God's purpose

JayUtah said:
Begging the question. You may have chosen to interpret it that way, but you're the only one -- including the OP. The rest of us have considered it at a much broader scope that includes interpretations from both believers and nonbelievers.



Begging the question. In fact, every poster in this thread except for you agrees that it is not pointless, and in fact raised several interesting points. Since you are clearly the odd man out, that motivated my invitation for you to withdraw. You're clearly not in your comfortable element, whereas most of the rest of us seem to be.



Asked and answered. The discussion certainly changes depending upon whether we presume a god exists or not. But it doesn't simply go away or become invalid. As I belabored last night, if we assume arguendo that there is no god then we have to understand why so many people are willing to attribute to that idea -- specifically the Abrahamic god -- a purpose. And the question then involves socio-political concerns. People use their belief in the Abrahamic god, and their disparate attributions of his purpose, to enact their own agendas. And by the attribution to an arbitrary divine will, they place the rationale for that agenda beyond the scope of logical examination. It is not in the least off-topic to conclude that God's purpose is whatever his followers whimsically decide it is.

You may have noticed that the OP specifically endorsed my answer.



I would characterize you more as a bully. Please stop trying to be in charge. If you feel this discussion is pointless, then find another thread, or ignore the posts that don't interest you. Please don't keep asking people to agree with you that it's pointless when they clearly don't think so.
Click to expand...

That was magical! The part I liked best was when you took out the "atheists atheists" part of my post which, "coincidentally," destroyed your whole premise!

Shockingly, that beat the part of the post where you called me a bully while ordering me out of the thread! Fantastic!

God's purpose for us is to love and to be loved.

And I loved your post!
 
16.5 said:
That was magical! The part I liked best was when you took out the "atheists atheists" part of my post which, "coincidentally," destroyed your whole premise!

Shockingly, that beat the part of the post where you called me a bully while ordering me out of the thread! Fantastic!

God's purpose for us is to love and to be loved.
And I loved your post!
Click to expand...

where did you get this from?
 
16.5 said:
The part I liked best was when you took out the "atheists atheists" part of my post which, "coincidentally," destroyed your whole premise!
Click to expand...

Please explain how I can take something out of a post you made.

As to what my argument is, and its premises, I'll be the judge of that. Since you didn't address any of my argument, except to declare it somehow moot by dereliction of quotation, I'll assume you have no real rejoinder.

Very well, let's look at the part you say I "took out." You say you endeavor to make this thread more accessible to a wide variety of people. Tell me how that's to be accomplished by squelching the opinions of people who don't believe as you do. I did you the courtesy of showing how we have heretofore discussed the topic of the thread without having to insist on the premise that God exists, one way or the other. You say you fear the thread would devolve into another "Existence of God" thread. But it hasn't. And even if it did, that would be a subject for the moderators to deal with -- not you.

Shockingly, that beat the part of the post where you called me a bully while ordering me out of the thread! Fantastic!
Click to expand...

I can no more order you to leave than you can order me or the rest of us to obey your terms, so it's silly to pretend that's what I was doing. You seemed unaware that withdrawing from a debate you found pointless was an option. I simply reminded you. If you find the debate pointless, leave it alone and let the rest of us enjoy it. You keep asking us to agree with you that it's pointless. We don't, so stop asking.

And I loved your post!
Click to expand...

What a peculiar way of evading my argument.
 
16.5 said:
Ranting? Oh dear....

Let me make this simple as I can, because again (like last night) you appear unwilling to accurately address my point.

It would appear that the simplest understanding of the thread topic is this: assuming there is a God, what is God's purpose. It would seem to be indeed pointless to come in and declare that there is no God, now wouldn't it?

Because then the thread would be "Is there a God." Heck, we've done that a million times! I endeavor to make this thread meaningful, one which all can participate: atheists, atheists, atheists, atheists, atheists, and non-atheists. Or ya know, just have people come in and declare in various and sundry ways: I don't believe in God. Super.

I guess I just am an optimist, oh well... sorry for the "rant."
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
Begging the question. You may have chosen to interpret it that way, but you're the only one -- including the OP. The rest of us have considered it at a much broader scope that includes interpretations from both believers and nonbelievers.
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
Please explain how I can take something out of a post you made.
Click to expand...

well you can delete part of it. Protip: I hilited the part you took out.
 
Last edited:
Nay_Sayer said:
Feel free to use my anti kook bunker, It has a billards table, Some good books and an 60' Screen with Ghostbusters on demand.
Click to expand...

K7jr70vSI7ayk.gif
 
16.5 said:
well you can delete part of it. Protip: I hilited the part you took out.
Click to expand...

I believe that Utah was stating that he could not take anything out of your original post, which is of course archived in the thread. Utah quoted and responded to very specific potions of your original post but never gave the impression that he was reproducing your entire post.

Not surprisingly, I do not really understand how what he did not comment on is in any way crucial for interpreting the portions that he did comment on. In fact, I think that the statements in your post that he failed to cite were pointless when compared to the actual posts you have provided in this thread. Focusing on this omission therefore appears to almost be a... distraction.
 
16.5 said:
well you can delete part of it. Protip: I hilited the part you took out.
Click to expand...

I can't delete any part of your posts. Look, there they are right where you left the for all to see. I can, however, be the judge of what my argument is, what its premises are, and how much I think you're ignoring it.

For all your stomping and whining about selective quotation, you didn't answer the question I posed relating to the passage in question. How do you propose to make this thread more accessible for everyone on both sides of the theist question if you declare "pointless" arguments premised on the non-existence of God. How does that open things up? How does that include both sides?

And regardless of how you answer, what's the problem with you simply ignoring the parts you think are pointless and letting everyone else discuss as they see fit? Stay or go, I don't care. But please accustom yourself to the idea that if you stay, you're not in charge.
 
Giordano said:
I believe that Utah was stating that he could not take anything out of your original post, which is of course archived in the thread. Utah quoted and responded to very specific potions of your original post but never gave the impression that he was reproducing your entire post.

Not surprisingly, I do not really understand how what he did not comment on is in any way crucial for interpreting the portions that he did comment on. In fact, I think that the statements in your post that he failed to cite were pointless when compared to the actual posts you have provided in this thread. Focusing on this omission therefore appears to almost be a... distraction.
Click to expand...

'k. Lets go to the tape! Here is what I wrote:

I endeavor to make this thread meaningful, one which all can participate: atheists, atheists, atheists, atheists, atheists, and non-atheists.
Here is the key part of the reply:

Begging the question. You may have chosen to interpret it that way, but you're the only one -- including the OP. The rest of us have considered it at a much broader scope that includes interpretations from both believers and nonbelievers.
Say what I wrote looks very much what Jay wrote.

Magic
 
16.5 said:
'k. Lets go to the tape! Here is what I wrote:

I endeavor to make this thread meaningful, one which all can participate: atheists, atheists, atheists, atheists, atheists, and non-atheists.
Here is the key part of the reply:

Begging the question. You may have chosen to interpret it that way, but you're the only one -- including the OP. The rest of us have considered it at a much broader scope that includes interpretations from both believers and nonbelievers.
Say what I wrote looks very much what Jay wrote.

Magic
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it have been much more meaningful if we had been talking about the topic instead of you for the past three pages?

Eta this thread be like:

3o6Mb6ckrCZgt5CaIM.gif
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
'Say what I wrote looks very much what Jay wrote.

Magic
Click to expand...

Indeed, you magically rearranged the context to make it seem as if we were addressing the same point.

Your statement, which came much later in the post, was merely a naked claim to which, despite my asking twice, you have still attached no examples, details, or rationale. My prior statement, which you seem to find so derivative, was instead a rejection of the proviso you tried to wedge into the OP at the very top of the post.

By all means keep trumping up imaginary sins to pin on your critics. It makes your position seem so much more noble. Please tell the rest of the world how this is less pointless than whether atheists can discuss the attribution of purpose to God.
 
RogueKitten said:
Wouldn't it have been much more meaningful if we had been talking about the topic instead of you for the past three pages?
Click to expand...

Indeed. I would very much like to explore the notion of whether we can explain the differences in attributed divine purposes among the Abrahamic religions to social, psychological, or other similar factors. Is it part of what attracts people to certain brands of religion over others? Conversely, does one's belief in one's relationship to God spill over into cultural and social behavior?
 
16.5 said:
Ranting? Oh dear....

Let me make this simple as I can, because again (like last night) you appear unwilling to accurately address my point.

It would appear that the simplest understanding of the thread topic is this: assuming there is a God, what is God's purpose. It would seem to be indeed pointless to come in and declare that there is no God, now wouldn't it?

Because then the thread would be "Is there a God." Heck, we've done that a million times! I endeavor to make this thread meaningful, one which all can participate: atheists, atheists, atheists, atheists, atheists, and non-atheists.

Or ya know, just have people come in and declare in various and sundry ways: I don't believe in God. Super.

I guess I just am an optimist, oh well... sorry for the "rant."
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
Begging the question. You may have chosen to interpret it that way, but you're the only one -- including the OP. The rest of us have considered it at a much broader scope that includes interpretations from both believers and nonbelievers.



Begging the question. In fact, every poster in this thread except for you agrees that it is not pointless, and in fact raised several interesting points. Since you are clearly the odd man out, that motivated my invitation for you to withdraw. You're clearly not in your comfortable element, whereas most of the rest of us seem to be.



Asked and answered. The discussion certainly changes depending upon whether we presume a god exists or not. But it doesn't simply go away or become invalid. As I belabored last night, if we assume arguendo that there is no god then we have to understand why so many people are willing to attribute to that idea -- specifically the Abrahamic god -- a purpose. And the question then involves socio-political concerns. People use their belief in the Abrahamic god, and their disparate attributions of his purpose, to enact their own agendas. And by the attribution to an arbitrary divine will, they place the rationale for that agenda beyond the scope of logical examination. It is not in the least off-topic to conclude that God's purpose is whatever his followers whimsically decide it is.

You may have noticed that the OP specifically endorsed my answer.



I would characterize you more as a bully. Please stop trying to be in charge. If you feel this discussion is pointless, then find another thread, or ignore the posts that don't interest you. Please don't keep asking people to agree with you that it's pointless when they clearly don't think so.
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
Indeed, you magically rearranged the context to make it seem as if we were addressing the same point.

Your statement, which came much later in the post, was merely a naked claim to which, despite my asking twice, you have still attached no examples, details, or rationale. My prior statement, which you seem to find so derivative, was instead a rejection of the proviso you tried to wedge into the OP at the very top of the post.

By all means keep trumping up imaginary sins to pin on your critics. It makes your position seem so much more noble. Please tell the rest of the world how this is less pointless than whether atheists can discuss the attribution of purpose to God.
Click to expand...

BWHAHAHA!!!

"Context" cheerfully provided.

What is a little "selective quotation" between friends, huh?
 
RogueKitten said:
Wouldn't it have been much more meaningful if we had been talking about the topic instead of you for the past three pages?

Eta this thread be like:

[qimg]http://i.giphy.com/3o6Mb6ckrCZgt5CaIM.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

That is what I said! Remember when I asked whether this thread was "16.5's Purpose"? Sure you do.

That was before we had adventures in "selective quotation."
 
JayUtah said:
Except that you didn't address the explanation disputing your insinuation of one statement being a derivative of the other ... in some allegedly nefarious way.
Click to expand...

That is because I didn't! I said you "selectively quoted" the ever-loving **** out of my post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom