(July 6, 2010 at 10:59 am)Synackaon Wrote: How dare you kill God with antibiotics!

Meh....

Life Suxs, I'll get over it!!

Void -

That's the thing, I don't reject the fundamental view of christians, which is that there's a god. I disagree with some of their other views, and that's because my take on life is different to theirs. Not all theists have exctly the same views.

(July 5, 2010 at 9:06 pm)theVOID Wrote: [quote='Purple Rabbit' pid='78340' dateline='1278355567']


Hey genius, If you'd read the rest of the post you'd see i covered that. In fact i've covered that in about 3 posts so far in this thread, but don't that get in the way of your little objection.

Hey flapdrol, I read the rest of your post. But you can't blame me for the contradictions you create, can you? Sure you can, you just did. Seems you're not so rational as you would like to be.

We all like to think of ourselves as rational but at the end of the day when it comes down to it, we are all riddled with all kinds of assumptions about life (which is a good thing), and we judge it accordingly. I don't see it as win-lose, rather as different takes on life.

(July 6, 2010 at 1:58 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Hey flapdrol, I read the rest of your post. But you can't blame me for the contradictions you create, can you? Sure you can, you just did. Seems you're not so rational as you would like to be.

I'm sorry that you feel the need for a full disclaimer per paragraph, but i can't be fucked providing you with one. Why, when i have already specifically excluded personal/interpersonal truths from the statement 'emotions about any given proposition are entirely unrelated to the truth of said proposition ' would I need to or want to make this distinction every single time?

---

(July 6, 2010 at 1:39 pm)Godhead Wrote: Void -

That's the thing, I don't reject the fundamental view of christians, which is that there's a god. I disagree with some of their other views, and that's because my take on life is different to theirs. Not all theists have exctly the same views.

Yes, you both agree on a God, but the nature of that God is entirely different, so when it comes down to it you believe your conclusion and reject their similar conclusion.

I want to know by which standard do you consider your own personal emotional/intuitive conclusion mroe valid than the contradictory conclusions reached by Christians, when they have both met the exact same standard for determining truth?

You know exactly what my question is and exactly why the Christian (or any other) conclusion and your conclusion can not both be true. God cannot be both the universe it's self and an entity existing outside of the universe. So, I ask you AGAIN:

By what thought to you determine that your own conclusions are more appropriate to hold positive belief in opposed to the conclusions of others when both conclusions meet your very own standards for determining truth?

I don't. They're both valid, if you want to use that word. And I don't consider your take on life or your way of arriving at it to be any less valid than mine.

(July 6, 2010 at 10:13 pm)Godhead Wrote: I don't. They're both valid, if you want to use that word. And I don't consider your take on life or your way of arriving at it to be any less valid than mine.

WOW

1. Two contradictory concepts of a deity cannot both be 'valid'. Either one of them is true or neither of them are.

2. You, in specifically favouring the "god=universe=us" conclusion, to the point where you accept it is true, have rejected all of the other conclusions. If you believe one conclusion to be true over any other then you do not find them all to be 'valid'. You also have no standard by which you determine which of these 'intuitive conclusions' should be accepted as true, because they all meet the criteria of being emotional and intuitive, so either you have some reason to believe that your own emotions and intuitions are to be preferred, or you have simply chosen your own explanation over the others willy-nilly and don't actually give a shit about determining the truth.

3. I don't have a take on this issue, nor a way of arriving at a conclusions, because I believe adamantly that there is no logical way at present, considering all information known to mankind, to argue for or take seriously any 'ultimate and conclusive' proposition about the universe as fact. The only rational and honest thing to do is to admit that we don't know, not to actively believe in a completely unfounded proposition such as "God=universe=us", and for such demonstrably flawed reasons.

So indeed, in Godhead's world, he can be both a rutabaga and not a rutabaga at the same time.

If I say that God is confined to a cupboard in my basement, and I arrived at that conclusion by emotions, would you consider that equally valid and consistent with all other God beliefs, including your own?

(July 7, 2010 at 9:41 am)tavarish Wrote: So indeed, in Godhead's world, he can be both a rutabaga and not a rutabaga at the same time.

If I say that God is confined to a cupboard in my basement, and I arrived at that conclusion by emotions, would you consider that equally valid and consistent with all other God beliefs, including your own?

Oh boy, I can't wait for this answer

(July 7, 2010 at 9:41 am)tavarish Wrote: So indeed, in Godhead's world, he can be both a rutabaga and not a rutabaga at the same time.

Best. Tongue-in-cheek. Post. Ever.