The defeated, the undefeated and the proud (invite only)

[the iconoclast]

My position is also that the dragon is not a deity

Hey hey kylie

So how can you ascribe theistic attributes to a non deity?

Defend your position. This is the 3rd time ive asked the same question

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie

So how can you ascribe theistic attributes to a non deity?

Defend your position. This is the 3rd time ive asked the same question

Cheers

A non-deity could appear to a lowly mortal to be a deity, even if it is not.

Have you ever seen Star Trek? Would you call Q a god?

 

[the iconoclast]

A non-deity could appear to a lowly mortal to be a deity, even if it is not.

Have you ever seen Star Trek? Would you call Q a god?

Hey hey kylie

You are going to use a fictional tv show to prove your point!?!

Not adequate - this is looking bad for you and sets a dangerous precedent for logical reasoning.

Wanna giv it another shot?

Cheers. Still want that 1 point?

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie

You are going to use a fictional tv show to prove your point!?!

Not adequate - this is looking bad for you and sets a dangerous precedent for logical reasoning.

Wanna giv it another shot?

Cheers. Still want that 1 point?

Are you incapable of recognising an example?

In any case, I've answered your question. If you aren't happy with my answer, then try asking me a different question, or phrase this one better.

Or better yet, just accept that I'm not going to jump through the hoops you apparently want. I'm getting sick of your immature games.

 

[the iconoclast]

Are you incapable of recognising an example?

In any case, I've answered your question. If you aren't happy with my answer, then try asking me a different question, or phrase this one better.

Or better yet, just accept that I'm not going to jump through the hoops you apparently want. I'm getting sick of your immature games.

Kylie my dear.

Using a fictional tv show as an example to prove your point is a disaster.

Im geting sick of your poor reasoning ability. You know the question i want answered and you are charged with a logical fallacy ie a category error. You ascribed theistic attributes to a non deity and chose star trek as burden of proof.

I gave you a chance to try and win back the point. Disagreement is not victory but the inability to defend your position is.

You lose!

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

Using a fictional tv show as an example to prove your point is a disaster.

Why? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of an analogy?

analogy - Google Search

Im geting sick of your poor reasoning ability. You know the question i want answered and you are charged with a logical fallacy ie a category error. You ascribed theistic attributes to a non deity and chose star trek as burden of proof.

And I've answered it. You're just getting peeved that I'm disagreeing with you, and I'm only doing that because I'm not making the error you say I am.

I gave you a chance to try and win back the point. Disagreement is not victory but the inability to defend your position is.

And I have defended it. I've explained WHY I'm not making the error, and you're having a hissy fit about it.

 

[the iconoclast]

Why? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of an analogy?

analogy - Google Search



And I've answered it. You're just getting peeved that I'm disagreeing with you, and I'm only doing that because I'm not making the error you say I am.



And I have defended it. I've explained WHY I'm not making the error, and you're having a hissy fit about it.

Hey hey

You are the one having a hissy fit my dear. Im cool as a cucumber.

And no you have not addressed this category error besides a desperate attempt with star trek.

Ill give you another shot, this question is not going away and until you address it, stands firm!

How can you ascribe theistic attributes to a non deity?

Cheers.

 

[the iconoclast]

Why? Are you unfamiliar with the concept of an analogy?

analogy - Google Search



And I've answered it. You're just getting peeved that I'm disagreeing with you, and I'm only doing that because I'm not making the error you say I am.



And I have defended it. I've explained WHY I'm not making the error, and you're having a hissy fit about it.

Ps is it an analogy or a posit. An analogy suggests that you indeed made up this dragon and ascribed theistic attributes to it. This new info really does not help you, it voids your argument completely

 

[Kylie]

You are the one having a hissy fit my dear. Im cool as a cucumber.

And yet you keep crying that I have committed an error when I';ve explained to you I haven't.

And no you have not addressed this category error besides a desperate attempt with star trek.

If you had been paying attention, you would have seen that:

I was not using the analogy as part of my explanation why I had not committed an error.
The analogy was to show that a non-God could appear to be God-like, which answers your question asked in post 69.

Ill give you another shot, this question is not going away and until you address it, stands firm!

Your inability or refusal to understand my answer does not mean I haven't provided you with one.

How can you ascribe theistic attributes to a non deity?

Stop changing the goalposts.

You originally asked if I could ascribe theistic attributes to a non deity, and I answered yes, a non-god could have qualities that would appear god-like. I spelled this out very clearly in post 71.

Now you are asking HOW I could ascribe theistic attributes to a non deity. You have changed the question, but not to worry, because I have explained how I could ascribe theistic attributes to a non deity. Namely, by pointing out that a non-god could have qualities that would appear god-like.

You will now, I feel certain, complain once again that I haven't answered your question, and I will conclude that you are just trolling because I'm not jumping through the hoops you want me to.

 

[the iconoclast]

And yet you keep crying that I have committed an error when I';ve explained to you I haven't.

Hey hey kylie

Explain it to me without using star trek!

You tried to posit a dragon with theistic attributes. I caught you out!

Cheers

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie

Explain it to me without using star trek. Im waiting for you to defend your position, show me how you have not commited a fallacy.

I thought it is quite easy to understand.

Imagine an entity that can do things that we commonly associate with a God. Creating things from nothing, etc. A super advanced alien, for example. How would you tell the difference between a super advanced alien and an actual God?

If it is an analogy then what does this below statement have to do with your analogy?

Kylie - "The Dragon has stated that it is not a God and does not want to be treated as such"

Because, like the super advanced aliens, the Dragon is not a God, even though it has abilities that some would consider to be the abilities of a God.

So you have made the whole thing up. Proving you made up the dragon was the centre piece of my argument.

You really shot yourself in the foot!!!

Cheers

No I haven't. You're just refusing to actually look past your own preconceptions. You're wasting my time.

I've answered your questions. If you don't like the answers, too bad. But I'm done wasting my time with you.

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey hey @Kylie

You tried to posit a non deity with theistic attributes. I caught you out!

We are done wth the dragon but we have more topics to go over.

If we dont continue the rest of oir discussion here, it will be done somewhere else

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

like the super advanced aliens

Hey hey kylie

Do you believe in aliens?

 

[the iconoclast]

How would you tell the difference between a super advanced alien and an actual God?

Hey hey kylie

Shall we discuss this next or one of the other topics?

 

[Ophiolite]

You were not invited to this party however you do seem very interested in this thread. What do you want hun?

Well, you don't actually have the authority to exclude anyone. You are relying on people's good nature to stay out. (My good nature perished with the Brexit vote.) I view any opportunity for a one liner as an invitation that supersedes and overrules the OP.

Also, I'm not a Hun, but a mix of Celt, Anglo-Saxon, Huguenot, Norman and Pict.

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie

Do you believe in aliens?

I think it's probably that there is life that did not originate on Earth somewhere in the universe. Probably simple life, but I wouldn't be surprised to find more advanced life.

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey @Kylie

You tried to posit a non deity with theistic attributes. I caught you out!

No I didn't.

You've just decided that your conclusion is the only possible explanation, but it's not.

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie

Shall we discuss this next or one of the other topics?

By all means, answer the question.

 

[the iconoclast]

No I didn't.


You've just decided that your conclusion is the only possible explanation, but it's not.

Hey hey kylie

Kylie my dear - and please excuse my bluntness - i caught you out! Dont forget i record all our discussions and i have a good memory.

I have posts from you dated back to jul 2018. It is very easy to go back and find out what you said. Lets examine your posts, they should be consistent.

Kylie - "I can prove to you that I have a dragon in my backyard. All you have to do is decide that I am telling the truth, and then you will be completely convinced and will know for a fact that I have a dragon in my backyard."

That was a posit - put forward as fact or as a basis for argument.

Kylie - "Does that sound like a good argument to you? No?"

Kylie - "Then why are you using the same basic argument to get me to believe in God."

Now you bring in the comparison. You did not make an analogy to start with.

An analogy would be "Just as a Sword is the Weapon of a Warrior, a Pen is the Weapon of a Writer"

An analogy compares two completely different things and look for similarities between two things or concepts and it only focuses on that angle.

You made a posit and a comparison without making an analogous statement.

You suggested you could posit a dragon with similar qualites to a deity - also attributed was an element of christian faith - and it would be no different to a belief in the God of Abraham.

These are your words are they not?

You said, "To get the proof we must follow the christian method ie open your heart to Jesus, confess your sins and acknowledge that He is your saviour. For this to work you must have complete trust that Jesus is who He says He is and you must humble your self.

Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of God and He can be known through the Holy Spirit."

This is no different to me saying, "To get the proof that there is a dragon in my backyard, we must follow the Dragon method ie open your heart to the dragon, confess your sins of doubting the Dragon and acknowledge that the Dragon is your saviour. For this to work you must have complete trust that the Dragon is who He says He is and you must humble your self. Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of the Dragon and He can be known through the Dragon Spirit."



My dear you started this out as a comparison between a belief in the Christian God and a belief in this dragon deity.

C. Scott Littleton defines a deity as "a being with powers greater than those of ordinary humans, but who interacts with humans, positively or negatively, in ways that carry humans to new levels of consciousness,beyond the grounded preoccupations of ordinary life"

Your dragon fits the defintion of a deity and that was the point you were making.

I investiagted this dragon by asking you many relevent questions.

It was pretty easy to figure out that you were making it up as you are an atheist. So no matter what, i had you!

You did not really believe in this dragon and you are the only source for said dragon. I deduced from your actions on cf that this dragon is not consistent with your beliefs.

If it was, you would be preaching this dragon and not atheist faith.

You figured out that it was not a good idea to keep this dragon as a deity and stay true to your original comparison.

Lets re cap.

Icon - "So this dragon has power over nature or human fortunes, this dragon is a deity?"

Kylie - "If you want to use that term, go ahead.

Kylie - "The dragon is what allows life and the universe itself to exist."

Kylie - "The One True Dragon has no need for a human style name."

Icon - "You said this dragon has power over nature or human fortunes and blesses - a blessing is God's or a gods favour and protection."

This dragon is a god to you."

Kylie - "You are the one who decided that the Dragon should be called a God, not me. Don't demand that I explain the conclusions you jump to."



The dragon being a deity was a no win for you. You set too many parameters and used specific words like blessings, and universe.

When you decided that this dragon was definitively not a deity, thats when you changed tune and moved away from your original intention.

You made the category error once you changed your dragon to a non deity with Godly attributes (.eg Properties ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.)

Your dragon is invisible, intangible, the reason for life itself & the universe, lives in your backyard, can only communicate with you, rewards faith with blessings, does not conform to traditional sources, has a temper and has only been documented by one person.

The Godly/Christian attributes you tried to attribute were blessings, faith, acknowledment as my saviour, the Dragon spirit - faux Holy Spirit - and the reason for the universe.

Kylie - "To get the proof that there is a dragon in my backyard, we must follow the Dragon method ie open your heart to the dragon, confess your sins of doubting the Dragon and acknowledge that the Dragon is your saviour."

Kylie - "For this to work you must have complete trust that the Dragon is who He says He is and you must humble your self. Once we have 100% faith then we get a result. You will feel the presence of the Dragon and He can be known through the Dragon Spirit."

These statements seem to conflict with your statements below.

Kylie - "You are the one who decided that the Dragon should be called a God, not me."

You made it the crux of your argument.to attribute these attributes.

Kylie - "If you want to use that term, go ahead.

You did not disagree with the terminology and did not discourage it.

Your argument is at best confused and you are not consistent ie first it was a comparison between a belief in a dragon deity and God, now this dragon could be an alien - this is distraction.

Your inconsistency shows the dragon is infact made up. You cannot posit such a thing with these attributes (deity or not), it is a unrealistic comparison and cannot achieve your intended purpose (.eg that you can prove to me that you have a dragon in your backyard by attributing theistic attributes and utilizing the Christian faith formula.)

Its not the end of the world kylie. You made an erroneous comparison and utilized a category error. You also tried to change the nature of this dragon when things did not go your way.

Do you understand what an analogy is?

I do.

I used a fictional TV show to illustrate a concept which you seem to be incapable of understanding.

Kylie - "Have you ever seen Star Trek? Would you call Q a god?"

What you are asking of me is to consider the fanciful imagination of fiction writer maurice hurley - the writer of star trek for q - when we consider your dragon and why it has theistic attributes.

Something can appear God-like without actually being a god. Like the Dragon. But if that's too complicated an idea for you, we can drop it.

Its not too intricate or consists of many interconnecting parts or elements - that make it too hard to understand.

You want me to consider a fictional character in a sci-fi/fantasy tv show as evidence for your fictional character.

By all means, answer the question.

Kylie - "How would you tell the difference between a super advanced alien and an actual God?"

I could do research on their appearances and their abilities. I guess close encounters from eye witnesses would be a good start when we consider alien appearances.

The greys are a common reported close encounter.

Grey-skinned humanoids, usually 3–4 feet tall, bald, with black almond-shaped eyes, nostrils without a nose, slits for mouths, no ears and 3-4 fingers including thumb.

With gods all we have is tradition.

Vishnu has either dark blue, blue-gray or black colored skin, and as a well dressed jeweled man. He is typically shown with four arms.

Most of the time, Zeus is depicted as a grown man with a beard and longer curly hair, holding a scepter or thunderbolt and is sometimes accompanied with an eagle, his sacred animal.

Anways the post below is where we should go. Hehe that rhymes!!

think it's probably that there is life that did not originate on Earth somewhere in the universe. Probably simple life, but I wouldn't be surprised to find more advanced life.

Its always fascinated me how some atheists are more receptive to aliens than God based on probability.

Why is the existance, of the God of Abraham, less probable than the existence of life outside earth?

Are you familiar with the Fermi paradox? Please consider Gods Word given to us - the Bible - and the first coming of Jesus in your answer.

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

You are relying on people's good nature to stay out.

Hey hey

Actually i was going to see who replied and then to decide on their status based on how i felt at that moment.

This thread was originally conceived as a home base for kylie and i to have discussions. I came up with this idea when Subzone had a peak.

(My good nature perished with the Brexit vote.)

The people failed, we must elect a new people!

Ps im not from the uk or eu so i have no opinion on brexit as it does not effect me.

I view any opportunity for a one liner as an invitation that supersedes and overrules the OP.

Fair enough.

Also, I'm not a Hun, but a mix of Celt, Anglo-Saxon, Huguenot, Norman and Pict.

Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Well, you don't actually have the authority to exclude anyone.

You are correct, i cannot deny you access to this thread. Please excuse me friend, its more that I did not request anything from you, hence no invitation.

I havent seen you around b4 and i am pleased to meet you my new friend.

Maybe we could have a discussion at a later date?

Cheers