Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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 ?

Are you telling me or Susan Doris who says she has relatives who are non believers and live there lives accordingly?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

Explain please?

[Maeght]

What are you imagining 'living their lives accordingly' mean in regard to how atheist behave?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What are you imagining 'living their lives accordingly' mean in regard to how atheist behave?

Have you directed this question to SusanDoris the atheist who used the phrase?
What do you imagine it means other than living their lives according to their non belief?

[Maeght]

Have you directed this question to SusanDoris the atheist who used the phrase?
What do you imagine it means other than living their lives according to their non belief?

Susan Doris hasn't been making an issue of the phrase. You have in an effort to make a point, which I am trying to understand. She has also said more about what she meant by this. If you answered my question that would help me understand your point.

[Gordon]

Explain please?

It's very simple, Vlad - where people have preferences or interests they regard as important to them then whatever these things involve can be dominant factors in their thinking and their lifestyle, so that they live their lives 'according to' what is entailed by these.

For example, back in the day I worked with a chap who freely admitted that the demands of work and family were mere interruptions to his major preoccupation: which in his case was to think about golf, talk about golf, watch other people play golf and of course play golf himself. He also routinely kitted himself out in the silly clothes favoured by golfers when playing, but not otherwise, and constantly held a squeezy spring-like device in his hand 'to improve his grip' (but sadly not of reality, outwith golf-matters).

When it comes to religion undoubtedly there are some who enjoy the ritual and associated activities that can be part of organised religion and, of course, there may be those whose religious convictions are more personal and may not involve much in the way of lifestyle activity. I'd say atheism is probably more like the latter: plenty of thinking perhaps but no real activity since there is nothing to 'do' in respect of atheism whereas there can be in respect of theism (or golf).

Put very simply - religion can be similar to a hobby in terms of 'doing stuff' in respect of it, so that it may have lifestyle aspects in ways not dissimilar to football enthusiasts who have season tickets and who never miss a game, whereas atheism (as far as I can see) involves no actions or activities at all.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

The idiocy is strong here…

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.

One atheist could “live his life accordingly” by always crossing the road so as to avoid walking past a church; another could “live his life accordingly” because religious beliefs never enter his mind as he goes about his daily business. 

It’s not hard to understand, it really isn’t.

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’s a non-question. Life doesn’t have to be “drawn” from anywhere – most people just get on with living it as a matter of practical expediency.

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.

More idiocy – there is no “party line” (and nor is there a “party”). See above.

Are you telling me or Susan Doris who says she has relatives who are non believers and live there lives accordingly?

The way Susan’s relatives live their lives “accordingly” could be anywhere on a spectrum of active avoidance and ignorance at either end, with indifference in between. The same is true of you in respect of the countless religious faiths in which you don’t believe.   

Have you directed this question to SusanDoris the atheist who used the phrase?
What do you imagine it means other than living their lives according to their non belief?

It could mean any of a range of things. See above.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's very simple, Vlad - where people have preferences or interests they regard as important to them then whatever these things involve can be dominant factors in their thinking and their lifestyle, so that they live their lives 'according to' what is entailed by these.

For example, back in the day I worked with a chap who freely admitted that the demands of work and family were mere interruptions to his major preoccupation: which in his case was to think about golf, talk about golf, watch other people play golf and of course play golf himself. He also routinely kitted himself out in the silly clothes favoured by golfers when playing, but not otherwise, and constantly held a squeezy spring-like device in his hand 'to improve his grip' (but sadly not of reality, outwith golf-matters).

When it comes to religion undoubtedly there are some who enjoy the ritual and associated activities that can be part of organised religion and, of course, there may be those whose religious convictions are more personal and may not involve much in the way of lifestyle activity. I'd say atheism is probably more like the latter: plenty of thinking perhaps but no real activity since there is nothing to 'do' in respect of atheism whereas there can be in respect of theism (or golf).

Put very simply - religion can be similar to a hobby in terms of 'doing stuff' in respect of it, so that it may have lifestyle aspects in ways not dissimilar to football enthusiasts who have season tickets and who never miss a game, whereas atheism (as far as I can see) involves no actions or activities at all.   

Sorry Gordon.....saw that this was about religion and thus evading any of my questions.
I tend not to give red herrings the T.O.D.

[Gordon]

Sorry Gordon.....saw that this was about religion and thus evading any of my questions.

Try reading it again (perhaps you missed the analogy).

I tend not to give red herrings the T.O.D.

For those of us who don't speak fluent Vladdish a translation is needed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Sorry Gordon.....saw that this was about religion and thus evading any of my questions.
I tend not to give red herrings the T.O.D.

Just out of interest, why do you struggle so much with the notion of an analogy? There are plenty of free online dictionaries available - you could look it up, process the meaning, and then perhaps not make such a fool of yourself here. You must at least have some inkling of the meaning - or when someone says, "It's like looking for a needle in a haystack" do you dismiss it because the conversation isn't about needles and haystacks?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

The idiocy is strong here…

One atheist could “live his life accordingly” by always crossing the road so as to avoid walking past a church; another could “live his life accordingly” because religious beliefs never enter his mind as he goes about his daily business. 

It’s not hard to understand, it really isn’t.

It’s a non-question. Life doesn’t have to be “drawn” from anywhere – most people just get on with living it as a matter of practical expediency.

More idiocy – there is no “party line” (and nor is there a “party”). See above.

The way Susan’s relatives live their lives “accordingly” could be anywhere on a spectrum of active avoidance and ignorance at either end, with indifference in between. The same is true of you in respect of the countless religious faiths in which you don’t believe.   

It could mean any of a range of things. See above.

Yes , that's your opinion Hillside and you want all your fellow atheists to have that opinion and your presence here is enforcement.........we get that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Yes , that's your opinion Hillside and you want all your fellow atheists to have that opinion and your presence here is enforcement.........we get that.

And today's prize for misrepresenting with pretty much the polar opposite of what I actually said goes to....

Just out of interest, why do you lie so much? Does it give you some kind of misplaced pleasure, or is it so ingrained that you just can't help yourself?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Try reading it again (perhaps you missed the analogy).

Read it again.
I need to think though about how it fits with the thread which you particular seem to be wanting to portray Non belief as some virtuous mental endeavour, the very opposite of a hobby but still in some strange way merely the absence of some thing. A real contradiction if ever there was one.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Read it again.
I need to think though about how it fits with the thread which you particular seem to be wanting to portray Non belief as some virtuous mental endeavour, the very opposite of a hobby but still in some strange way merely the absence of some thing. A real contradiction if ever there was one.

Why are you embarrassing yourself again? Neither Fred nor Harry play golf. Fred has no interest whatever in golf, it never impacts on his life and he proceeds without it ever entering his consciousness. Harry really hates golf clubs' treatment of women being akin to that of the Taliban so would never hire their facilities for a function, actively campaigns against them etc. Both are "a-golfists" and both "run their lives accordingly", albeit in different ways.

Now substitute "golf" for your (or any other) religion.   

It's not hard to grasp. It really isn't.

[Gordon]

I need to think though about how it fits with the thread which you particular seem to be wanting to portray Non belief as some virtuous mental endeavour, the very opposite of a hobby but still in some strange way merely the absence of some thing. A real contradiction if ever there was one.

You certainly do need to think, Vlad, so why not give it a try: it will be a new experience for you, and you might even get to like it. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You certainly do need to think, Vlad, so why not give it a try: it will be a new experience for you, and you might even get to like it.

Wait a minute.I didn't say I agreed with your portrayal of atheism which is somehow simultaneously the result of some supremely virtuous thought process and mere non belief.

Contradictory nonsense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Wait a minute.I didn't say I agreed with your portrayal of atheism which is somehow simultaneously the result of some supremely virtuous thought process and mere non belief.

Contradictory nonsense.

Which no-one claims it to be. Watching you critique your own straw man is fun and all, but it's pointless nonetheless.

[Gordon]

Wait a minute.I didn't say I agreed with your portrayal of atheism which is somehow simultaneously the result of some supremely virtuous thought process and mere non belief.

Contradictory nonsense.

Where did I imply 'supremely virtuous thought process'?

If it is as warm where you are as it is here in civilisation I'd suggest you be careful with all that straw you've acquired lest it catches fire.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where did I imply 'supremely virtuous thought process'?

If it is as warm where you are as it is here in civilisation I'd suggest you be careful with all that straw you've acquired lest it catches fire.

First of all you are implying that I do not think and should try it because I might benefit from its virtues.

Then you suggest that religion is a hobby and superficial.
You grudgingly conced that religion may be held personally but that atheism certainly is and that it is held in a way which is more virtuous than the hobby of religion.

Therefore demonstrate this virtue, demonstrate that religion is merely a hobby and that any great thought has gone into atheism personally or genuine.

[Maeght]

Wait a minute.I didn't say I agreed with your portrayal of atheism which is somehow simultaneously the result of some supremely virtuous thought process and mere non belief.

Contradictory nonsense.

I certainly don't consider atheism to be the result of some 'supremely virtuous process'. I think the non-belief comes first then you may think it through and address the arguements for the existence of God, which is what most people on here are actually doing in my view, but not all of course.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

First of all you are implying that I do not think and should try it because I might benefit from its virtues.

Which is both fair comment and has nothing to do with your "supremely virtuous" misrepresentation.

Then you suggest that religion is a hobby and superficial.

He lied. What Gordon actually did was to use an analogy. Look it up if you're still confused by that term.

You grudgingly conced that religion may be held personally but that atheism certainly is and that it is held in a way which is more virtuous than the hobby of religion.

The "virtuous" bit was just your invention remember?

Therefore....

Very funny. You can't claim a "therefore" on the back of a straw man.

...demonstrate this virtue, demonstrate that religion is merely a hobby and that any great thought has gone into atheism personally or genuine.

You want him to demonstrate your misrepresentations?

Why?

[Gordon]

First of all you are implying that I do not think and should try it because I might benefit from its virtues.

Then you suggest that religion is a hobby and superficial.
You grudgingly conced that religion may be held personally but that atheism certainly is and that it is held in a way which is more virtuous than the hobby of religion.

Therefore demonstrate this virtue, demonstrate that religion is merely a hobby and that any great thought has gone into atheism personally or genuine.

I see you haven't got round to thinking as yet, since you're still peddling your 'virtuous' straw man and you clearly don't understand the use of analogy.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see you haven't got round to thinking as yet, since you're still peddling your 'virtuous' straw man and you clearly don't understand the use of analogy.

I do think Gordon but according to you I can't be thinking in the correct or virtuous way.

So then Gordon what is it about atheist thinking which is correct?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

I do think Gordon…

So you claim, though the evidence of your posts here is that you don’t do it coherently. Or honestly.

…but according to you I can't be thinking in the correct or virtuous way.

Still lying then I see. First, the “virtuous” is just something you made up remember? You said it, not Gordon. Second, “correct” should be “logically cogent” or similar.

So then Gordon what is it about atheist thinking which is correct?

What’s “correct” is that by identifying the logical flaws in the arguments theists make for their gods those arguments are rendered necessarily wrong. It’s simple enough.

[Gordon]

I do think Gordon but according to you I can't be thinking in the correct or virtuous way.

'Virtuous' is something you've introduced into this exchange - I've no idea what you mean by it.

So then Gordon what is it about atheist thinking which is correct?

Pointing out the flaws in arguments for theism would be the obvious one, but that is just common or garden 'thinking'. I can think about all sorts of things, such as motorcycles (since I've not long got off mine), so does that mean I also indulge in 'motorcyclist thinking'?