God is the Original Personal Archetype

[KLOBBER]

INTRODUCTION:

Because the atheist proved himself to be incapable of apprehending the 8 points in the previous thread, I have simplified it for him, and presented a similar set of facts, this time distilled into 2 points.

As an unbiased party, I am faced with the following two contradictory world-views:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Theists understand that God is the Original Archetype, or source, for all observable phenomena, He is infinitely complete with eternal life of His own, and He possesses both personal and impersonal characteristics, as well as love, eternally. This is a logically sound account for life, for love, and for both personal and impersonal observable phenomena.

2. The atheist believes that God is not the original personal archetype. Instead, the atheist attributes this role, using varying semantic constructs, to "the universe." Unfortunately, the universe that the atheist claims supposedly gave rise to life, love, and personal characteristics was, according to the atheist, supposedly devoid of all these phenomena at some unspecified time that he theorizes is prior to the hypothetical advent of such phenomena. The atheist's claim is logically unsound when it comes to accounting for clearly observable life, clearly observable love, and clearly observable personal phenomena.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:

Therefore, the Theists' world-view is logically superior to that of the atheist, and any truly unbiased and logically savvy party must necessarily accept this fact. Lack of scriptural or logical refutation shows acceptance by any and all who post in this thread.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Bravo chap, I agree

[KLOBBER]

...Bravo chap, I agree

The facts do not require your agreement, but thanks anyway.

[SultanOfSurreal]

...Bravo chap, I agree

The facts do not require your agreement, but thanks anyway.

this tactic really doesn't work so well when the portion of the post you're cutting out is a giant picture

you may want to look into some new techniques

[KLOBBER]

The picture you posted was completely irrelevant to all my posts, and I replaced it with one highly relevant to yours.

[SultanOfSurreal]

The picture you posted was completely irrelevant to all my posts, and I replaced it with one highly relevant to yours.

wow that's great

hey do you like fishsticks

[KLOBBER]

All the atheist can come up with is nonsense troll posts, and he is incapable of presenting any logical or scriptural refutations in regards to any of the facts that I've stated.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Do you like bananas?

they are quite delicious if i do say so myself

but please, let's keep this on topic. how do you feel about fishsticks

[KLOBBER]

Bananas? Fishsticks?

You have truly gone off the deep end.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Bananas? Fishsticks?

You have truly gone off the deep end.

you're the one who asked about bananas

still waiting on the answer to my question btw

[KLOBBER]

Stop trying to derail this thread; it really only shows that you're incapable of any valid refutation.

[Woodruff]

Stop trying to derail this thread; it really only shows that you're incapable of any valid refutation.

How ironic, coming from you.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Stop trying to derail this thread; it really only shows that you're incapable of any valid refutation.

i just want to know your position on fishsticks, same as you wanted to know mine on bananas

[Hologram]

Or perhaps just that your logic is absolutely terrible.

Love can easily be seen as a survival mechanism for the carrying on of a species. To say that love can't be created by an impersonal archetype is absolute hogwash.

So, to carry on with your nonsense drivel, I really want to know your feelings about fishsticks as well.

[KLOBBER]

Love can easily be seen as a survival mechanism for the carrying on of a species.

You hopeless romantic, you! The ladies must love that crap.

To say that love can't be created by an impersonal archetype is absolute hogwash.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't, but in any case it is what you said, not what I said. My original post does not contain any reference to the concept of "creation." You are a creationist.

[SultanOfSurreal]

whinge whinge whinge

look are you gonna tell me your position re: fishsticks or am i gonna have to hire long john silver and the gordon fisherman to gang rape it out of you

[Snorri1234]

Love can easily be seen as a survival mechanism for the carrying on of a species.

You hopeless romantic, you! The ladies must love that crap.

Oh hell yeah they do. Ladies fucking cream their panties when I say that love is just an evolutionary mechanism to encourage the survival of the species.

Seriously, they go wild.

[b.k. barunt]

Seems the atheists are afraid of the premise of this thread. Who would've thought?


Honibaz

[SultanOfSurreal]

Seems the atheists are afraid of the premise of this thread. Who would've thought?


Honibaz

more like thoroughly unimpressed

say, how do YOU feel about fishsticks

[KLOBBER]

Honibaz, it is too direct and honest for the atheist's hopelessly frazzled and dishonest mind to handle.

[Snorri1234]

Seems the atheists are afraid of the premise of this thread. Who would've thought?


Honibaz

more like thoroughly unimpressed

Word.

Besides

2. The atheist claims that "the universe," in its totality, is the archetype, or source, for all observable phenomena. Unfortunately, the universe that the atheist claims supposedly gave rise to life, love, and personal characteristics was supposedly devoid of all these phenomena at some unspecified time that he theorizes is prior to the hypothetical advent of such phenomena. The atheist's claim is logically unsound when it comes to accounting for clearly observable life, clearly observable love, and clearly observable personal phenomena.

Is just hilariously incorrect.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Honibaz, it is too direct and honest for the atheist's hopelessly frazzled and dishonest mind to handle.

oooooh discredited pseudophilosophy from 450 years ago

spooky

[KLOBBER]

...2. The atheist claims .... Is just hilariously incorrect.

Yes, what the atheist claims is indeed hilariously incorrect. That was my point.

[KLOBBER]

Honibaz, it is too direct and honest for the atheist's hopelessly frazzled and dishonest mind to handle.

oooooh discredited pseudophilosophy from 450 years ago...

It has not been discredited, it is not "pseudophilosophy," and it is from earlier today.

Still no scriptural or logical attempts at refutation: acceptance is implied.

[Snorri1234]

2. The atheist claims ....

Is just hilariously incorrect.

Yes, what the atheist claims is indeed hilariously incorrect. That was my point.[/quote]
That's because you didn't actually put the atheist worldview in there.

If you weren't so intelectually dishonest we could perhaps discuss this.