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 accept ALL the formal definitions/meanings available.
We can then determine if any comport with observations as to aligning with anything known to objectively exist.
So just like atheists, except you are using a weasel definition to avoid saying you actually reject the validity of those other beliefs. Because that would be bashing, mocking, insulting, etc. And the other theists and religious type fundamentalist thinkers pat you on your back as you stick the knife in theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
It is you all that wants to limit "God" to just the representative Deities and characters in ancient metaphorical and allegorical works of literary art.
The fact we are responding to the arguments of two pantheists demonstrates how dishonest your post is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I know it bothers you (to the utmost, obviously) that "God" is defined more broadly than that, and not limited to only what you can claim does not objectively exist. But that is just indicative of bias, not actual knowledge of all the ways the word/term is defined.
Just another dishonest and irrelevant ad hominem. Is this all that you pantheists have to offer?
See, this IS me showing the flaws in what you are saying, and so far all we have is deny everything.
Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 06-05-2022 at 04:40 AM..
None of the above is true. Simply repeating your false and refuted cut and paste claims does not refute anything, and you need to get hip to that. We have.
Instead of simply repeating your (plural) false ad hominems, you need to show where our logic fails. The fact that you (plural) consistently evade doing that is evidence you can not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
So just like atheists, except you are using a weasel definition to avoid saying you actually reject the validity of those other beliefs. Because that would be bashing, mocking, insulting, etc. And the other theists and religious type fundamentalist thinkers pat you on your back as you stick the knife in theirs.
The fact we are responding to the arguments of two pantheists demonstrates how dishonest your post is.
Just another dishonest and irrelevant ad hominem. Is this all that you pantheists have to offer?
See, this IS me showing the flaws in what you are saying, and so far all we have is deny everything.
As usual...you claim to show flaws...but never actually do that. You just show your bias & intolerance of the differing beliefs of most others.
And...so cool to see it is still working as well as it ever has. Good, good......
I accept all the other meanings & definitions...and the resulting Beliefs/Faith based upon them.
I have no problem with it/them...and would never be so rude, miserable, hateful, and nasty to bash or insult those Beliefs or anyone for holding them.
I will note the metaphorical, allegorical, and artistic aspect of ancient writings...but never tell them that a literal misinterpretation "invalidates" their beliefs...as only the lowest sort of disrespectful person would do that.
I'm sorry that it bothers you so much, and has obviously consumed you.
Best wishes resolving that problem. I will pray for you.
As usual...you claim to show flaws...but never actually do that. You just show your bias & intolerance of the differing beliefs of most others.
And...so cool to see it is still working as well as it ever has. Good, good......
I accept all the other meanings & definitions...and the resulting Beliefs/Faith based upon them.
I have no problem with it/them...and would never be so rude, miserable, hateful, and nasty to bash or insult those Beliefs or anyone for holding them.
I will note the metaphorical, allegorical, and artistic aspect of ancient writings...but never tell them that a literal misinterpretation "invalidates" their beliefs...as only the lowest sort of disrespectful person would do that.
I'm sorry that it bothers you so much, and has obviously consumed you.
Best wishes resolving that problem. I will pray for you.
I know right ...
they insert what they need us to mean ... then tell us we are wrong ...
and when that doesn't work .... change the rules of the game ... like run away and refuse to discuss what is actually being said.
Or their favorite, be condescending and when we answer in turn they cry fooul and run.
they insert what they need us to mean ... then tell us we are wrong ...
and when that doesn't work .... change the rules of the game ... like run away and refuse to discuss what is actually being said.
Or their favorite, be condescending and when we answer in turn they cry fooul and run.
and what do they say when a theist does it?
Yes...and their favorite...cry to Mommy, so they don't have to
address reason and logic.
Notice how they NEVER address your lists and/or challenges to identify that which best comports with observations?!!
They know they can't.
A gnostic atheist. Not all atheists are claiming that God does not exist. The terms atheism and gnostic and agnostic are provided in a sticky in Atheism and Agnostic sub forum.
Given all the various definitions and nuances along these lines, I'm always a little curious about the labels people use to describe their beliefs and/or non-beliefs, but after a long time of considering all the angles, I'm fairly confident the best label that fits me is atheist. That said, I'm not one too inclined to make the argument that lots of people like to describe as the atheist argument. I simply point out there is no evidence or proof a god exists. None that I consider worthy enough to justify a belief in such a thing. No different than the reason(s) I don't believe in angels or demons, flying hippos or that the earth is flat. No evidence or proof that I consider convincing in any negligible, intelligent, reasonable or fact-based objective manner.
With all due respect to all the personal beliefs based on other things (like emotions) of course...
Yes...and their favorite...cry to Mommy, so they don't have to
address reason and logic.
Notice how they NEVER address your lists and/or challenges to identify that which best comports with observations?!!
They know they can't.
The lists have been responded to many times over several years.
Yes...and their favorite...cry to Mommy, so they don't have to
address reason and logic.
Notice how they NEVER address your lists and/or challenges to identify that which best comports with observations?!!
They know they can't.
Now you are not even trying to pretend to be serious.
Yes...and their favorite...cry to Mommy, so they don't have to
address reason and logic.
Notice how they NEVER address your lists and/or challenges to identify that which best comports with observations?!!
They know they can't.
yes, because this is not about looking for the best base beliefs we have and then working up to a baseline belief. Then discuss the points where we might diverge.
I seen it explained nicely, well to it made sense to me anyway, as a bottom up approach versus a top down approach.. Bottom up: Lay out the date, connect the dots as reasonably as we can, and discuss the unifying theories to we what ones match what we see.
They do a top down approach. "there is no god or gods of any type (pick a specific type only)" or "The most important thing (practically speaking) is to stop religion". then work down through the beliefs supporting those statements.
Working from bottom up tends to self correct over time. From mythical monsters to pantheism, to, I believe, understanding out place in the system.
Top down tends to be self justifying circles to maintain the illusion of "we have true clarity and logic." They close the loops so that people can't get a toe on applying reason and logic to get a grasp on what is being said.
This belief site is an excellent example of how it works. These atheist, thankfully most are not like them, can't openly compare beliefs because it doesn't match their agenda. We have seen stated my mesna as the goals and expectations of the person who started it. They can no more use all reason and commonsense than a fundy theist can.
They stick to the "goals and expectations of the person who started the site" like some Christians stick to the bible as the arbiter of belief.
even if they agree, they do not speak up against the "mob". We are shunned, mocked, and indeed crucified for questioning the faith.
sound familar?
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.
Now you are not even trying to pretend to be serious.
