"monkfish" <monkfish@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:xN2dnSiEFOBvqYPVnZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> default wrote:
>> 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.
>
Atheists never mention anything they believe in, because they can't
stop
talking about what they disbelieve in. That means atheists worship their
disbeliefs.
>
> First, you are confusing icons with idols.
> Second, it says a lot about atheists
> to say that God cannot be proven to exist
> while they don't even know what God is.
> I have talked sufficiently elsewhere
> about the nature of the blid faith
> cherished by atheists.
> Maybe more later.
>
>
> --
> monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header because trying to
> prove
> the existence of God is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
> ** Atheists have blind faith in their ability to know of all actual or
> possible modes of existence. Such hubris cannot be good for science.
|
