Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

I think you guys are mistaking new atheism with personal relationship.

Could you explain what you mean there please.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

1: Experience of myself and others.
1a: Failure of antitheists to get the medical profession to endorse their ''Oi Nutter'' approach to religion.
2: A wealth of evidence of God Dodging abroad in society.
3: The elephant in the room of wrong doing.
4: The failure of moral irrealism to arbitrate in moral issues see point 2.
5: The failure of honest philosophical naturalism and the unfeasible efforts to support it see point 2.
6: The stubborn refusal of any portrayal of God by antutheists other than something along the lines of an old man with a white beard in robes see point 2.
7: The necessity of an ultimate actual rather than a world of the derived.

So that's a "no" then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Confabulist,

1: Experience of myself and others.

Lots of people think they’ve experienced lots of things. What’s so special about your narrative to distinguish it from theirs?

1a: Failure of antitheists to get the medical profession to endorse their ''Oi Nutter'' approach to religion.

Incoherent.

2: A wealth of evidence of God Dodging abroad in society.

Argument by assertion, and irrational. You’d have to demonstrate a “God” before you could accuse people of “dodging” it.

3: The elephant in the room of wrong doing.

Meaningless.

4: The failure of moral irrealism to arbitrate in moral issues see point 2.

Straw man. You’d have to show that morality is arbitration apt before criticising positions for failing to do it.

5: The failure of honest philosophical naturalism and the unfeasible efforts to support it see point 2.

Incoherent, terminologically wrong, and a straw man. If you’re trying to describe metaphysical naturalism then say so, and then find someone to take it up with who actually argues for it.   
 

6: The stubborn refusal of any portrayal of God by antutheists other than something along the lines of an old man with a white beard in robes see point 2.

Another straw man. In general atheists consider the descriptions actually given for gods by those who believe in them – that they are generally incoherent isn’t a problem for atheism. 

7: The necessity of an ultimate actual rather than a world of the derived.

Gibberish – what “necessity”, and what makes you think that your superstitions in particular identify it?

Like shooting ducks in a barrel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Confabulist,

Lots of people think they’ve experienced lots of things. What’s so special about your narrative to distinguish it from theirs?

Incoherent.

Argument by assertion, and irrational. You’d have to demonstrate a “God” before you could accuse people of “dodging” it.

Meaningless.

Straw man. You’d have to show that morality is arbitration apt before criticising positions for failing to do it.

Incoherent, terminologically wrong, and a straw man. If you’re trying to describe metaphysical naturalism then say so, and then find someone to take it up with who actually argues for it.   
 
Another straw man. In general atheists consider the descriptions actually given for gods by those who believe in them – that they are generally incoherent isn’t a problem for atheism. 

Gibberish – what “necessity”, and what makes you think that your superstitions in particular identify it?

Like shooting ducks in a barrel.

When one is travelling in a certain direction and  meets a gadarene stampede of near hysterical fear and loathing in precisely the opposite direction it is a certainty that something is ''spooking them'' particularly if one was once part of that stampede.

People have experienced a lot of things, life is experience and sometimes one finds oneself having experiences that one had not banked on. If we come across a gadarene rush of the type I have described it is a certainty that something has ''spooked them'' that there is a behaviour behind it.

Of course there has to be arbitration in morality which is an ought situation if not a Good and evil.
Moral discussion of the irrealist is analogous to making a lifetimes career of taking cocaine intrarectally and then being puzzled at the loose alvine efflux without tenesmus which results.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrelevantist,

When one is travelling in a certain direction and  meets a gadarene stampede of near hysterical fear and loathing in precisely the opposite direction it is a certainty that something is ''spooking them'' particularly if one was once part of that stampede.

People have experienced a lot of things, life is experience and sometimes one finds oneself having experiences that one had not banked on. If we come across a gadarene rush of the type I have described it is a certainty that something has ''spooked them'' that there is a behaviour behind it.

Did you have anything coherent to say, or even anything in response to the arguments that undo you – or even some evidence that there is a "a gadarene stampede of near hysterical fear and loathing" rather than just some people explaining to you why the arguments you attempt to validate your faith beliefs are hopeless?

[Maeght]

When one is travelling in a certain direction and  meets a gadarene stampede of near hysterical fear and loathing in precisely the opposite direction it is a certainty that something is ''spooking them'' particularly if one was once part of that stampede.

People have experienced a lot of things, life is experience and sometimes one finds oneself having experiences that one had not banked on. If we come across a gadarene rush of the type I have described it is a certainty that something has ''spooked them'' that there is a behaviour behind it.

Of course there has to be arbitration in morality which is an ought situation if not a Good and evil.
Moral discussion of the irrealist is analogous to making a lifetimes career of taking cocaine intrarectally and then being puzzled at the loose alvine efflux without tenesmus which results.

What?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrelevantist,

Did you have anything coherent to say, or even anything in response to the arguments that undo you – or even some evidence that there is a "a gadarene stampede of near hysterical fear and loathing" rather than just some people explaining to you why the arguments you attempt to validate your faith beliefs are hopeless?

There is no such explanation. It is just delusional efflux. I wait in hope of a sensible atheist appearing on this forum who isn't given to the stupidity of the excesses of the New Atheism.

[Maeght]

There is no such explanation. It is just delusional efflux. I wait in hope of a sensible atheist appearing on this forum who isn't given to the stupidity of the excesses of the New Atheism.

What excesses?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There is no such explanation. It is just delusional efflux. I wait in hope of a sensible atheist appearing on this forum who isn't given to the stupidity of the excesses of the New Atheism.

So that's a "no" then. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear ''Whoever the cap fits'' . Please review your posts in the light of the following publications.

Quantum Trolling
Russell's Trollpot
Trolling for Pleasure and Profit
The Emergent Troll
Why there is trolling rather than Nothing
The Five Proofs of Troll
The Troll Delusion
Troll is not Great
The Trollish Gene
The Trolligen of Species

[Maeght]

Dear ''Whoever the cap fits'' . Please review your posts in the light of the following publications.

Quantum Trolling
Russell's Trollpot
Trolling for Pleasure and Profit
The Emergent Troll
Why there is trolling rather than Nothing
The Five Proofs of Troll
The Troll Delusion
Troll is not Great
The Trollish Gene
The Trolligen of Species

What?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

What?

It seems the Vladbot is having a major malfunction today. 

[Maeght]

Maeght,

It seems the Vladbot is having a major malfunction today.

Does seem to be talking in riddles.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Does seem to be talking in riddles.

And tiddles - his obsession with matters lavatorial is becoming quite disturbing.

[Maeght]

The Great Vladinni,

I have asked you a couple of questions recently ans was interested in hearing your answers.  I wondered what personal relationship you were referring too renew atheism and what the excesses of new atheism were. Any response to those please?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Great Vladinni,

I have asked you a couple of questions recently ans was interested in hearing your answers.  I wondered what personal relationship you were referring too renew atheism and what the excesses of new atheism were. Any response to those please?

I was responding to
Reply #22516 having been moved by it's sanctimonious tone imputing a special goodness to atheism for which I find no evidence of and some kind of relational shortfall in Christianity and explaining what I saw as evident unfeasible antipathy towards all things Christian.

[Shaker]

I was responding to
Reply #22516 having been moved by it's sanctimonious tone imputing a special goodness to atheism for which I find no evidence of and some kind of relational shortfall in Christianity and explaining what I saw as evident unfeasible antipathy towards all things Christian.

The relational shortfall, I assume you mean, is the absurdity of talking of a personal relationship with someone who died two millennia ago.

As relational shortfalls go, that's up there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The relational shortfall, I assume you mean, is the absurdity of talking of a personal relationship with someone who died two millennia ago.

As relational shortfalls go, that's up there.

Not really since most of charity has been motivated by personal Christianity or the Christian social legacy whereas there is an increasing welfare deficit in places like Secular Britain.

[Outrider]

You have just demonstrated your capacity to consciously choose to reply to my post.

No, he's just responded to the post - nothing in that demonstrates that it's actually a 'choice', and not an inevitable consequence of that brain's architecture, under those hormonal influences at that time, responding to that stimulus.

...Could it be your spiritual gift of free will, or just the inevitable result of all the pre determined physical reactions in your brain cells?

If it were the latter, in what meaningful way is that a 'choice'? What was he alternative?

I admit I do not know how free will works, but I know it is not pre determined by nature, it is determined by my own conscious will.

The above suggests that you don't know that, but rather hope that it's the case...

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Wishfulthinkingist,

Not really since most of charity has been motivated by personal Christianity or the Christian social legacy whereas there is an increasing welfare deficit in places like Secular Britain.

Highly dubious claims both, and moreover claims that have nothing whatever to do with whether anyone has actual been in a "personal relationship" with a deity.

[Shaker]

Vlad the Wishfulthinkingist,

Highly dubious claims both, and moreover claims that have nothing whatever to do with whether anyone has actual been in a "personal relationship" with a deity.

Yeeees  ... once again seems to be replying to a post other than the one he quoted. Very odd.

[Outrider]

Not really since most of charity has been motivated by personal Christianity or the Christian social legacy ...

I'm sure all the Buddhist, Hindu and Jainist adherents of the practice of Dana would be interested to hear about that, especially the ones that are recorded in the Rigveda, from around a millennium before Yahweh's alleged incarnation as the avatar Jesus.

Before that, of course, there are charitable donations recorded in the Epic of Gilgamesh. I think it's a bit of a reach to suggest that 'most' of charity has been motivated by personal Christianity or the 'Christian social legacy' (whatever that might be - the particular actions by societies that have given up on Christianity which Christianity still wishes to claim credit for?) - how are you measuring that?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Wishfulthinkingist,

Highly dubious claims both, and moreover claims that have nothing whatever to do with whether anyone has actual been in a "personal relationship" with a deity.

No more than the claim that Christians have a relational shortfall.
You have misunderstood the context from which Shaker writes.

There is for him no personal relationship with God. Jesus is merely a person who is long dead...
Well that's something you either believe or don't and the only problem with that is the tone of the slick dismissal.

Why I take exception to Shaker is his imputing a superior relationship capacity to atheists(No evidence) and emotional shortfall in Christians (evidence of the opposite I would say).

Not so much ''Oi! Nutter!'' more ''Oi! Emotionally stunted nutter''.

[Enki]

Not really since most of charity has been motivated by personal Christianity or the Christian social legacy whereas there is an increasing welfare deficit in places like Secular Britain.

You could in fact make a case that if there is an increasing welfare deficit in this country(which is arguable) then it has developed under mostly Christian Prime Ministers. As far as charitable projects are concerned, there is much evidence for huge responses from many of the people of this country, be they religious or not, and in an increasingly secular UK.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-the-most-charitable-developed-nation-in-the-world-8978545.html

[Shaker]

You have misunderstood the context from which Shaker writes.

Well, I should be the judge of said context, and in that case the misunderstanding is all yours.

There is for him no personal relationship with God. Jesus is merely a person who is long dead...
Well that's something you either believe or don't and the only problem with that is the tone of the slick dismissal.

Ah. Tone trolling. Got you.

Why I take exception to Shaker is his imputing a superior relationship capacity to atheists(No evidence) and emotional shortfall in Christians (evidence of the opposite I would say).

If you chase the thread back to the posts you're referring to you'll find that what I actually said is that a personal relationship relies upon actually existing living human beings having said relationship. Anything else is to commit a degree of violence to the English language I'm unwilling to inflict.

Not so much ''Oi! Nutter!'' more ''Oi! Emotionally stunted nutter''.

Again, not something that I actually said (surprise surprise).