New free book from Cambridge Press: Pantheism (myth, believe, Earth)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm "too lazy" to pay attention to much Mystic goes on about...
In part because I'm no longer learning anything new about anything Mystic has to explain. My shortcomings and deficiencies included. Here too we see how "perspective is everything." One man's lazy is another man's prudence. AKA good judgement and better use of time. Though I do falter along these lines more often than I would like.
This just confirms my suspicions that those who dismiss pantheism or panentheism simply are too intellectually lazy to consider it rigorously. Sadly any REAL learning and assessment of Truth (which you claim to seek) require the very type of rigorous analysis you and your cohort seem to find too tedious!
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
I have to admit that my eyes begin to glaze over.
That does tend to be the reaction that accompanies a lack of comprehension which seems to be fairly widespread among the atheists here.
Yes, it is strange Mystic has not talked about what is in the paper, and seems to be ignoring my post where I showed some of the flaws in it.
It appears he is too lazy to read it, and would rather just pretend.
What is strange is that you seem unable to recognize when someone has read the entire article and provided a summary of its essential features as they apply to those who do NOT comprehend what issues are involved.
That does tend to be the reaction that accompanies a lack of comprehension which seems to be fairly widespread among the atheists here.
No, Mystic. It's because, to a large degree, there's nothing much new in your posts. We all get where you are coming from. And that's fine. I have 2 bookcases full of DVDs and Blu Rays of my favorite movies. But I can't just keep watching the same flicks day after day after day.
There is always a lot of repetition in forums like this one...including me. After a while with almost any particular poster, it's just time to change the channel.
I may love Chinese orange chicken, but I can't eat it 365 days a year.
That does tend to be the reaction that accompanies a lack of comprehension which seems to be fairly widespread among the atheists here.
Try being honest for once. Things can be tedious WITH comprehension. I understood the paper, but had to jump to the conclusion because it is tedious speculation, and nothing more.
So once again, instead of your usual arrogant pretense at being a superior intellect, start providing actual, rational evidence for your position instead of your usual fallacies and creationist arguments.
What is strange is that you seem unable to recognize when someone has read the entire article and provided a summary of its essential features as they apply to those who do NOT comprehend what issues are involved.
1) As I DO comprehend the essential features, your usual ad hominem to me is irrelevant.
2) Your 'summary' included elements NOT in the paper ('AI computational equivalence' which also shows an inability on your part to understand my actual position). That part of your 'summary' was just another invented excuse to ignore my extrapolation from data that you do not like.
3) Once again you falsely accuse me of an 'inability to conceive of the universe holistically' while pretending your composition fallacy nonsense is a legitimate argument.
4) it is still strange you have not talked about what is in the paper (your 'summary' is just that, and showed no awareness of the flaws in the paper), and still seems to be ignoring my post (8) where I showed what some of those flaws in the paper are.
Ha, you still fail to understand the flaws in your arguments. Your Dueling Banjos Patois suggests why, but I do hate to generalize.
The book assesses Pantheism from many angles...and gives a pretty good and interesting explanation and presentation.
My base argument is solid.
"G-O-D" is a title that can be assigned to that which one perceives as such.
"G-O-D" is formally defined (among other meanings/definitions) as "The Ultimate or Supreme Reality" and "Something of Supreme Value".
ALL That Exists in totality...irrefutably and unequivocally comports with those definitions.
Reality is Something of Supreme Value, and objectively exists. Thus: That which can be logically & reasonably titled God objectively exists.
You remain all hung up on literal (mis)interpretations of allegorical and metaphorical ancient Theological writings...and base your opinion on the existence of God as to whether some Entity objectively exists that mirrors the Deity characters found in those writings.
But it is YOUR argument that doesn't pan out.
It's like saying that unless Superman, Batman, and The Flash actually exist...there is no such thing as a "Hero" that exists. And you conclude that, because you have read books that tell about those characters and their attributes, and call them "Heros".
That does tend to be the reaction that accompanies a lack of comprehension which seems to be fairly widespread among the atheists here.
Lack of comprehension is not the only explanation for causing people to lose interest...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
