Searching for GOD...

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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.

And in doing so, was this expressed as your opinion, or did you also point out any objective evidence you have for this positive claim?

[Gordon]

And in doing so, was this expressed as your opinion, or did you also point out any objective evidence you have for this positive claim?

Since you dropped in for, presumably, a flying visit, Sword - I recall that you were asked to outline the 'properties of truth' you spoke of: still waiting! 

[Nearly Sane]

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.. ...

Because I am on a hand held making editing quite hard. After all it was bus that quoted everything to start with, but you won't point that out because of your bias.

[SusanDoris]

And in doing so, was this expressed as your opinion, or did you also point out any objective evidence you have for this positive claim?

Now that is a muddle of a post if ever there was one!!! And, yes, that is my opinion.
Let's see: negative proof fallacy for a start ... ...

[SusanDoris]

Because I am on a hand held making editing quite hard. After all it was bus that quoted everything to start with, but you won't point that out because of your bias.
[/quote.]
No, I wouldn't point it out because, listening and not looking,  I do not notice such things.

[Nearly Sane]

Because I am on a hand held making editing quite hard. After all it was bus that quoted everything to start with, but you won't point that out because of your bias.

No, I wouldn't point it out because, listening and not looking,  I do not notice such things.

So you didn't read bhs' post where the quotes were made?

[Nearly Sane]

Now that is a muddle of a post if ever there was one!!! And, yes, that is my opinion.
Let's see: negative proof fallacy for a start ... ...

What do you think in SotS post is a use of the NPF?

[SusanDoris]

NS

Yes, of course, I read all the posts, all the wway through.

Re the NPF - I'll have a go at answering that tomorrow. I'm sswitching off now.

[Nearly Sane]

NS

Yes, of course, I read all the posts, all the wway through.

Re the NPF - I'll have a go at answering that tomorrow. I'm sswitching off now.

Then that means your responses on my quoting don't make much sense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

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.

Because, as I explained, the meaning of "run their lives" Susan used and the meaning of it I used were different. That's why I said the phrase had too much ambiguity to bear much analysis. I didn't however disagree with her use of it and, so far as I'm aware, Susan didn't disagree with mine.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Because, as I explained, the meaning of "run their lives" Susan used and the meaning of it I used were different. That's why I said the phrase had too much ambiguity to bear much analysis. I didn't however disagree with her use of it and, so far as I'm aware, Susan didn't disagree with mine.

So why blame Vlad for ambiguity whem you are accepting the ambiguity that is in the phrase that SusanDoris used abd Vlad picked up on. If you are using it differently, then you are disagreeing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

What do you think in SotS post is a use of the NPF?

This bit:

"And in doing so, was this expressed as your opinion, or did you also point out any objective evidence you have for this positive claim?"

Floo’s comment would have been more happily expressed as something like “no objective evidence has been brought to my (or to my knowledge anyone else’s) attention”, but nor has objective evidence for orbiting teapots either and the vanishing Sword’s implication was clear enough I’d have thought.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So why blame Vlad for ambiguity whem you are accepting the ambiguity that is in the phrase that SusanDoris used abd Vlad picked up on. If you are using it differently, then you are disagreeing.

Are you feeling unwell or something? What I "blamed" him for (as you put it) was the non sequitur of inferring a conflict. You then put on your big shiny pedant's hat and started talking about ambiguity, and I said that if there was any such then it started with his muddled thinking re the supposed conflict.

Why do I get the feeling that, if I told a story about seeing a Martian spaceship land today on the way back from Tesco, you'd then start en endless (and pointless) exchange about whether or not I was in fact on the way back from Sainsbury? Vlad claimed a conflict - that's the substantive mistake. Address it or not (unless your pro Vlad "bias" at play?) but the unremitting, "Er, point of order please Mr Chairman", borough council sub-committee, best John Major voice interjections are going nowhere.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Are you feeling unwell or something? What I "blamed" him for (as you put it) was the non sequitur of inferring a conflict. You then put on your big shiny pedant's hat and started talking about ambiguity, and I said that if there was any such then it started with his muddled thinking re the supposed conflict.

Why do I get the feeling that, if I told a story about seeing a Martian spaceship land today on the way back from Tesco, you'd then start en endless (and pointless) exchange about whether or not I was in fact on the way back from Sainsbury? Vlad claimed a conflict - that's the substantive mistake. Address it or not (unless your pro Vlad "bias" at play?) but the unremitting, "Er, point of order please Mr Chairman", borough council sub-committee, best John Major voice interjections are going nowhere.

You get that feeling, I would suggest, because you aren't able to answer that you saying that disagreeing with someone doesn't mean that you disagree with them.



Care to substantiate the idea that I am somehow 'pro Vlad'? Or are you happy with lying?

[Enki]

And in doing so, was this expressed as your opinion, or did you also point out any objective evidence you have for this positive claim?

I also find no objective evidence for any god. Hence the objective evidence is that there is no objective evidence, unless or until you can produce objective evidence for the existence of any god. There! Is that positive enough for you?

[Nearly Sane]

I also find no objective evidence for any god. Hence the objective evidence is that there is no objective evidence, unless or until you can produce objective evidence for the existence of any god. There! Is that positive enough for you?

So your subjective finding is objective? How does that work?

[Enki]

What funding? Do you mean finding?

Only in the sense that I can be proved wrong as soon as evidence is shown, which is objective(to be more accurate, inter subjective in nature) which shows the existence of god(s).

Obviously it is subjective in nature in the sense that it is me that is thinking etc. Mind you, that's the same for everything. Not sure of your point here.

[SusanDoris]

bluehillside and enki

Thank you for your posts - much better expressed than I could do, so I'm afraid NS will have to go without a separate response from me""

[Nearly Sane]

What funding? Do you mean finding?

Only in the sense that I can be proved wrong as soon as evidence is shown, which is objective(to be more accurate, inter subjective in nature) which shows the existence of god(s).

Obviously it is subjective in nature in the sense that it is me that is thinking etc. Mind you, that's the same for everything. Not sure of your point here.

But it is your subjective opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot 'gild' that to bring 'objective' as you did in your post by putting an incorrect use of objective in.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

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

...just plays the victim

It's too late Hillside. SusanDoris has already stated that she has relatives who are non believers and live their lives accordingly and that will be used against any future plea that atheism is only the non belief of gods or whatever.

How non believers live there lives accordingly is a matter for another post.

What seems to be happening here is you trying to foist your views on other atheists imho.

[Nearly Sane]

It's too late Hillside. SusanDoris has already stated that she has relatives who are non believers and live their lives accordingly and that will be used against any future plea that atheism is only the non belief of gods or whatever.

How non believers live there lives accordingly is a matter for another post.

What seems to be happening here is you trying to foist your views on other atheists imho.

You could use it but it's only relevant to the people who say it. Extrapolating that it changes the meaning of atheism would be specious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You could use it but it's only relevant to the people who say it. Extrapolating that it changes the meaning of atheism would be specious.

You kind of confirm to me that different conceptions of what atheism is coexist.
If we go back to what I originally said I posed question. If.a life is not lived
according to non belief as Susan suggested from whence is it drawn?

It appeared to me that Hillsides intervention was to remind Susan what the party line was according to him and hopefully stick one on me.

[Maeght]

It's too late Hillside. SusanDoris has already stated that she has relatives who are non believers and live their lives accordingly and that will be used against any future plea that atheism is only the non belief of gods or whatever.

Of course non believers live their lives accordingly i.e. they do not consider God or gods when deciding what to do or how to act and do not follow religious practices or rituals. How is this a clash with atheism being only a non belief in God or gods?

[torridon]

You kind of confirm to me that different conceptions of what atheism is coexist.
If we go back to what I originally said I posed question. If.a life is not lived
according to non belief as Susan suggested from whence is it drawn?

Back to front thinking.  We don't live our lives by what we don't believe in.  Do you define your life in terms of the non-observance of the pillars of Islam ?

[Gordon]

It's too late Hillside. SusanDoris has already stated that she has relatives who are non believers and live their lives accordingly and that will be used against any future plea that atheism is only the non belief of gods or whatever.

How non believers live there lives accordingly is a matter for another post.

What seems to be happening here is you trying to foist your views on other atheists imho.

Not really, Vlad, since 'live their lives accordingly' is gloriously imprecise.

There may be some atheists who on a day and daily basis take specific steps to avoid interacting with theism, though I don't know of any - do you? For my part anyway, aside from discussing religion here or being aware of current affairs issues that have a religious aspect, theism plays no active part in my daily life or that of my family - but then again neither does football or watching 'Strictly' - so it seems to me this more a matter of the irrelevance of these things to me on a personal basis than it is deliberate avoidance