Searching for GOD...

[SteveH]

Steve H,

Maybe you've invented something there though: "OK things might be grim for you now, but you should accept your lot until the glorious sunlit uplands of the afterlife that awaits" = "Untilitarianism"!

You should keep (and copyright) it 

[Nearly Sane]

Hi Susan,

Yes, it's just muddled thinking. People no more live their lives according to being a non-believer in Vlad's god than they live their lives according to being a non-believer in leprechauns. They/we don't wake up every day and think, "now then, how should I live this day according to my non-belief?". The only time it impinges really is when those who would assert "god" (or leprechauns) arrogate rights and privileges for their beliefs that affect others such that they get a "now hang on a minute" in reply.

Surely Vlad's point was that SusanDoris was talking about atheists living according to their non belief? If so you seem to be disagreeing with SusanDoris here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Surely Vlad's point was that SusanDoris was talking about atheists living according to their non belief? If so you seem to be disagreeing with SusanDoris here.

It's near impossible to work our what Vlad is trying to say from one post to the next but he seemed to think he'd found a conflict of some sort. There isn't one though (hence "muddled thinking") and that's what I intended to convey to Susan. If i implied something else it was down to hasty drafting - there's too much ambiguity in "live according to" to get into nuanced textual analysis.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

It's near impossible to work our what Vlad is trying to say from one post to the next but he seemed to think he'd found a conflict of some sort. There isn't one though (hence "muddled thinking") and that's what I intended to convey to Susan. If i implied something else it was down to hasty drafting - there's too much ambiguity in "live according to" to get into nuanced textual analysis.

It was SusanDoris who use the phrase 'live their lives accordingly', which seems to me where the ambiguity starts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

It was SusanDoris who use the phrase 'live their lives accordingly', which seems to me where the ambiguity starts.

It starts I'd have thought with Vlad's non sequitur about a supposed conflict. "Live their lives accordingly" was Susan's, but it seems to me to be too open to interpretation to withstand further analysis - do I "live my life accordingly" by not going to church, in which case do I also "live my life accordingly" by not making daily propositions to Neptune etc?

For most non-believers in most gods I don't suppose their non-belief(s) even cross their minds for most day-to-day purposes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For most non-believers in most gods I don't suppose their non-belief(s) even cross their minds for most day-to-day purposes.

Not for you or Susan Doris, so you can stop trying to be ''Down wiv' Da Apatheists''.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

It starts I'd have thought with Vlad's non sequitur about a supposed conflict. "Live their lives accordingly" was Susan's, but it seems to me to be too open to interpretation to withstand further analysis - do I "live my life accordingly" by not going to church, in which case do I also "live my life accordingly" by not making daily propositions to Neptune etc?

For most non-believers in most gods I don't suppose their non-belief(s) even cross their minds for most day-to-day purposes.

So someone introduces an ambiguity and you pick up the person who thinks it is an ambiguity as being at fault. Odd.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's the same the forum over
Isn't it a crying shame
It's Hillside what get's the pleasure
And it's Vlad what get's the blame.

[Maeght]

Not for you or Susan Doris, so you can stop trying to be ''Down wiv' Da Apatheists''.

What does that mean?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What does that mean?

It means that the claim made by Hillside...

''For most non-believers in most gods I don't suppose their non-belief(s) even cross their minds for most day-to-day purposes..''

..cannot apply to people who spend a goodly and daily amount of time on a forum entitled

''Religionethics''.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Not for you or Susan Doris, so you can stop trying to be ''Down wiv' Da Apatheists''.

Nope, no idea. In English perhaps?

[Maeght]

It means that the claim made by Hillside...

''For most non-believers in most gods I don't suppose their non-belief(s) even cross their minds for most day-to-day purposes..''

..cannot apply to people who spend a goodly and daily amount of time on a forum entitled

''Religionethics''.

Thanks for the translation. Blue did say 'most'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So someone introduces an ambiguity and you pick up the person who thinks it is an ambiguity as being at fault. Odd.

Nope. Vlad introduced it (what "conflict"?), Susan called it "muddled thinking" and I agreed with her. If you think I identified Susan as being "at fault" that wasn't my intention.

[SusanDoris]

I feel I ought to add something at this point, but not at all sure what would be appropriate.

Hmmmm, let me ssee...

I walked to town for a few things - relying entirely on myself with not a single thought of, or reference to, God.

I have been on the few message boards I go to as usual and pointed out here and there where appropriate the total lack of any objective evidence for any god, etc.

I come here - and avoid the political stuff but as always continue to enjoy reading and posting on this forum too.

ETA Thank you, bluehillside, for fielding and fending off NS's comments!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

It means that the claim made by Hillside...

''For most non-believers in most gods I don't suppose their non-belief(s) even cross their minds for most day-to-day purposes..''

..cannot apply to people who spend a goodly and daily amount of time on a forum entitled

''Religionethics''.

First, which part of the word "most" is confusing you?

Second, even as someone who posts here regularly I don't suppose 99% of my daily choices are influenced one jot by my non-belief in your or any other gods.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

It's the same the forum over
Isn't it a crying shame
It's Hillside what get's the pleasure
And it's Vlad what get's the blame.

So when we identify the lying,
The misrepresenting and evading
That addict him,
Our Vladdo...

...just plays the victim

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

So when we identify the lying,
The misrepresenting and evading
That addict him,
Our Vladdo...

...just plays the victim

Magnificent Obsession.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Nope. Vlad introduced it (what "conflict"?), Susan called it "muddled thinking" and I agreed with her. If you think I identified Susan as being "at fault" that wasn't my intention.

Sorry, you called 'live according to' Vlad's reforming grammatically for his post ambiguous, and yet SusanDoris' post which he is replying to which uses the phrase 'live their lives accordingly' isn't ambiguous? 

[Nearly Sane]

I feel I ought to add something at this point, but not at all sure what would be appropriate.

Hmmmm, let me ssee...

I walked to town for a few things - relying entirely on myself with not a single thought of, or reference to, God.

I have been on the few message boards I go to as usual and pointed out here and there where appropriate the total lack of any objective evidence for any god, etc.

I come here - and avoid the political stuff but as always continue to enjoy reading and posting on this forum too.

ETA Thank you, bluehillside, for fielding and fending off NS's comments!

You mean the comments where you and bhs actually disagree with each other but don't seem to realise that?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

MSG 28363 AB "and accept jesus as your saviour" Weve got to push this thinking to the cliff edge, in my lifetime please. As i get older Im starting to get my patience stretched listening to faith minded people having naive, ignorant and lazy thinking. Theres a clue for so many people out there. The clue is . . . . .think. Think what you are saying, proposing, the outcome, the end game, the not thought through wishes of your beliefs, the heaven silliness, the afterlife silliness, the hell silliness, the holy ghost silliness(added in the 4th century), the praying absurdity, the miracle claims.

And would you apply your own advice to your own post? If you did, perhaps thinking may lead you to the conclusion that all you are advocating is why everyone else should think like you.

The truth (or otherwise) of a statement is not affected by calling it absurd, silly, etc, so either demonstrate why Alan Burns is wrong, or why that which contradicts what he says is true. Until then, all you are bringing to the table is your opinion.

[Gordon]

The truth (or otherwise) of a statement is not affected by calling it absurd, silly, etc, so either demonstrate why Alan Burns is wrong, or why that which contradicts what he says is true. Until then, all you are bringing to the table is your opinion.

Easy-peasy: Alan is heavily reliant on arguing fallaciously and, as such, the arguments he attempts so sincerely can be simply dismissed as being 'not even wrong'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

You mean the comments where you and bhs actually disagree with each other but don't seem to realise that?

In Reply 28369 Susan said:

“Yes, it is so clear, evidential and obvious that it is astonishing how many people still want to believe in the myth. However, most people I know are not interested in entering into conversation or long-running topics on the subject!! All my family are non-believers and run their lives accordingly. Their friends seem to be similarly minded, even if they do sort of assume that they will be buried or cremated (mostly the latter) when their lives end simply because it is the way things are” etc

In Reply 28370 Vladdo responded:

“Theirs a bit of a conflict between living your life according to being a non believer and atheism being merely the lack of belief in Gods isn't there?

I wonder how many see atheism as a way of life or that a way of life is drawn from something else.”

In Reply 28372 Susan said:

“That sounds like muddled thinking to me; I can see no way of answering it.”

In Reply 28374 I said:

“Yes, it's just muddled thinking. People no more live their lives according to being a non-believer in Vlad's god than they live their lives according to being a non-believer in leprechauns. They/we don't wake up every day and think, "now then, how should I live this day according to my non-belief?". The only time it impinges really is when those who would assert "god" (or leprechauns) arrogate rights and privileges for their beliefs that affect others such that they get a "now hang on a minute" in reply.”

That is, Susan said that her family are non-believers who “live run lives accordingly” (ie, without having long-winded discussions about theism etc). Vlad chipped in with a non sequitur about this causing a supposed conflict, Susan identified that as muddled thinking (which it is) and I agreed with her but with reference to people not running their lives by waking up every day and thinking, "now then, how should I live this day according to my non-belief?".

Susan’s point concerned theistic beliefs not impinging on the day-to-day lives of her family (passive atheism); mine concerned not deciding on what actions to take every day by reference to non-beliefs (active atheism).     

I don’t see that as a disagreement but rather as two different interpretations of the meaning of “run their lives” but no doubt you’ll think otherwise. Either way, its not a substantive enough issue for me to want to spend more time on.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

And would you apply your own advice to your own post? If you did, perhaps thinking may lead you to the conclusion that all you are advocating is why everyone else should think like you.

The truth (or otherwise) of a statement is not affected by calling it absurd, silly, etc, so either demonstrate why Alan Burns is wrong, or why that which contradicts what he says is true. Until then, all you are bringing to the table is your opinion.

Presumably you're here yet again just to post a mistake and then to disappear without bothering to answer the rebuttals to it?

Oh well. In reply to your fast-disappearing back nonetheless, AB has been shown to be wrong over and over again when his arguments are logically false. That is, when they align precisely with codified, tested and cogent templates of fallacious thinking that you too would reject if it wasn't for "god" popping out of them.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

In Reply 28369 Susan said:

“Yes, it is so clear, evidential and obvious that it is astonishing how many people still want to believe in the myth. However, most people I know are not interested in entering into conversation or long-running topics on the subject!! All my family are non-believers and run their lives accordingly. Their friends seem to be similarly minded, even if they do sort of assume that they will be buried or cremated (mostly the latter) when their lives end simply because it is the way things are” etc

In Reply 28370 Vladdo responded:

“Theirs a bit of a conflict between living your life according to being a non believer and atheism being merely the lack of belief in Gods isn't there?

I wonder how many see atheism as a way of life or that a way of life is drawn from something else.”

In Reply 28372 Susan said:

“That sounds like muddled thinking to me; I can see no way of answering it.”

In Reply 28374 I said:

“Yes, it's just muddled thinking. People no more live their lives according to being a non-believer in Vlad's god than they live their lives according to being a non-believer in leprechauns. They/we don't wake up every day and think, "now then, how should I live this day according to my non-belief?". The only time it impinges really is when those who would assert "god" (or leprechauns) arrogate rights and privileges for their beliefs that affect others such that they get a "now hang on a minute" in reply.”

That is, Susan said that her family are non-believers who “live run lives accordingly” (ie, without having long-winded discussions about theism etc). Vlad chipped in with a non sequitur about this causing a supposed conflict, Susan identified that as muddled thinking (which it is) and I agreed with her but with reference to people not running their lives by waking up every day and thinking, "now then, how should I live this day according to my non-belief?".

Susan’s point concerned theistic beliefs not impinging on the day-to-day lives of her family (passive atheism); mine concerned not deciding on what actions to take every day by reference to non-beliefs (active atheism).     

I don’t see that as a disagreement but rather as two different interpretations of the meaning of “run their lives” but no doubt you’ll think otherwise. Either way, its not a substantive enough issue for me to want to spend more time on.

God knows why you quoted tons of stuff that just highlights what I pointed out just to then say what you have been saying is not substantive.

[SusanDoris]

God knows why you quoted tons of stuff that just highlights what I pointed out just to then say what you have been saying is not substantive.

I have to wonder why you have now quoted it all again!!I cannot comment because I cannot hold all that in my head in order to do so.

Mind you, if I had the time and motivation to learn the techniques employed by those who take part in the World Championships of Memory, and which I'm reading about at the moment, , I could possibly memorise it.. ...