’t know of any bible verses that explicitly meet Teleological’s strict demands (which in themselves are quite ironic, given his customary lack of intellectual rigour).   I indicate that the biblical incongruity remains.

“Theophany!  Theophany!” Teleological stamps his feet and reaffirms the fact that whoever brings arguments or facts to the table that dispute his corny absurdities is de facto deficient in understanding.

Cyghost gallantly jumps to my defence.  Kiss

Labels like “sceptical crackpot” start to emerge.

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #97 on: September 15, 2010, 09:07:36 AM »

Anybody that thinks God is a physical/corporeal/material being and/or thinks that people that believe in God believe that God is a physical/corporeal/material being is de facto deficient in understanding of theology/philosophy/metaphysics/religion.

Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #98 on: September 15, 2010, 09:21:07 AM »

Sweet zeus. You do realise that people arguing against you are atheists yes?

We lack the belief in your God whatever you imagine him / her / it to be. Your notions of God doesn't intrude on my rejections of your notions. If you were to tell me your God is a small ball of green snot, I'd reject it as much as I do your CTG.

Simply put, I don't think God is a physical/corporeal/material being but I also don't think he is a pabi. Here follows the important part that you need to pay attention to: I don't think god exists. Whatever you or anyone else imagine God to be.

I do think that most believers do believe that God has physical aspects as they think he interferes / helps in their lives daily. Why this lady talking to Steve believes God keeps the sun in the sky!!

The only deficiency we see is quite obviously not your opponents'...
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #99 on: September 15, 2010, 09:27:03 AM »

Sweet zeus. You do realise that people arguing against you are atheists yes?
Yes, and many (most?) do not even have a proper understanding of what they think they don't believe in.

It is analogous to a fundamentalist creationist saying "I don't think evolution exists. Whatever you or anyone else imagine evolution to be." without having a clue what evolution is in the first place.

Fundamentalist creationists, sceptical crackpots... same mentality.
Logged
StevoMuso
Stevo Muso
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 654



« Reply #100 on: September 15, 2010, 09:27:43 AM »

Anybody that thinks God is a physical/corporeal/material being and/or thinks that people that believe in God believe that God is a physical/corporeal/material being is de facto deficient in understanding of theology/philosophy/metaphysics/religion.
Anybody who thinks God exists in any form whatsoever, is de facto mentally unstable.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #101 on: September 15, 2010, 09:37:34 AM »

Yes, and many (most?) do not even have a proper understanding of what they think they don't believe in.

It is analogous to a fundamentalist creationist saying "I don't think evolution exists. Whatever you or anyone else imagine evolution to be." without having a clue what evolution is in the first place.

Fundamentalist creationists, sceptical crackpots... same mentality.
You are wrong. Your analogy fails utterly. I could demonstrate it but two very good reasons keeps me from doing so.

a) you won't get it.

b) the people who would get it, got it already.

So. I'll simply state the fact: You.are.wrong.
Logged
Jacques
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


JacquesR
WWW
« Reply #102 on: September 15, 2010, 09:39:54 AM »

Yes, and many (most?) do not even have a proper understanding of what they think they don't believe in.

Understanding something either requires that there is evidence to assess, hypotheses to weigh up related to that evidence, etc., or we are talking about "understanding" someone's conception of something which is constructed out of wishful thinking, fantasy, etc. So, you and I might not agree on our understanding of what a unicorn is, but this wouldn't matter because we (hopefully) agree that unicorns don't exist. Atheists don't think that god exists, and furthermore don't think that god is an interesting/useful hypothesis for explanation of the first sort. You can, of course, write a book about unicorns, and fill it with ambiguous and contradictory statements, then claim that only you have access to a proper understanding of what a unicorn is. You might even want to claim that it exists, on the basis of the "evidence" in that book.

For god, all you have is that book, and the reinforcement of millions of people who share your delusions. It doesn't matter whether we don't understand it the same way you do (regardless of who is "right", according to the texts), because sharing your understanding will not make the proposition any more interesting, or any more plausible. That's what we understand, and what you seem to miss.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #103 on: September 15, 2010, 09:42:21 AM »

Anybody that thinks God is a physical/corporeal/material being and/or thinks that people that believe in God believe that God is a physical/corporeal/material being is de facto deficient in understanding of theology/philosophy/metaphysics/religion.
Anybody who thinks God exists in any form whatsoever, is de facto mentally unstable.
Yes, and many (most?) do not even have a proper understanding of what they think they don't believe in.

It is analogous to a fundamentalist creationist saying "I don't think evolution exists. Whatever you or anyone else imagine evolution to be." without having a clue what evolution is in the first place.

Fundamentalist creationists, sceptical crackpots... same mentality.
You are wrong. Your analogy fails utterly. I could demonstrate it but two very good reasons keeps me from doing so.

a) you won't get it.

b) the people who would get it, got it already.

So. I'll simply state the fact: You.are.wrong.
Gee, shall I retort:
1) Anybody who thinks/believes God is a physical being is de facto mentally unstable.
2) Your mentality prevents you from seeing you are wrong and the validity of the analogy.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #104 on: September 15, 2010, 09:47:12 AM »

1) Anybody who thinks/believes God is a physical being is de facto mentally unstable.
NOBODY, except theists think / believes God is physical (or not). We agree that theists are mentally unstable with respects to gods.
Quote
2) Your mentality prevents you from seeing you are wrong and the validity of the analogy.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Unless you are able to provide the definition / description and the evidence which supports your notion.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.655 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 28, 2019, 03:16:49 AM
Privacy Policy