UCTAA churchlight

Site Search via Google

Discussion 7 to Meditation 282
Bunny please die!

by Thomas

To add to this discussion (or any other,) please use the Contact form. This discussion has been continued.

How many bunnies does it take to paint a room?
It depends on how hard you throw them!
(I apologize - bad taste - yet this bunny is not dead yet).
My point is somewhat different than Gabriel’s. But you knew that.

Jorge said,

The key word in my comments was not "pink," but "strawman" in the sense "a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted."

And then Jorge said,

Wwhat can you expect from someone who seems to think incorrectly and illogically that all agnostics are equally agnostic about all gods?

I don’t care if someone is a sensitive Christian zealot, an atheist, or semi-agnostic; etc - so what. The strawman idea - is this - a “stuck-at point” - it is not an argument - it is an analogy.

Being-abstractions themselves are strawmen - they are mere assumptions of being; proof-less. Meditation 299; is not relevant to my point.

Med. 299 On the pink: “It is an illogical argument, and should not be used by those who claim to use reason.”

Contrary to what JT thinks, it is not an argument - it is an analogy. It is a reduction to the absurd; pointing out the absurd.

God arguments = pink space bunny arguments = strawman.

I did not argue that an abstraction of being cannot exist; only that all DETAILS (pink, mythical, non-pink; etc.) are merely hypothetical - utterly unknown; un-verifiable.

Invisible; hypothetical; immaterial; unknown; transcendent; an invisible non-pink supreme-beings; the invisible non-material father in the sky; all of these things are exactly(!) what you say they are hypothetical and immaterial. Believe yourself - the analogy is valid.

Expanding (per. What JT states in Med. 299): contrary to just reshuffling god-labels around; I say, all claims to human god-hood; anthropomorphic projections of being; these are strawmen as well - indefensible; without real arguments for.

The strawman; the pink; it is irrelevant; all of it; the god-abstractions-of-being, mythical god-assumptions; god-myths; etc. - it is all pure conjecture.

The only proof that is offered; in the pink-ness being non-sense; in essence is that: all arguments for god (this being-abstraction) are analogous to strawmen arguments.