Appeal to lurkers

[Rhiannon]

You really need to get a grip.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really need to get a grip.

You're fooling yourself.

[Rhiannon]

If we go around asserting our subjective pagan beliefs as universally true for everyone without a shred of evidence to back that up then we'll deserve getting it with both barrels.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If we go around asserting our subjective pagan beliefs as universally true for everyone without a shred of evidence to back that up then we'll deserve getting it with both barrels.

I think you'll find the BHA think there beliefs are true for all mankind.....that kind of makes you guilty of humbuggery of the big stripey variety.

I think you'll find the New atheists think there views are true for all mankind.

[Leonard James]

I think you'll find the BHA think there beliefs are true for all mankind.....that kind of makes you guilty of humbuggery of the big stripey variety.

I think you'll find the New atheists think there views are true for all mankind.

You think an awful lot of total rubbish. It seems to be your stock in trade.

[Shaker]

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You think an awful lot of total rubbish. It seems to be your stock in trade.

Says the arch bollocktalker himself.

Me parliamo mucho testiculo aye caramba mi sistabelinda she pissed out the window and fucked up my granny's sombrero................Ole (L James)

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

Me parliamo mucho testiculo aye caramba mi sistabelinda she pissed out the window and fucked up my granny's sombrero................Ole (L James)

It's good but it's not Carling

Gonnagle.

[Leonard James]

Says the arch bollocktalker himself.

Me parliamo mucho testiculo aye caramba mi sistabelinda she pissed out the window and fucked up my granny's sombrero................Ole (L James)

 

Very good, Junky! You are infinitely better at nonsense stuff than you are at speaking English.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you'll find the BHA think there beliefs are true for all mankind.....that kind of makes you guilty of humbuggery of the big stripey variety.

No they don't. The BHA provides their own opinion on an ethical approach within a society, which people can chose to follow or not to. Clearly they hope that their ethical philosophy is appealing enough for lots of people to chose to agree with them. But the whole approach is entirely subjective - nothing from the BHA suggests they think their approach is objectively 'true'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Very good, Junky! You are infinitely better at nonsense stuff than you are at speaking English.

so I cant' do;.....Punctiation.

[Rhiannon]

No they don't. The BHA provides their own opinion on an ethical approach within a society, which people can chose to follow or not to. Clearly they hope that their ethical philosophy is appealing enough for lots of people to chose to agree with them. But the whole approach is entirely subjective - nothing from the BHA suggests they think their approach is objectively 'true'.

We used to have a poster that I'd debate this with a lot - they said that society should adopt secular humanism as its model because it worked, I said I hadn't seen any evidence that it would and quite a bit to the contrary. The example given was that letting people out at junctions means other people do the same; but I let people out at junctions and still get cut up by dipsticks in BMWs. The only way to make secular humanism work for everyone would be to take away all other options.

[Owlswing]

I think you'll find the BHA think there beliefs are true for all mankind.....that kind of makes you guilty of humbuggery of the big stripey variety.

I think you'll find the New atheists think there views are true for all mankind.

Idiot! Neither the BHA nor the New atheists are Pagan!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Idiot! Neither the BHA nor the New atheists are Pagan!

No you guys are antichristian because we believe that God is true for everyone.

You love antitheists though who believe that Godfree is true for everyone.

I think what I am saying is that you guys are hypocrites.......in that respect.

[Owlswing]

No you guys are antichristian because we believe that God is true for everyone.

You love antitheists though who believe that Godfree is true for everyone.

I think what I am saying is that you guys are hypocrites.......in that respect.

You really are stupid!

I have dieties that I believe in as fervently as you believe in yours - how then can I be antitheist? How can I believe in Godfree?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really are stupid!

I have dieties that I believe in as fervently as you believe in yours - how then can I be antitheist? How can I believe in Godfree?

Noooooooo

You knock Christians because they believe that God is true for everyone but love antitheists even though they believe Godfree is true for everyone. Can't you see your dissonance in tha?

[floo]

Noooooooo

You knock Christians because they believe that God is true for everyone but love antitheists even though they believe Godfree is true for everyone. Can't you see your dissonance in tha?

Your posts don't give any indication of 'love' towards antitheists.

[Hope]

I think that's because the theists here are always getting their arses handed to them.

I hadn't noticed any theists having their arses handed to them, let alone kicked, since I joined in 2011, jeremy.  What I have noticed, though, is non-theists thinking they have kicked ass, because of their inability or refusal to accept that life exists beyond the merely natural.

[ippy]

I think that's because the theists here are always getting their arses handed to them.

Thanks J P I've just read this one of yours and I'm sitting here chuckling, really good one, like it.

ippy 

[Stranger]

I hadn't noticed any theists having their arses handed to them, let alone kicked, since I joined in 2011, jeremy.  What I have noticed, though, is non-theists thinking they have kicked ass, because of their inability or refusal to accept that life exists beyond the merely natural.

Have you come up with a methodology (any objective methodology, not necessarily 'naturalistic') to determine the truth of your particular god as opposed to all the others or none?

We keep asking, you keep evading.

Until you (or some other theist) does, it is quite clear whose arses are being kicked...

[Shaker]

I hadn't noticed any theists having their arses handed to them, let alone kicked, since I joined in 2011, jeremy.  What I have noticed, though, is non-theists thinking they have kicked ass, because of their inability or refusal to accept that life exists beyond the merely natural.

That life extends beyond the merely natural is sheer bald assertion on your part for which, despite multiple and repeated requests over a lengthy period of time, you have yet to provide a single scrap, iota, jot or tittle of evidence or - especially - any methodology for evaluating such claims.

You know it; I know it; we all know it. You may be a slave to the negative proof fallacy and take anything to be true until and unless there's explicit evidence against it (and are constitutionally incapable of posting without said fallacious mindset); the rest of us are not.

As SKoS so succinctly put it, we keep asking, you keep evading. And will continue to do so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your posts don't give any indication of 'love' towards antitheists.

I luvs ya Godfree.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That life extends beyond the merely natural is sheer bald assertion on your part for which, despite multiple and repeated requests over a lengthy period of time, you have yet to provide a single scrap, iota, jot or tittle of evidence or - especially - any methodology for evaluating such claims.

You know it; I know it; we all know it. You may be a slave to the negative proof fallacy and take anything to be true until and unless there's explicit evidence against it (and are constitutionally incapable of posting without said fallacious mindset); the rest of us are not.

As SKoS so succinctly put it, we keep asking, you keep evading. And will continue to do so.

Great

Godfree says:
I have this methodology which doesn't say anything about my beliefs one way or another...........so my beliefs are correct.

 You don't have a methodology so we can't say anything for or against your beliefs.........so you are wrong.............Half a cheer for Godfree.
Hip hip........hooey.

[Hope]

That life extends beyond the merely natural is sheer bald assertion on your part for which, despite multiple and repeated requests over a lengthy period of time, you have yet to provide a single scrap, iota, jot or tittle of evidence or - especially - any methodology for evaluating such claims.

As SKoS so succinctly put it, we keep asking, you keep evading. And will continue to do so.

In fact, I gave an example only a week or so ago, and about the only reasoned reponse was along the lines of 'I know when I'm in love, but I can't prove it to you'.  Barely a day goes past for any of us when something occurs that we either take for granted - our love for a parent/spouse/partner/child/sibling - or assume its validitry without ever having gone into deep evidential searching to check its validity.  OK, you can say that we often do this because others have told us ot he validity - but I'm not convinced of the scientific validity of this.

[Shaker]

In fact, I gave an example only a week or so ago, and about the only reasoned reponse was along the lines of 'I know when I'm in love, but I can't prove it to you'.  Barely a day goes past for any of us when something occurs that we either take for granted - our love for a parent/spouse/partner/child/sibling - or assume its validitry without ever having gone into deep evidential searching to check its validity.  OK, you can say that we often do this because others have told us ot he validity - but I'm not convinced of the scientific validity of this.

But none of that was or is in any way beyond a natural world of matter-energy in the way that you keep touting. That, as I said, is simply flat assertion on your part, summarily dealt with by Hitchens's First Law.