outhouse
Atheistically
Where do you pull this definition ?
Is this the philosophical ancient Greek manmade classroom discussion, used as a definition?
Philosophy arguments are empty out of context sir.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God is simple, not complex
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
Where do you pull this definition ?
Is this the philosophical ancient Greek manmade classroom discussion, used as a definition?
Philosophy arguments are empty out of context sir.
outhouse
Atheistically
What would you like? How the monotheistic god is a compilation of two Canaanite/Midian deities that existed before Israelites plagiarized the concepts?
Or the fact our friends are using a classroom philosophical discussion, not an actual deity?
Reflex
Active Member
Again, what issue? Your post here is the the kind of red herring I was talking about. Stay on topic or start another thread. Atheists here should know what the hell they are talking about.
I am a bigot. Like David Bentley Hart, “I do not regard true philosophical atheism as an intellectually valid or even cogent position; in fact, I see it as a fundamentally irrational view of reality, which can be sustained only by a tragic absence of curiosity or a fervently resolute will to believe the absurd. ...True philosophical atheism must be regarded as a superstition, often nurtured by an infantile wish to live in a world proportionate to one’s own hopes or conceptual limitations.” Unlike Hart, I do mean that there is something intellectually contemptible in being formally “Godless” (upper case “G”). In this age of widespread literacy, scientific insight and instant communication, there is, in my opinion, simply no excuse.
Last edited:
Surely whatever I like is never the point. It was your desire. You desired to substantiate a claim.
On the other hand, if your substantiation is only to provide a mythology of one culture, surely your aim is off?
outhouse
Atheistically
That could be considered a personal problem.
Baseless rhetoric
Baseless rhetoric
Except knowledge
And the complete lack of support and evidence for a mythological concept defined differently by every culture who wrote mythology.
outhouse
Atheistically
It was in context to a philosophical discussion
our friends are using a classroom philosophical discussion, not an actual deity to discuss the god concepts
Actually, I think more of them are leaning towards a realistic concept than those who are objecting.
None of these is actually a practice.
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Not accepted.
My point was this: there was a common argument presented that contained a hypocrisy. Rather than declaring it strawman or red herring and then mudslinging, you should have demonstrated specifically how it was a red herring and why the presentation was straw man. That would've proven your point and eliminated the need for mudslinging.
I'm surprised that you don't readily except this idea. However I'm not gonna call you an idiot and sling mud in your face about it either.
In my experience on this forum most of the atheists you see you do know what they're talking about. As to atheism itself, it is the only logical position. This is easily determined by acknowledging the lack of evidence for a deity and disagreements among those who do believe in a deity. When it comes to gravity and chemistry and math you can't do them wrong. They won't let you. But you can believe anything you want about God. There's hardly any point and believing in something that can't be detected by any means possible to us humans.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Rhetoric in this context, is a person trying to persuade others with no evidence in support.
outhouse
Atheistically
Please do not change my replies.
You can quote them without adding to them.
I did not state it was a practice, I stated two deities were compiled into one god. which is not up for debate
Just so. Hardly baseless.
outhouse
Atheistically
Sir you have no credibility to state such, or talk down to anyone.
Could you substantiate these claims?
outhouse
Atheistically
Do you understand what classical theism is in context?
Depends on the context.
That's not a single quote but extractions from different quotes which are used by you to indicate the nativity or homeland of the God you are addressing.
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
I do have something relevant to say, and I have said it. A member posted a worthy reply that has to do with the claim about god's simplicity or complexity. You dismissed it with mudslinging and labeling, but did not address the idea and certainly you used no reasoning.
In short, you got upset and dodged the issue. You should address the issue that member raised that has to do with the claim of this thread.
If I started my own thread on a topic, I don't think I'd appreciate your presence due to your willingness to dismiss what you don't already believe with irrelevant labels and ad hominems.
Atheism is not a "category error."
I've done several decades worth of reading of theology, myth, and arguments from both sides. I know what I'm talking about.
It's a cheap and sleazy method to dismiss topics and sling mud. It makes YOU look bad, not the person you're responding to.