Are atheists analogy impaired?

[jayjay]

I’m sorry, Lib, but the whole argument sounds like so many angels pin-dancing. Is there any reality to these abstract philosophical ramblings or is it all just assumptions and variations? Is there any evidence for a Perfect Being or even a Necessary Being, or is that just an abstraction that no one’s ever seen? Do these things actually exist, or are they just debating points based on a shared assumption? If they only exist in definition, it seems like nothing more than an intellectual parlor game.

If this is the state of philosophy and logic, then it’s no wonder I don’t get it at all.

jayjay

[Liberal]

BTW, if someone reads a thread of yours and disagrees with your basic premise, and tries to point out the basic mistake of your premise, it doesn’t automatically make them a “drive-by” and/or a “jerk”.

You and I have been discussing things lately. You asked that I try to discern a difference between ridicule of an idea and ridicule of a person. I agreed to try.

I now ask that you try to discern the difference between pointing out a basic mistake of a premise and this:

So many words.

So little meaning.

This thread is empty.

I also ask now that this thread be closed. Gaudere settled the question. Thanks.

[MEBuckner]

Moderator’s Note: Closing the thread at the request of the OP.

There is still an active thread for discussions of the ontological arguement for the existence of God (A modern symbological assessment of the ontological argument for the existence of God).