Draygomb

Ojuice

People also have toughts of square circles, unicorns, dragons and blownots do all of these things also exist?

Ojuice5001

Unicorns and dragons, if they existed, would be the same kind of thing as cats or birds. Therefore, they are a bad counter-example to prove that thoughts of gods should be judged in the same way as thoughts of candles, cats, etc. My post claimed that the typical theist considers theism to be a different kind of question than questions about whether physical objects exist. It doesn't necessarily make sense (although I'm certainly not denying it could make sense) for an atheist to say that the theist is wrong in this.

Thoughts about a square circle are different from thoughts about a round circle in being self-contradictory. Anyone can see that this kind of thought is false, and for a reason that does not apply to a noncontradictory god. Maybe your point was that some concepts of God are self-contradictory, but I hope you're not saying they all are.

I've never heard of that blownot thing. Therefore, I can't say whether the concept should be taken seriously, or whether it is analogous to theism.

Draygomb

Ojuice

Unicorns and dragons are magical beasts just as god is a magical being so do they exist merely because we think of them?

I have yet to see a noncontradictory definition of god that was worthy of the title. What's your definition of god?

Isn't it odd that even though you don't know what it is that you're still thinking about it? Blownots must exist otherwise why would you have the need to think about them?

Ojuice5001

Unicorns and dragons may be magical, but they have physical bodies. Thus, they can be judged in the same way as other physical entities. For instance, if dragons are likely to be spotted in a place where they exist, and no one has spotted a dragon on a planet that, by now, has been quite well explored, we can conclude that there are probably no dragons on Earth.

Here's my definition of a god: A being with no material body, and a mind with intelligence at least equal to that of a human, that affects causally indeterminate natural events (dice, the wind, spur-of-the-moment decisions, etc.). Is that self-contradictory? If so, why?

I say, if I have no idea what a blownot is, I cannot think about one. When I see the word "blownot" on a computer screen, I am thinking not about the referent of the word "blownot," but about the word itself. IOW, I am thinking about a collection of letters and sounds that does exist.

Draygomb

Ojuice Sounds like a soul or a spirit. What is so special about this one that it deserves to be called god and worshipped?

jpbrooks

I'm having trouble with this one, Draygomb.
Assuming that there is an evolutionary tendency toward monotheism (and finally, naturalism), why would Christianity have evolved to be more palatable to polytheists?
And even if that were the case, why didn't Christianity get rid of the ten commandments and all the other parts of the ancient Hebrew doctrines that condemn polytheism?

Draygomb

JPBrooks Because Judaism was too strict and unforgiving for the masses. People don't just convert because things make more sense, it still has to fit their life style.

jpbrooks

(Sorry for the late response.)

But I assumed that it was the religion that determined lifestyle. If it is the other way around, then we have to have another theory to explain the evolution of lifestyles that doesn't involve religion.

Furthermore, the evolution of Islam in the middle east seems to be a counterexample to the "lifestyle" theory.

Draygomb

Islam is an example of a religion that evolved for those people that wanted to tell others how to live.

It's not a matter of life style fitting religion so much as it is religion fitting life style. Though when religion gets into politics life styles can be effected. It's really a 2-way street.

S.A.TAN

dRAYgOMB....your propositions are very weak cos they are mere assertions without justification....ie: there is no premise, no logical inference.......only a stackful of conclusions. If you think that merely bombarding us with assertions will make your argument stronger.....you are dead wrong. although I had a very amusing time reading it.
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: S.A.TAN ]

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: S.A.TAN ]

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: S.A.TAN ]</p>