"default" <default@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1209912195_1448@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 09:48:59 -0400, monkfish <monkfish@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>default wrote:
>>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 22:16:22 -0400, monkfish <monkfish@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>default wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 3 May 2008 16:27:15 +0100, "Bill M" <wmech@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Having difficulty answering the question eh!
>>>>>
>>>>> Shuffle and jive while, ignorant trying to sound astute, that's our
>>>>> fish.
>>>>
>>>>You missed it as well!
>>>>I guess I have to repeat myself a lot around here.
>>>>Hundreds of painters are painting the same mountain.
>>>>And a child comes along and asks
>>>>which of the pictures is the real mountain.
>>>>What would you say?
>>>
>>> I'd question the legitimacy of painting a mountain. Did the mountain
>>> need a face lift, was is to ugly it needed painting? Is it oil based
>>> or water based paint? What is the environmental impact? What will it
>>> cost? Who will pay for it?
>>> Unless you meant to say "hundreds of artists came along." Were they
>>> having a competition to paint a likeness of the mountain? Who was
>>> sponsoring the event? How would it be judged? Was the child
>>> unsupervised?
>>> Why would I say anything at all? The kid has eyes and a brain. I'm
>>> sure he can make the distinction between the paintings and actual
>>> mountains. He can be the judge of what he finds pleasing.
>>> As analogies go, this might be one of your worst to date. None of the
>>> paintings of mountains are the real one.
>>
>>First, a word can have many meanings.
>>If you read the whole paragraph in context
>>which talks about pictures of the mountain,
>>you should have been able to pick the proper meaning.
>>Your failure releals your closed mind.
>
> No. I was sarcastically pointing out your wording while interjecting
> some humor - You are the one trying to game and manipulate logic into
> some illogical conclusion.
>
>>BTW "atrist" is the first meaning of 'painter'.
>>You should read more books about artists.
>>http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/painter
>
> It might be, but when one lives in an area where there will be one
> junk mail a week from painters looking for work . . . (house painters,
> unless they want to do frescos or murals)
>
>>Second, sometimes it's not that easy to distinguish
>>the subject from the words that describe it
>>or from the things that symbolize or represent it.
>
> I like that you are trying to actually say what you mean instead of
> the homily/analogy or a pre-programmed theological discourse you read
> somewhere.
>
>>If you think you know what God is
>>when you have no faith in God,
>>you are talking about an idol.
>
> Huh? An idol is a symbol or object of worship? Christians love idols
> they use the crucifix, statues, paintings, relics, etc.. The object
> of worship itself? like praying to an object? Not my thing either.
> Having no faith in god doesn't mean I MUST have faith in something
> else - simply not logical.
> You seem to have a lot of preconceived notions of what atheists are or
> what they believe - that is simply not so. Atheists simply don't
> believe in god.
>
Tell us what you mean by "God" so we can join you in disbelieving in
it.
I am guessing, but I'm pretty sure none of us theists believe in any god
of
YOUR definition.
|
