RE: A pantheistic argument.
October 31, 2012 at 11:25 am
(This post was last modified: October 31, 2012 at 12:06 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
You must have missed the jerkoff emoticon...lol. It is precisely because you beg the question that the validity of the argument means nothing to me...and this is why your ancillary point falls on the term you yourself have chosen.
If I cannot use the terms "universe" and "god" interchangeably after you have labored to make them so then we have a problem with identity. If to say "I do not believe in god" is taken to mean "I do not believe in the universe" directly then they are interchangeable..and again, you have labored to make this so, so why resist the parity you yourself created? I'm not confused, you have created a confused equivalence between the terms which I do not agree with (but refuse to own it).
The soundness of the argument is required to make your ancillary (or main..depending) point.
Arguments that beg the question can often be valid, but it is a trivial distinction.
If i said "waffliest possible plate" that would exclude all things that weren't plates...I wanted to avoid calling god a plate in my premise and stating that god was a plate in the conclusion.....the reasons should be obvious. I didn't want to define god as a plate and then conclude god was a plate. If I should have added "plate" to my premise shouldn't you have added "universe" to yours?
So..depending on whats being criticized, you are either arguing some point about atheism (and it's relationship to theism) or the validity of your argument...I don't think there's going to be any resolution to this. This is very, very simple...belief in god is required for theism. It is a disqualifier for atheism. What you label as god is unimportant (a point which we share in completely divergent ways) that you label it god -is all that matters-. Ergo pantheist..not panatheist. I understand that is important to you to stress that your definition for god is different from some other definition (and as I've said..get in line) but that doesn't change the fact that you are professing belief in god (as a pantheist). The distinction between the two, even in our case, is still meaningful, in that I do not consider the universe god, or god the universe. God is not present in my beliefs (an empty place all around), not the term, not the baggage, not at all. If you wish for this concept of god, however you define it, to be present in your beliefs...it makes little sense to claim a position of atheism (or to claim that there is no meaningful distinction between the two..when the only meaningful distinction there ever was to begin with, was the "god" bit).
If I cannot use the terms "universe" and "god" interchangeably after you have labored to make them so then we have a problem with identity. If to say "I do not believe in god" is taken to mean "I do not believe in the universe" directly then they are interchangeable..and again, you have labored to make this so, so why resist the parity you yourself created? I'm not confused, you have created a confused equivalence between the terms which I do not agree with (but refuse to own it).
The soundness of the argument is required to make your ancillary (or main..depending) point.
Arguments that beg the question can often be valid, but it is a trivial distinction.
If i said "waffliest possible plate" that would exclude all things that weren't plates...I wanted to avoid calling god a plate in my premise and stating that god was a plate in the conclusion.....the reasons should be obvious. I didn't want to define god as a plate and then conclude god was a plate. If I should have added "plate" to my premise shouldn't you have added "universe" to yours?
So..depending on whats being criticized, you are either arguing some point about atheism (and it's relationship to theism) or the validity of your argument...I don't think there's going to be any resolution to this. This is very, very simple...belief in god is required for theism. It is a disqualifier for atheism. What you label as god is unimportant (a point which we share in completely divergent ways) that you label it god -is all that matters-. Ergo pantheist..not panatheist. I understand that is important to you to stress that your definition for god is different from some other definition (and as I've said..get in line) but that doesn't change the fact that you are professing belief in god (as a pantheist). The distinction between the two, even in our case, is still meaningful, in that I do not consider the universe god, or god the universe. God is not present in my beliefs (an empty place all around), not the term, not the baggage, not at all. If you wish for this concept of god, however you define it, to be present in your beliefs...it makes little sense to claim a position of atheism (or to claim that there is no meaningful distinction between the two..when the only meaningful distinction there ever was to begin with, was the "god" bit).
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
