Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

True to form, Alan, rather than engage with recent information indicating the decline of Christianity in the UK you resort to meaningless theobabble: no wonder Christianity is on the way out here.

True to form, Gordon, you once more confirm the truth in Sassy's opening post by proffering a statistical add pop argument to help justify your non belief.

[Nearly Sane]

True to form, Gordon, you once more confirm the truth in Sassy's opening post by proffering a statistical add pop argument to help justify your non belief.

This is you back at implying non believers are lying. Why do you do that so frequently?

[Nearly Sane]

The more sneering, sarky, pseudo-intellectual, straw-god-attacking posts from the non-believers on this forum that I read, the less attractive do I find the idea of abandoning Christianity (though I'm often tempted). Your sheer unpleasantness is a useful evangelistic tool for the church. Keep it up, chaps! (And before former azure slope, our resident fallacy-finder, accuses me of the consequentialist fallacy, I should point out that I'm not saying that the unpleasant attitude of the nonbelievers disproves non-belief, just that it puts people off it.)

Dunning Kruger rides again.

[BeRational]

The more sneering, sarky, pseudo-intellectual, straw-god-attacking posts from the non-believers on this forum that I read, the less attractive do I find the idea of abandoning Christianity (though I'm often tempted). Your sheer unpleasantness is a useful evangelistic tool for the church. Keep it up, chaps! (And before former azure slope, our resident fallacy-finder, accuses me of the consequentialist fallacy, I should point out that I'm not saying that the unpleasant attitude of the nonbelievers disproves non-belief, just that it puts people off it.)

By unpleasant,  do you mean people that disagree with you, or those that point out were you have made a logical error?

[Gordon]

True to form, Gordon, you once more confirm the truth in Sassy's opening post by proffering a statistical add pop argument to help justify your non belief.

Not an 'add pop' (sic), Alan: just noting the results of a series of reputable surveys that chart the on-going decline in UK Christian affiliation over recent years - none of which has anything whatsoever to do with my views.

[SteveH]

By unpleasant,  do you mean people that disagree with you, or those that point out were you have made a logical error?

As my post made perfectly clear, I meant sarky, sneering, condescending people, like most of the non-believers on here. I can live with people disagreeing with me.

[SteveH]

Dunning Kruger rides again.

What the bloody blue blazes has Dunning-Kruger got to do with anything?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

What sneering, sarky etc would that be? My experience here is that it’s the atheists who, on balance, are more polite, patient and willing to explain than are the theists. The relentless straw manning of Vlad, the unremitting dishonesty of AB (who will never, ever address the problems of the logical errors he repeats over and over again) are just two examples. If you actually mean the teasing of, say, spoof book titles though then what on earth else is there to do in response to the theists refusal to engage with the arguments that undo them?

Oh, and you need to understand too that, absent any cogent supporting arguments, dismissiveness of religious beliefs is every bit as appropriate as dismissiveness of leprechaunology. If someone wants his faith beliefs to be given special respect then those beliefs have to earn it by force of reason - just repeating them doesn’t even get its trousers off for that purpose.

[Alan Burns]

Steve H,

What sneering, sarky etc would that be? My experience here is that it’s the atheists who, on balance, are more polite, patient and willing to explain than are the theists. The relentless straw manning of Vlad, the unremitting dishonesty of AB (who will never, ever address the problems of the logical errors he repeats over and over again) are just two examples. If you actually mean the teasing of, say, spoof book titles though then what on earth else is there to do in response to the theists refusal to engage with the arguments that undo them?

Oh, and you need to understand too that, absent any cogent supporting arguments, dismissiveness of religious beliefs is every bit as appropriate as dismissiveness of leprechaunology. If someone wants his faith beliefs to be given special respect then those beliefs have to earn it by force of reason - just repeating them doesn’t even get its trousers off for that purpose.

Words of Bob Dylan come to mind:

The ghetto you build for me is the one you end up in,
The race of the engine that overrules your heart,
Ooh, I can't stand it, I can't stand it,
Pretending that you're so smart.

Dead man, dead man,
When will you rise?
Cobwebs in your mind,
Dust in your eyes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No doubt they do Alan, but that still doesn’t get you off the hook of making mistake after mistake after mistake when trying to validate your faith beliefs, then refusing ever to address the problem when it’s explained to you.

What does this behaviour say about you do you think?

[Enki]

Words of Bob Dylan come to mind:

The ghetto you build for me is the one you end up in,
The race of the engine that overrules your heart,
Ooh, I can't stand it, I can't stand it,
Pretending that you're so smart.

Dead man, dead man,
When will you rise?
Cobwebs in your mind,
Dust in your eyes.

Actually I find these words extremely appropriate for your good self, Alan.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi enks,

Yes, the irony will be entirely lost on AB but a Grand Canyon sized irony it is nonetheless.

[Nearly Sane]

What the bloody blue blazes has Dunning-Kruger got to do with anything?

That you're unable to recognise whether people are being sarky and sneering because you just see them as being snarky and sneering by disagreeing, therefore your evaluation is biased

[SteveH]

That you're unable to recognise whether people are being sarky and sneering because you just see them as being snarky and sneering by disagreeing, therefore your evaluation is biased

Do you even knowwhat the Dunning-Kruger effect is?
I do know sarcasm when I see it! If I could be arsed, which I can't, I could do a big trawl of various threads and show you dozens of examples of incontrovertibly sarcastic posts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Again, if someone is here only to proselytise but never to discuss anything at all, employs a string of fallacious arguments to support him, then refuses ever to address the problem he’s given himself then what response other than sarcasm do you think is appropriate?

[SteveH]

Steve H,

Again, if someone is here only to proselytise but never to discuss anything at all, employs a string of fallacious arguments to support him, then refuses ever to address the problem he’s given himself then what response other than sarcasm do you think is appropriate?

Ignore them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Why? If they want to proselytise on what’s supposed to be a discussion board they must expect to be shot down; if they want to do it where it belongs though - in the faith sharing area - then I’ll ignore them, just as I ignore what vicars have to say at their pulpits.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Coda: you seem to think that proselytising on what’s supposed to be a discussion forum is a lesser offence than responding sarcastically to someone who is proselytising on what’s supposed to be a discussion forum.

Why?

[Christine]

As someone who originally came to this site, among others, looking for hints that might point in the vague direction of some kind of enlightenment, I would say it's crucial for people like Bluehillside to continue responding.  If nonsense is left to stand unchallenged, people like me might think it has some merit.  I've learned a lot about logic and science from some posters here.  Thanks and keep up the good work!

[ekim]

Steve H,

Coda: you seem to think that proselytising on what’s supposed to be a discussion forum is a lesser offence than responding sarcastically to someone who is proselytising on what’s supposed to be a discussion forum.

Why?

It probably depends upon the motive of the user.  The proselytiser could have the motive of preaching something which they think can help others as it has helped them, whereas the sarcastic could be seen to have the motive to hurt those they disagree with by using what amounts to an ad hominem attack.  In both cases reasonable discussion comes to an end.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Christine: thank you.

Ekim: you’ve missed the point (see my recent posts). Sarcasm is the last resort in response to the poster who has no intention of discussing anything. Should he actually bother to engage with the arguments that undo him though, then there’s a (non-sarcastic) discussion to be had.

[King Oberon]

Perhaps this is all caused the the over use of the word proselytising or is that sarcasm? 

I'm sure someone will guide me, I've only got to enli on my path to enlightenment i suspect i won't get to the end before the end. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi KO,

AB’s entire “contribution” here is effectively, “ain’t god wonderful though”. When asked what he means by “god”, why he thinks he exists at all, why he thinks he’s so wonderful etc he either ignores the questions or collapses into some very bad arguments. And when he’s given the explanations for why they’re very bad arguments he ignores the problem in favour of more, “ain’t god wonderful though”.

Hence, after many attempts to get him to put his big boy honestly pants on, the only recourse left is the sarcasm of which Steve H disapproves.

[SteveH]

As someone who originally came to this site, among others, looking for hints that might point in the vague direction of some kind of enlightenment, I would say it's crucial for people like Bluehillside to continue responding.  If nonsense is left to stand unchallenged, people like me might think it has some merit.  I've learned a lot about logic and science from some posters here.  Thanks and keep up the good work!

Respond by all means; I just don't think sarcasm is a particularly helpful response.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Why have you just ignored the question I asked, and what would you propose instead?