Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote:

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.

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:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Reflex wrote:
Do you know what I mean by "ontologically distinct"?

I care about truth, and pretentious bullshit. I love truth. You love pretentious bullshit.

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?'"

But no. You'd rather waste your time attacking the kind of gods I reject. Is that supposed to make any sense, any sense at all? Below is an excerpt of a review of a book written by David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God:

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.

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.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I really can't be bothered with you. Keep believing in fairies. I don't care, as long as you keep it to yourself and don't try to shove it down my throat.

Reflex wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I really can't be bothered with you. Keep believing in fairies. I don't care, as long as you keep it to yourself and don't try to shove it down my throat.

Suits me, but you can't blame me for not taking you seriously. Heck, you prefer talking through your ass; you don't even want to know what you're talking about.

Reflex wrote:Your right,

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Yeah like the one that ploughed with a truck through 80 people in France last night.

God had nothing to do with it. Fools did this...and they will become our food...turned into the beast.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of point in your god does there?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I mean, he doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything.

attofishpi wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

attofishpi wrote:
God had nothing to do with it. Fools did this...and they will become our food...turned into the beast.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of point in your god does there?

Unfortunately we dont get to choose our God.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I mean, he doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything.

'It' is physics and 'it' concerns itself a great deal with entropy...and those that have lost their right to reincarnate human.

attofishpi wrote:الذي يقتل باسم الله سوف يتحول إلى حيوان.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I don't have an ass. Stupid illiterate yank.

Reflex wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I don't have an ass. Stupid illiterate yank.

It takes very little research to discover that many of the quips atheists use is attacking the wrong god, but they get defensive when it's pointed out and call the person doing so "illiterate."

attofishpi wrote: Unfortunately we dont get to choose our God.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Reflex wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I really can't be bothered with you. Keep believing in fairies. I don't care, as long as you keep it to yourself and don't try to shove it down my throat.

Suits me, but you can't blame me for not taking you seriously. Heck, you prefer talking through your ass; you don't even want to know what you're talking about.

I don't have an ass. Stupid illiterate yank.

sthitapragya wrote:So to get this thing back on track, are Theists atheists for other religions? If not, why?

I know that if Reflex is talking, he will just throw pointless insults around and derail the topic. That seems to be his job given by his masters. Hence the interjection.