Are we done here?

[bluehillside Retd.]

There are some people who think there to be a "God", and some of them think too that they've been contacted by this deity. Some of these people think that their convictions about this are not only personal opinions, but also are reliable guides to objective truths for the rest of us if only we could see it.

Moreover, on the basis of these opinions some of these people think their beliefs should be afforded special respect, and that their institutions should enjoy various privileges in the public domain.

In the course of countless exchanges here many theists have been asked for a method to distinguish their personal beliefs from just guessing about stuff so that the rights and privileges they arrogate to themselves can be evaluated, yet - so far as I recall - none has either offered a method or has offered a method that doesn't collapse very quickly when it's examined with reasoned argument.

Is that it then? Are we done here? Fun as it may be discussing personal opinions and fascinating as some of the byways can be, the core premise of "my god is your god too" seems to be a busted flush – or at least it is insofar as no-one here is able cogently to argue for it.

What then is there left to talk about instead?

[ippy]

There are some people who think there to be a "God", and some of them think too that they've been contacted by this deity. Some of these people think that their convictions about this are not only personal opinions, but also are reliable guides to objective truths for the rest of us if only we could see it.

Moreover, on the basis of these opinions some of these people think their beliefs should be afforded specially respect, and that their institutions should enjoy various privileges in the public domain.

In the course of countless exchanges here many theists have been asked for a method to distinguish their personal beliefs from just guessing about stuff so that the rights and privileges they arrogate to themselves can be evaluated, yet - so far as I recall - none has either offered a method or has offered a method that doesn't collapse very quickly when it's examined with reasoned argument.

Is that it then? Are we done here? Fun as it may be discussing personal opinions and fascinating as some of the byways can be, the core premise of "my god is your god too" seems to be a busted flush – or at least it is insofar as no-one here is able cogently to argue for it.

What then is there left to talk about instead?

Exactly.

Wouldn't these debates on the forum have and carry over at least some worthwhile meaning if the various books about the religions they are basing these debates on could be established as stories of actual events, occurrences that really did happen etc?

ippy

 

[Maeght]

Is that it then? Are we done here?

Pretty much.

[SusanDoris]

bluehillside


I read your OP and decided I'd wait a bit before posting, and I see it took several hours before a response arrived. Maybe others were thinking similarly! You're right, of course, we all are pretty much aware of others' opinions on things and after years of interesting communication, it could well be that we've run into a sort of dead end with nowhere to go and it being unlikely that we'll find some totallynew topic. But to just sort of drift away and lose touch would be such a pity; I for one would really miss the company here.

I have now come to the end of 'Sapiens' by Yuval Noah Harari and towards the very end he talks of Neanderthal DNA and the idea - in California somewhere, I think - that a baby could be born with half human, half Neanderthal DNA and that several women have already volunteered to carry such a child. The ethics of this could make a subject for discussion, but, here too, the situation I think would be fairly clear: that child would need many others to be born at a similar time - it would  bne extremely selfish and cruel to bring him/her into the world as a one-off.

Situations and groups formed because of common interests, especially when so widely dispersed, sometimes come to a natural end, but I think I might well - maybe with Floo! - be the last one out if that happens here. (Or perhaps a *sad face* would be more appropriate here... 

[Leonard James]

Quite right, Blue ... it is all much ado about nothing, which is why I seldom post now.

[Owlswing]

There are some people who think there to be a "God", and some of them think too that they've been contacted by this deity. Some of these people think that their convictions about this are not only personal opinions, but also are reliable guides to objective truths for the rest of us if only we could see it.

Moreover, on the basis of these opinions some of these people think their beliefs should be afforded specially respect, and that their institutions should enjoy various privileges in the public domain.

In the course of countless exchanges here many theists have been asked for a method to distinguish their personal beliefs from just guessing about stuff so that the rights and privileges they arrogate to themselves can be evaluated, yet - so far as I recall - none has either offered a method or has offered a method that doesn't collapse very quickly when it's examined with reasoned argument.

Is that it then? Are we done here? Fun as it may be discussing personal opinions and fascinating as some of the byways can be, the core premise of "my god is your god too" seems to be a busted flush – or at least it is insofar as no-one here is able cogently to argue for it.

What then is there left to talk about instead?

An excellent explanation of why this forum is not getting many, if any, new members.

The Muslim Topic appears to be dead. The Pagan one, with very rare exceptions, seems to be following it, despite the efforts of the Lady Rhi and myself to keep it alive. Anything that the two of us say is usually swamped in a tide of Fundamentalist Christian disapproval and ire and General Ignorance (with apologies to Spephen Fry and QI).

When it comes to Paganism, apart from Rhi and myself, only Shaker, Rose and Wigginhall seem to have posted anything worthwhile there.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Thanks all for the comments so far. Perhaps we should just leave it as an open question: does anyone with a personal belief in "God" have a method to enable them to bridge to gap to "true for you too"?

If someone wants to have a go at it, well and good; if not, well I guess we can draw our own conclusions. 

[Brownie]

Susan Doris:  "......he talks of Neanderthal DNA and the idea - in California somewhere, I think - that a baby could be born with half human, half Neanderthal DNA".

Neanderthals were humans.

[Leonard James]

Susan Doris:  "......he talks of Neanderthal DNA and the idea - in California somewhere, I think - that a baby could be born with half human, half Neanderthal DNA".

Neanderthals were humans.

Susan is referring to the DNA difference between Neanderthals and homo sapiens.

[Brownie]

Neanderthals were a species of homo sapiens. As were Cro-magnon people who arrived a bit later. I thought Susan was quoting from someone, I'll check back.  Done.  Not a quote but a paraphrase of what she read.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are some people who think there to be a "God", and some of them think too that they've been contacted by this deity. Some of these people think that their convictions about this are not only personal opinions, but also are reliable guides to objective truths for the rest of us if only we could see it.

Moreover, on the basis of these opinions some of these people think their beliefs should be afforded special respect, and that their institutions should enjoy various privileges in the public domain.

In the course of countless exchanges here many theists have been asked for a method to distinguish their personal beliefs from just guessing about stuff so that the rights and privileges they arrogate to themselves can be evaluated, yet - so far as I recall - none has either offered a method or has offered a method that doesn't collapse very quickly when it's examined with reasoned argument.

Is that it then? Are we done here? Fun as it may be discussing personal opinions and fascinating as some of the byways can be, the core premise of "my god is your god too" seems to be a busted flush – or at least it is insofar as no-one here is able cogently to argue for it.

What then is there left to talk about instead?

This must be the mother and father of all argumentum ad consequentium.

I knew Hillside would, after stringing so many along, go for the Big Pisstake..........and this is it.

Seek for a Bluehillsidian knock down argument for ''God Free'' and find it ye shall not! Search for what Hillside believes in and a straight answer will not be forthcoming.

Atheists and antitheists. You should be on your knees begging Hillside with the words 'Papa Smurf, Lord of all, we beseech you ''what is it we are not supposed to believe in, your Blueness.

In terms of Hillsidium this strikes the Big blue vein.

[Leonard James]

Neanderthals were a species of homo sapiens. As were Cro-magnon people who arrived a bit later. I thought Susan was quoting from someone, I'll check back.  Done.  Not a quote but a paraphrase of what she read.

I don't think homo sapiens and neanderthals had the same DNA.

[Stranger]

This must be the mother and father of all argumentum ad consequentium.

Parroting of what you were (correctly) accused of elsewhere and demonstrating that you have no idea what it means. Couldn't you even be arsed to look it up?

Seek for a Bluehillsidian knock down argument for ''God Free'' and find it ye shall not!

And a classic Vladian straw man.

Is this some sort of self-parody?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Parroting of what you were (correctly) accused of elsewhere and demonstrating that you have no idea what it means. Couldn't you even be arsed to look it up?

And a classic Vladian straw man.

Is this some sort of self-parody?

Look....If Hillside thinks he has a knock down argument for 'God free' and his followers get it (so far it seems locked away in his head)AND wishes to move on then he is free to do so.

He would though be stupid if he thinks that nobody is going to come in with an ad hominem or even a contradictory view since that is his own modus operandii (The Trollboy affair)!!!

No one will stop his Bossist leadership of his people to some new promised land and by suggesting that he is somehow being prevented makes himself look like a parody of Brigham Young...of whom some said he was a silly Mormon...... and some kind of martyr.

If I'm to be pharaoh to his Moses I say to him ......load up your wagons and leave Egypt for the promised land.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are some people who think there to be a "God", and some of them think too that they've been contacted by this deity. Some of these people think that their convictions about this are not only personal opinions, but also are reliable guides to objective truths for the rest of us if only we could see it.

Moreover, on the basis of these opinions some of these people think their beliefs should be afforded special respect, and that their institutions should enjoy various privileges in the public domain.

In the course of countless exchanges here many theists have been asked for a method to distinguish their personal beliefs from just guessing about stuff so that the rights and privileges they arrogate to themselves can be evaluated, yet - so far as I recall - none has either offered a method or has offered a method that doesn't collapse very quickly when it's examined with reasoned argument.

Is that it then? Are we done here? Fun as it may be discussing personal opinions and fascinating as some of the byways can be, the core premise of "my god is your god too" seems to be a busted flush – or at least it is insofar as no-one here is able cogently to argue for it.

What then is there left to talk about instead?

I'm sure you'll think of something.

[bluehillside Retd.]

This must be the mother and father of all argumentum ad consequentium.

In which - should anyone have had any lingering doubts on the matter - Trollboy demonstrates unequivocally that he doesn't have the first idea what "argumentum ad consequentiam" actually means, which is why presumably he keeps collapsing into it ("moral relativism is worthless therefore it must be objective to be real" etc) while wrongly accusing others of the same thing.

I knew Hillside would, after stringing so many along, go for the Big Pisstake..........and this is it.

Seek for a Bluehillsidian knock down argument for ''God Free'' and find it ye shall not! Search for what Hillside believes in and a straight answer will not be forthcoming.

Atheists and antitheists. You should be on your knees begging Hillside with the words 'Papa Smurf, Lord of all, we beseech you ''what is it we are not supposed to believe in, your Blueness.

In terms of Hillsidium this strikes the Big blue vein.

Followed immediately by white noise to distract from the fact that he has no rebuttal by way (finally) of an argument to take him from the subjective to the objective.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Look....If Hillside thinks he has a knock down argument for 'God free' and his followers get it (so far it seems locked away in his head)AND wishes to move on then he is free to do so.

He would though be stupid if he thinks that nobody is going to come in with an ad hominem or even a contradictory view since that is his own modus operandii (The Trollboy affair)!!!

No one will stop his Bossist leadership of his people to some new promised land and by suggesting that he is somehow being prevented makes himself look like a parody of Brigham Young...of whom some said he was a silly Mormon...... and some kind of martyr.

If I'm to be pharaoh to his Moses I say to him ......load up your wagons and leave Egypt for the promised land.

In which Trollboy demonstrates no only that he doesn't understand "ad hominem", but continues with the white noise distraction technique so as to make good his retreat from the argument that undoes him in the hope that no-one notices.   

[Owlswing]

Look....If Hillside thinks he has a knock down argument for 'God free' and his followers get it (so far it seems locked away in his head)AND wishes to move on then he is free to do so.

He would though be stupid if he thinks that nobody is going to come in with an ad hominem or even a contradictory view since that is his own modus operandii (The Trollboy affair)!!!

No one will stop his Bossist leadership of his people to some new promised land and by suggesting that he is somehow being prevented makes himself look like a parody of Brigham Young...of whom some said he was a silly Mormon...... and some kind of martyr.

If I'm to be pharaoh to his Moses I say to him ......load up your wagons and leave Egypt for the promised land.

It ws not an affair and you are still a Troll, Trollboy! Your posts on this thread show this in spectacular fashion.

[Gordon]

Look....If Hillside thinks he has a knock down argument for 'God free' and his followers get it (so far it seems locked away in his head)AND wishes to move on then he is free to do so.

He would though be stupid if he thinks that nobody is going to come in with an ad hominem or even a contradictory view since that is his own modus operandii (The Trollboy affair)!!!

No one will stop his Bossist leadership of his people to some new promised land and by suggesting that he is somehow being prevented makes himself look like a parody of Brigham Young...of whom some said he was a silly Mormon...... and some kind of martyr.

If I'm to be pharaoh to his Moses I say to him ......load up your wagons and leave Egypt for the promised land.

Vlad - you are ranting in a somewhat rambling manner.

Relax old chap: take a stroll near some gardens and admire all the lovely flowers - I hear the Vladioli are lovely at this time of year.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

Relax old chap: take a stroll near some gardens and admire all the lovely flowers - I hear the Vladioli are lovely at this time of year.

Especially I hear in Vladivostok...

...and we've had a whip round!

[Enki]

Neanderthals were a species of homo sapiens. As were Cro-magnon people who arrived a bit later. I thought Susan was quoting from someone, I'll check back.  Done.  Not a quote but a paraphrase of what she read.

Actually the word 'human' is a rather loose term usually referring to our own species, Homo sapiens sapiens of the genus Homo. There is some dispute as regards neanderthals, as to whether they are a distinct species of Homo(Homo neanderthalensis) or a sub species of Homo sapiens(Homo sapiens neanderthalensis). The cro magnons were simply early Homo sapiens sapiens.

[Hope]

Moreover, on the basis of these opinions some of these people think their beliefs should be afforded special respect, and that their institutions should enjoy various privileges in the public domain.

This seems to be held by people with no faith, as well, bh.  I'd even suggest that the latter are more convinced about their position than those of faith.

In the course of countless exchanges here many theists have been asked for a method to distinguish their personal beliefs from just guessing about stuff so that the rights and privileges they arrogate to themselves can be evaluated, yet - so far as I recall - none has either offered a method or has offered a method that doesn't collapse very quickly when it's examined with reasoned argument.

The problem is that the methods used to dismiss the arguments of those with faith are based on a purely naturalistic understanding of life, which are necessarily unable to judge on matters that aren't purely naturalistic.  As such, the method that such peoiple use is the one that collapses very quickly. 

Is that it then? Are we done here?

I would agree with the underlying thinking here, bh.  As I've said on a number of occasions, the arguments on both sides are so different in nature that all the bluster from both sides of the debate is nothing more than that.  There is nothing that anyone can use to dismiss the other argument without actually taking that other side of the argument to heart.  The only advantage that those like me have is that we understand the naturalistic argument, even if it is only a partial argument.

[Hope]

Wouldn't these debates on the forum have and carry over at least some worthwhile meaning if the various books about the religions they are basing these debates on could be established as stories of actual events, occurrences that really did happen etc?

ippy, the same could be asked of many of the 'stories' that the naturalistic arguments are based on.

[Shaker]

ippy, the same could be asked of many of the 'stories' that the naturalistic arguments are based on.

Bet we're not going to be told what these supposedly are ...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gordon,

Especially I hear in Vladivostok...

...and we've had a whip round!

Papa Smurf........Don't let me hold you up on your road to the land of milk and honey.
One thing I think your flock will continue to enjoy is "Trollboy this" and "Trollboy" that.

As  Brigham Young would say on his way to the promised land........."Wagons Troll"