Searching for GOD...

[SusanDoris]

AB,

And they haven't bothered uploading articles onto their website despite having an "Article Search" toolbar then?

Thanks for the offer, but you'll have seen that Gonners has kindly posted a link to your kindle book. I looked at the first page or two, but it's so full of straw men, logical mistakes, non sequiturs etc that I gave up (and "comprised of" is a tautology by the way). 

Start at the beginning - try to grasp at least what "logical fallacy" means, and then work from there.

I'm so glad you mentioned AB's misuse of the verb 'to comprise' it has set my teeth on edge many a time!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm so glad you mentioned AB's misuse of the verb 'to comprise' it has set my teeth on edge many a time!

Useful way to find your teeth of a morning though Susan.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

Thank you, but a career atheist, someone who makes a career out of atheism, please somebody explain

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

Thanks for the offer, but you'll have seen that Gonners has kindly posted a link to your kindle book. I looked at the first page or two, but it's so full of straw men, logical mistakes, non sequiturs etc that I gave up (and "comprised of" is a tautology by the way).

I'm sorry to say that I had a look at it too. Given that I have a life which alas includes gainful employment amongst a great many other things I haven't the time, but for somebody who does have the time it would be a fun and instructive exercise to go through it page by page highlighting all the howlers (especialy the clownish misunderstanding of evolution - man, I could have a field day with that car crash). I wish I could do it

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Shakes,

I'm sorry to say that I had a look at it too. Given that I have a life which alas includes gainful employment amongst a great many other things I haven't the time, but for somebody who does have the time it would be a fun and instructive exercise to go through it page by page highlighting all the howlers (especialy the clownish misunderstanding of evolution - man, I could have a field day with that car crash). I wish I could do it

Yeah, he reminds me a bit of an exchange here a while back (I forgot with whom - TW maybe?) where the poster relied for his scientific knowledge on a book by a Victorian vicar that was flat wrong about pretty much everything. It's not just the intellectual poverty of AB's position, but the unctuous, soapy-handed, "I'm ever so 'umble but here are my thoughts the better to educate you" passive-aggressive style that I find sticks in the craw. There's also quite an ego at play - "If it's in my head, it must be true for you too so I don't need to bother with any sort of argument or evidence to support me" - that makes me look askance.

Ah well, having built his citadel of wishful thinking there's no sign that he'll ever let logic breach its walls so we're stuck with his assertions for the foreseeable future I guess.   

[ekim]

I am on this forum to help save souls.  If I was here for self promotion I would have left long ago.

In that case, Alan, it would be helpful to know what you mean by 'soul'. I believe the word has its origins in a Germanic word which meant 'life'.  It was used to cover a number of Hebrew words with various meanings e.g. yachiyd - uniqueness, tselem - a kind of self image, nephesh - instincts, appetites, drives which we share with the animal world, and - neshama - human mind.  The latter is  similar in concept to the Greek word 'psyche' used in the New Testament. To make matters worse, I believe the 'mind' in those days was more associated with the heart (the body's centre) rather than the head.  Only the pure of heart could unite with the Divine i.e. a 'soul' purified of its animal behaviour patterns. What is it that you are trying to save?

[SqueakyVoice]

Dear Vlad,

Thank you, but a career atheist, someone who makes a career out of atheism, please somebody explain

Gonnagle.

It's someone who says "Excuse me mate, there isn't a god. Could you spare a couple of quid for a cup of coffee?"

[Bubbles]

It's someone who says "Excuse me mate, there isn't a god. Could you spare a couple of quid for a cup of coffee?"

I was thinking more of someone who makes money out of writing books or programmes that say " there is no God"

That brings in the readies better than change for a cup of coffee 

 🌹

[Shaker]

It's not just the intellectual poverty of AB's position, but the unctuous, soapy-handed, "I'm ever so 'umble but here are my thoughts the better to educate you" passive-aggressive style that I find sticks in the craw. There's also quite an ego at play - "If it's in my head, it must be true for you too so I don't need to bother with any sort of argument or evidence to support me" - that makes me look askance.

Spot on. Ego is precisely the word - here's here to save souls, you know. Now, of course we know that he's only following the dictates of his chosen religion in that, but that's where the egotism comes from - I'm here to do God's work and batter you into submission with my extensive collection of flat assertions and logical fallacies. There's a rebarbative arrogance at work there.

It was only a day or two ago that he opined that his prayers would get Floo into heaven despite her stated wish never to darken the doors of the place. (The Groucho Marx principle, I guess). That's ego for you. (Rhiannon played a blinder by asking him where his beloved free will was in this scenario. We are still awaiting a reply).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I was thinking more of someone who makes money out of writing books or programmes that say " there is no God"

That brings in the readies better than change for a cup of coffee 

 🌹

Kerching!!!!!!! There's a great market for atheist books.....why, just the other day I was in Waterstone's when I noticed...........

[floo]

Even if the universe was kicked off by an intelligent entity of some description, the Biblical deity hardly fits the bill. It comes over as a character out of a fairy tale, with serious mental health problems and not overly intelligent.

[Bubbles]

We've all got an ego I suppose, and different things work for different people.

It's recognising that, that matters IMO.

That someone else can have an equally valid one, even if we don't think it's right.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rose and Squeak,

Thank you for your definitions, so most definitely not Sir Terry, although if Sir Terry had written a God Delusion it would certainly have out sold Dawkins, now Dear Readers, this God business, as my old sainted aunt would say, ah Jesus now and begorrah what's all dis fuss about

God Bless you Sir Terry just like that other Sir Terry you made me laugh and think.

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

We've all got an ego I suppose, and different things work for different people.

It's recognising that, that matters IMO.

That someone else can have an equally valid one, even if we don't think it's right.

We all have an ego of sorts - thank goodness for it; people without are about as interesting as the man I met at a party once many years ago who designed and created those printed instructions for cheap flat-pack furniture. Seriously. I spent about five minutes talking to him - it was the worst three hours of my life.

But to refer to something said by me a few days ago and reiterated by one or two others since, there's no ego like thinking that you have God on your side and that you're doing the work of the Creator. Ordinary human beings having a discussion can do the back and forth on matters of fact with reasoning provided and evidence adduced; political debate works this way. Science most definitely does. Human beings speaking as such on human terms can be out-argued, shown to be wrong and generally kept in proper perspective. When somebody claims divine sanction for what is only their own opinion, however - there's no arguing with such people. As the late lamented C. E. Hitchens said, I've been called arrogant in my time, but to state that my opinions have the backing of the Almighty and to expect to be taken seriously - that's a level of conceit of which not even I am capable.

[Bubbles]

Even if the universe was kicked off by an intelligent entity of some description, the Biblical deity hardly fits the bill. It comes over as a character out of a fairy tale, with serious mental health problems and not overly intelligent.

I think it depends how you read and interpret it.

It is possible to read it as early people's journey to find what is right and good ( and most see God as right and good) ( while making some mistakes on the way example slavery etc)

The only thing is though religion and morality evolve rather than being fixed.

Jews as a whole no longer have slaves or stone people, for example. So that's evolved.

The problem comes with the idea that we can never evolve from values, held in a much earlier time, no matter what we learn.

It's the old fixed morality over the evolved morality.

People saw God in horrendous ways because life could be pretty awful with plagues and stuff, people tried to explain it by trying to find out why God allowed such things to happen.

They thought they were being punished and there wasn't the scientific answers then.

You can look at the bible in a more positive light, if you see it as a journey towards understanding and a progression towards fairness.

[Bubbles]

We all have an ego of sorts - thank goodness for it; people without are about as interesting as the man I met at a party once many years ago who designed and created those printed instructions for cheap flat-pack furniture. Seriously. I spent about five minutes talking to him - it was the worst three hours of my life.

But to refer to something said by me a few days ago and reiterated by one or two others since, there's no ego like thinking that you have God on your side and that you're doing the work of the Creator. Ordinary human beings having a discussion can do the back and forth on matters of fact with reasoning provided and evidence adduced; political debate works this way. Science most definitely does. Human beings speaking as such on human terms can be out-argued, shown to be wrong and generally kept in proper perspective. When somebody claims divine sanction for what is only their own opinion, however - there's no arguing with such people. As the late lamented C. E. Hitchens said, I've been called arrogant in my time, but to state that my opinions have the backing of the Almighty and to expect to be taken seriously - that's a level of conceit of which not even I am capable.

This is only my opinion, but I actually only think God is on someone's side if they have selflessly considered all arguments, and applied all  things fairly and kindly to the best of their ability in a given situation.

It's the right behaviour that puts God on someone's side, IMO.

I believe that also applies to atheists.

So sometimes God might actually be on their side 

🌹

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

We all have an ego of sorts - thank goodness for it; people without are about as interesting as the man I met at a party once many years ago who designed and created those printed instructions for cheap flat-pack furniture. Seriously. I spent about five minutes talking to him - it was the worst three hours of my life.

I met a chap at a party once who told me he was a cardboard engineer (he designed greetings cards and such like).

I replied (rather wittily I thought), "Well you'd better not go out in the rain then" at which point he looked blankly at me, decided I was mad, and walked away...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shakes,

I met a chap at a party once who told me he was a cardboard engineer (he designed greetings cards and such like).

I replied (rather wittily I thought), "Well you'd better not go out in the rain then" at which point he looked blankly at me, decided I was mad, and walked away...

.......and that was before you got onto philosophical materialism.....

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Your are mad, the best kind of madness, I was laughing at Vlad on another thread, he's mad, Shakers,  it was the worst three hours of my life, totally and wonderfully mad, we are all mad, well except for me

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

.......and that was before you got onto philosophical materialism.....

Perhaps he wasn't cut out for taking remarks like that Vlad?

ippy

[Alan Burns]

and "comprised of" is a tautology by the way

Thanks for pointing this out, but apparently I am not the only one to mis use this term - see this extract from a wiki article:

Now if you're like me and don't see anything wrong with the sentence, "The book is comprised of three chapters," you can rest assured that we're in good company. The phrase "comprised of" goes back 300 years. It turns up in Anthony Trollope, in Christopher Hitchens and Norman Mailer, in the essays of Lionel Trilling and Harold Bloom. Merriam-Webster is OK with it, and so are more than two-thirds of the eminent writers and editors on the American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel, who aren't generally a very a loosey-goosey crowd.

[Shaker]

For your delectation: http://goo.gl/JmYSPs

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Thanks for pointing this out, but apparently I am not the only one to mis use this term - see this extract from a wiki article:

Now if you're like me and don't see anything wrong with the sentence, "The book is comprised of three chapters," you can rest assured that we're in good company. The phrase "comprised of" goes back 300 years. It turns up in Anthony Trollope, in Christopher Hitchens and Norman Mailer, in the essays of Lionel Trilling and Harold Bloom. Merriam-Webster is OK with it, and so are more than two-thirds of the eminent writers and editors on the American Heritage Dictionary's usage panel, who aren't generally a very a loosey-goosey crowd.

Way to respond to the sidebar issue in parentheses and to ignore the substantive point.

Yup, of course language changes over time but if you have an interest in communicating something why risk alienating a chunk of your audience whose first thought will be, "if this guy doesn't even know or care about the meaning of the words he uses, why should I bother reading on?"?

So, have you heard of the term "logical fallacy" and have you any interest in finding out what it means? If you did, understood why your use of them undermines your arguments so fatally, and then made an effort to avoid them in future maybe your efforts here wouldn't be dismissed out of hand quite so often.

It's your call "doctor", but just a thought.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps he wasn't cut out for taking remarks like that Vlad?

ippy

LOL

[Shaker]

Shakes,

I met a chap at a party once who told me he was a cardboard engineer (he designed greetings cards and such like).

I replied (rather wittily I thought), "Well you'd better not go out in the rain then" at which point he looked blankly at me, decided I was mad, and walked away...

With a crack like that I'm not surprised he folded.