I think that one of the worst parts of being designated as an atheist by a theist (I'm only an atheist when placed into context with the perspectives of a theist... otherwise I'm just a human named Greg) is that they tend to expect us to offer up arguments as poorly constructed as their's to defeat the assumption of this anthropomorphic deity.
The problem real is when you cannot find the urg to stoop to the low level of non sequiturs and hasty generalizations, they simply brush you off and make the claim that your an ego manic. Funny thing is, this anthropomorphic deity is simply a proxy of ego to justify whatever you wish (the function of a trump card god) and to abandon this assumption is to place ego into healthy perspective with regard to the universe/cosmos... gee... who's on the ego trip here?
If they can only prove god via such trump cards, meaning that they start with a central answer then proceed to mold the questions to adapt to this trump card assumption (circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because ...), why is it expected that we do the same thing?
Why must we offer up a replacement for god?
Why must we make the same error?
Why do they seem to demand that we have a "theory for everything" and provide all the answers in a sound bite or simply bite sized pieces, when the only thing that they do is claim "god did it so", proving nothing except the will of the ego to place mankind in the center of the universe?
It just get's old after a while, the constant dealing with one-trick ponies...
Meow!
GREG
btw... sorry the rant here, but I tried to read some of the "ontological proofs for god(s)" in the Philosophy section here... it was beginning to make my brain bleed.
The problem real is when you cannot find the urg to stoop to the low level of non sequiturs and hasty generalizations, they simply brush you off and make the claim that your an ego manic. Funny thing is, this anthropomorphic deity is simply a proxy of ego to justify whatever you wish (the function of a trump card god) and to abandon this assumption is to place ego into healthy perspective with regard to the universe/cosmos... gee... who's on the ego trip here?
If they can only prove god via such trump cards, meaning that they start with a central answer then proceed to mold the questions to adapt to this trump card assumption (circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because ...), why is it expected that we do the same thing?
Why must we offer up a replacement for god?
Why must we make the same error?
Why do they seem to demand that we have a "theory for everything" and provide all the answers in a sound bite or simply bite sized pieces, when the only thing that they do is claim "god did it so", proving nothing except the will of the ego to place mankind in the center of the universe?
It just get's old after a while, the constant dealing with one-trick ponies...
Meow!
GREG
btw... sorry the rant here, but I tried to read some of the "ontological proofs for god(s)" in the Philosophy section here... it was beginning to make my brain bleed.
Moral is as moral does and as moral wishes it all too be. - MoS
The absence of all empirical evidence for the necessity of intuitive X existing is evidence against the necessary empirical existence of intuitive X - MoS (variation of 180proof)
Athesim is not a system of belief, but rather a single answer to a single question. It is the designation applied by theists to those who do not share their assumption that a god/deity exists. - MoS
I am not one to attribute godlike qualities to things that I am unable to understand. I may never be in the position to understand certain things, but I am not about to create an anthropomorphic deity out of my short-commings. I wish not to errect a monument to my own personal ignorace and demand that others worship this proxy of ego. - MoS
The absence of all empirical evidence for the necessity of intuitive X existing is evidence against the necessary empirical existence of intuitive X - MoS (variation of 180proof)
Athesim is not a system of belief, but rather a single answer to a single question. It is the designation applied by theists to those who do not share their assumption that a god/deity exists. - MoS
I am not one to attribute godlike qualities to things that I am unable to understand. I may never be in the position to understand certain things, but I am not about to create an anthropomorphic deity out of my short-commings. I wish not to errect a monument to my own personal ignorace and demand that others worship this proxy of ego. - MoS
