Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I already disproved this, why are you still going on about it?
No...you didn't.
Let's see it...cuz I sure haven't seen it yet.
Contest Pantheism with an objective, fully substantiated, logical argument.
Let's see watcha got...other than the biased and illogical excising of known, expert, definitions of "G-O-D".
I'll give you one - there is no good evidence for it. It is a faith -based belief and no more. Now you will tell me it's in the dictionary, so it must be true.
I'll give you one - there is no good evidence for it. It is a faith -based belief and no more. Now you will tell me it's in the dictionary, so it must be true.
Really? Ya don't say?
Anything anyone claims to "know" is "faith-based belief". Just some higher probability than others.
I've been explaining that to y'all for years now.
So, sorry...that doesn't cut it. Please try again.
Oh, and...it does comport definitively. I can substantiate that to as high a probability as it can get. So, you are sunk contesting that aspect of it.
I'll give you one - there is no good evidence for it. It is a faith -based belief and no more. Now you will tell me it's in the dictionary, so it must be true.
It occurred to me that while I am open to the possibility that a creator of god may exist, I'm concerned that theist can be unguarded with the only life they likely have because they believe they go to another existence.
Instances where Christians kill their families and self is likely a complete waste of the one life they have. I think theist should be mindful of this possibility and consider theirs and others lives more precious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
it doesn't happen a lot.
Also, if kids are a danger to society, why couldn't the parent remove them? We have to be more mindful of bad parents programing dangerous people then we do with christian's talking life lightly.
Wherein the resident self-loathing atheist dismisses religious familicide 'cause, hey, it's not all that common so who cares if families are offed by religious nutjob family members so long as it only happens now and then?
And he then proceeds to see the upside of parents killing their children!
You have NEVER provided a logical argument against Pantheism...and never will, cuz there isn't one, as it fits observations.
So your reply to my post is to not reply to anything actually IN my post. Great. There is no "logical argument" against Pantheism because there is nothing logical there TO argue against that you have ever shown.
As you have presented it Pantheism is nothing more than looking at everything and merely calling it "god". If there is any more to it than that, you certainly have not presented it. If you did, then there might something of substance to have "logical argument" for or against.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
at this point its intentional, He avoids anything and everything that does not conform to his beliefs.
Except you have never actually shown, even when requested, that I have avoided ANYTHING ever. You merely assert I have, then run away when asked what. But still, it is nice of you to dodge my last post to you, by taking a snide side swipe at me in a post to someone else.
So your reply to my post is to not reply to anything actually IN my post. Great. There is no "logical argument" against Pantheism because there is nothing logical there TO argue against that you have ever shown.
As you have presented it Pantheism is nothing more than looking at everything and merely calling it "god". If there is any more to it than that, you certainly have not presented it. If you did, then there might something of substance to have "logical argument" for or against.
Except you have never actually shown, even when requested, that I have avoided ANYTHING ever. You merely assert I have, then run away when asked what. But still, it is nice of you to dodge my last post to you, by taking a snide side swipe at me in a post to someone else.
the topic is acceptance of god. We know the classical interpretations are wrong. so now what do we do? maybe the classic definition is wrong. if its wrong there is no need for you to keep restating your personal opinion about a notion that is wrong. That doesn't seem silly to you? It definitely not science.
You keep repeating your personal opinion over and over. I am asking you to answer some basic questions that may reveal the reason for some people's interactions with each other and their surroundings.
It may help explain and offer a mechanism for things like maddy's meditative energy flow experience, gld's pantheism, and many other interactions people are experiences. so repeating "no designer" over and over and over does nothing.
so just answer yes, no, maybe. i didn't ask it like this before because it shouldn't be asked this way. But you are backing me into a corner for some unknown reason. yeah, I get it, its really me not you.
the interactions of the biosphere, match up best with
life
nonlife
or virus like
The topic is "do you except the possibility of "god", I only accept the possibility of that which has some observational support. "god" is a ol' used up, meaningless stone age notion. We are now defining what god may or may not be.
Wherein the resident self-loathing atheist dismisses religious familicide 'cause, hey, it's not all that common so who cares if families are offed by religious nutjob family members so long as it only happens now and then?
And he then proceeds to see the upside of parents killing their children!
Making.
Excuses.
For.
Familicide.
The only question is am I right or wrong.
Do religious people, as a whole, take life lightly?
do parents have a responsibility past "my poor baby"?
So your reply to my post is to not reply to anything actually IN my post. Great. There is no "logical argument" against Pantheism because there is nothing logical there TO argue against that you have ever shown.
As you have presented it Pantheism is nothing more than looking at everything and merely calling it "god". If there is any more to it than that, you certainly have not presented it. If you did, then there might something of substance to have "logical argument" for or against.
Of course...this is not true...as is typical of your chronic accusations of most every Theist you debate here "not presenting something of substance".
Scores of times I explained it in many, many ways, and with many analogies.
The fact is, they all provide what you ask for...but you just don't "see" it.
I have explained to you why that is. It is like pointing to something and saying, "Look! It is right there!", to a blind person.
Of course they will not see it...they are blind. Like you are, as respects "God Perception".
Pantheism isn't just "nothing more than looking at everything and merely calling it "god"".
But your "God Perception" deficiency prevents you from being able to "see" more than that in the concept...or any Theist concept.
Perhaps you don't recall the time when there was a discussion on this and I said to you...'All you are doing is calling the water bottle on your table 'God' and then pointing to it and saying 'See! God' exists', You replied...'Yes exactly'.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
