Protestantism

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is that the same C.S. Lewis who apparently managed the interesting feat of claiming to be angry at a god he claimed not to believe existed, or another one?

Are you the same Shaker who apparently managed the interesting feat of claiming to be an atheist who is also a naturalistic pantheist or whatever type of pantheist you were?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,
 

There you go again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As opposed to you wanking over the plight of people in repressive regimes by lying.

You crossed over the total shite event horizon a few posts back.

[Nearly Sane]

You crossed over the total shite event horizon a few posts back.

I think you doth protest too much

[Shaker]

Are you the same Shaker who apparently managed the interesting feat of claiming to be an atheist who is also a naturalistic pantheist or whatever type of pantheist you were?

Actually no - I did start a thread on pantheism once for the benefit of anyone interested without, as far as I can recall, taking any particular stance on the position. Be that as it may: if you think there's some sort of contradiction in any of this (clue: there isn't) feel free to spell it out on another thread.

Otherwise, evasion duly noted.

[Nearly Sane]

Actually no - I did start a thread on pantheism once for the benefit of anyone interested without, as far as I can recall, taking any particular stance on the position. Be that as it may: if you think there's some sort of contradiction in any of this (clue: there isn't) feel free to spell it out on another thread.

Otherwise, evasion duly noted.

It was one of my favourite threads and OPs on here. One person spent a lot of effort trying to misrepresent it though

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11616.0

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

There you go again.

Yes. If you think the description is inaccurate, tell us why.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It was one of my favourite threads and OPs on here. One person spent a lot of effort trying to misrepresent it though

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11616.0

As far as I recall no one could counter my charge that naturalistic pantheism was a contradiction in terms and a deliberate one.

However you seem to not have answered my reservations of the word dystheism in the context of Lewis or the implications of Lewis showing that one can be an atheist and feel a grudge against God for not being there......

[Shaker]

As far as I recall no one could counter my charge that naturalistic pantheism was a contradiction in terms and a deliberate one.

Because your 'charge', based as it is on a misunderstanding of naturalism or pantheism (or more likely, given your record, both) was incoherent.

However you seem to not have answered my reservations of the word dystheism in the context of Lewis or the implications of Lewis showing that one can be an atheist and feel a grudge against God for not being there......

That however actually is a contradiction in terms, you know.

[Anchorman]

Continuity, that golden thread which goes all the way back to the Apostles, and by its fruits

Except that much which is 'traditional' has diddly squat to do wirth Scriptures unless you use the 'contortionist' method of interpretation.

[Nearly Sane]

As far as I recall no one could counter my charge that naturalistic pantheism was a contradiction in terms and a deliberate one.

However you seem to not have answered my reservations of the word dystheism in the context of Lewis or the implications of Lewis showing that one can be an atheist and feel a grudge against God for not being there......

You made no coherent charge on the thread.

To object to a god is not atheism, which is precisely why Lewis and you are incoherent on this as well!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They reject the physical world in their worship. It's seen as something inherently bad. That is why their churches are so bare...like their faith.

I kind of get that. But then we do have Communion and the peace which I must admit are the high points for me so I don't recognise out and out Gnosticism.

How would you say orthodox is more physical in worship.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because your 'charge', based as it is on a misunderstanding of naturalism or pantheism (or more likely, given your record, both) was incoherent.
That however actually is a contradiction in terms, you know.

My understanding is written in tablets of Wiki. Your understanding and those of your little wizards comes in as category rogering of an extreme kind.

[ad_orientem]

Except that much which is 'traditional' has diddly squat to do wirth Scriptures unless you use the 'contortionist' method of interpretation.

What? Because without continuity, without that link to the same people from whom we have received the scriptures, it is impossible to interpret the scriptures properly.

[ad_orientem]

I kind of get that. But then we do have Communion and the peace which I must admit are the high points for me so I don't recognise out and out Gnosticism.

How would you say orthodox is more physical in worship.

Use of the senses in its worship but also a recognition that although fallen creation is still essentially good and that it points to it creator. Iconography, orientation, liturgical calendar etc.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

However you seem to not have answered my reservations of the word dystheism in the context of Lewis or the implications of Lewis showing that one can be an atheist and feel a grudge against God for not being there......

Possibly because I had already dismantled those reservations in Reply 191.

[Shaker]

My understanding is written in tablets of Wiki.

Why didn't said tablets furnish you with an accurate understanding of secularism?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You made no coherent charge on the thread.

To object to a god is not atheism, which is precisely why Lewis and you are incoherent on this as well!

Lewis was talking about discovering analysing feelings and facing up to its implications. A review of your position in small part and others in larger part hints at feelings without analysis of them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

My understanding is written in tablets of Wiki.

Except of course that's your misunderstanding. The articles you've attempted from Wiki and from RationalWiki have blown up in your face when you bothered reading them. You'll also find that Wiki has a useful list of logical fallacies, many of which you rely on here. 

Your understanding and those of your little wizards comes in as category rogering of an extreme kind.

Only to someone with a badly disordered mind. You've never understood the term "category error", so you're in no position to make the accusation stick.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why didn't said tablets furnish you with an accurate understanding of secularism?

I dropped one.

[Nearly Sane]

Lewis was talking about discovering analysing feelings and facing up to its implications. A review of your position in small part and others in larger part hints at feelings without analysis of them.

And the implication of getting annoyed at a god is that you are not an atheist. Pity Lewis was so logically incoherent about that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

I dropped one.

On your head?

[floo]

And the implication of getting annoyed at a god is that you are not an atheist. Pity Lewis was so logically incoherent about that.

However much one hopes the Biblical god is just an unpleasant fictional character there is always the remote possibility it is for real. We can't prove beyond all reasonable doubt no god exists, anymore than believers can prove it does.

[Enki]

I don't have any belief in any gods. Consequentially I do not feel anger towards something I do not believe in, never have. I do sometimes, however, have anger towards some of those human beings who seem to me to have damaging values which have a tendency to lead to harmful actions and which they relate to whichever god they happen to believe in.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

What? Because without continuity, without that link to the same people from whom we have received the scriptures, it is impossible to interpret the scriptures properly.

Much as the Kalahari bushmen think in fact – for them too the continuity with their forefathers is vitally important, although at some 20,000 years old their stories have a much longer lineage than those you find to be persuasive.

Use of the senses in its worship but also a recognition that although fallen creation is still essentially good and that it points to it creator. Iconography, orientation, liturgical calendar etc.

Important cultural artefacts all. The Kalahari bushmen rely on cave paintings for the same purpose.