Critical thinking, Why? Because apparently I am rubbish at it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Absolutely - there is plenty of 'rough and tumble' on these MB and we are most definitely not akin to strangers meeting in a pub - we are very much not strangers.

But I think a line is crossed when the most fundamental aspect of each poster - who we actually are (which is based on what we choose to reveal and what we choose not to reveal) is questioned. That goes way beyond the day-to-day knockabout and cuts to the heart of the key element that makes a MB like this tick, namely trust and respect. If we reveal things about ourselves which are important to who we are and have that disbelieved and ridiculed by another poster, then why would we reveal anything.

Interesting how a line is only crossed for you when it relates to something you seem to care about.

You seemed to have not spoken up before about all the lack of trust and lack of respect and the ridiculing of theists that goes on here.

That's just good old "day-to-day knockabout" for you -  including on another thread where you accused me of dishonestly editing one of your posts that I quoted, and on this thread you decided I was posting a derogatory slur based on your misinterpretation of my post.

And yet despite the ridicule here we theists are, continuing to reveal things about ourselves that are fundamental aspects of who we are. Oh wait, actually a lot of the theists left because they did not enjoy the ridicule. 

I thought you said my questioning of your professorship wasn't pushing your buttons. Now you say by me questioning your professorship a line has been crossed - because I am questioning and ridiculing a fundamental aspect about you.

It doesn't matter - it doesn't change my position. I certainly would not take the word of someone posting on an anonymous internet forum that they have greater knowledge/ expertise/ experience.

And if they did have greater knowledge/ expertise/ experience I would expect them to at the very least be able to use this knowledge/ expertise/ experience to make a credible and convincing argument on here rather than bleat on about their supposed "expert" credentials in order to try to add weight to their argument.

Your argument doesn't carry greater weight with me because of who you claim to be. It's either a good argument or it isn't.

[ProfessorDavey]

Interesting how a line is only crossed for you when it relates to something you seem to care about.

You seemed to have not spoken up before about all the lack of trust and lack of respect and the ridiculing of theists that goes on here.

That's just good old "day-to-day knockabout" for you -  including on another thread where you accused me of dishonestly editing one of your posts that I quoted, and on this thread you decided I was posting a derogatory slur based on your misinterpretation of my post.

And yet despite the ridicule here we theists are, continuing to reveal things about ourselves that are fundamental aspects of who we are. Oh wait, actually a lot of the theists left because they did not enjoy the ridicule. 

I thought you said my questioning of your professorship wasn't pushing your buttons. Now you say by me questioning your professorship a line has been crossed - because I am questioning and ridiculing a fundamental aspect about you.

Completely misunderstands my point, which isn't about me but about a fundamental line being crossed.

To my mind there is a fundamental difference between:

A). Accepting what we reveal about ourselves to be true, in other words we are who we say we are (e.g. christian, muslim, atheist, a woman, professor, has cancer, supports Arsenal, lives in India, lives in Hemel Hempstead etc, etc) even if at time we may find the arguments we make ridiculous, think faith/non-faith claims are ridiculous (yes, VG atheists get ridiculed here too), that someone's political position is ridiculous, their profession is ridiculous, the team someone supports is ridiculous and most notably that Hemel Hempstead, with its preposterous 'magic roundabout' is ridiculous.

and

B). Claiming that what we have chosen to reveal about ourselves is a lie, in other words refusing to believe that we are who we say we are (e.g. that despite what we say that we aren't christian, muslim, atheist, a woman, isn't a professor, don't have cancer, don't live in India or Hemel Hempstead etc, etc) . This effectively means you are claiming that our fundamental existence on this MB is a lie and a deceit.

That's where the line is crossed - I think it is pretty well the most fundamental aspect of this, and similar, MBs is that we accept what others reveal about themselves to be true - effectively that they are who they say they are. Once we have lost that acceptance that we are who we say we are (to the extent of the things we choose to reveal about ourselves) then the most fundamental element of trust and respect which makes MBs like this function is lost.

And for the record VG the things I have revealed about myself on this and the old BBC board over many years are 100% true regardless of your refusal to accept that fact.

Oh and I'm about to reveal more information about me (which I trust will be accepted to be true) as an explanation why I won't be posting here again for a few days. I am about to get on the road to Liverpool to help my younger son move into his first bought flat. Very exciting for him. His bother is also helping and yesterday both were at the Liverpool celebration although fortunately not too close to the awful incident. However it has left us all rather shocked and those who know me well from these MB will understand that an awful incident associated with Liverpool FC is an important moment in my own journey to accepting that I didn't believe in god. Fortunately yesterday no-one died.

[Free Willy]

Ok - I think internal in Stranger's explanation means things like knowledge, leading to motivation and desire that lead to thoughts resulting in a choice being made, including a moral choice. Is that what you also think?

Yes but this includes knowledge of external things, so we are left with the question, “what is it about knowledge that is internal?

Ok so do you think it is possible to have a choice that is not constrained in any way? If yes, can you give me an example?

Certainly if there only ever a limited number of options then choice is constrained but when you say choice that doesn’t seem to be covered by determinism or randomness 

N Ok agreed - just because I know Swahili I can choose not to respond.

Do you think I would choose not to respond because I have a reason to not respond?

You could be doing it because you can

If I have a reason to not respond did I arrive at this reason as a result of previous factors?

We arrive then at the unchanging nub and nexus of this whole issue

The response emerged from components

The components as expressed by Strangers terrible and compelling equation where systems change over time.All possible realities there in one tiny equation.......I have thought about that and on reflection I wondered about components that don’t change over time. Like, moral realism/ an absolute morality or if you will morality which isn’t easily folded back into other concepts like “taste”or “behaviour”. Also since Stranger has allowed his equation covers any reality, God is an externality which doesn’t change

do you think it would have still emerged without those components?   In what way - maybe try giving me an example of an indeterminant response related to morals? I am open to changing my mind on this but currently Stranger's simple formula makes sense to me. Unless you give me an alternative of an example of a moral choice that involves indeterminant but not random, I don't understand where you are coming from.

Given what i’ve Said and said about morality any moral situation will do but first I suppose I have to explain what I mean by our internal system. If the human being is the system described,not everything changes with time and the thing which doesn’t change is the “self”. The sense might leave us, but the fact is it persists. It is the ego, villain of the piece in some religions and beliefs, the thing that needs relegating in other belief systems. The I or “heart”. And it is This I Or heart or self, above all else,that is the motivator, The will , driver, mover and agent in any issue that is moral.

I recall at this point , an atheist colleague on another forum very gifted at describing people’s positions more succinctly than they could. Of me he said it sounded as though I actually only considered there was one instance of free will. The choice to commit to God.

Maybe again relate it to an actual example of moral choice. I have occasionally faced moral choices where I don't know which choice to pick and because I have to pick a choice, I pick one randomly - but I don't know whether it is truly a random choice. I think some part of my brain subconsciously predicts potential consequences based on my nature/ nurture (which includes my beliefs as theist) and weighs up out of the potential consequences of each choice, which one carries more risk of being harder to deal with when something goes wrong. I suspect my nature is such that I pick the choice that my brain has assessed carries lower risk of a fall-out that I would find hard to cope with.

So it might appear mindless but I suspect that it was prompted by motivations and desires at a sub-conscious level based on my nature/ nurture.
Even if you have agent causation, (1) what created the motivation or desire in the agent, and (2) isn't the choice they can make constrained by their nature/nurture?If there is a necessary entity, then yes it presumably would have no determinants, but we don't have evidence to say a necessary entity is the most plausible explanation - the concept is currently a possible explanation.

Also, why would the attributes of a necessary entity apply to human moral choices? Can you even describe the action of the necessary entity as a 'moral' choice and if so, why?

One can take the Stranger equation and say that every component is susceptible to change over time,I don’t. I think I’ve already conceded that what we call free will might be a complex arrangement of determinism and the indeterminate. But then again, it might not be.

God is the source of morality, goodness personified. Matter energy space time are either amoral or good in classical abrahamic monotheism so any system of morals based on those four things merely reduces or folds back into a mere description of the arrangement of matter.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Completely misunderstands my point, which isn't about me but about a fundamental line being crossed.

To my mind there is a fundamental difference between:

A). Accepting what we reveal about ourselves to be true, in other words we are who we say we are (e.g. christian, muslim, atheist, a woman, professor, has cancer, supports Arsenal, lives in India, lives in Hemel Hempstead etc, etc) even if at time we may find the arguments we make ridiculous, think faith/non-faith claims are ridiculous (yes, VG atheists get ridiculed here too), that someone's political position is ridiculous, their profession is ridiculous, the team someone supports is ridiculous and most notably that Hemel Hempstead, with its preposterous 'magic roundabout' is ridiculous.

and

B). Claiming that what we have chosen to reveal about ourselves is a lie, in other words refusing to believe that we are who we say we are (e.g. that despite what we say that we aren't christian, muslim, atheist, a woman, isn't a professor, don't have cancer, don't live in India or Hemel Hempstead etc, etc) . This effectively means you are claiming that our fundamental existence on this MB is a lie and a deceit.

Claiming it is a lie would be a positive claim - e.g. like 'God does not exist'. If I claimed that you were not a professor then I would need to substantiate it for my claim to be taken seriously. I have not claimed that you are not a professor.

On the other hand, in the absence of evidence other than your anonymous MB persona, and not having had a face-to-face experience of you, if I say I don't hold the belief that you are a Professor, or if I say that I am agnostic about whether you are a professor, then I have not made a positive claim, and the burden of proof is not with me. 

Isn't that how it works? I thought the atheists on here said that in their opinion this is the best approach for critical thinking and would be their approach to everything in life including gods. Therefore, I am prepared to accept that you really, really believe you are a professor.

Are you asking me to go further and believe you are a professor as an act of faith, in the absence of evidence? I'll consider trying it and let you know if I manage it. It's true that I take that approach with god, but in the case of god I had a personal experience of reading some text in the Quran that led to that belief as an act of faith.

Unfortunately, your posts on this MB don't seem to have the same effect on me as the Quran did....some of them actually have the opposite effect, whereby I think someone who claims to be expert in a field related to ethics would not keep jumping to conclusions and making accusations based on knee-jerk assumptions they have made e.g. simply because the post they are responding to was written by a theist.

Or at the very least, even if they initially did make a knee-jerk assumption or interpretation, their "expertise" in ethics would mean they would pause and consider alternative interpretations, rather than post a response based on their knee-jerk assumption, and then go on to make accusations of dishonesty against the other poster.

That's where the line is crossed - I think it is pretty well the most fundamental aspect of this, and similar, MBs is that we accept what others reveal about themselves to be true - effectively that they are who they say they are. Once we have lost that acceptance that we are who we say we are (to the extent of the things we choose to reveal about ourselves) then the most fundamental element of trust and respect which makes MBs like this function is lost.

Maybe for you.

I have been on this MB for years, and before that on the BBC board for a while, and I do not unquestioningly accept anecdotes that people write if they try to use the anecdote to say their view carries more weight than another poster's view in a discussion . On the other hand, I probably would accept it as an interesting bit of information that makes me think because there is no risk to taking it at face-value.

ETA: Your view of a "fundamental line being crossed" sounds like special pleading to me.

Nevertheless, for the sake of moving this discussion away from you personally and because it seems to really, really matter to you for some reason (no idea why), if you say you are a professor I can try to accept your assertion at face-value having no evidence whether it is true. I can try because it makes no difference to me if you are a professor, an imam or a self-employed fortune-teller. 

But, if you say you are an expert and therefore your post carries more weight I am not prepared to accept that your post or opinions or views carry more weight just based on your say so. Whether your opinion carries weight will depend on the strength of your argument.

Oh and I'm about to reveal more information about me (which I trust will be accepted to be true) as an explanation why I won't be posting here again for a few days. I am about to get on the road to Liverpool to help my younger son move into his first bought flat. Very exciting for him. His bother is also helping and yesterday both were at the Liverpool celebration although fortunately not too close to the awful incident. However it has left us all rather shocked and those who know me well from these MB will understand that an awful incident associated with Liverpool FC is an important moment in my own journey to accepting that I didn't believe in god. Fortunately yesterday no-one died.

Sorry you went through that and glad you and your family were not physically hurt. 

[Free Willy]

I dunno,

Again, your real answer is “I dunno but it doesn’t appear magically”. Apart from the dubiousness of answers like “I haven’t a clue but I know it isn’t...?” How are you distinguishing between an inexplicable magic appearance and an inexplicable random occurancei?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes but this includes knowledge of external things, so we are left with the question, “what is it about knowledge that is internal?

I think the internal knowledge refers to those bits of information and experiences we have been exposed to because of our nature/ nurture and which, as a result, have been stored in our brains and are available for conscious or sub-conscious recall or muscle memory. For example I don't have the knowledge/ skills/ reflexes required for hunting walrus because of my lack of exposure and experience.

I also have no idea of the potential repercussions to the environment or to other hunters of any moral choices I might make while hunting walrus, do you to my lack of experience and exposure.

This could be the case in many situations - it is difficult to know what the correct moral choice should be because of lack of experience, exposure, unpredictability of outcomes etc.

Certainly if there only ever a limited number of options then choice is constrained but when you say choice that doesn’t seem to be covered by determinism or randomness

I think our choices are constrained by our nature/nurture (see walrus hunting example above).

When faced with choices within those limited constraints, I think our executive function of our brain makes conscious evaluations based on our nature/nurture and prior experiences and knowledge but i also think that our motivation and desires (based on our nature/nurture) also influence our choices subconsciously.

You could be doing it because you can

Yes but apart from having the ability, would I not also be influenced by motivation and desire? 

We arrive then at the unchanging nub and nexus of this whole issue.

The components as expressed by Strangers terrible and compelling equation where systems change over time. All possible realities there in one tiny equation.......I have thought about that and on reflection I wondered about components that don’t change over time. Like, moral realism/ an absolute morality or if you will morality which isn’t easily folded back into other concepts like “taste”or “behaviour”. Also since Stranger has allowed his equation covers any reality, God is an externality which doesn’t change

What is the purpose of this morality? Isn't morality for humans only expressed in terms of choices or decisions they have to make?

If a moral choice needs to be made, we seem to be back at constrained choices based on previous factors that brought the person to this particular point of making a moral choice between the various options available to them. How do they make this choice - is there a reason for choosing one moral option over an alternative option? If yes, then their moral choice is determined. If no, then their moral choice is random.

Given what i’ve Said and said about morality any moral situation will do but first I suppose I have to explain what I mean by our internal system. If the human being is the system described,not everything changes with time and the thing which doesn’t change is the “self”. The sense might leave us, but the fact is it persists. It is the ego, villain of the piece in some religions and beliefs, the thing that needs relegating in other belief systems. The I or “heart”. And it is This I Or heart or self, above all else,that is the motivator, The will , driver, mover and agent in any issue that is moral.

Given the variety and complexity of moral choices, where the executive function of the brain needs to evaluate options before choosing a behaviour, what is it that you believe this "self" contributes at that moment of choice in the brain and how? 

I recall at this point , an atheist colleague on another forum very gifted at describing people’s positions more succinctly than they could. Of me he said it sounded as though I actually only considered there was one instance of free will. The choice to commit to God.

At what point in time is it that you believe that free will was exercised?

One can take the Stranger equation and say that every component is susceptible to change over time,I don’t. I think I’ve already conceded that what we call free will might be a complex arrangement of determinism and the indeterminate. But then again, it might not be.

God is the source of morality, goodness personified. Matter energy space time are either amoral or good in classical abrahamic monotheism so any system of morals based on those four things merely reduces or folds back into a mere description of the arrangement of matter.

At what point do you believe the "source of morality" becomes involved in a human moral choice or decision? Can you give an example of how you think it works?

[Stranger]

Yes but this includes knowledge of external things, so we are left with the question, “what is it about knowledge that is internal?

Irrelevant to the argument.

Certainly if there only ever a limited number of options then choice is constrained but when you say choice that doesn’t seem to be covered by determinism or randomness

Pointless semantics. 

You could be doing it because you can

What motivates you to do things because you can?

The components as expressed by Strangers terrible and compelling equation where systems change over time.All possible realities there in one tiny equation.......I have thought about that...

Have you? It doesn't show.

...and on reflection I wondered about components that don’t change over time.

Irrelevant to the argument.

Like, moral realism/ an absolute morality or if you will morality which isn’t easily folded back into other concepts like “taste”or “behaviour”. Also since Stranger has allowed his equation covers any reality, God is an externality which doesn’t change

Neither God nor absolute morality have been shown to be real (not that it matters to the argument).

If the human being is the system described,not everything changes with time...

Irrelevant to the argument.

I think I’ve already conceded that what we call free will might be a complex arrangement of determinism and the indeterminate. But then again, it might not be.

Still waiting for an alternative. Instead we are getting endless irrelevant waffle...

Again, your real answer is “I dunno but it doesn’t appear magically”.

There is no evidence for anything but the brain producing consciousness, and there is plenty of evidence that indicates that it does indeed do so (e.g. an anaesthetic can make you lose it). The obvious conclusion is that the brain is actually producing consciousness in some way we don't fully understand yet.

Apart from the dubiousness of answers like “I haven’t a clue but I know it isn’t...?” How are you distinguishing between an inexplicable magic appearance and an inexplicable random occurancei?

There is no evidence for magic anywhere ever. Why do you think randomness would be inexplicable?

[Free Willy]

Irrelevant to the argument.

Pointless semantics. 

What motivates you to do things because you can?

Have you? It doesn't show.

Irrelevant to the argument.

Neither God nor absolute morality have been shown to be real (not that it matters to the argument).

Irrelevant to the argument.

Still waiting for an alternative. Instead we are getting endless irrelevant waffle...

There is no evidence for anything but the brain producing consciousness, and there is plenty of evidence that indicates that it does indeed do so (e.g. an anaesthetic can make you lose it). The obvious conclusion is that the brain is actually producing consciousness in some way we don't fully understand yet.

There is no evidence for magic anywhere ever. Why do you think randomness would be inexplicable?

Straight of the bat. Claiming your argument.ent is true for any universe and then going on about evidence seems like a case of " moving the goalposts".

[Stranger]

Straight of the bat. Claiming your argument.ent is true for any universe and then going on about evidence seems like a case of " moving the goalposts".

  You really do need to stop and at least try to think about it. You seem to have missed the entire nature of the argument.

The argument is a general one based on anything that changes over time (as minds must). The evidence was in reaction to your (irrelevant to the argument) tangent about how consciousness emerges.

You seem to be intent on trying to concentrate on details that simply don't matter. It doesn't matter if some things don't change with time (staying constant is just a special case), and it doesn't matter whether some detail is placed in the internal state or the environment, because it's only the two together that affect the conclusion.

Come on, even Alan managed to grasp this, which is why he invented the meaningless nonsense of an 'ever present state'.

[Free Willy]

  You really do need to stop and at least try to think about it. You seem to have missed the entire nature of the argument.

The argument is a general one based on anything that changes over time (as minds must). The evidence was in reaction to your (irrelevant to the argument) tangent about how consciousness emerges.

You seem to be intent on trying to concentrate on details that simply don't matter. It doesn't matter if some things don't change with time (staying constant is just a special case), and it doesn't matter whether some detail is placed in the internal state or the environment, because it's only the two together that affect the conclusion.

Come on, even Alan managed to grasp this, which is why he invented the meaningless nonsense of an 'ever present state'.

You seem to be thinking that a mind changes with time but it should be obvious to you that when I talk of God and morality. Things that do not change with time but exist in spite of physical change. There is a range of these, the laws of nature, mathematics, moral realism, things that are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow but of which only something like God Can actualise potential.

Now you have intimated to your readers that your formula settles the issue of freewill. It doesn’t. Go beyond your own high self opinion and you will find that debates are raging.

I thank you of course for putting me straight on definitions but there is still an explanatory gap between the solitary particle and the moral being and dilemmas . It is therefore peculiar that throughout the period of time a person exists physically. The sense of self remains the same, You are never privy to anybody else’s sense of self.

[Stranger]

You seem to be thinking that a mind changes with time but it should be obvious to you that when I talk of God and morality. Things that do not change with time but exist in spite of physical change. There is a range of these, the laws of nature, mathematics, moral realism, things that are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow but of which only something like God Can actualise potential.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, and the wee donkey! Did you even read my post? What was it about "It doesn't matter if some things don't change with time" that confused you? And you still seem to be suffering under the delusion that you have established that moral realism and God are real. You haven't.

Now you have intimated to your readers that your formula settles the issue of freewill. It doesn’t. Go beyond your own high self opinion and you will find that debates are raging.

This isn't just my argument (the notation is mine but I just produced that to explain to Alan), it's been made by many people (e.g. Dennett), in fact it was in the link Gonnagle gave earlier (#117).

What I've never seem is a valid refutation.

You don't seem to be anywhere near even understanding it, as your endless irrelevant stuff about things that don't change, demonstrate. Oh, and this:

I thank you of course for putting me straight on definitions but there is still an explanatory gap between the solitary particle and the moral being and dilemmas .

Particles are irrelevant. The argument makes no assumptions about what things consist of.

It is therefore peculiar that throughout the period of time a person exists physically. The sense of self remains the same, You are never privy to anybody else’s sense of self.

I don't think my sense of self has remained the same at all, but it's still totally irrelevant.

[Dicky Underpants]

Therefore, I am prepared to accept that you really, really believe you are a professor.

........
But, if you say you are an expert and therefore your post carries more weight I am not prepared to accept that your post or opinions or views carry more weight just based on your say so. Whether your opinion carries weight will depend on the strength of your argument.

Has your obsession really come to this? The direct implication that PD is living a complete delusion, which he enacts on this message board?

As for the second point, yes  - we all know that the argumentum ad certificatem carries precious little weight in itself, (likewise various examples of the Courtier's Reply* )and though PD may have referred to various professional publications he has made, he doesn't seem incapable of arguing a point of view. Whether you or I accept his arguments is another matter. There is an odour of meanness, alluded to by Gonzo, that comes through your posts which I find off-putting, and in any case this whole highly personalised spat is, I fancy, boring the arse of most of the posters here.
Time to button up, Gobby Gabby.


* I admit to using this quite often myself, when it comes to matters concerning music. I refuse to accept that the phenomenon known as "Rap" has any claim to be considered an art-form at all, let alone considered music. And I make this objective statement based on my enormous knowledge of what real music is.

[Dicky Underpants]

I have thought about that and on reflection I wondered about components that don’t change over time. Like, moral realism/ an absolute morality or if you will morality which isn’t easily folded back into other concepts like “taste”or “behaviour”. Also since Stranger has allowed his equation covers any reality, God is an externality which doesn’t change. Given what i’ve Said and said about morality any moral situation will do but first I suppose I have to explain what I mean by our internal system. If the human being is the system described,not everything changes with time and the thing which doesn’t change is the “self”. The sense might leave us, but the fact is it persists. It is the ego, villain of the piece in some religions and beliefs, the thing that needs relegating in other belief systems. The I or “heart”. And it is This I Or heart or self, above all else,that is the motivator, The will , driver, mover and agent in any issue that is moral.

Some whopping assertions there, which Stranger has already picked up on. Moral realism/absolute morality have never been conclusively demonstrated - and they are certainly not demonstrated by the source of what you claim is their absolute origin - the Bible. God as described changes continually, despite various texts describing Its unchangeability. It/He can be bargained with, and is even sometimes described as 'repenting' of his own actions. That apart from his nature appearing as different depending on which prophet or evangelist you consult. The dogma of "unchangeability" was something simply worked out and finally asserted by the Schoolmen, no doubt with a healthy input from Aristotle, whose god shows precious few characteristics compatible with anything biblical.

Likewise "absolute morality" - something believers hope is demonstrated by various holy texts, no matter how contradictory. I'm not sure how we get from the morality of a god who thinks it's okay to tear children to pieces because they insulted one of his prophets, to one who is all-forgiving (but we know that comes with quite a few provisos - he'll only forgive if you yourself forgive up to seventy times seven). It's all a pious hope that there is some ultimate standard that might make sense of a chaotic world, but with nothing tangible to sustain it, except the Darwinian suggestion that altruistic societies tend to be evolutionarily successful, and this might point to altruism having a non-material origin. However, the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian explanations are more persuasive.

As for the persistent sense of 'Self' - well Buddhism and Hume have demonstrated the elusive and illusionary nature of that. We may indeed have a sense of self that continues from day to day, but that does not mean it never changes. I know my sense of self has changed a great deal, and calling up memories from times past only convinces me of this. We certainly seem very inclined to hang on to this sense of self to enable social interaction, but we know what happens when someone mistakes an illusion for a timeless objective reality. That phenomenon is known as Donald Trump.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Has your obsession really come to this? The direct implication that PD is living a complete delusion, which he enacts on this message board?

Just repeating back to him the line atheists use to theists with respect to beliefs and lack of evidence.

As for the second point, yes  - we all know that the argumentum ad certificatem carries precious little weight in itself, (likewise various examples of the Courtier's Reply* )and though PD may have referred to various professional publications he has made, he doesn't seem incapable of arguing a point of view. Whether you or I accept his arguments is another matter. There is an odour of meanness, alluded to by Gonzo, that comes through your posts which I find off-putting, and in any case this whole highly personalised spat is, I fancy, boring the arse of most of the posters here.
Time to button up, Gobby Gabby.


* I admit to using this quite often myself, when it comes to matters concerning music. I refuse to accept that the phenomenon known as "Rap" has any claim to be considered an art-form at all, let alone considered music. And I make this objective statement based on my enormous knowledge of what real music is.

There is an odour of meanness, alluded to by Gonzo, that comes through your posts - so pot calling the kettle black. Shut it yourself DU.

[Gordon]

Moderator

Dear All

It's been a while since I've done one of these posts, but I'd have to say that some recent exchanges in this thread have descended into little more than spats that stop just short of becoming personal insults.

So, no more please.

Gordon

[Gonnagle]

Moderator

Dear All

It's been a while since I've done one of these posts, but I'd have to say that some recent exchanges in this thread have descended into little more than spats that stop just short of becoming personal insults.

So, no more please.

Gordon

Dear Gordon,

Dear All

You forgot to end with, "Your humble Servant"

Anyway the all are a complete Shower.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L5LNIi5bAs

Gonnagle