Religion Vs God

[iceaura]

or are you simply trying to whitewash the issue by saying there is only one camp, namely yours?

Again with the deflection through attack.

More question begging, in effect. An endless series of deceptions, producing an illusion of argument like a hologram in a fog.

The effect of introducing a god into religious observance and ritual even, let alone human faith and imagination, becomes impossible to even consider.

 

[lightgigantic]

The effect of introducing a god into religious observance and ritual even, let alone human faith and imagination, becomes impossible to even consider.

er ..... so says your camp

 

[wynn]

the essence of the debate is whether religion offers a means to interact with god.

Simply to come in and say "see I proved you are wrong by saying its mythical" is begging the question.

The first sentence is as calculated and deceptive an example of question begging as can be accomplished in one sentence.

I rella ydon't understand where you are coming from ... and I have been trying for quite some time.

It seems that your position is that you know exactly what religion is or isn't, what God is or isn't, while you yourself are neither religious nor a theist; and that your position is the final truth on the matter.

Really, you either must have many good arguments (but which you haven't presented so far), or you are full of shit.

 

[iceaura]

I rella ydon't understand where you are coming from

That was a good thought. Try editing the rest of your insulting garbage in light of that insight.

er ..... so says your camp

Any time you want to deal with an argument or observation, feel free. Mine can be found in post 399.

 

[lightgigantic]

That was a good thought. Try editing the rest of your insulting garbage in light of that insight.
Any time you want to deal with an actual post, observation, or argument, mine relevant is in post 400.

and as we observe, you insist that your camp is the only means of approaching the subject ...as per whitewashing an argument
:shrug:

 

[iceaura]

and as we observe, you insist that your camp is the only means of approaching the subject .

If you ever wish to respond to my actual observations, etc, the nearest one is in post 399 of this thread.

 

[lightgigantic]

If you ever wish to respond to my actual observations, etc, the nearest one is in post 399 of this thread.

if you ever wish to stand in defense of your ideas, my nearest challenge is in post 400 of this thread
:shrug:

 

[Grim_Reaper]

the essence of the debate is whether religion offers a means to interact with god.

Simply to come in and say "see I proved you are wrong by saying its mythical" is begging the question.

No what I was saying is that with out religion there is no god as God is a creation of religion and it is not possible to know one with out the other .

 

[Grim_Reaper]

the essence of the debate is whether religion offers a means to interact with god.

Simply to come in and say "see I proved you are wrong by saying its mythical" is begging the question.

And the debate about the mythical creature being apparition what ever you want to call it is that it cannot be pr oven other then VIA religious texts so again you cannot have one with out the other.

 

[lightgigantic]

No what I was saying is that with out religion there is no god as God is a creation of religion and it is not possible to know one with out the other .

well yeah ... which is just an elaborate way of saying its mythical
:shrug:

And the debate about the mythical creature being apparition what ever you want to call it is that it cannot be pr oven other then VIA religious texts so again you cannot have one with out the other.

never encountered a normative description in scripture?

 

[iceaura]

if you ever wish to stand in defense of your ideas, my nearest challenge is in post 400 of this thread

No challenge to any idea of mine is visible in that post.

post 400, in its entirety:

you don't think there's one camp advocating there is a means and another there isn't?


or are you simply trying to whitewash the issue by saying there is only one camp, namely yours?

Nothing to do with my ideas, deflection of the discussion via attack on the poster.

A standard ploy of yours. Deal with my ideas, for example post 399 in which I point out that your assuming the consequent as a basis for questions and frame of the discussion is neither valid nor honest, and the discussion can continue. Otherwise we're stuck.

 

[lightgigantic]

No challenge to any idea of mine is visible in that post.

post 400, in its entirety: Nothing to do with my ideas, deflection of the discussion via attack on the poster.

A standard ploy of yours. Deal with my ideas, for example post 399 in which I point out that your assuming the consequent as a basis for questions and frame of the discussion is neither valid nor honest, and the discussion can continue. Otherwise we're stuck.

I stated that there are two camps - atheist and theist

You stated this was begging the question


If you want to take the floor and explain yourself, fine.

It certainly beats trying to paint the opponent as a lilly livered lump of lukewarm left overs.
:shrug:

 

[Grim_Reaper]

well yeah ... which is just an elaborate way of saying its mythical
:shrug:


never encountered a normative description in scripture?

Well you have not read the same scripture as I have read then.
And yes it is mythical just like the easter bunny fairies and sea monsters.

 

[iceaura]

I stated that there are two camps - atheist and theist

You stated this was begging the question

I quoted your statement begging the question. The words "atheist" and "theist" do not appear in it.

I don't think there are two such camps, and would have stated so in my reply had you made such a statement.

 

[lightgigantic]

Well you have not read the same scripture as I have read then.

if you've never encountered a normative description, I would have top agree

And yes it is mythical just like the easter bunny fairies and sea monsters.

ignore the normative descriptions that surround a claim and you have the means to discredit practically anything that isn't right in front your nose.

 

[lightgigantic]

I quoted your statement begging the question. The words "atheist" and "theist" do not appear in it.

do you need neon lights to fathom which camp suggests there is a means and which camp doesn't?

 

[Grim_Reaper]

if you've never encountered a normative description, I would have top agree


ignore the normative descriptions that surround a claim and you have the means to discredit practically anything that isn't right in front your nose.

No I do not discredit things that are not directly in my line of sight as I can not see a virus but it makes me sick do you see the connection I do not see God I do not have a reaction when I come in contact with god via scripture church or alien abduction so therefore it dose not exist. so I guess you believe that there really is a easter bunny and Santa Claus as well how about elves's a fairies are they real according to your definition they have to be.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

LG, we both know your strategy consists of one premise....you can't argue for or against the existence of God. IOW, due mainly to technicalities in argumentative language, no one can possibly state whether one or the other is true. Although this takes the starch out of debate it certainly allows for some good wit & sarcasm. So why do you bother? A question I even ask myself. Do we just like behaving like we know everything or is it similar to the thrill of the hunt in some respects?

 

[lightgigantic]

No I do not discredit things that are not directly in my line of sight as I can not see a virus but it makes me sick do you see the connection I do not see God I do not have a reaction when I come in contact with god via scripture church or alien abduction so therefore it dose not exist. so I guess you believe that there really is a easter bunny and Santa Claus as well how about elves's a fairies are they real according to your definition they have to be.

I guess the next question is to ponder whether , just like you are applying the correct normative issues to determine you have a virus, whether you are applying the correct normative issues that determine approaching god

 

[lightgigantic]

LG, we both know your strategy consists of one premise....you can't argue for or against the existence of God.

atheism does have an essential weakness to it in that it has no recourse to application, no matter how high and mighty the theory might be ... if that's what you mean

IOW, due mainly to technicalities in argumentative language, no one can possibly state whether one or the other is true.

perhaps in the eyes of someone who doesn't entertain the normative descriptions that surround the application.

Although this takes the starch out of debate it certainly allows for some good wit & sarcasm. So why do you bother? A question I even ask myself. Do we just like behaving like we know everything or is it similar to the thrill of the hunt in some respects?

You probably get different answers according to the mettle of the individual

But I catch what you mean. An inimical highschool drop out and a physics professor could potentially have a stand off for eternity