Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

Careful you don't pull a muscle while you pat yourself on the back, ippy.

I'll take it you're an atrekiest then, N S.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Ah yes, people who are being smug and self congratulatory always admit it. We've just had a litlle run of you, bhs, and BeRational all noting how stupid people you are disagreeing with because they are not 'thinking people'.

Where did I do that please?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Just to note that will I think AB, Vlad, and SotS may have issues with their arguments, I haven't seen them do the prove the Bible with the Bible schtick

AB is given to, "the Bible says, therefore..." type statements. I agree that Vlad and Sword don't though.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Where did I do that please?

SD used the phrase. And it was her I picked up on. You began it with one of your bewaiings of the failings of others.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

AB is given to, "the Bible says, therefore..." type statements. I agree that Vlad and Sword don't though.

The vast majority of AB's postings neither mention nor quote the Bible

[Nearly Sane]

I'll take it you're an atrekiest then, N S.

ippy

live long and prosper, ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

SD used the phrase. And it was her I picked up on. You began it with one of your bewaiings of the failings of others.

You accused me of "noting how stupid people you are disagreeing with because they are not 'thinking people'."

I merely asked where I'd done that because, so far as i recall, I haven't. If you can't produce an example, so be it.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

You accused me of "noting how stupid people you are disagreeing with because they are not 'thinking people'."

I merely asked where I'd done that because, so far as i recall, I haven't. If you can't produce an example, so be it.

I have explained what I said. I note you ignored that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

The vast majority of AB's postings neither mention nor quote the Bible

Yes I know, but that's not what you said. What you said was: "...I haven't seen them do the prove the Bible with the Bible schtick".

Either you haven't been reading his posts or you've forgotten them. He has done it (quite recently in fact), and no-one suggested that he does it in anything other than the minority of his postings.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes I know, but that's not what you said. What you said was: "...I haven't seen them do the prove the Bible with the Bible schtick".

Either you haven't been reading his posts or you've forgotten them. He has done it (quite recently in fact), and no-one suggested that he does it in anything other than the minority of his postings.

So there is no chance that I might have read nearly all of his posts but not seen one which you admit is rare? I suggest that is possible and you created a false dichotomy above.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I have explained what I said. I note you ignored that.

The explanation was also was untrue.

First, your accusation specifically was of "noting how stupid people you are disagreeing with because they are not 'thinking people'."

I have done no such thing - neither the "stupid" bit nor the "not thinking people" bit.

Second, even if your resile from "noting how stupid" people are to "bewailings of the failings of others" that doesn't help you either because what I actually did was to refer specifically to the abuse of logic, not to the "failings" or "stupidity" of the people who do it. The arguments attempted stand or fall on their merits - the character or motivation of the people making them is not something I commented on.

[Robbie]

[quote floo]
You certainly can't prove the Bible using the Bible, I wish those that try to do so would realise that. Just because something is in that book doesn't necessarily make it true.
[/quote]

Don't get that much now floo except Christians amongst themselves.
"You can't prove the Bible with the Bible" is a phrase often used by Christians.
...

Just to note that will I think AB, Vlad, and SotS may have issues with their arguments, I haven't seen them do the prove the Bible with the Bible schtick

Don't think I've seen it either, not much on here at all. Daresay it will happen now I've said that.
Just read Blue's post so someone did, it must have slipped out.
Later - Found something on page 22 if anyone is interested (doubt they are): Reply #543 on: June 07, 2015, 01:35:39 PM
-----

We're all thinking people, if we weren't we wouldn't bother with a forum like this surely? We don't all think the same, that's for sure. How boring it would be if we did.

Looking at the earlier pages of this thread it is amazing how often the same thing is said. Does anyone ever decide that a thread has run its course? Just a thought.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So there is no chance that I might have read nearly all of his posts but not seen one which you admit is rare? I suggest that is possible and you created a false dichotomy above.

Are you having a bad day or something? I didn't say it was "rare" (in fact I didn't mention frequency at all – frequency was a red herring you introduced after telling us that you hadn't seen him do it), and it would be surprising if you'd never seen it given how assiduously you seem to see everything else. Even if you have missed it though, I merely pointed out that he does do it. Nothing more, nothing less.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Are you having a bad day or something? I didn't say it was "rare" (in fact I didn't mention frequency at all – frequency was a red herring you introduced after telling us that you hadn't seen him do it), and it would be surprising if you'd never seen it given how assiduously you seem to see everything else. Even if you have missed it though, I merely pointed out that he does do it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ah a veiled attempt at saying I must be lying by use of the 'assiduously'. Not having a bad day at all. Just bored by the circle jerk of people thinking how clever they are. You created  a dichotomy, you didn't merely point out that he did it. You really need to be more honest with yourself.

[SusanDoris]

NS,

Are you having a bad day or something[

Certainly sounds a bit like it. I was intending to post in a minute but think I'll come in here.
It was obviously a bad idea to use the phrase 'thinking people'. I wrongly assumed that it would be fairly obvious that I meant people who are not totally trapped in a religious belief. Too late to go back and change it now I suppose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Here's AB only recently in this thread (Reply 17110):

Well, the bible says we are made in God's image, so I conclude that...

And here's your reply to him (Reply 17112)

none of which gets you any closer to a logically coherent definition of free here. So more meaningless posting from you.

[BeRational]

Ah a veiled attempt at saying I must be lying by use of the 'assiduously'. Not having a bad day at all. Just bored by the circle jerk of people thinking how clever they are. You created  a dichotomy, you didn't merely point out that he did it. You really need to be more honest with yourself.

I never said it either!

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Ah a veiled attempt at saying I must be lying by use of the 'assiduously'. Not having a bad day at all. Just bored by the circle jerk of people thinking how clever they are. You created  a dichotomy, you didn't merely point out that he did it. You really need to be more honest with yourself.

There was no "veiled" anything, and I'd have thought the dissembling from "I haven't seen him do it" to "OK, but he doesn't do it in the majority of cases" (which no-one had claimed) is the only honesty issue that needs addressing here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

I never said it either!

I know. Vlad and Nearly - separated at birth? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Smug, and self-congratulatory? That is definitely not me. I am referring to the people, including me, who try to engage them in argument

When was this? You strike me as being a mere cheerleader.

Having said that..... give me the logical steps to atheism...I'm all ears.

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm all ears.

Dumbo?

[floo]

When was this? You strike me as being a mere cheerleader.

Having said that..... give me the logical steps to atheism...I'm all ears.

As there is no evidence any god exists; it is a logical step towards unbelief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Having said that..... give me the logical steps to atheism...I'm all ears.

As you've been given those logical steps countless times, there probably isn't much point in doing it again. Tell you what though, I'll give you a step-by-step guide so in future you can work it out for yourself:

Step 1: Look up in any reputable dictionary the term "atheism".

Step 2. Remember the answer to Step 1, and promise yourself not to lie about that again.

Step 3: Write down the logical steps that validate your a-leprechaunism.

Step 4: In the document you've created, when the word "leprechaun" appears replace it with "God".

Step 5: Whenever you have a rush of blood to the head and think you've found a cogent argument for "God", apply to it Step 4 in reverse. If it works just as well for leprechauns, it's probably a bad argument.

Step 6: Give yourself a pat on the back for finally getting it, and maybe ease off a little now on the Richard Dawkins man crush.

You're welcome!

[SusanDoris]

bluehillside #17,299

I'm going to shut the computer down now - Vlad might reply and that would mean I'd have to turn off with  one of his posts as the last one to read today!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Susan,

I'm going to shut the computer down now - Vlad might reply and that would mean I'd have to turn off with  one of his posts as the last one to read today!

Yep, probably a good idea. His usual response is either abuse, a straw man, or some guff about the different characteristics claimed for each conjecture as if that in some unspecified way could be retro-fitted to make a bad argument into a good one.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure I can face more of that either!