Freethought & Rationalism Archive

IgnorantBliss · 05-02-2007, 09:46 PM

I must not be as smart as y'all. After the part about gremlins working on cars I stopped reading and figured this must be output from that program MIT students created to write bullshit papers.

If it actually means what Hydra said, that makes sense.

Cheers.

Ignostic Morgan · 05-03-2007, 06:24 AM

God is a mystery surrounded by other mysteries trying to explain matters but is a circular argument as it presupposes ,as with the teleological argument in particular ,that He has a purpose for everything.My thread on the second category denies that.

555 · 05-03-2007, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hydra009

Ignosticism

Basically, it's the position that the term, God, is meaningless - since it ranges from a guy in the sky to a vague sort of energy to the universe itself. An ignostic requires a more concrete definition of what is being discussed before getting into arguing existence/non-existence.

Since god is a meaningless concept... it's impossible to know the definition ''GOD''. In other words, God can be a pile of shit. :huh:

DMC · 05-04-2007, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lamberthml

With ignosticism, we ignostics declare that God is a mystery surrounded by other mysteries, parading as an explanation.But the magic of God did it is a pseudo-explanation. It " hides our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf "and to further quote the atheologian Keith Parsons:"Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable way for unfathomable reasons seems to be no sort of a real explanation." God is the mere tautology that God wills what He wills, unimformative whatsoever.God serves the same function as gremlilns do for what ails a car! Now granting significance to the term, Occam's razor puts it aside for naturalistic explanations period.We no more need God than we do Thor for explaning weather conditions.God would require ad hoc explanations and adds nothing to what we find.Contrary to Richard Swinburne and Alister McGrath , God as a personal explanation adds no real explanation to anything:banghead: ,but is the circular argument that God had us in mind when what happens is that causalism explains .Science explains; theology obscures.:huh:

The only problem I have with this is that, at the onset, you have already defined "God". The entire thrust of this paragraph seems to be that a defintion for the term "god" cannot (or does not) universally exist, or if it does, you haven't been made aware of it. Thus (ergo) you have in essence defeated your purpose even before you stated it (formless, baseless, conceptually shape shifting undefined (or undefinable) whatever which basically equates to non-existance).

Then again, I could be wrong.

Ignostic Morgan · 05-06-2007, 11:53 AM

I find no real meaning to the term,just one guess after another. I just don't think theists can make a meaningful definition therefore.Theodicy is one guess after another to exonerate and to make palatable God for being a bad parent by not putting us in as good a place as a good parent would have done. Soteriology is one guess after another to make palatable ritual cannabalism and human sacrifice. And Christology is one guess afer another to make palatable making a god out of a mere quack!Thanks. Will ponder that.

Ignostic Morgan · 05-12-2007, 10:31 AM

Hydra, you can read so well! You might interpret my other threads and posts.Rabbii Sherwin Wine,agnostic, came out with the term and A.J.Ayers used it to even take issue that even atheism had no reason thus to be, but I find it part of strong atheism. Oh, also Google Theology Web,Skeptic Society and Center for Inquiry forums. IIDB is tops!

Ignostic Morgan · 08-01-2007, 04:40 AM

Sherwin S.Wine and Albert Ellis have both died lately.What a loss! If God is omnibevolent ,He cannot do wrong;but if He is omnipotent ,He sure can! If He is omniscient, He can see our futures in detail such that we would not have free will. And how can He forsee the future before it happens? God is thus inchoherent.

Antiplastic · 08-01-2007, 04:47 AM

If God exists, why doesn't he prevent needless suffering caused by people resurrecting dead threads?

Lógos Sokratikós · 08-01-2007, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lamberthml

Sherwin S.Wine and Albert Ellis have both died lately.What a loss! If God is omnibevolent ,He cannot do wrong;but if He is omnipotent ,He sure can! If He is omniscient, He can see our futures in detail such that we would not have free will. And how can He forsee the future before it happens? God is thus inchoherent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiplastic

If God exists, why doesn't he prevent needless suffering caused by people resurrecting dead threads?

"Epicurus's argument as presented by Lactantius actually argues that a god that is all powerful and all good does not exist and that the gods are distant and uninvolved with man's concerns. The gods are neither our friends nor enemies." (From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil)

Ignostic Morgan · 08-02-2007, 05:57 PM

Yes, Logos! That makes for more incoherency.However, theists try to obviate that with the soul-making-free will defense and other dodges.My thread -the definitive refutation of the free will argument- shows the nonsense that is. Please, respond there.Thanks everyone for contributing as these two arguments show God as no more necessary as an explanation then Thor, demons and gremlins.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-02-2007, 09:46 PM	#11
IgnorantBliss Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: NOLA Posts: 83	I must not be as smart as y'all. After the part about gremlins working on cars I stopped reading and figured this must be output from that program MIT students created to write bullshit papers. If it actually means what Hydra said, that makes sense. Cheers.

05-03-2007, 06:24 AM	#12
Ignostic Morgan Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Carneades of Ga. Posts: 391	God is a mystery surrounded by other mysteries trying to explain matters but is a circular argument as it presupposes ,as with the teleological argument in particular ,that He has a purpose for everything.My thread on the second category denies that.

05-06-2007, 11:53 AM	#15
Ignostic Morgan Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Carneades of Ga. Posts: 391	I find no real meaning to the term,just one guess after another. I just don't think theists can make a meaningful definition therefore.Theodicy is one guess after another to exonerate and to make palatable God for being a bad parent by not putting us in as good a place as a good parent would have done. Soteriology is one guess after another to make palatable ritual cannabalism and human sacrifice. And Christology is one guess afer another to make palatable making a god out of a mere quack!Thanks. Will ponder that.

05-12-2007, 10:31 AM	#16
Ignostic Morgan Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Carneades of Ga. Posts: 391	Hydra, you can read so well! You might interpret my other threads and posts.Rabbii Sherwin Wine,agnostic, came out with the term and A.J.Ayers used it to even take issue that even atheism had no reason thus to be, but I find it part of strong atheism. Oh, also Google Theology Web,Skeptic Society and Center for Inquiry forums. IIDB is tops!

08-01-2007, 04:40 AM	#17
Ignostic Morgan Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Carneades of Ga. Posts: 391	Sherwin S.Wine and Albert Ellis have both died lately.What a loss! If God is omnibevolent ,He cannot do wrong;but if He is omnipotent ,He sure can! If He is omniscient, He can see our futures in detail such that we would not have free will. And how can He forsee the future before it happens? God is thus inchoherent.

08-01-2007, 04:47 AM	#18
Antiplastic Veteran Join Date: May 2007 Location: Adrift on Neurath's Raft Posts: 1,787	If God exists, why doesn't he prevent needless suffering caused by people resurrecting dead threads?

08-02-2007, 05:57 PM	#20
Ignostic Morgan Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Carneades of Ga. Posts: 391	Yes, Logos! That makes for more incoherency.However, theists try to obviate that with the soul-making-free will defense and other dodges.My thread -the definitive refutation of the free will argument- shows the nonsense that is. Please, respond there.Thanks everyone for contributing as these two arguments show God as no more necessary as an explanation then Thor, demons and gremlins.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.