Philosophy Now Forum

Inglorious. More often than not philosophy reduces to little more than an analysis of the use of language and you are falling for the one of the most transparent logical fallacies imaginable. You are conflating reasoning with rationalising. If there were evidence for the existence of your god then a conversation such as this would be impossible. However an argument which relies on evidence which is only apparent to those who accept the premises of the syllogism is a circular argument. This is something which any philosophy undergraduate would be expected to understand.

Obvious Leo wrote:If there were evidence for the existence of your god then a conversation such as this would be impossible. However an argument which relies on evidence which is only apparent to those who accept the premises of the syllogism is a circular argument. This is something which any philosophy undergraduate would be expected to understand.

Leo, you have the habit of referring to things never said or implied and then basing your reply on that imagined scenario. I don't know what's worse: Hobbes' negation of his obvious mean-spiritedness and question-begging or you misrepresentation of the discussion. But then, it is silly for me to expect anything better from you two.

Anti-theistic schemes are generally in the instinctive stage of thought, where knowledge constitutes no problem and is taken for granted. In this stage any theory whatever may be held, however self-destructive ; and when its suicidal implications are pointed out, the theorist falls back on unreasoned common sense, and repudiates, not his own theory, which is the real offender, but the critic. He sets up natural selection as the determining principle of belief, and then repudiates the great catholic convictions of the race. He shows how the survival of the fittest must bring thought and thing into accord, and then rejects the beliefs which survive. He defines mind as an adjustment of inner relations to outer relations, and forthwith drifts off into nescience. He presents the Unknown Cause as the source of all beliefs, and then rules out most of them as invalid, and, at times, declares them all worthless.

I am but a humble philosopher, Inglorious. I do not read the tarot and my crystal ball is on the blink. From time to time I fall into the common human error of leaping to unwarranted assumptions and like a fool this is what I did on this occasion. I thought you were addressing the topic in hand.

Lacewing wrote:Your quest is clearly sacred for you... and I think that is what is most important. If it evolves and expands you... that will likely impact others very naturally.

No, i'm NOT eating McDonalds junk food over this, i'm NOT expanding.
I'm not prepared to banter with waffle-to-waffle to-and-fro with you.

As you think my OP is fantasy, then have the gumption to break it down and discuss it with me with the same vigour.

Lacewing wrote:RE: The image below:- It seems to represent the area from which humankind was born -- and perhaps it is trying to show an ongoing spinal connection or source of energy (such as kundalini)?

No. BE MORE OBJECTIVE. God deserves more.

1. Its South America
2. The English saying: A chill up your spine? Chile - the spine of the image.
3. BRAzil - A Bras_ill...the over large tit is shown.
4. On the nipple of the Bra - a city named NATAL: dict. Of or relating to child-birth.

*** It appears the website moderators have changed the image size permitted, hence all the images in my OP are now redundant. ***
** Typical REACTION of ATHEIST MODERATORS gutless ***

attofishpi wrote: 1. Its South America
2. The English saying: A chill up your spine? Chile - the spine of the image.
3. BRAzil - A Bras_ill...the over large tit is shown.
4. On the nipple of the Bra - a city named NATAL: dict. Of or relating to child-birth.

*** It appears the website moderators have changed the image size permitted, hence all the images in my OP are now redundant. ***
** Typical REACTION of ATHEIST MODERATORS gutless ***

BAT SHIT INSANE

Chile...
There are various theories about the origin of the word Chile. According to 17th-century Spanish chronicler Diego de Rosales,[13] the Incas called the valley of the Aconcagua "Chili" by corruption of the name of a Picunche tribal chief ("cacique") called Tili, who ruled the area at the time of the Incan conquest in the 15th century.[14][15] Another theory points to the similarity of the valley of the Aconcagua with that of the Casma Valley in Peru, where there was a town and valley named Chili.[15]
Other theories say Chile may derive its name from a Native American word meaning either "ends of the earth" or "sea gulls";[16] from the Mapuche word chilli, which may mean "where the land ends;"[17] or from the Quechua chiri, "cold",[18] or tchili, meaning either "snow"[18][19] or "the deepest point of the Earth".[20] Another origin attributed to chilli is the onomatopoeic cheele-cheele—the Mapuche imitation of the warble of a bird locally known as trile.[17][21]
The Spanish conquistadors heard about this name from the Incas, and the few survivors of Diego de Almagro's first Spanish expedition south from Peru in 1535–36 called themselves the "men of Chilli".[17] Ultimately, Almagro is credited with the universalization of the name Chile, after naming the Mapocho valley as such.[15] The older spelling "Chili" was in use in English until at least 1900 before switching over to "Chile".[22]

Chilly

late 14c., intransitive, "to feel cold, grow cold;" c. 1400, transitive, "to make cold," from chill (n.). Related: Chilled; chilling; chillingly. Figurative use from late 14c. Meaning "hang out" first recorded 1985; from earlier chill out "relax" (1979).



Brasil

Brazil Look up Brazil at Dictionary.com
1550s, from Spanish/Portuguese terra de brasil "red-dye-wood land," from Spanish brasil or Italian brasile, probably connected to French braize (see braize) for resemblance of color to a glowing ember (but Old Italian form verzino suggests a possible connection with Arabic wars "saffron"). Originally the name of a type of wood from an East Indian tree, used in making dye; the name later was transferred to a similar South American species. Brazil in reference to the wood is attested in English from late 14c. Complicating matters is Hy Brasil, a name applied by 1436 to one of the larger Azores Islands, later transferred to a legendary island or rock off the west coast of Ireland (sighted in 1791 at lat. 51° 10', long. 15° 58').


Bra.

brassiere (n.) Look up brassiere at Dictionary.com
18c., "woman's underbodice," from French brassière "child's chemise; shoulder strap" (17c.), from Old French braciere "arm guard" (14c.), from bras "an arm," from Latin bracchium (see brace (n.)). Modern use is a euphemistic borrowing employed in the garment trade by 1902.


Oh look no connection at all.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

attofishpi wrote: 1. Its South America
2. The English saying: A chill up your spine? Chile - the spine of the image.
3. BRAzil - A Bras_ill...the over large tit is shown.
4. On the nipple of the Bra - a city named NATAL: dict. Of or relating to child-birth.

*** It appears the website moderators have changed the image size permitted, hence all the images in my OP are now redundant. ***
** Typical REACTION of ATHEIST MODERATORS gutless ***

BAT SHIT INSANE

Get a look toss job...where's my OP images?

Now i've got to argue with both arms tied behind my back..

Don't forget Italy - it looks like a boot. The sort of boot that is up your arse.
And the British Isles and Ireland - what can you make of that?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Don't forget Italy - it looks like a boot. The sort of boot that is up your arse.
And the British Isles and Ireland - what can you make of that?

You are a shallow short sighted inbred that relies on the incompetent running of an ATHEIST FORUM WITH AN ATHEIST AGENDA.

And I think you missed a trick.
Surely god is trying to tell you that Gall stones make you sick.
Take a look at the Bay of ben- GALL. He's about to throw up!!!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:And I think you missed a trick.
Surely god is trying to tell you that Gall stones make you sick.
Take a look at the Bay of ben- GALL. He's about to throw up!!!

To attempt to argue with you the most incredibly IMBECILE of ALL atheists would make any argument redundant as pig shit.

attofishpi wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:And I think you missed a trick.
Surely god is trying to tell you that Gall stones make you sick.
Take a look at the Bay of ben- GALL. He's about to throw up!!!

To attempt to argue with you the most incredibly IMBECILE of ALL atheists would make any argument redundant as pig shit.

Oh contrare.

Here's another one.

ANd yet another..

God must be trying to tell you something about Belgium

And Chile is just a smiling duck. How could you have missed that?

attofishpi wrote: As you think my OP is fantasy, then have the gumption to break it down and discuss it with me with the same vigour.

Why would I want to do that? You're free to find meaning in whatever you want... and I'm allowed to think some ideas are fantasies, and choose not to invest energy in them.

attofishpi wrote:No. BE MORE OBJECTIVE. God deserves more.

Are you saying that your god deserves better interpretations... like yours? You don't need to be cranky and rude to people for not agreeing with you. Such behavior just further demonstrates how deep you are in it -- and suggests that I've participated in your idea more than YOU deserve.

The dots can be connected in SO MANY WAYS. You, like so many other people, think you know THE ONE AND TRUE WAY the dots should be connected. To me, it's pointless to proceed with ANYTHING when that is the underlying current of it. My perspective is that: NOBODY KNOWS! It's ALL MADE-UP by us! So have fun with it if you can. Don't crucify people with it.