For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
How is it stupid? He was only stating the obvious.Reflex wrote:Stupid point, and Dawkins is stupid for making it one. He's been called on it, too, but he's too arrogant to admit such statements make it obvious he's out of his league.sthitapragya wrote: that is exactly the point I am making too.
LOL! Dawkins also said God is complex. He's a theological moron -- completely ignorant of classical theism. But, hey, if that's the kind of idiocy you want to base your opinions on, go for it.Harbal wrote:It's actually quite a good point. I think you may be the one out of their league.Reflex wrote: Stupid point, and Dawkins is stupid for making it one. He's been called on it, too, but he's too arrogant to admit such statements make it obvious he's out of his league.
He's stating the fact that he's ignorant of classical theism, according to which God is ontologically distinct from anything that has being; namely, all those other gods he doesn't believe in. The argument has absolutely no bearing on the God found in classical theism.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:How is it stupid? He was only stating the obvious.Reflex wrote:Stupid point, and Dawkins is stupid for making it one. He's been called on it, too, but he's too arrogant to admit such statements make it obvious he's out of his league.sthitapragya wrote: that is exactly the point I am making too.
You have the mental illness of religion and he doesn't. I wouldn't expect you to understand him.Reflex wrote: He's stating the fact that he's ignorant of classical theism, according to which God is ontologically distinct from anything that has being; namely, all those other gods he doesn't believe in. The argument has absolutely no bearing on the God found in classical theism.
If Dawkins doesn't have a mental illness, why does spout so much nonsense thinking he's being profound or clever? But, hey, if you want to think the idiot is some kind of profound genius, that's your business. Bear in mind, however, it doesn't reflect very well on you.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You have the mental illness of religion and he doesn't. I wouldn't expect you to understand him.Reflex wrote: He's stating the fact that he's ignorant of classical theism, according to which God is ontologically distinct from anything that has being; namely, all those other gods he doesn't believe in. The argument has absolutely no bearing on the God found in classical theism.
He only tells the truth. As I said, reliogos are incapable of rational thought. To them, rational thinking looks like babble, just as your god-bothering looks like babble to me.Reflex wrote:If Dawkins doesn't have a mental illness, why does spout so much nonsense thinking he's being profound or clever? But, hey, if you want to think the idiot is some kind of profound genius, that's your business. Bear in mind, however, it doesn't reflect very well on you.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You have the mental illness of religion and he doesn't. I wouldn't expect you to understand him.Reflex wrote: He's stating the fact that he's ignorant of classical theism, according to which God is ontologically distinct from anything that has being; namely, all those other gods he doesn't believe in. The argument has absolutely no bearing on the God found in classical theism.
Meh. Suit yourself. But since when is calling straw man argumentation rational rational?vegetariantaxidermy wrote: He only tells the truth. As I said, reliogos are incapable of rational thought. To them, rational thinking looks like babble, just as your god-bothering looks like babble to me.
God had nothing to do with it. Fools did this...and they will become our food...turned into the beast.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Yeah like the one that ploughed with a truck through 80 people in France last night.attofishpi wrote:All monotheists ultimately believe in the same God.sthitapragya wrote:I was having a discussion with Nick_A and it occurred to me that the only difference between the absence of belief of a theist and an atheist is in the number of Gods each doesn't believe in. Theists have a complete absence of belief in all Gods except one.Atheists have an absence of belief in all Gods without exception. So just as one theist can have a complete absence of belief in Vishnu or Brahma or Ahura Mazda,an atheist has a complete absence of belief in Vishnu, Brahma, Ahura Mazda and the God of the concerned theist. So as far as any other religion is concerned, every theist is an atheist too.
Comments?
There doesn't seem to be a lot of point in your god does there? I mean, he doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything.attofishpi wrote:God had nothing to do with it. Fools did this...and they will become our food...turned into the beast.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Yeah like the one that ploughed with a truck through 80 people in France last night.attofishpi wrote:
All monotheists ultimately believe in the same God.
You don't know what a 'straw man' is. He was simply stating a fact. What's there to disagree with???"Reflex wrote:Meh. Suit yourself. But since when is calling straw man argumentation rational rational?vegetariantaxidermy wrote: He only tells the truth. As I said, reliogos are incapable of rational thought. To them, rational thinking looks like babble, just as your god-bothering looks like babble to me.
Edit: Are we witnessing the beginnings of a new religion here? Dawkins-ism?
I answered that in a previous post: "He's ignorant of classical theism, according to which God is ontologically distinct from anything that has being; namely, all those other gods he doesn't believe in. The argument has absolutely no bearing on the God found in classical theism."vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You don't know what a 'straw man' is. He was simply stating a fact. What's there to disagree with???"Reflex wrote:Meh. Suit yourself. But since when is calling straw man argumentation rational rational?vegetariantaxidermy wrote: He only tells the truth. As I said, reliogos are incapable of rational thought. To them, rational thinking looks like babble, just as your god-bothering looks like babble to me.
Edit: Are we witnessing the beginnings of a new religion here? Dawkins-ism?
I care about truth, and pretentious bullshit. I love truth. You love pretentious bullshit.Reflex wrote:
Do you know what I mean by "ontologically distinct"?
I don't care what Dawkins said, the point I was referring to was made by sthitapragya. The fact that Dawkins has made the same point is hardly surprising. I am not basing my opinions on it, I just happen to agree with it. If, however, I did want to base my opinions on some kind of idiocy I think I would choose Dawkins', rather than yours, he's a lot cleverer than you.Reflex wrote:
LOL! Dawkins also said God is complex. He's a theological moron -- completely ignorant of classical theism. But, hey, if that's the kind of idiocy you want to base your opinions on, go for it.
If you cared about truth, you'd answer my question or do some investigating. You'd ask yourself, "What does this guy mean by 'ontologically distinct'? What ideas does classical theism embody that makes it immune to Dawkins' comments?" You'd ask yourself, "What are the implications and ramifications of the statement, "God does not exist, but is existence itself?'"vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I care about truth, and pretentious bullshit. I love truth. You love pretentious bullshit.Reflex wrote:
Do you know what I mean by "ontologically distinct"?
Now, it's your prerogative to call it "pretentious bullshit" without looking into the matter yourself, but that makes you no different than the church official who refused to look through Galileo's telescope because he already knew "the Truth." I can think of no other way to describe this attitude other than to call it willful ignorance.Some people really do believe in this version of God: supporters of 'intelligent design', for example – for whom Hart reserves plenty of scorn – and other contemporary Christian and Muslim fundamentalists, too. But throughout the history of monotheism, Hart insists, a very different version of God has prevailed. In a post at The Week, Damon Linker sums up this second version better than I can:
… according to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God "exists" in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all.
God, in short, isn't one very impressive thing among many things that might or might not exist; "not just some especially resplendent object among all the objects illuminated by the light of being," as Hart puts it. Rather, God is "the light of being itself", the answer to the question of why there's existence to begin with. In other words, that wisecrack about how atheists merely believe in one less god than theists do, though it makes a funny line in a Tim Minchin song, is just a category error. Monotheism's God isn't like one of the Greek gods, except that he happens to have no god friends. It's an utterly different kind of concept.
Since I can hear atheist eyeballs rolling backwards in their sockets with scorn, it's worth saying again: the point isn't that Hart's right. It's that he's making a case that's usually never addressed by atheists at all. If you think this God-as-the-condition-of-existence argument is rubbish, you need to say why. And unlike for the superhero version [Dawkins's version], scientific evidence won't clinch the deal. The question isn't a scientific one, about which things exist. It's a philosophical one, about what existence is and on what it depends.
Nick_A has another way of describing it: BLIND DENIAL!Reflex wrote: I can think of no other way to describe this attitude other than to call it willful ignorance.