Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You consciously choose to justify your point of view.
I consciously choose to justify my point of view.
Regardless of our points of view, we are both demonstrating the reality that we have consciously driven freedom.

Except of course:

1. This is a complete evasion of the rebuttals you've just been given. Funny that; and

2. It's just yet another repetition of your fundamentally mistaken assertion that the way things feel must also be the way things are (ie, that making an argument at all must mean that your logically impossible version of "free"will is the real deal). Would it really kill you just for once to try at least to engage with the arguments that falsify you rather than just repeat the same mistake as if nothing had been explained to you?

Really though?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Good moaning ivveribuddy.

Good grief – now there's a name from the past. Hope all's well with you and yours old son.

[Aruntraveller]

Thanks.I look forward to chewing the fat with you again.

Good to see you back. I have missed your pithy comments.

For information I do have a lisp.

[Roses]

Thanks.I look forward to chewing the fat with you again.

I am in SHOCK! For some reason you featured in my dreams (nightmares) last night. I log on this morning and there you are, HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bluehillside Retd.]

LR,

I am in SHOCK! For some reason you featured in my dreams (nightmares) last night. I log on this morning and there you are, HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I reckon the relentless demolition of his previous efforts began to take effect so he took a sabbatical to reconsider, discovered that all the reasons he used to justify his faith beliefs were wrong, had an epiphany and has come back a full blown atheist to repent for the error of his ways by tearing AB a new one...

...something like that anyway ; - )

[Walt Zingmatilder]

LR,

I reckon the relentless demolition of his previous efforts began to take effect so he took a sabbatical to reconsider, discovered that all the reasons he used to justify his faith beliefs were wrong, had an epiphany and has come back a full blown atheist to repent for the error of his ways by tearing AB a new one...

...something like that anyway ; - )

I can see you want to get stuck in. You will have to show me some of these "demolitions" some time.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I can see you want to get stuck in. You will have to show me some of these "demolitions" some time.

Not at all, and they're all there still if you finally want to have a go at engaging with them. So you haven't quite found the straight and narrow of atheism yet? Shame, but fear not - I have every confidence you'll get there eventually! ; - )

[Walt Zingmatilder]

LR,

I reckon the relentless demolition of his previous efforts began to take effect so he took a sabbatical to reconsider, discovered that all the reasons he used to justify his faith beliefs were wrong, had an epiphany and has come back a full blown atheist to repent for the error of his ways by tearing AB a new one...

...something like that anyway ; - )

Actually my reflections have led me to believe that most so called atheist arguments aren't actually atheist....many are argumentum ad ridiculum and much of the remainder are "even if you are right that doesn't demonstraye that my view of your view of God is is wrong" type arguments

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Actually my reflections have led me to believe that most so called atheist arguments aren't actually atheist....many are argumentum ad ridiculum and much of the remainder are "even if you are right that doesn't demonstraye that my view of your view of God is is right" type arguments

That’s because a) you’ve never understood how analogy works, and b) all we non-superstitionists have to go on re the meaning of “god” is what theists tell us they mean by it (which admittedly is either white noise or differs for every theist you ask) but fear not – I’m here to steer you toward the light still ; - )

[SteveH]

It is a pity some Christians don't appear to know the different between good and bad!

Where do you, as an atheist, get your standard of good and bad from?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That’s because a) you’ve never understood how analogy works, and b) all we non-superstitionists have to go on re the meaning of “god” is what theists tell us they mean by it (which admittedly is either white noise or differs for every theist you ask) but fear not – I’m here to steer you toward the light still ; - )

I disagree. Attributes of God have been directly and implicitly,continually and repeatedly been presented to you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

PVJ,

Where do you, as an atheist, get your standard of good and bad from?

If I may, certainly not from a book telling me what to think. Let’s try an analogy – you presumably find some art or music to be “good” or “bad”. Where do you get your standards from to decide which is which? Not from a book I’m guessing. Morality is analogous to that: we conclude “good” and “bad” partly instinctively (some things just feel right or wrong) and partly by reason (for example people who were previously racists can sometimes be reasoned out of it). The mistake is to assume morality to be some sort of universal law or property that we can access by reference to “holy” books; actually it’s what we discern and reason it to be, which is why it can change radically over time whereas, say, gravity does not.

[SteveH]

PVJ,

If I may, certainly not from a book telling me what to think. Let’s try an analogy – you presumably find some art or music to be “good” or “bad”. Where do you get your standards from to decide which is which? Not from a book I’m guessing. Morality is analogous to that: we conclude “good” and “bad” partly instinctively (some things just feel right or wrong) and partly by reason (for example people who were previously racists can sometimes be reasoned out of it). The mistake is to assume morality to be some sort of universal law or property that we can access by reference to “holy” books; actually it’s what we discern and reason it to be, which is why it can change radically over time whereas, say, gravity does not.

I don't think religion is necessary to provide a moral standard: I'm a rule-utilitarian. I just wondered where LR got her standard from.
Morality doesn't change radically over time in its basics. All societies praise kindness, honesty, and peacefulness, and condemn cruelty, deceit, theft, and random violence, even if they disagree on the details.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I disagree. Attributes of God have been directly and implicitly,continually and repeatedly been presented to you.

Clearly not true. What’s actually been “presented” (well, asserted) are whatever characteristics theists choose to map on to their belief(s) in “god(s)”. The nice person has a loving god, the nasty person has a vengeful god etc and in any case at best all this gives us is a CV. It tells us nothing about what this supposed go actually is, just what it does. It’s a bit like asking someone what they mean by “dog” and being told, “it’s that thing that chases sticks”. Well fine, but that tells us nothing about what a dog is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Clearly not true. What’s actually been “presented” (well, asserted) are whatever characteristics theists choose to map on to their belief(s) in “god(s)”. The nice person has a loving god, the nasty person has a vengeful god etc and in any case at best all this gives us is a CV. It tells us nothing about what this supposed go actually is, just what it does. It’s a bit like asking someone what they mean by “dog” and being told, “it’s that thing that chases sticks”. Well fine, but that tells us nothing about what a dog is.

And yet when the attributes of God are seriously debated ( a context I find pretty unrepresented in your corpus) atheists are perfectly happy for the same characteristics to be incorporated into cosmological arguments for naturalism and moral lroperties in humans and nature.

[Roses]

Where do you, as an atheist, get your standard of good and bad from?

Not from the not so good book that is for sure!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 It’s a bit like asking someone what they mean by “dog” and being told, “it’s that thing that chases sticks”. Well fine, but that tells us nothing about what a dog is.
[/quote]
So that doesn't tell you that a dog chases sticks?

[Walter]

And yet when the attributes of God are seriously debated ( a context I find pretty unrepresented in your corpus) atheists are perfectly happy for the same characteristics to be incorporated into cosmological arguments for naturalism and moral lroperties in humans and nature.

Vlad;
It's the same old shit mate . You have either learnt nothing or are an intellectual liar .
How many times can you put your finger into a candle flame before you decide " I shouldn't be doing that" ?

[SteveH]

Not from the not so good book that is for sure!

So where DO you get your moral standard from?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad;
It's the same old shit mate . You have either learnt nothing or are an intellectual liar .
How many times can you put your finger into a candle flame before you decide " I shouldn't be doing that" ?

1st of all there are very few actual atheists...namely someone who would put a case for naturalism in the form of a logical or philosophical argument.
Therefore having been taught or burnt is not likely to have happened.

As for being a liar the truth on which I have been convicted a liar has yet to be demonstrated.

[bluehillside Retd.]

PVJ,

I don't think religion is necessary to provide a moral standard: I'm a rule-utilitarian. I just wondered where LR got her standard from.
Morality doesn't change radically over time in its basics. All societies praise kindness, honesty, and peacefulness, and condemn cruelty, deceit, theft, and random violence, even if they disagree on the details.

Not sure about that “all societies”. There have been various societies at various times that didn’t praise these things at all – nazi era Germany being an obvious example. I think it’s fair to say that, broadly speaking, behaviours that have become embedded at the genomic level because they confer evolutionary success (co-operation, empathy etc) form the root of most moralities. The notion that we have to believe in deities to have these behaviours seems just odd to me – indeed, there’s a respectable argument I think that replacing reason with faith leads to more harm rather than to less.

[Stranger]

1st of all there are very few actual atheists...namely someone who would put a case for naturalism in the form of a logical or philosophical argument.

Since when has an atheist been defined as somebody who can put a case for naturalism in the form of a logical or philosophical argument? For that matter, since when did an atheist have to believe in naturalism, or even have to have any particular beliefs at all?

An atheist is somebody who has no belief in any gods.

[Roses]

So where DO you get your moral standard from?

I get them from me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And yet when the attributes of God are seriously debated ( a context I find pretty unrepresented in your corpus) atheists are perfectly happy for the same characteristics to be incorporated into cosmological arguments for naturalism and moral lroperties in humans and nature.

First, how would you propose that anyone debate seriously the characteristics of something they cannot demonstrate to be real in the first place?

Second, I’m not aware of any atheists who do that. As you know full well, atheism is merely the finding that the arguments theists use to justify their beliefs are false; no more, nor less.

So that doesn't tell you that a dog chases sticks?

First, it’s not an answer to the actual question: ie, what do you mean by “dog”?

Second, no – unless someone can demonstrate the object of their beliefs in the first place, it just tells you about a characteristic they’ve decided to attach to that belief. 

1st of all there are very few actual atheists...namely someone who would put a case for naturalism in the form of a logical or philosophical argument.

That’s not what atheism means. Are you really going to plunge down the same straw man avenue you were notorious for here in your previous incarnation? 

Therefore having been taught or burnt is not likely to have happened.

Depressingly, I believe you.

As for being a liar the truth on which I have been convicted a liar has yet to be demonstrated.

In comprehensible English please.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Since when has an atheist been defined as somebody who can put a case for naturalism in the form of a logical or philosophical argument? For that matter, since when did an atheist have to believe in naturalism, or even have to have any particular beliefs at all?

Since never. The king of the straw men walks among us again!