Strutting one's funky Atheist stuff.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you might be misinterpreting 'act' in this sense - you're looking for 'behave' not 'pretend'.

If it's behaviour then that is perhaps best judged externally by someone else. And as you know I have already stated that I have detected God avoidance behaviour on the forum. Paradoxically being on a religion forum resembles 'tweaking the dragons tail' IMHO and certainly that doesn't comply with any definition of God being absent in my opinion. Of course the invitation is for you to put me straight on my suspicions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

If you can't define the thing you assert to exist, what is it whose existence you're expecting people to agree with?

Er, that would be the God you are asserting you are acting as if it didn't exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Er, that would be the God you are asserting you are acting as if it didn't exist.

Yes - if you can't tell me what you mean by the term "God" (let alone propose a method to verify its existence even if you could) what choice have I but to behave as if there's no such thing, regardless of what "it" might be? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

...And as you know I have already stated that I have detected God avoidance behaviour on the forum...

A mistake you've had corrected many times only to repeat it nonetheless, so it's now just another of your lies 

[Nearly Sane]

Er, that would be the God you are asserting you are acting as if it didn't exist.

Just as with Gtflkb, and jugdarg, and mbciaod

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just as with Gtflkb, and jugdarg, and mbciaod

Whoosh.

[Stranger]

We are not talking about the meaning of words but the existence of things whether we understand their meaning or not. Your statement seems to me to be irrelevant to any questions posed.

You can't talk about the existence of something if we don't know what it is. Does kuquxujmol exist, do you think? Neither can we explore our feelings about things that aren't defined (which was the specific point I was answering).

I'm not attempting to answer the OP because it's not a claim I've ever made. Behaving as if "god" doesn't exist is simply not behaving as if any of the thousands of god do exist. It's a lack of certain behaviours much like atheism is a lack of belief.

[Stranger]

And as you know I have already stated that I have detected God avoidance behaviour on the forum.

Baseless assertion that you've never managed to back up.

Paradoxically being on a religion forum resembles 'tweaking the dragons tail' IMHO and certainly that doesn't comply with any definition of God being absent in my opinion. Of course the invitation is for you to put me straight on my suspicions.

The belief in god(s) definitely does exist - and that's what is being challenged.

[Nearly Sane]

Whoosh.

Yes, that does seem to describe your current state.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, that does seem to describe your current state.

No it describes yours...and what state must that be when you are matching several thousand years of Global God talk with the 0.75 seconds it took to produce random letters on your keyboard.

[Nearly Sane]

No it describes yours...and what state must that be when you are matching several thousand years of Global God talk with the 0.75 seconds it took to produce random letters on your keyboard.

Because in the absence of a logically consistent coherent definition, there is no difference. Do you have one?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because in the absence of a logically consistent coherent definition, there is no difference. Do you have one?

Of course there is a distinction. You know your random letters have no logical coherent definition.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course there is a distinction. You know your random letters have no logical coherent definition.

And i haven't seen a logically coherent consistent definition of god. Again do you have one?

[Roses]

Of course there is a distinction. You know your random letters have no logical coherent definition.

Your posts are rarely logical or coherent.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Of course there is a distinction. You know your random letters have no logical coherent definition.

And nor has your "God", unless that is you do have a coherent definition that you've hitherto chosen to keep secret? 

[Outrider]

Wait a minute You are not knowing whether there is a God or not...But acting in a way different from what you know, if you are acting as if there wasn't a God.

I think atheists need to be more specific, particularly to avoid accusations of Goddodging or ''knowing deep down''.

I'm not sure I know what you're trying to say there, but here goes.

For clarity, I'm technically agnostic, inasmuch as I can't definitively prove that there isn't a god; I see absolutely no valid basis for the claim that there is, nor for any particular interpretation of what one might or might not want of humanity or anyone else.  I operate regardless of religious claims because I have no personal regard for them.  I don't 'act in a way different from what I know', I act in accordance with a combination of what I can reasonably claim that I do know, and some things that I think I can accept are likely; 'gods' are in neither of those categories.

If it's behaviour then that is perhaps best judged externally by someone else.

Perhaps, but the question implied an interest in motivation and intent to which I'm best qualified to speak.

And as you know I have already stated that I have detected God avoidance behaviour on the forum.

You think you have, perhaps, but you can't definitively speak to the motivations of someone else's behaviour.

Paradoxically being on a religion forum resembles 'tweaking the dragons tail' IMHO and certainly that doesn't comply with any definition of God being absent in my opinion.

Except that we aren't tweaking any gods' tails; if we're tweaking anything, its the tails of believers - the existence of believers doesn't validate the claim.

Of course the invitation is for you to put me straight on my suspicions.

No, as ever the burden of proof is on the claimant - if you're claiming 'god avoiding behaviour' then you need to support the claim or it can be dismissed without credence.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You think you have, perhaps, but you can't definitively speak to the motivations of someone else's behaviour.

But scientifically we cannot trust in what people give as the reason they are doing what they are doing. Hillside has made that clear.

We can only judge on stimulus and response.

 

[Sebastian Toe]

We can only judge on stimulus and response.

Is that your contention?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But scientifically we cannot trust in what people give as the reason they are doing what they are doing. Hillside has made that clear.

We can only judge on stimulus and response.

Yes Hillside has – when you post a mistake, have it corrected, repeat exactly the same mistake without addressing the falsification and then keep on doing the same thing over and over again there are two options: either you’re lying, or you’re so cognitively impaired that you can’t grasp what’s happening. Your reasoning abilities are poor, but they’re just about good enough to recognise a rebuttal when you see one so the former seems the more likely to me.

You want an example? You recently complained about the offensiveness (to you) of comparing the concepts “god” and “leprechauns”. No-one here has compared those concepts though – neither me nor so far as I’m aware anyone else. What has been compared though is the arguments used to justify either belief, the point being that when the same argument leads to either conclusion then it’s likely a bad argument. You’ve had this explained what, 100 times? 1,000 maybe? Yet never once have you engaged with the problem this gives you, preferring over and over again to disappear down irrelevant rabbit holes about the different characteristics of each belief.

Why is that if not for lying?             

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

For clarity, I'm technically agnostic, inasmuch as I can't definitively prove that there isn't a god;…

Actually that’s all atheism requires: I’m an atheist because I can see no good reason to think there to be god(s), and I don’t have to demonstrate their non-existence for that to be a cogent position. Agnosticism on the other hand is the position that the existence or non-existence of “god” is unknowable. Thus it’s quite possible to be an agnostic atheist.

Technically the response to Vlad’s god is ignosticism – essentially, “I have no idea what you mean by “god” (and nor have you), so the question is incoherent”. I’m an ignostic, but as no discussion of theistic beliefs would be possible if we stopped there there’s a sort of unspoken concordat that both parties pretend we know enough of what the term is intended to mean to have a conversation about the in/validity of the arguments tried to justify it.     

[Outrider]

But scientifically we cannot trust in what people give as the reason they are doing what they are doing. Hillside has made that clear.

You can't only assume that they're correct or honest, but they're still your best source of information.

We can only judge on stimulus and response.

But then you have to determine, having removed their biases from the equation, how you're going to remove yours.

I note a lack of any justification for the claims of 'god avoiding behaviour'... shall we consider it a dismissed assertion?

O.

[Outrider]

Actually that’s all atheism requires: I’m an atheist because I can see no good reason to think there to be god(s), and I don’t have to demonstrate their non-existence for that to be a cogent position. Agnosticism on the other hand is the position that the existence or non-existence of “god” is unknowable. Thus it’s quite possible to be an agnostic atheist.

Oh, yeah, within the range of agnostic outlooks, I'm an agnostic atheist.

Technically the response to Vlad’s god is ignosticism – essentially, “I have no idea what you mean by “god” (and nor have you), so the question is incoherent”.

I get the argument, I'm not sure that we don't have a conception of what the claim of god is, even if our language isn't necessarily sufficient to adequately convey it.  I could argue ignosticism, but I'm not sure (certainly here) that it adds anything to the discussion.

I’m an ignostic, but as no discussion of theistic beliefs would be possible if we stopped there there’s a sort of unspoken concordat that both parties pretend we know enough of what the term is intended to mean to have a conversation about the in/validity of the arguments tried to justify it.

Exactly.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes Hillside has – when you post a mistake, have it corrected, repeat exactly the same mistake without addressing the falsification and then keep on doing the same thing over and over again there are two options: either you’re lying, or you’re so cognitively impaired that you can’t grasp what’s happening. Your reasoning abilities are poor, but they’re just about good enough to recognise a rebuttal when you see one so the former seems the more likely to me.

You want an example? You recently complained about the offensiveness (to you) of comparing the concepts “god” and “leprechauns”. No-one here has compared those concepts though – neither me nor so far as I’m aware anyone else. What has been compared though is the arguments used to justify either belief, the point being that when the same argument leads to either conclusion then it’s likely a bad argument. You’ve had this explained what, 100 times? 1,000 maybe? Yet never once have you engaged with the problem this gives you, preferring over and over again to disappear down irrelevant rabbit holes about the different characteristics of each belief.

Why is that if not for lying?           

Gaslighting of monumental proportions.
Consider yourself dumped, Love.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can't only assume that they're correct or honest, but they're still your best source of information.

But that is the very opposite of what Hillside and others assume when in conversation with the religious

But then you have to determine, having removed their biases from the equation, how you're going to remove yours.

I note a lack of any justification for the claims of 'god avoiding behaviour'... shall we consider it a dismissed assertion?

No Ihave outlined in the past where I there have been examples of God dodging behaviour and no doubt will do in the future.

[Nearly Sane]

I’m an ignostic, but as no discussion of theistic beliefs would be possible if we stopped there there’s a sort of unspoken concordat that both parties pretend we know enough of what the term is intended to mean to have a conversation about the in/validity of the arguments tried to justify it.

Exactly.

O.

I disagree here. I think you need a definition of what the individual means by 'God' to engage in anything more than a discussion of the validity of arguments that would apply if you substituted 'Bnatiop' for 'God'.