Rationalizing the existence of God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Combo, Sep 14, 2013.

  1. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    ?? Like I already said. It's not clear what you're disagreeing with.


    Uh. The strong ones have a bigger mouth than the weak ones.


    Like I said:

    Probably few people would argue that "if Homo sapiens can not comprehend a reality, then that reality does not exist." But that doesn't stop them from meaning it and acting like it is true.

    You introduced the weak vs. strong dichotomy, not I.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I just recalled an incident with Fraggle, where he quoted Wiki to explain strong vs. weak atheism; the Wiki article said essentially that weak atheists are shy to talk about God and their lack of belief in God, while strong atheists aren't. We both then thought this was an odd take on the strong vs. weak atheism issue. Remember?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,290
    You mean, like this?

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,719
    Apologies - was confusing myself with some double negatives. I've corrected my post to state that they don't mean it.
    Maybe on a forum such as this... but the practical world is far larger.
    Yes - because you are attributing anyone who acts in a certain way to a specific philosophical position, when multiple philosophies lead to the same actions.
    I.e. I am not disputing that weak atheists act like it is true (is it possible to act like it is not true without being a theist?) but that acting it does not necessitate meaning it.
    Only the strong atheists would act like it is true AND mean that it is true.
    The weak atheists would act like it is true BUT NOT mean that it is true.
     
  8. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,719
    I don't - but I'd concur that it is an odd take on the issue.
     
  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Nope, you're the one doing that.

    I simply commented on how some things are too preposterous to say out loud, but that that doesn't stop people from meaning them or acting as if they were true. Whether it's some kind of atheism, or tax evasion, or killing a hobo.
     
  10. Combo Registered Member

    Messages:
    20
    Now, Aqueous I invite you to clarify your statements.

    Religion according to Aqueous Id: -

    Ultimately your pronunciations relate to the perceived reliability of religious history and the exegeses of holy books. These are interesting topics but irrelevant to the present discussion. If you disbelieve in the existence of God based on the conclusions of a subset of archaeologists and historians, you’re engaging in the study of the fallibilities of man and the robustness of his scholarly and scientific methods; as such, your grievances about religious history have no bearing whatsoever on the question of the existence of God.

    This is fluff. Do you actually have a legitimate reason at all, let alone a ‘safe’ one? Your Thomas Paine quotation is completely out of context (he was discussing the Virgin Birth), and as for your Critias quotation – man invented the computer too, so what is your point exactly? This then brings us to your 3rd reason, “there is nothing for the lowly creature to reach beyond his grasp to discern“, which brings us full circle to my original point about the limits of empiricism and the intellectual and perceptive faculties of man.

    Equivocation of theism with rejection of the Big Bang, superstition, myth, legend and fable is fallacious.
    A billion years! Goodness grief! How you managed to reach all the way back into the pre-Cambrian and imagine that a period characterized still by Proterozoic unicellularity was, rather, marked by human divergence from ‘apelike protohumans’ is disturbing. Hand in your evolutionist card at the front desk.

    Equivocation of theism with casting aspersions against science, academia, and the evidence of nature is fallacious.

    The clerk at the front desk is still waiting. Firstly, evolution of Homo sapiens sapiens is never completed – we are still evolving. Secondly, the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens took place 200,000 years ago, not “millions of years” ago.

    More fluff. Please do not keep us in suspense, we are looking forward to you sharing the ‘valid logic’ which will wither theism.

    Equivocation of theism with attacks on the ‘sanctity of education’ and gripes against academia is fallacious.
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    14,035

    1) unacceptable to me is god first Humanity second

    2) making Humanity first has nothing to do with arrogance but a Natural attitude towards ones being

    It is UnNatural to think otherwise

    3) I'm Human

    Lastly my spirituality is based on the Human Spirit
     
  12. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,127
    @Combo

    Combo, in the "Real World", do you talk the same "talk" as you Post in this Thread?

    Combo, in the "Real World", does anyone listen to you? Do those who listen take you seriously?

    Combo, in the "Real World", are you a Professor of Theology or Anthropology or History?

    Combo, in the "Real World", are you a PHD or in College or in High School?

    Combo, in the "Real World", are you a Theosophist?

    Combo, in the "Real World", do you Preach and Attempt to Ridicule?

    Combo, in the "Real World", do you also Fail Miserably at Preaching and Attempting to Ridicule?
     
  13. Combo Registered Member

    Messages:
    20
    Ah, well that would be telling.
     
  14. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,127


    Combo, you have already done "all the telling" - just want a little background so I'll know which "Evangelists Tent" is yours - or should I just look for the one that everyone else is either "Fleeing" or "Ignoring"?
     
  15. xavierlizard Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    Ultimately there is no room for an all powerful god in our universe, he, she or it would be subjet to the rules of the universe and therfore not all powerful, and nothing can exist outside so it is a slam dunk. Pure Science. It is antiquated thinking that keeps god "alive" and that is all.
     
  16. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    The reality is a lot of people in various religions believe:

    A) There is a God
    B) That they know and comprehend his/her plan
    C) That God is not incomprehensible to them
    D) Everything one knows about God is taught and imagined
    E)Plants cannot be taught fallacy so in that way atheists and plants are alike
    F)If man cannot comprehend God how and why did he invent him/her?

    So God is not only incomprehensible but is as of yet imperceivable, yet many say they not only comprehend but are able see God work miracles everyday. Are they lying Combo?
     
  17. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Neither a plant nor a rock have the ability to comprehend anything, so your analogy doesn't work.

    You must also demonstrate that there is a God and that it is comprehensible, which you haven't done. We just have to take your word for it for your claim to make any sense.
     

Share This Page