'Sin'

[ippy]

You're both right about that and I seem to remember something of that ilk in the programme I saw originally, also the media mogul, the late Robert Maxwell was considered by some 'experts' to have been a psychopath.  I really don't know how true that is and it didn't seem fair to me to label him as such, posthumously, on the basis of anecdotes.  Ah well, I'll let you know about the BBC documentary.

My wife has her A levels in psychology and tells me that most psychopaths are not murderers most of them live very normal, whatever normal is, lives, my niece is a doctor of psychology I will give her the third degree when we next meet you've got me going now and I would like to have a bit of revision and perhaps take the opportunity to straighten out my niece at the same time, good thing for her there's altruistic people like me about.

ippy

[Brownie]

 
Your wife is right, most psychopaths are not murderers, we hear about the ones that are.  They are the 'successful' psychopaths, clever, cunning, ruthless etc, but stay on the right side of the law.  It is an interesting subject ippy but also quite scary so I am watching the documentary slowly  .  'Successful' psychopaths have been mentioned but, so far, the ones shown and interviewed are those in prison for violent crimes, the details of which I would rather not know.  Still it is a TV programme, designed to attract viewers.

Later: Finished watching it!  It was extremely absorbing albeit chilling and the second half of the programme which dealt with psychological and neuroscientific research was so interesting, I almost wish I was 20 and could redirect my studies into that area!  I hadn't seen it before.

I may attempt to watch Ch 4's 2 hour marathon at some stage.  Thanks for the tip ippy!

[ippy]

Your wife is right, most psychopaths are not murderers, we hear about the ones that are.  They are the 'successful' psychopaths, clever, cunning, ruthless etc, but stay on the right side of the law.  It is an interesting subject ippy but also quite scary so I am watching the documentary slowly  .  'Successful' psychopaths have been mentioned but, so far, the ones shown and interviewed are those in prison for violent crimes, the details of which I would rather not know.  Still it is a TV programme, designed to attract viewers.

Later: Finished watching it!  It was extremely absorbing albeit chilling and the second half of the programme which dealt with psychological and neuroscientific research was so interesting, I almost wish I was 20 and could redirect my studies into that area!  I hadn't seen it before.

I may attempt to watch Ch 4's 2 hour marathon at some stage.  Thanks for the tip ippy!

,

It was a two parter originally, fascinating subject well worth taking the time, I may well do a repeat myself I'm in my seventies, long term memory is pretty good.

I was telling my friend today about a Yorkshire firm that have developed a new algorithm it combines Gumtree with E Bay when looking for specific goods, they're marketing it as E Bay Gum; you probably didn't want to know that but the problem for me with that was it took me about an hour and a half to get it back into my memory, it's like the rota-file wheel is rusty, grit in the bearings.

ippy

[Brownie]

I've been reading about the amygdala, (which I first 'inputted' as 'Amylglada' or something similar, doh!  , despite having been familiar with the word in the past), and limbic system.  Fascinating and engrossing stuff  ippy!

The ebay and Gumtree thing sounds like good stuff to me.  I buy a lot from ebay (and occasionally from Amazon) so may be useful.  Never tried Gumtree though it pops up sometimes when I do a search.

Thanks.

[ippy]

I've been reading about the amygdala, (which I first 'inputted' as 'Amylglada' or something similar, doh!  , despite having been familiar with the word in the past), and limbic system.  Fascinating and engrossing stuff  ippy!

The ebay and Gumtree thing sounds like good stuff to me.  I buy a lot from ebay (and occasionally from Amazon) so may be useful.  Never tried Gumtree though it pops up sometimes when I do a search.

Thanks.

Did you like the Yorkshire and E Bay Gum? (Joke)?

ippy

[Sassy]

I am always prepared to admit that I might be wrong. You never are.

That is the difference between us.

Wrong:

Because we do not believe the same things. So as we do not believe the same things you cannot admit you were wrong about something you do not experience in any way. A negative like " I do not believe in God" requires no belief or set reasoning.
In fact is requires NOTHING at all from experience for you. But a positive like " I believe in God" requires belief and a set reasoning. It does requires experiences and some proof to the individual.
So how can you admit you were wrong about something which requires absolutely nothing for your to maintain?

The difference is that for you Gods existence matters not. You have nothing which to change your mind about for any reason it is a dead negative. I as a believer have experiences a positive which means what I believe can be changed because it affects my life positively. But yours does absolutely NOTHING for you in your life.

So you cannot be prepared to admit you are wrong because you have nothing to change to show it.
You have nothing in your life which matters regarding belief in God. So how can you admit being wrong when it is already a negative belief in that it changes nothing because you have nothing?
No! you are not ready to admit you are wrong. You simply have nothing to change to show you can be wrong and no way to change it.
Where as we do. So it isn't the same. You have to have faith to lose it. You cannot lose or change something you don't already have. So if you are prepared and ready as you say to admit you are wrong, then why are you not doing anything to change what you believe and see if you were wrong?

You and I both know Leonard, for you to admit you could be wrong you would need to have something to change.
You do nothing to see if God is true so you are not open to change.

[Leonard James]

Wrong:

Because we do not believe the same things. So as we do not believe the same things you cannot admit you were wrong about something you do not experience in any way. A negative like " I do not believe in God" requires no belief or set reasoning.
In fact is requires NOTHING at all from experience for you. But a positive like " I believe in God" requires belief and a set reasoning. It does requires experiences and some proof to the individual.
So how can you admit you were wrong about something which requires absolutely nothing for your to maintain?

The difference is that for you Gods existence matters not. You have nothing which to change your mind about for any reason it is a dead negative. I as a believer have experiences a positive which means what I believe can be changed because it affects my life positively. But yours does absolutely NOTHING for you in your life.

So you cannot be prepared to admit you are wrong because you have nothing to change to show it.
You have nothing in your life which matters regarding belief in God. So how can you admit being wrong when it is already a negative belief in that it changes nothing because you have nothing?
No! you are not ready to admit you are wrong. You simply have nothing to change to show you can be wrong and no way to change it.
Where as we do. So it isn't the same. You have to have faith to lose it. You cannot lose or change something you don't already have. So if you are prepared and ready as you say to admit you are wrong, then why are you not doing anything to change what you believe and see if you were wrong?

You and I both know Leonard, for you to admit you could be wrong you would need to have something to change.
You do nothing to see if God is true so you are not open to change.

Show me convincing, testable evidence that your "God" is real, and I will be unable to deny it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Show me convincing, testable evidence that your "God" is real, and I will be unable to deny it.

Unfortunately Len we have the capability to deny everything and anything Len.

[Leonard James]

Unfortunately Len we have the capability to deny everything and anything Len.

You may have, but I don't. If evidence convinces me it is true, I can't deny it, except by lying.

[Aruntraveller]

You have nothing which to change your mind about for any reason it is a dead negative. I as a believer have experiences a positive which means what I believe can be changed because it affects my life positively. But yours does absolutely NOTHING for you in your life.

But surely you can't change?

It is after all the unchanging word of God that you follow.

It is much more likely that LJ would br more open to change as new evidence emerges about different things because he is not forever shackled to a book that is self-contradictory and limiting.

And why do you think unbelievers can't experience positives?

[floo]

If god convinces me it exists, I wouldn't be able to deny the fact. But even when I was a Christian I never had any sense if its presence.

[Brownie]

Definitely ippy  .  With a straight face to boot.  A combination of that and Amazon (with all its connotations), would be - quite a contortion too.

Sass, your post is very difficult to follow.  I get the gist of it but the way it is phrased, accusatory with 'you' this and 'you' that obscures the point.  It's ranting which is very offputting.  Why use two words when one will do?  Precis is a virtue.

[Leonard James]

But surely you can't change?

It is after all the unchanging word of God that you follow.

It is much more likely that LJ would br more open to change as new evidence emerges about different things because he is not forever shackled to a book that is self-contradictory and limiting.

And why do you think unbelievers can't experience positives?

Too true, Trent. My realisation that "God" was just a myth was probably the most liberating moment of my life.

[Aruntraveller]

Why use two words when one will do?  Precis is a virtue.

Head meet wall. Wall meet head. 

[Sassy]

Definitely ippy  .  With a straight face to boot.  A combination of that and Amazon (with all its connotations), would be - quite a contortion too.

Sass, your post is very difficult to follow.  I get the gist of it but the way it is phrased, accusatory with 'you' this and 'you' that obscures the point.  It's ranting which is very offputting.  Why use two words when one will do?  Precis is a virtue.

Brownie,

If you want to score points, please do not do it replying to my posts.
I am all for "live and let live". I was not ranting at Leonard. There is nothing accusatory it was about Leonard and his atheism.
It is Leonard I am talking to and about. It is replying to what he actually said. Truth and sincerity are better than Precis when it comes to virtue. Because I was telling truth not trying to show the virtue of Precis.
Thanks for your comments but could you please ask me in future before throwing accusations.

[floo]

Brownie,

If you want to score points, please do not do it replying to my posts.
I am all for "live and let live". I was not ranting at Leonard. There is nothing accusatory it was about Leonard and his atheism.
It is Leonard I am talking to and about. It is replying to what he actually said. Truth and sincerity are better than Precis when it comes to virtue. Because I was telling truth not trying to show the virtue of Precis.
Thanks for your comments but could you please ask me in future before throwing accusations.

Sass, WHAT A PORKIE!

[Brownie]

Oh Sass, I wasn't trying to score any points and you must know that.   What should I have done?  PMd you and then had four paragraphs in reply?  We all have to face some criticism on forums Sass, even from those who like us, it's the nature of the beast.

Whoever said, ''Head meets wall'', ''Wall meets head'' - was using three words instead of two, in each case.  What a waste  !  There used to be a smiley that conveyed the sentiment, wish we had it here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

A negative like " I do not believe in God" requires no belief or set reasoning.

That's wrong. The reasoning for atheism entails looking at the arguments made for "god", identifying what's wrong with them and rejecting them accordingly. That's not to say necessarily that there is no god (which is why atheism doesn't overreach by making that claim) but it is to say that there's no cogent reason to think that there is a god.

In the event that anyone ever did manage to make an argument for a "true for you too", objective god that was not fallacious then atheism would fail. So far as I'm aware though, no-one ever has managed to do that so an atheist I must continue to be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sassy,

That's wrong. The reasoning for atheism entails looking at the arguments made for "god", identifying what's wrong with them and rejecting them accordingly. That's not to say necessarily that there is no god (which is why atheism doesn't overreach by making that claim) but it is to say that there's no cogent reason to think that there is a god.

In the event that anyone ever did manage to make an argument for a "true for you too", objective god that was not fallacious then atheism would fail. So far as I'm aware though, no-one ever has managed to do that so an atheist I must continue to be.

This is all wonderful but there are several claims in here that need to be backed up if they are to make it out of Mereassertionville.

First let's start with the claim that there is no god. If that isn't part and parcel of atheism what happens to the guys on here who actually subscribe to that claim?

Secondly, no cogent reason? Even Dawkins has said the universe gives the overall impression of having been designed in this way. Belief in God is therefore cogent particularly when you are also saying you aren't claiming that there is no God.

Your no cogency idea coupled with a not making a claim there is no God seems to have hit the buffers straight away.

[Khatru]

The word 'sin' is a little word, which seems not only to apply to wrongdoing on which all decent people would agree, but also to things which no decent person would consider wrong, like disbelief in the Biblical deity, homosexuality, sex before marriage in a consenting adult relationship, masturbation, women being equal to men in all respects and much, much more.

I put into practise some of the ten commandments, not stealing, lying, murdering or being jealous of others, but the rest are unreasonable, in my opinion.

"Sin" is one of those words religites love using which don't actually refer to anything real or factual. 

There are plenty of words they use which fit this category.  Here are a few more:

Blaspheme
Grace
Holy Ghost
Spirit
Heaven
Hell
Supernatural
Jehovah
Satan
Damnation

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the event that anyone ever did manage to make an argument for a "true for you too", objective god that was not fallacious then atheism would fail. So far as I'm aware though, no-one ever has managed to do that so an atheist I must continue to be.

If God were true and you are trying to assure us that you can never say there is no God then of course God is going to be true for everyone.

You cannot dismiss the existence of God therefore not all arguments for God can be fallacious can they?

[Gordon]

First let's start with the claim that there is no god. If that isn't part and parcel of atheism what happens to the guys on here who actually subscribe to that claim?

Who here subscribes to that claim, Vlad? (apart from Mr & Mrs Straw and their assorted strawlets)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who here subscribes to that claim, Vlad? (apart from Mr & Mrs Straw and their assorted strawlets)

Ippy, Leonard and Floo.

Congratulations on your conversion to theism or at least deism if you think a god could exist.

[Stranger]

You cannot dismiss the existence of God therefore not all arguments for God can be fallacious can they?

Yes.

Classic non sequitur.

[Shaker]

Ippy, Leonard and Floo.

Congratulations on your conversion to theism or at least deism if you think a god could exist.

Deism is the belief that a hands-off, non-intervening god does exist, not merely the possibility that one could exist.