strawmen of god

[Dywyddyr]

Hardly.
The seminal works of Plato can be found quite a few shelves away any seminal leprechaun tomes in most libraries.

Yeah and look at all of the other worthy subjects he ignored as well.
Thor, Odin, the Fhoi Myore...

nevertheless the philosophical treatises derived from leprechauns are still pending .....

Which is what I said.
One day, maybe not soon.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yeah and look at all of the other worthy subjects he ignored as well.
Thor, Odin, the Fhoi Myore...

Seriously?
You think such entities can't be reconciled with his ideas?

Which is what I said.
One day, maybe not soon.

Which is why I said maybe then you won't be relying on strawmen

 

[Dywyddyr]

Seriously?
You think such entities can't be reconciled with his ideas?

So where did they all go?

Which is why I said maybe then you won't be relying on strawmen

We aren't at the moment, so what's the rush?

 

[lightgigantic]

So where did they all go?

To answer that, at least according to Plato, you would have to look at what the forms are.

We aren't at the moment, so what's the rush?

Er ... no.

In the absence of the philosophical treatises derived from leprechauns you are actually right there, right now ...

 

[Dywyddyr]

To answer that, at least according to Plato, you would have to look at what the forms are.

Nope, doesn't answer the conversion of a plurality to a single "entity".

Er ... no.
In the absence of the philosophical treatises derived from leprechauns you are actually right there, right now ...

Also no.
Lack (or otherwise) of what people spend time discussing in written works or wherever else has no bearing on their actual reality.
As previously stated.

 

[lightgigantic]

Nope, doesn't answer the conversion of a plurality to a single "entity".

golly

perhaps if you elaborated on your opinion it could (also) become a book worthy (non-fiction) criticism

Also no.
Lack (or otherwise) of what people spend time discussing in written works or wherever else has no bearing on their actual reality.
As previously stated.

Intriguing.

Write..... I mean, tell me some more

 

[swarm]

the comparison of the belief in [fantasies he doesn't like] to the belief in god [the fantasy he does like] is a straw man argument.

Differentiate the two please. We'll do gods to gods. Got a favorite you consider not real any more, Thor maybe? or Zeus? Or we could use Qerg.

god relates to our world in a way not similar to the past group

How?

 

[swarm]

not really since the case of leprechauns et al have clear foundations within the tract of fiction.

Actually they were originally presumed real just like your god.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Intriguing.
Write..... I mean, tell me some more

Quite simply: the fact that so much has been written about any subject is due to the fact the guys that wrote considered it worth writing about.
It's no indicator of actual validity (objective or whatever), merely that someone (or several someones) decided THEY thought it was worth their time.

 

[swarm]

Distinct from even those two texts

Well it isn't as well written but I think you are getting caught up in superficial distinctions.

 

[swarm]

that's my point, no matter what their names were, they all relate to our world in the same way, they are all "gods", even though the times and cultures were different, one word suits all the concepts.

FSM, Xenu and Qerg are all gods just like Zeus, Thor, Krishna and JHVH aka "god."

Is it your contention they are all the same?

 

[swarm]

...

You know LG is just trying to sidetrack the conversation to avoid anything substantive being said about the original topic...

 

[scifes]

They were all inventions to explain the world.

which neither santa claus nor tooth fairies nor unicorns do.

comparing god, which you claim was invented to explain the world,
cannot be degradingly compared to unicorns and flying speghatti monsters, which explain more or less nothing...,
when such action is taken in an argument, of coming up with an irrelative and weak form and stapeling it on one's argument to counter it easily,
is called a straw man.

the magnitude of the idea of god,
compared to the magnitude of the mentioned "bunch"..
shows the logical fallacy at it's finest,
it's like saying that aircraft carriers,
and toy boats,
are the same, because in your opinion; they are both "boats"..
and hence,
children should be allowed to bring with them aircraft carriers to school.

is it clear, Dywyddyr?

It is a reasonable conclusion considering the contradictory nature of the stories surrounding these gods and our observations of human behavior.

the contradictions and differrences are extremely small between the different gods; compared to the differences between god and the mentioned "bunch".

Quite simply: the fact that so much has been written about any subject is due to the fact the guys that wrote considered it worth writing about.
It's no indicator of actual validity (objective or whatever), merely that someone (or several someones) decided THEY thought it was worth their time.

whatever it indicates, considering its magnitude, is what makes it VERY different from pink flying elephants.

 

[Dywyddyr]

which neither santa claus nor tooth fairies nor unicorns do.

Wrong again.
Each of those explain specific parts of the world, as did the early gods: Thor for thunder etc.

comparing god, which you claim was invented to explain the world,
cannot be degradingly compared to unicorns and flying speghatti monsters, which explain more or less nothing...,

FSM explains at least as much as any other god does.

when such action is taken in an argument, of coming up with an irrelative and weak form and stapeling it on one's argument to counter it easily, is called a straw man.

Only when it actually IS irrelevant or weak.

the magnitude of the idea of god,
compared to the magnitude of the mentioned "bunch"..
shows the logical fallacy at it's finest,
it's like saying that aircraft carriers,
and toy boats,
are the same, because in your opinion; they are both "boats"..
and hence,
children should be allowed to bring with them aircraft carriers to school.

Entirely wrong again.
Your god only has more "magnitude" to you because YOU believe in him and not the others.
(and by the way your boats/ aircraft carrier analogy is an excellent strawman).

is it clear, Dywyddyr?

Got it yet?

the contradictions and differrences are extremely small between the different gods; compared to the differences between god and the mentioned "bunch".

Wrong again.

 

[lightgigantic]

Actually they were originally presumed real just like your god.

yet for some reason, the philosophers never really got on board .....

:scratchin:

 

[lightgigantic]

Well it isn't as well written but I think you are getting caught up in superficial distinctions.

Hardly

You would have a hard time contextualizing those two texts as seminal.

 

[lightgigantic]

Quite simply: the fact that so much has been written about any subject is due to the fact the guys that wrote considered it worth writing about.

It is however worthy to note when other "guys" consider it worthy to write about it ... which in turn shapes society, including popular notions of reality distinguished from illusion, and all that ....

It's no indicator of actual validity (objective or whatever), merely that someone (or several someones) decided THEY thought it was worth their time.

actually the entire issue of what constitutes "actual validity" is a topic thoroughly embroiled in the medium of writing and who said what when.

 

[spidergoat]

the comparison of the belief in leprechauns and faeries and the flying spaghetti monster and invisible unicorns and santa claus and the rest of the bunch to the belief in god is a straw man argument.

put simply, even though both can't be seen, god relates to our world in a way not similar to the past group, which is the goal of the argument, meant to be dismantled in a sweep of one logical fallacy.

It's not a strawman, the evidence for all these ideas and God is equal. The origin of the ideas is not relevant to their validity.

 

[Dywyddyr]

so you don't see any great essential difference between a philosophical treatise, a compilation of short stories or a phone directory, provided they have a relatively equal amount of text?

Not really.
They all exist because someone thought it was worth their time (and possibly also that that others might consider it worth time to read, or being cynical, look good on their bookshelf).
But those examples illustrate my point: all of them exist, but does the fact that all of them had the same amount of time/ effort put into them make them all of equal value objectively (or whatever word you want to use), of equal relevance to what actually goes on in the world?

 

[lightgigantic]

Not really.
They all exist because someone thought it was worth their time (and possibly also that that others might consider it worth time to read, or being cynical, look good on their bookshelf).
But those examples illustrate my point: all of them exist, but does the fact that all of them had the same amount of time/ effort put into them make them all of equal value objectively (or whatever word you want to use), of equal relevance to what actually goes on in the world?

you might want to go back

anticipating something like this, I re-edited