Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[Gonnagle]

Deary me,

Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile.

Yes the one the only AE himself.

Gordon did ask for instructions

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Gordon did ask for instructions

And we still don't have any, not for seeking and testing what we might think we've found, which was what the question was about.

Nor do we have any explanation as to why those who think they've found something can't agree with each other about what it is.

[Gordon]

Deary me,

Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile.

Yes the one the only AE himself.

Gordon did ask for instructions

Gonnagle.

Perhaps, but a call to altruism isn't unique to Einstein. It also reads a bit like a deepity since, perhaps, lives can be 'worthwhile' in other ways.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gordon,

Acts 20:35
King James Version
35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

Cheers, altruism, instructions and helping with my Bible study✝️

Further, the part of the brain which lights up when we have that warm cosy feeling when we have done a good turn is completely separate from the part when we feel compassion and empathy, I will try to find the research and post it, fascinating subject this evolved monkey/ape brain of ours.

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

Acts 20:35
King James Version
35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

Cheers, altruism, instructions and helping with my Bible study✝️

So what?

There are altruistic statements in Greek philosophy written centuries before anything Christian - which is no great surprise since altruism is a characteristic of our species (in most cases that is). Seems to me like quotes like this one from Acts are just regurgitating sentiments that aren't exclusive to theism in general, or Christianity in particular.

Further, the part of the brain which lights up when we have that warm cosy feeling when we have done a good turn is completely separate from the part when we feel compassion and empathy, I will try to find the research and post it, fascinating subject this evolved monkey/ape brain of ours.

Gonnagle.

It's just biology doing what it does in humans.

[Alan Burns]

You have never posted even the tiniest hint of any evidence and you seem to be completely incapable of using reasoning at all. You just descend into an endless stream of stupid fallacies.

No, it is not. Obviously.

Q.E.D.

[Nearly Sane]

Q.E.D.

F.F.S.

[Stranger]

Q.E.D.

FALLACY: Begging the question.

Get an education. 

[Stranger]

Acts 20:35
King James Version
35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

Cheers, altruism, instructions and helping with my Bible study✝️

Further, the part of the brain which lights up when we have that warm cosy feeling when we have done a good turn is completely separate from the part when we feel compassion and empathy, I will try to find the research and post it, fascinating subject this evolved monkey/ape brain of ours.

And...?

Lots of moral advice (that doesn't require any gods) but nothing about seeking, testing, or why the seekers who think they've found something don't agree...
 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gordon,

It's just biology doing what it does in humans.

Aye old friend It's just biology

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Aye old friend It's just biology

You've given us no reason to think otherwise. 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

Sorry but I have

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Dear Stranger,

Sorry but I have

Gonnagle.

Where?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Many have tried and not found anything. Many have thought they'd found something, then later realised it was all self-deception.

But that immediately raises the question of why you accept their testimony rather than those who tried and did. How sincere were these people?, do they want there to be God or not? In other words are they neutral and or ready to commit, since God may not want to foist himself on the unwilling. Nagel admitted to himself that beyond intellectual argument he basically didn’t want God. Krauss hates that God judges. Having said that, Non believers are either pushing God away, neutral or curious and interested to various levels and really we shouldn’t be relying on others to believe or disbelieve on our behalf, rather facing the issue ourselves since this is between God and ourselves

those who think they've found something and stick with it, don't actually agree with each other about what it actually is.

In some religions it is a given that God cannot be approached, so imo how can they really not be in your boat?
Your point makes me think of the western discovery of Australia. Different explorers had different perspectives and it was thought that Australia was a lot of different islands when all along, same place.
Disagreements over what something is happen over lots of things and has no relevance to the thing itself.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

It's just biology doing what it does in humans.

Aye old friend It's just biology

Gonnagle.

It is indeed: every thought, every memory, every emotion, every feeling and every conclusion you come to - plus the processing of all the data that comes in via your senses - is just your biology in action.

Can't see that there is anything in the way of an alternative on offer. Nor can I see that recognising that 'we' are our brains in action is in any sense a problem.

Alan tried his 'soul' notion on us, but that didn't stand any scrutiny whatsoever.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

Must I do all the heavy lifting ( no you don't Gonnagle ) it doesn't really matter what I think but when arguably the Greatest mind the world has ever known speaks, please take a moment to reflect ❤️morning Gordon hows yer bum for midgy bites

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

But that immediately raises the question of why you accept their testimony rather than those who tried and did.

It's not a question of accepting anybody's testimony, it's a question of the reliability of your proposed procedure.

How sincere were these people?, do they want there to be God or not?

It really shouldn't matter if it's a reliable and objective approach. And clearly those people who thought they'd found something but later realised their error can't have been dead set against it, can they?

In some religions it is a given that God cannot be approached, so imo how can they really not be in your boat?

Eh?

Your point makes me think of the western discovery of Australia. Different explorers had different perspectives and it was thought that Australia was a lot of different islands when all along, same place.
Disagreements over what something is happen over lots of things and has no relevance to the thing itself.

Laughable. People have actually killed each other over these disagreements. These are not trivial details, people believe in totally different versions of God.

[Stranger]

Must I do all the heavy lifting...

If you want to convince anybody, then you've got to do the work. So far you seem to have done nothing much except post some trite platitudes.

...it doesn't really matter what I think but when arguably the Greatest mind the world has ever known speaks...

Who's that? If you mean your quotes from Einstein, then this is comical. Not only did he totally disagree with you about a personal God and Christianity, his expertise was in physics. That doesn't make his views on religion any more valuable than anybody else's. They stand or fall on their own merits. Thinking otherwise would be an appeal to authority fallacy.

...please take a moment to reflect...

I have done. Many, many times.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not a question of accepting anybody's testimony, it's a question of the reliability of your proposed procedure.

It really shouldn't matter if it's a reliable and objective approach. And clearly those people who thought they'd found something but later realised their error can't have been dead set against it, can they?

Eh?

Laughable. People have actually killed each other over these disagreements. These are not trivial details, people believe in totally different versions of God.

People kill each other for all sorts of reasons. I think you are being distracted by believers and non believers and not putting yourself in line, as you, yourself.
I think the reliability and objectivity you have been talking about refers to science. Science doesn’t do God or morality, or aesthetics or a lot of things.

Don’t get me wrong, I love science, possible more than you. What I don’t love is scientism.
In the case of relationships though, they do not allow the related or the relatee to merely take the observer role as is essential in science.

Have you developed a reliable and objective equation for getting a girlfriend or boyfriend? Or do you think you might just have to put yourself out their

[Gordon]

Dear Stranger,

Must I do all the heavy lifting ( no you don't Gonnagle ) it doesn't really matter what I think but when arguably the Greatest mind the world has ever known speaks, please take a moment to reflect ❤️

Einstein, though undoubtedly a great scientist in his day, isn't really an authority on everything else, such as philosophy. To quote Richard Feynman (no slouch of a scientist himself) "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy -- and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter." 

morning Gordon hows yer bum for midgy bites

Just tickety-boo, thanks

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

People kill each other for all sorts of reasons. I think you are being distracted by believers and non believers and not putting yourself in line, as you, yourself.
I think the reliability and objectivity you have been talking about refers to science. Science doesn’t do God or morality, or aesthetics or a lot of things.

Don’t get me wrong, I love science, possible more than you. What I don’t love is scientism.
In the case of relationships though, they do not allow the related or the relatee to merely take the observer role as is essential in science.

Have you developed a reliable and objective equation for getting a girlfriend or boyfriend? Or do you think you might just have to put yourself out their

You're begging the question again. This is not about a relationship, it's about whether there is anything real to have a relationship with, or if it's all in people's imagination.

So far, you have provided no evidence and no reasoning to suggest a real God, and your proposal of 'seeking' is mired in subjectivity and is clearly, at the very best, very, very unreliable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Einstein, though undoubtedly a great scientist in his day, isn't really an authority on everything else, such as philosophy. To quote Richard Feynman (no slouch of a scientist himself) "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy -- and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter." 

And yet when I said that about the Blessed Richard Dawkins I was vilified on this forum and given a Chinese burn(well, maybe they didn’t go that far).

Dr Feynman of course was talking bollocks because, apparently, he was a consummate Bongo player.

[Stranger]

And yet when I said that about the Blessed Richard Dawkins I was vilified on this forum and given a Chinese burn(well, maybe they didn’t go that far).

What are you talking about now? You seem to be the only person on this forum who thinks RD is some sort of atheist icon.

[Steve H]

Don’t get me wrong, I love science, possible more than you. What I don’t love is scientism.

You seem to use "scientism" to mean "science I don't like".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're begging the question again. This is not about a relationship, it's about whether there is anything real to have a relationship with, or if it's all in people's imagination.

So far, you have provided no evidence and no reasoning to suggest a real God, and your proposal of 'seeking' is mired in subjectivity and is clearly, at the very best, very, very unreliable.

But how can one establish it’s existentially real or relevant when, as you are doing, already concluded without being involved that there is nothing there and showing bias to those who claim not to have not found God.