Author Topic: Searching for GOD...  (Read 3878321 times)

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64321
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21275 on: August 10, 2017, 02:23:19 PM »
If you don't wish to face the facts direct from respected philosopher you continue to try to laugh it off.

Regards ippy

Don't think thought experiments count as facts.

The Accountant, OBE, KC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8989
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21276 on: August 10, 2017, 02:25:18 PM »
If you don't wish to face the facts direct from respected philosopher you continue to try to laugh it off.

Regards ippy
What facts are those? When you're ready, try to see if can have a stab at explaining these facts and how they relate to my posts. You need to quote what I said to show how your explanation of these apply.

Regards
Gabby
I identify as a Sword because I have abstract social constructs e.g. honour and patriotism. My preferred pronouns are "kill/ maim/ dismember"

Quite handy with weapons - available for hire to defeat money laundering crooks around the world.

“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

Robbie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21277 on: August 10, 2017, 02:48:31 PM »
Just want to say thanks to enki for informative link in his post #21273.
Great posts from everyone so far today especially Gabriella. So refreshing to read something different on this thread,!
True Wit is Nature to Advantage drest,
          What oft was Thought, but ne’er so well Exprest

SusanDoris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8265
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21278 on: August 10, 2017, 03:13:35 PM »
Just to refer to your last paragraph, Robinson, and to back up Rhi's very sensible statements in her post 21229, I would suggest that reading this(it isn't long) would be rather eye opening.

https://www.theguardian.com/befit/story/0,,1379231,00.html

Or better still, get the book 'Bad Science' by the same Ben Goldacre, and find out why he challenges a range of commonly accepted pseudosciences.
Excellent article!! I shall send it to a couple of friends.
The Most Honourable Sister of Titular Indecision.

floo

  • Guest
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21279 on: August 10, 2017, 03:36:17 PM »
Just to refer to your last paragraph, Robinson, and to back up Rhi's very sensible statements in her post 21229, I would suggest that reading this(it isn't long) would be rather eye opening.

https://www.theguardian.com/befit/story/0,,1379231,00.html

Or better still, get the book 'Bad Science' by the same Ben Goldacre, and find out why he challenges a range of commonly accepted pseudosciences.

A good article. A close family member is into detoxing their system, but it only seems to make their medical condition worse, imo.

Dicky Underpants

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21280 on: August 10, 2017, 04:01:16 PM »


Or better still, get the book 'Bad Science' by the same Ben Goldacre, and find out why he challenges a range of commonly accepted pseudosciences.

That's a cracker, that one.
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.”

Le Bon David

Robbie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21281 on: August 10, 2017, 04:06:20 PM »
You've read it then Dicky?

I wonder about my friend on the raw food diet - i'll see her soon and find out how she's getting on. No pizza or chips when she comes to mine :(.

Anyway back to searching for God.....though I've heard it said that God is in the small things in life, there was even a novel...  ;)
True Wit is Nature to Advantage drest,
          What oft was Thought, but ne’er so well Exprest

Dicky Underpants

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21282 on: August 10, 2017, 04:09:48 PM »
You've read it then Dicky?



Yup.
There's another one on a similar theme by Jon Ronson, I think. I'll just have a google to remind myself.


Later
I think I must have been thinking of Ronson's notorious "Men Who Stare at Goats".

There's still another title about bad science that's niggling at the back of my mind. Read it some years back. If senility allows, it may come back to me.

« Last Edit: August 10, 2017, 04:15:26 PM by Dicky Underpants »
"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.”

Le Bon David

SusanDoris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8265
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21283 on: August 10, 2017, 04:19:28 PM »
Yup.
There's another one on a similar theme by Jon Ronson, I think. I'll just have a google to remind myself.


Later
I think I must have been thinking of Ronson's notorious "Men Who Stare at Goats".

There's still another title about bad science that's niggling at the back of my mind. Read it some years back. If senility allows, it may come back to me.
Bad Science is one of those books that when you come to the end it is such a pity that you will not ever again have the pleasure of reading it for the first time! :)
The Most Honourable Sister of Titular Indecision.

Dicky Underpants

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4369
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21284 on: August 10, 2017, 04:25:35 PM »
Bad Science is one of those books that when you come to the end it is such a pity that you will not ever again have the pleasure of reading it for the first time! :)

Indeed, Susan. In fact, I may just start reading it again to try and renew that pleasure....

"Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.”

Le Bon David

ippy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12679
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21285 on: August 10, 2017, 05:01:09 PM »
Don't think thought experiments count as facts.

The fact he described his famous tea pot, Mr Precise.

ippy

ippy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12679
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21286 on: August 10, 2017, 05:05:10 PM »
What facts are those? When you're ready, try to see if can have a stab at explaining these facts and how they relate to my posts. You need to quote what I said to show how your explanation of these apply.

Regards
Gabby

Read it at your leisure and see if you can have a laugh at Burt, it's called a stand off, unless you want to have an argument about stand offs too.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64321
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21287 on: August 10, 2017, 05:36:52 PM »
The fact he described his famous tea pot, Mr Precise.

ippy
You think Gabriella isn't accepting the fact, I note it's moved to a singular one, that Russell described the tea pot thought experiment ?

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19469
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21288 on: August 10, 2017, 06:16:59 PM »
Gabriella,

Quote
BHS - you've still got it wrong. I did not ask Ippy to talk about his belief in teapots. I suggest you re-read my posts. I asked him to explain the teapot if he thought it worked for him as a point in this discussion, rather than expect me to look it up.

I did. These ones for example:

Quote
If you want to talk about a teapot go ahead

Quote
Not a problem for me - I, along with many others I suspect, seem to have got by just fine in life without teapots and Hansal and Gretal but if they are useful for you by all means indulge.

Quote
If Hansel and Gretal works for you and is an integral part of your daily activities - feel free to teach your children Hansel and Gretal.

There’s more, but you get the point I hope – telling him he’s free to talk about teapots (and Hansel & Gretel) if they “work for you”, are “an integral part of your daily activities” etc is exactly what you did. At no point though did he suggest that either teapots or Hansel & Gretel were remotely important or even interesting to him – rather he was explaining Russell’s point that non-falsifiability tells you nothing about probability as you implied it did (“I find the concept of a "God that can't be defined" not that difficult to believe in, once you get to the point where you can't rule out the supernatural entirely”).  No more, no less.

Quote
No, you're wrong - he wasn't explaining anything - maybe he is not capable of explaining it. He told me to look it up. I thought I would help coax him out of his reluctance to post by encouraging him.

Yes he was. Russell’s teapot is a commonplace, especially here – if, say, he’d said, “it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack” he wouldn’t then have to explain how that metaphor works. Nonetheless, others have explained it (myself for example in 21214) only for you to post after that, “If you want to talk about a teapot go ahead - now's your chance. By the way - don't take this comment too seriously - you should lighten up.” (21235).

That’s the point: Russell’s teapot isn’t “about the teapot” at all. 

Quote
The only time I mentioned a belief in teapots was #21230 because it followed on from my point about the benefit I derived from a belief in God and if Ippy wanted me to believe in teapots etc he would have to come up with similar benefits to practices and rituals as religion provides for the 2 to be comparable. And I did not state that Ippy believed in orbiting teapots. What I said was "if other people, including Ippy, perceive a benefit from the practices and rituals associated with belief in orbiting teapots...".

See above. 

Quote
A person can perceive a benefit in a belief without actually holding that belief themselves. For example, I can perceive a benefit in believing that Jesus was God walking on Earth or the belief that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, even if I don't hold that belief myself.

Relevance?

Quote
See #21230. And I did demonstrate a first wrong.

Nope. You just repeated your rather odd attempt to connect finding a benefit in a belief with the truthfulness of that belief, albeit without troubling with some logic to connect from one to the other.

Quote
Also, not really sure what you find difficult to grasp about the phrase "works for you". Ippy is bringing up concepts or ideas - if he thinks they work for him in some way to explain his perspective, it is up to him to elaborate the idea and why.

I don’t. What I find “difficult to grasp” is the bit you excluded – ie, the teapot. No-one (least of all ippy) suggested that a celestial teapot “works for him”. What does work for him though is the force of the argument that just happens to involve a teapot for illustrative purposes only.   

Quote
Because a belief that's true for me is based on my personal experiences associated with that belief - it's a leap of faith based on that personal experience. This is not contentious – how else does a true for me belief develop? As opposed to a belief that I want to be true for you, which then needs to be demonstrated as true and if there is no methodology to demonstrate the truth of that belief then I am only left with a true for me belief based on my personal experience.

Again, you seem to be drawing an (unargued) link between epistemology and benefit. The second bit (the “true for you” part) is true but not the first. Why does finding a belief to be beneficial persuade you that that belief must therefore be true?

It’s none of my business why you do that by the way, but I just find it odd. If I felt really happy whenever I contemplated my belief in, say, fairies, I still think I’d trouble myself with the entirely separate issue of their probable truth.   

Quote
No it's not an error in reasoning. It's much like hiring a tutor. If my daughter perceives that a particular tutor helped her get an A in a Maths test on a particular topic, she is more likely to believe that the same tutor can help her with do well in other Maths topics because she finds the tutor's approach for teaching her Maths works for her.

And that’s another one. She may, but that’s about the effectiveness of a method – not about the truth or otherwise of claims of fact.

Quote
In this case the tutor is a book and having found that certain concepts or ideas put forward by the book works for me, I am more inclined to try other ideas in the book and more inclined to believe they might be of benefit to me. A religion is putting forward more than the existence of God. In this case the religion is putting forward the existence of an undefined supernatural entity and stating that there are benefits to adopting certain ideas, practices and rituals.

Doesn’t work. The philosophy bit is fine (if that works for you) but the linking of that to claims of fact isn’t. That a book tells you to be nice to puppies tells you nothing about the value of its additional claims about dragons. 

Quote
Given there is no methodology to prove the existence of said entity, there is only the possibility that if Option A: belief in the entity together with the ideas, practices and rituals feels more beneficial than Option B: the ideas, practices and rituals without belief in the entity (when both options are tried) then it makes Option A the belief in the entity a more appealing idea based on personal experience.

“Appealing” is epistemically worthless though – for myself as well as for others. I might find lots of fact claims appealing, but that tells me nothing whatever about whether any of them are true. 

Quote
No it's not. You're using the term incorrectly.

Yes it is and no I’m not.

Quote
I am not trying to make an argument against anything or misrepresenting anyone's position and arguing against that position, I am merely making a statement that "I can't make a positive statement that Gods and invisible orbiting teapots don't exist." . You have made that same statement on this forum – that you cannot claim God does not exist. Each time you made that statement were you indulging in a straw man?

But that’s not all you did. What you actually did was to say: “I find the concept of a "God that can't be defined" not that difficult to believe in, once you get to the point where you can't rule out the supernatural entirely”.

I merely ask what you think the connection to be between the two parts of that statement. Once you “get to the point where you can’t rule out the supernatural entirely” (actually you can by the way, for the same reason you can rule out a four-sided triangle – incoherence, but that’s another discussion), why does that make the concept of an undefinable “God” “not that difficult to believe in”?     

Quote
I find it not that difficult to believe in a God that can't be defined if I am not ruling out the existence of the supernatural. Not sure how to explain that any differently - a God that can't be defined is an example of something undefined that would come into the category of supernatural. I then read the Quran and came across a God that can’t be defined. I did not find it that difficult to believe in this concept of God.

The way to explain it differently would be to drop the non sequitur part. How does “not ruling out the existence (presumably you meant “possibility” here?) of the supernatural mean that believing in “God” is not difficult? It’s actually difficult for many reasons – impossibility would be just one of them.

Quote
I could have said:

Ippy if the thought experiment works for you to illustrate some point please elaborate - instead I shortened it to "if the teapot works for you"

Yes, which is why you were questioned about it. He didn’t say that the teapot worked for him at all. 

Quote
I have explained that I like the phrase "if it works for you". If you don't like how I express my points I'm afraid that is your problem. I don't intend to change. It's up to you if you want to jump in and and respond to points where I have used the phrase "if it works for you" or if you want to ignore those posts and only respond to others or if you choose not to respond to any, because the words you are reading annoy you in some way.

You’re missing the point again, possibility deliberately? “If it works for you” as a phrase is fine. The problem though comes when you replace the “it” of the argument with the “it” of the teapot.   

Quote
ETA: BHS - IMO you need to forget about the teapot too. I was aware of the thought experiment. My point was that if Ippy wants a response from me on it he needs to form an argument in his own words, otherwise I choose not to respond other then to ask him to elaborate on his argument, which he declined to do.

If you were aware of the thought experiment why then in your replies to ippy did you focus on the (irrelevant) teapot part and not the (relevant) argument part?
"Don't make me come down there."

God

ippy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12679
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21289 on: August 10, 2017, 06:18:08 PM »
You think Gabriella isn't accepting the fact, I note it's moved to a singular one, that Russell described the tea pot thought experiment ?

Is anything clear enough for you N S? I doubt it.

ippy

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64321
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21290 on: August 10, 2017, 06:19:49 PM »
Is anything clear enough for you N S? I doubt it.

ippy
Yes, it's clear you don't know what a fact is.

Maeght

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5680
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21291 on: August 10, 2017, 06:41:24 PM »

SusanDoris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8265
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21292 on: August 10, 2017, 06:42:16 PM »
bluehillside #21,288

Now that was an excellent read. :)

The Most Honourable Sister of Titular Indecision.

The Accountant, OBE, KC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8989
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21293 on: August 10, 2017, 07:58:41 PM »
Gabriella,

I did. These ones for example:
None of those examples work as none of them state that anyone believes in teapots, which is what you asserted that I had said.

Quote
There’s more, but you get the point I hope – telling him he’s free to talk about teapots (and Hansel & Gretel) if they “work for you”, are “an integral part of your daily activities” etc is exactly what you did. At no point though did he suggest that either teapots or Hansel & Gretel were remotely important or even interesting to him – rather he was explaining Russell’s point that non-falsifiability tells you nothing about probability as you implied it did (“I find the concept of a "God that can't be defined" not that difficult to believe in, once you get to the point where you can't rule out the supernatural entirely”).  No more, no less.
No you have misunderstood. He was not explaining anything - a quip is not an explanation and a quip is not worth engaging with in any serious way, so I chose not to take his quip seriously or engage with it. And my way of dismissing it was to focus on the teapot and leprechauns and Hansel and Gretel etc as they were the substance of the words he could be bothered to write in his post. If Ippy wants me to engage with a thought experiment he needs to show how the thought experiment relates to my post rather than talk about teapots or Hansel and Gretel or leprechauns. 

Quote
Yes he was. Russell’s teapot is a commonplace, especially here – if, say, he’d said, “it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack” he wouldn’t then have to explain how that metaphor works.
No he wasn't. Russell's teapot is commonplace but what he does need to do is explain how it relates to my post.
Quote
Nonetheless, others have explained it (myself for example in 21214) only for you to post after that, “If you want to talk about a teapot go ahead - now's your chance. By the way - don't take this comment too seriously - you should lighten up.” (21235).
Did I post that reply to you? I might choose to engage with your posts if they contain explanations and treat them seriously but I still choose to not engage with Ippy seriously. If you don't like my choices, tough - that's your problem. I plan to continue in responding to Ippy in that way if he cannot be bothered to type an explanation of how the thought experiment relates to my post and you can get in the middle of that if you want but your assertions about my conversation with Ippy would still be wrong.

Quote
Nope. You just repeated your rather odd attempt to connect finding a benefit in a belief with the truthfulness of that belief, albeit without troubling with some logic to connect from one to the other.
No I didn't because as I have stated, there is no method to establish truthfulness of something supernatural. There is only a leap of faith to a true for me belief.

Quote
I don’t. What I find “difficult to grasp” is the bit you excluded – ie, the teapot. No-one (least of all ippy) suggested that a celestial teapot “works for him”. What does work for him though is the force of the argument that just happens to involve a teapot for illustrative purposes only.
If he thinks the argument works for him, he needs to show how the argument applies to my post. If he makes a quip all he will continue to get from me in response is a comment containing the word "teapot" no matter how many times you try to intercede on his behalf.

Quote
Again, you seem to be drawing an (unargued) link between epistemology and benefit. The second bit (the “true for you” part) is true but not the first. Why does finding a belief to be beneficial persuade you that that belief must therefore be true?
As explained it persuades me to take a leap of faith to a true for me belief. There is no "must" about it.

Quote
It’s none of my business why you do that by the way, but I just find it odd. If I felt really happy whenever I contemplated my belief in, say, fairies, I still think I’d trouble myself with the entirely separate issue of their probable truth.
My posts have made no mention of probability. There is no method to establish the probability of existence of something undefined and supernatural so probability does not come into it. I cannot assign a probability if there is no method of doing so. All I can do is take a leap of faith.

Quote
And that’s another one. She may, but that’s about the effectiveness of a method – not about the truth or otherwise of claims of fact.
You're still wrong because I have not made a claim of fact.

Quote
Doesn’t work. The philosophy bit is fine (if that works for you) but the linking of that to claims of fact isn’t. That a book tells you to be nice to puppies tells you nothing about the value of its additional claims about dragons.
You are still wrong because I have made no claims of fact.

Quote
“Appealing” is epistemically worthless though – for myself as well as for others. I might find lots of fact claims appealing, but that tells me nothing whatever about whether any of them are true.
The whole point of faith in the supernatural is that there is no method of establishing truth so you are arguing against a point I haven't made.

Quote
Yes it is and no I’m not.
No it isn't a straw man and yes you are using the term straw man incorrectly.

Quote
But that’s not all you did. What you actually did was to say: “I find the concept of a "God that can't be defined" not that difficult to believe in, once you get to the point where you can't rule out the supernatural entirely”.

I merely ask what you think the connection to be between the two parts of that statement. Once you “get to the point where you can’t rule out the supernatural entirely” (actually you can by the way, for the same reason you can rule out a four-sided triangle – incoherence, but that’s another discussion), why does that make the concept of an undefinable “God” “not that difficult to believe in”?
And my explanation is that because when I allowed the possibility of the supernatural i.e. something that can't be objectively investigated using tools available, it becomes possible for me to believe in any or all supernatural entities, including undefined Gods since an undefined God comes into the category of a supernatural entity.

The entity being undefined makes it easier for me to believe in because there is nothing for me to envisage that I can then dismiss. There are described attributes of that entity in the Quran and those attributes are in the form of words and concepts that it is possible for me to understand and relate to in order that I was able to make some kind of sense of the concepts the entity represents and take a leap of faith to believe in this undefined entity. The rituals and practices that produce benefits for me sustains my leap of faith.

I can only give you the reason why I think I believe in the entity. Whether you accept the reason or not, it still remains the reason for my belief.     

Quote
The way to explain it differently would be to drop the non sequitur part. How does “not ruling out the existence (presumably you meant “possibility” here?) of the supernatural mean that believing in “God” is not difficult? It’s actually difficult for many reasons – impossibility would be just one of them.
What I actually said was that it is not that difficult. I have given you the reasons why it is not that difficult for me. If you don't want to accept my reasons that's your right. They still remain my reasons whether you accept them or not. 

Quote
Yes, which is why you were questioned about it. He didn’t say that the teapot worked for him at all. 

You’re missing the point again, possibility deliberately? “If it works for you” as a phrase is fine. The problem though comes when you replace the “it” of the argument with the “it” of the teapot.   

If you were aware of the thought experiment why then in your replies to ippy did you focus on the (irrelevant) teapot part and not the (relevant) argument part?
See above for how I deal with Ippy's posts and how I will continue to deal with similar posts - and the word "teapot" may well feature heavily. So we can continue this conversation about Ippy and teapots ad nauseam if you want every time I mention the word "teapot" and "if it works for you" to Ippy. What ever works for you BHS.
I identify as a Sword because I have abstract social constructs e.g. honour and patriotism. My preferred pronouns are "kill/ maim/ dismember"

Quite handy with weapons - available for hire to defeat money laundering crooks around the world.

“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

ippy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12679
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21294 on: August 10, 2017, 09:37:56 PM »
Yes, it's clear you don't know what a fact is.

In this particular case I don't think it's worth the bother.

Sorry, I haven't given you a couple of thousand words to micro analyze.

ippy

ippy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12679
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21295 on: August 10, 2017, 10:21:29 PM »
None of those examples work as none of them state that anyone believes in teapots, which is what you asserted that I had said.
No you have misunderstood. He was not explaining anything - a quip is not an explanation and a quip is not worth engaging with in any serious way, so I chose not to take his quip seriously or engage with it. And my way of dismissing it was to focus on the teapot and leprechauns and Hansel and Gretel etc as they were the substance of the words he could be bothered to write in his post. If Ippy wants me to engage with a thought experiment he needs to show how the thought experiment relates to my post rather than talk about teapots or Hansel and Gretel or leprechauns. 
No he wasn't. Russell's teapot is commonplace but what he does need to do is explain how it relates to my post. Did I post that reply to you? I might choose to engage with your posts if they contain explanations and treat them seriously but I still choose to not engage with Ippy seriously. If you don't like my choices, tough - that's your problem. I plan to continue in responding to Ippy in that way if he cannot be bothered to type an explanation of how the thought experiment relates to my post and you can get in the middle of that if you want but your assertions about my conversation with Ippy would still be wrong.
No I didn't because as I have stated, there is no method to establish truthfulness of something supernatural. There is only a leap of faith to a true for me belief.
If he thinks the argument works for him, he needs to show how the argument applies to my post. If he makes a quip all he will continue to get from me in response is a comment containing the word "teapot" no matter how many times you try to intercede on his behalf.
As explained it persuades me to take a leap of faith to a true for me belief. There is no "must" about it.
My posts have made no mention of probability. There is no method to establish the probability of existence of something undefined and supernatural so probability does not come into it. I cannot assign a probability if there is no method of doing so. All I can do is take a leap of faith.
You're still wrong because I have not made a claim of fact.
You are still wrong because I have made no claims of fact.
The whole point of faith in the supernatural is that there is no method of establishing truth so you are arguing against a point I haven't made.
No it isn't a straw man and yes you are using the term straw man incorrectly.
And my explanation is that because when I allowed the possibility of the supernatural i.e. something that can't be objectively investigated using tools available, it becomes possible for me to believe in any or all supernatural entities, including undefined Gods since an undefined God comes into the category of a supernatural entity.

The entity being undefined makes it easier for me to believe in because there is nothing for me to envisage that I can then dismiss. There are described attributes of that entity in the Quran and those attributes are in the form of words and concepts that it is possible for me to understand and relate to in order that I was able to make some kind of sense of the concepts the entity represents and take a leap of faith to believe in this undefined entity. The rituals and practices that produce benefits for me sustains my leap of faith.

I can only give you the reason why I think I believe in the entity. Whether you accept the reason or not, it still remains the reason for my belief.     
What I actually said was that it is not that difficult. I have given you the reasons why it is not that difficult for me. If you don't want to accept my reasons that's your right. They still remain my reasons whether you accept them or not. 
See above for how I deal with Ippy's posts and how I will continue to deal with similar posts - and the word "teapot" may well feature heavily. So we can continue this conversation about Ippy and teapots ad nauseam if you want every time I mention the word "teapot" and "if it works for you" to Ippy. What ever works for you BHS.

I've just read through this post of yours and, putting the subject to one side for a moment, Blue does put forward a pretty comprehensive argumentative post whenever he replies to any other post.

Blue hasn't held back when he has stated his case as per usual with Blue's replies, but doesn't get agressive in his maner no matter what, he just sticks to the point and does invariably present a very good arguments on the subject in hand at the time.

I was wondering, not so much about the way you put your case Gabriella, more why there has to be this element of aggression with anything you post, not just when you have responded to me, it's there whoever you are responding to, I was wondering why you seem to need to convey aggression to all and sundry when you post.

Please continue to be as aggressive as you wish, I don't think you''ll find it'll get you very far, or get you whatever it is you want.

ippy



Robbie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7512
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21296 on: August 10, 2017, 10:29:34 PM »
Reading all the posts very carefully ippy, some I've gone back to a couple of times. I don't perceive any aggression in Gabriella's, they're calm. Everything that can be explained is clearly expressed.

It's all about perception, someone said that earlier, maybe you. I occasionally do see aggressive &/or sneering posts - on this thread lots of tit-fer-tat - but not these ones.
True Wit is Nature to Advantage drest,
          What oft was Thought, but ne’er so well Exprest

The Accountant, OBE, KC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8989
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21297 on: August 10, 2017, 11:04:58 PM »
Reading all the posts very carefully ippy, some I've gone back to a couple of times. I don't perceive any aggression in Gabriella's, they're calm. Everything that can be explained is clearly expressed.

It's all about perception, someone said that earlier, maybe you. I occasionally do see aggressive &/or sneering posts - on this thread lots of tit-fer-tat - but not these ones.
Thanks Robinson.

And thanks for saying you enjoy reading my posts - sorry, I meant to respond to your post before and then got caught up in the discussion.
I identify as a Sword because I have abstract social constructs e.g. honour and patriotism. My preferred pronouns are "kill/ maim/ dismember"

Quite handy with weapons - available for hire to defeat money laundering crooks around the world.

“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

The Accountant, OBE, KC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8989
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21298 on: August 10, 2017, 11:21:09 PM »
I've just read through this post of yours and, putting the subject to one side for a moment, Blue does put forward a pretty comprehensive argumentative post whenever he replies to any other post.

Blue hasn't held back when he has stated his case as per usual with Blue's replies, but doesn't get agressive in his maner no matter what, he just sticks to the point and does invariably present a very good arguments on the subject in hand at the time.

I was wondering, not so much about the way you put your case Gabriella, more why there has to be this element of aggression with anything you post, not just when you have responded to me, it's there whoever you are responding to, I was wondering why you seem to need to convey aggression to all and sundry when you post.

Please continue to be as aggressive as you wish, I don't think you''ll find it'll get you very far, or get you whatever it is you want.

ippy
I'm not sure I want anything other than to take part in a discussion. What is it you think I want?

I don't feel aggressive towards BHS or you or any poster but I am not sure what you mean by aggressive. I stand my ground and state my position, argument or opinion but not sure whether that is what you mean by aggressive. You will need to be more specific and quote sentences that you perceive to be aggressive.

I enjoy talking to BHS - if I ordered him or any other poster to do anything I would class that as aggressive but I don't think I do issue orders. I discuss points.
I identify as a Sword because I have abstract social constructs e.g. honour and patriotism. My preferred pronouns are "kill/ maim/ dismember"

Quite handy with weapons - available for hire to defeat money laundering crooks around the world.

“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

ippy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12679
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #21299 on: August 10, 2017, 11:47:33 PM »
Thanks Robinson.

And thanks for saying you enjoy reading my posts - sorry, I meant to respond to your post before and then got caught up in the discussion.

Yes I would say those posts convey aggression to me, not in any specific expressions of oughtright aggression, more in the overall text of her posts.

I don't mind the aggression I see conveyed in her writings but I don't think it encourages much in the way of a positive response.

ippy

« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 09:02:51 AM by ippy »