SimplyAtheistic

Tercel, this seems to be your primary argument for god. And it is annoying me that you cannot see the simple truth. The first existence need not have a purpose, and it definetely doesen't need to have role in creating our universe, since the first thing in existance is our universe. That is logical. Explain to me how that is not logical. Explain how the hell god is more logical than matter existing. Please, expound upon this subject since you seem so sure that matter existing first is so hard to believe.
Jake

Jobar

Tercel, you do not understand pantheism. 'Tao' means 'way'- as in, the Way of the world, or nature. It is not meant as a path to God, but as a path to understanding how human lives and perceptions fit in to the universe we observe around us. It posits no Gods and nothing supernatural; it has nothing to do with monotheism, save that it is also a method men use to answer the really big questions. And pantheism does not bleed when Occam's Razor shaves it.

You say: The Bible is not proof of God, nor relevant to this discussion. Well, you and I may agree, there, but how many of the believers on this board will feel the same? The God of the apologists seems to have precious little to do with the God preached in churches around the world. I have yet to see a really coherent description of *any* God, whether springing from the scriptures of ancient nomadic herders or from the minds of modern theologians.

Conchobar

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
Are you implying that anyone who is not of elite intelligence has a five-year old's perception of the world?

No, just Christian Fundamentalists, who may be "trained" and can run a calculator, place gizmos on a conveyer belt, pump rivits in a metal frame, but cannot solve complex problems nor critically analyse new data. The average fundy does have a 5 year old's perception of the world to some ways of thinking. I personally like to refer to their mindset as Mesolithic Age.

That sounds like an diplomatic response - "it isn't that Sunday school teachers aren't smart enough, it is that they aren't really interested enough to learn the real truth."

Theology colleges teach or more properly train preacher in the shamanistic tricks and deceptions. It makes them memorize verses and chapters with the official meaning TOLD to them. No thinking is necessary. These "colleges" are not institutions of education or higher learning. They discourage rather than teach critical thinking, logic, and rejection of rhetorical rubbish. The methods are "this is what it is. Memorize it and preach it. Never question it or think to hard about it."



No, but it is important to understand what you are being told. If you are being told god is good and loving, you should be able to understand how this is so. If you are told god knows all, you shouldn't be told "well, you don't really need to understand" when faced with questions.

That is the point. Understand what you are ordered to understand. In other words, it is the way I say it is, don't question it.

[/B]Are you Joe? I'm guessing this isn't enough for you. Why should it be enough for Joe? We have a few "Joes" on the board I'm guessing. Maybe they should pitch in.[/b]

Oh, if he is a Joe, that would explain everything. Joes have different genes from non-Joes.

Are you suggesting that intelligent people should know better than to use 'Joe level' arguments in theological discussion?

Use Joe level arguments when arguing about Joe Hovah, the God of Abraham. But what about the triple personanity of the Chrsitian God. Why not call them/him the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Sorry, the Egyptians patented that one 4000 years ago. So Christians you need to change Joe Hovahs three personalities to the Daddy, Junior, and the Sacred Spook. I don't think the Egyptians or Persians used that one yet.

Perhaps. But perhaps it is because 1) non-Joe level arguments are not necessarily better; 2) some people may expect god to be away of all the 'joes' and be able to meet their inquiries.

The IPU is prettier and nicer.

I don't think Jesus preached different messages to the elites. He had some different messages for the priests than the masses, to be sure. But where do you find teachers that different in meaning and detail netween the audiences?

Bill Clinton?

Conchobar

Tercel

It's my "argument of the month" so to speak. It goes in phases. At the moment I think this is the single strongest argument, but that'll probably change. The disscussions with you are the first time I've actually tried arguing this argument. I kind of thought this argument was my own invention, only after trying to explain it a few times it struck me I was using exactly the same language as I've seen Metacrock use a few times and I never understood what he was getting at. (So I don't really blame you if you think I'm not making sense!)

SimplyAtheistic

It is not the language that is baffling, it is the false assumptions and ill logic you use. It seems 1 = 2 is something considered true in your book..
Jake

NonHomogenized

Technically, Jake, unless you believe that the universe is a conscious entity, then it didn't develop a purpose, either. Tercel argues that "That doesn't mean it had no purpose: The first thing could be the very essence of purpose, in which case it would have purpose." The problem is that this is assuming a conclusion; that god exists. Y'see, purpose is endowed by consciousness; a tree doesn't care that it provides shade for me, yet I could, nonetheless, from an egocentric standpoint, say that the tree's purpose is to provide shade for me. A watch has a purpose inherent in it, because it was explicitly created by a consciousness to fufill a function. Any argument centered on the purpose of the universe inherently assumes that god must exist, or that the universe is self-aware.

SimplyAtheistic

Indeed, I have argued that very same thing in different threads. He seems to think that the universe MUST have a purpose no matter what, and that is his weak spot.
Jake

Bumble Bee Tuna

You do realize that there is not a single theological answer you could give that would not just be your opinion? I don't think there is any issue at all where all Christians are united (going by a definition of Christian of "one who honestly claims to be a Christian"...If we used a definition of Christian like 'One who believes that Jesus was the son of God' then Christians would of course by definition be united on that single point, but no other ones.

Just a minor nitpick...

-B