Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

TeamJesus? Why should I be recruiting the atheist Dr Ruse for Team Jesus? No it is far more satisfying watching the New Atheism receiving a filleting from a philosophical collective of many stripes.

...the end result of that would be....?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't know about your demolition of Ruse but I never saw your refutation of Feser indeed a three way debate earlier this year with Wigginhall saw you fail to grasp the argument although in a world where philosophical ignorance is a boon ignorance counts as refutation.

That’s not true. I asked you which arguments of Feser’s you found to be persuasive and, as ever, you failed to answer. Insofar as I have seen him argue though, those arguments were poor (essentially a string of ad homs).
 

Other occasions of antitheist argument (slaughtering of )…

That’s not true. You can’t have an “other” when you’ve failed to show the prior.

…have been that a creator outside of its universe has never been proposed by theology…

That’s not true. No-one has claimed any such thing. Nor though is that what NdGT proposed with his SU conjecture in any case, as you know full well.

… the Krauss nothing…

That’s not true. “The Krauss nothing” as you put it has nothing to do with “antitheist argument”.

…the scientism of new atheism…

That’s not true. Neither atheism nor “new” atheism involve scientism, let alone your personal re-definition of the term.

…and yourself.

“..and yourself” what?

To which we can add…

No you can’t, because every effort you’ve tried so far has been untrue.

…shifting attitudes to whether outside the universe can be argued…

That’s not true. There are no such shifting attitudes. What there is though is you lying about “the” universe” when the quote you were given but misrepresented anyway concerned only “a” universe. 

…for I've left the daddy of them all to the end. The continued confusion of methodological whatever is missing and philosophical whatever is.

That’s not true. There is no such confusion, other that is than your own when the citations you thought supported you blew up in your face..

To which we can probably add…

No you can’t. You can’t add to something that doesn’t exist.

…atheism as default…

Atheism is “the default” response to bad arguments for gods, for the same reason that a-leprechaunism is the default response to bad arguments for leprechauns.

…and the impossibility of moral arbitration in moral relativity.

That’s not true. People “arbitrate” on moral matters all the time with no reference to religious beliefs.
 

Amongst others.

That’s not true. You can’t have “others” when your attempts at the first examples have all collapsed in a welter of mendacity.

Any sign by the way of those now infamous supposed arguments for “God” from theology that you think are sound but that for some reason you want to keep secret? Or are we condemned now to endless more lies to distract us from your avoidance of that question?

[ippy]

TeamJesus? Why should I be recruiting the atheist Dr Ruse for Team Jesus? No it is far more satisfying watching the New Atheism receiving a filleting from a philosophical collective of many stripes.

Wouldn't swap a life with you Vlad, living in  this magical, mythical and superstitional, foggy, imaginational style world wasting my time hanging on the words of little more than sooth sayers.

Oh yes Vlad, by the way, why don't you ever give a straight answer directly addressing any question you've been asked?

Arr yes Vlad, why do most religious types like yourself see the removal of privileges the religious have as persecution, insted of realising it only amounts to leveling the playingfield, don't forget Vlad no privileges for any one group including secular humanists.

Regards ippy

[Walter]

Wouldn't swap a life with you Vlad, living in  this magical, mythical and superstitional, foggy, imaginational style world wasting my time hanging on the words of little more than sooth sayers.

Oh yes Vlad, by the way, why don't you ever give a straight answer directly addressing any question you've been asked?

Arr yes Vlad, why do most religious types like yourself see the removal of privileges the religious have as persecution, insted of realising it only amounts to leveling the playingfield, don't forget Vlad no privileges for any one group including secular humanists.

Regards ippy

the only psychological way for 'aff to continue as he does is because he is a troll, otherwise the barrage of reason against him would have caused him to leave by now

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

Wouldn't swap a life with you Vlad, living in  this magical, mythical and superstitional, foggy, imaginational style world wasting my time hanging on the words of little more than sooth sayers.

Oh yes Vlad, by the way, why don't you ever give a straight answer directly addressing any question you've been asked?

Arr yes Vlad, why do most religious types like yourself see the removal of privileges the religious have as persecution, insted of realising it only amounts to leveling the playingfield, don't forget Vlad no privileges for any one group including secular humanists.

I think that at some level he's terrified. He's so invested in beliefs about a celestial nanny who will make everything lovely post mortem that he can't even contemplate the thought that it could be nonsense. Actually answering a question about why he believes what he believes (or even just answering the question about why he won't answer questions) is unacceptably risky therefore - what if his reasons are shown to be hopeless?

Hence his preferred approach of dull nihilism - just attack the arguments that undo him (almost invariably by lying about them) and keep entirely schtumm about any arguments that might support him in the hope that no-one notices the (illusory in any case) void.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wouldn't swap a life with you Vlad, living in  this magical, mythical and superstitional, foggy, imaginational style world wasting my time hanging on the words of little more than sooth sayers.

Oh yes Vlad, by the way, why don't you ever give a straight answer directly addressing any question you've been asked?

Arr yes Vlad, why do most religious types like yourself see the removal of privileges the religious have as persecution, insted of realising it only amounts to leveling the playingfield, don't forget Vlad no privileges for any one group including secular humanists.

Regards ippy

I can assure you that what I have done in life has frequently been non magical, mythical or superstitional and the thing from God has been the endurance to do that work.

I am completely independent from any ecclesiastical control.

In terms of my answering questions, I am afraid that there is on religionethics and the DNA of New Atheism a habit of ad hominem and poisoning the well in order to shut down dissent.
A prime example is the poster who use to start all his posts with an Ad Hominem.....Rollboy or Tollboy or something desperate like that.

The main questions I believe have been answered.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I can assure you that what I have done in life has frequently been non magical, mythical or superstitional and the thing from God has been the endurance to do that work.

I am completely independent from any ecclesiastical control.

In terms of my answering questions, I am afraid that there is on religionethics and the DNA of New Atheism a habit of ad hominem and poisoning the well in order to shut down dissent.
A prime example is the poster who use to start all his posts with an Ad Hominem.....Rollboy or Tollboy or something desperate like that.

The main questions I believe have been answered.

All of which is untrue. You have always refused point blank to answer any questions at all (while simultaneously demanding that others answer yours), and any accusations of trolling have been caused by that and other behaviour, and not to pre-empt you from answering something at all.

In other words, if you troll and are called out on it you can't then blame being called on it for your trolling.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

All of which is untrue. You have always refused point blank to answer any questions at all (while simultaneously demanding that others answer yours), and any accusations of trolling have been caused by that and other behaviour, and not to pre-empt you from answering something at all.

In other words, if you troll and are called out on it you can't then blame being called on it for your trolling.

You prefaced your arguments with me with an ad hominem 'Trollboy' for a period of time.
Trolling includes name calling.
Who do you think your typical fan is Hillside? What is it appeals to them?

[Shaker]

Who do you think your typical fan is Hillside? What is it appeals to them?

I would go with cogent, coherent arguments, high intelligence, a splendid wit and more often than not stellar writing about which I can only dream of emulating on a good day with a following wind, personally.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

ippy,

I think that at some level he's terrified.     

If that, for the sake of argument, were true, what is it to you? It cannot be concern for my welfare since you have shown distinct disregard for that in your output.

In other words I find your total output baffling and idiosyncratic.

I on the other hand just come in under what Christians do...witness and apologise (in the apologetics sense).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I would go with cogent, coherent arguments, high intelligence, a splendid wit and more often than not stellar writing about which I can only dream of emulating on a good day with a following wind, personally.

Then I suppose one day I can tell my grandchildren the great Bluehillside with cogency, coherence, high intelligence. splendid wit prefaced his arguments with me with the ad hominem ''Trollboy''........

[Shaker]

If that, for the sake of argument, were true, what is it to you? It cannot be concern for my welfare since you have shown distinct disregard for that in your output.

How?

[Nearly Sane]

Then I suppose one day I can tell my grandchildren the great Bluehillside with cogency, coherence, high intelligence. splendid wit prefaced his arguments with me with the ad hominem ''Trollboy''........

Just to point out that it's merely an insult, whether deserved or not I leave to others. An ad hominem fallacy is very diffetent and using the term here is confusing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You prefaced your arguments with me with an ad hominem 'Trollboy' for a period of time.

Yes, because after so many years of your trolling it was a reasonable thing to so.

Trolling includes name calling.

Sometimes, but it also includes never answering questions, consistently misrepresenting the arguments against you, near pathological dishonesty in general, never making a positive argument for anything, gratuitous insult and abuse etc. When someone has thereby exited himself from any meaningful discussion, what's so bad about pointing it out?
 

Who do you think your typical fan is Hillside?

So far as I know, I don't have "fans".

What is it appeals to them?

What appeals to people is, presumably, cogent arguments.

You should try it one day.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just to point out that it's merely an insult,

That's about the alpha and omega of it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If that, for the sake of argument, were true, what is it to you? It cannot be concern for my welfare since you have shown distinct disregard for that in your output.

It’s merely a possible explanation for your behaviour here.

In other words I find your total output baffling and idiosyncratic.

No doubt, though I find your persistent misrepresentations etc more baffling still.

I on the other hand just come in under what Christians do...

Do you really wantt to label “Christians’ collectively with lying, evading, dissembling, distracing, insulting etc?
 

…witness…

What do you think you have “witnessed” rather than just asserted, and why?

…and apologise (in the apologetics sense).

“Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the religious discipline of defending or attempting to prove the truth of religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse."

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

What “systematic argumentation and discourse” do you think you’ve ever even attempted here?

PS You should certainly think about apologising in the ordinary sense of the word though.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Just to point out that it's merely an insult...

Not sure about that. When someone's behaviour is textbook trolling is it an insult to describe it accordingly? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Name calling is I believe Trolling.

I understand this site though to have it's own definition for things vis: cogent, coherent, argument, high intelligence,  splendid wit and  stellar writing among others.

[floo]

Name calling is I believe Trolling.

I understand this site though to have it's own definition for things vis: cogent, coherent, argument, high intelligence,  splendid wit and  stellar writing among others.

And you don't ever name call of course!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And you don't ever name call of course!

What have you got?

[ippy]

ippy,

I think that at some level he's terrified. He's so invested in beliefs about a celestial nanny who will make everything lovely post mortem that he can't even contemplate the thought that it could be nonsense. Actually answering a question about why he believes what he believes (or even just answering the question about why he won't answer questions) is unacceptably risky therefore - what if his reasons are shown to be hopeless?

Hence his preferred approach of dull nihilism - just attack the arguments that undo him (almost invariably by lying about them) and keep entirely schtumm about any arguments that might support him in the hope that no-one notices the (illusory in any case) void.     

Blue, I agree about the lying but I don't think that it's quite as bad as a malevolent form of lying can be, it's more a mix of lying and being in denial at the same time but with the denial more to the fore.

It would add a lot more credibility and respect for him if he were to start answering question for question honestly instead of this continual change the subject rather than directly answer anything head on.

regards ippy

[Sassy]

So, "all will be reunited with their loved ones" , could mean "reunited"  just for a wee while then they could be split up for eternity?

I never said they would not be judged.

[Sebastian Toe]

I never said they would not be judged.

I never said that you didn't.

The answer to my question is......?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Vlad,

All of which is untrue. You have always refused point blank to answer any questions at all ...

Which is, of course bluehillshite!

Lack of answers cannot be used as an excuse for your inability to understand them, or your ignorance in failing to educate yourself so you can be in a position to answer them.

[floo]

Which is, of course bluehillshite!

Lack of answers cannot be used as an excuse for your inability to understand them, or your ignorance in failing to educate yourself so you can be in a position to answer them.

What you actually mean is accept your particular take on the faith. Not every Christian sees it your way.