Did Laidlaw, Broun, Stoppard, Chesterton...?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"My position, as I have said many times, is that you should never believe anything unless you
have evidence and/or reason sufficient to justify that belief.
As I do not have evidence or justification sufficient to believe in any gods, I do not believe
in any gods.
[b]As I do have sufficient evidence and justification to believe that all the curr ...[text shortened]... r innermost mind do you think of RHP Members who contribute to this forum who do believe in God?

Well first I only have one mind and as far as I am aware it's not built in concentric circles...

However, I think the same thing about RHP members who believe in gods as I do about all
people who believe in gods. That they are wrong and deluded. [about their belief in god/s]


You do have a way of asking simple questions in really convoluted ways.

That question should have simply read "What then do you think of people who believe in gods?"

See how much simpler and neater that is?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well first I only have one mind and as far as I am aware it's not built in concentric circles...

However, I think the same thing about RHP members who believe in gods as I do about all
people who believe in gods. That they are wrong and deluded. [about their belief in god/s]


You do have a way of asking simple questions in really convoluted ways ...[text shortened]... at then do you think of people who believe in gods?"

See how much simpler and neater that is?

Originally posted by googlefudge
"Well first I only have one mind and as far as I am aware it's not built in concentric circles...

However, I think the same thing about RHP members who believe in gods as I do about all
people who believe in gods. That they are wrong and deluded. [about their belief in god/s]


You do have a way of asking simple questions in really convoluted ways.

That question should have simply read "What then do you think of people who believe in gods?"

See how much simpler and neater that is?"

We all have an individualized communication styles as well as personal marks of incorrectness; and online nicknames. Imagine if we were all cookie cutter the same: googlefudge/Grampy Bobby/googlefudge/ GB, etc. lol

Reveal Hidden Content

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by googlefudge
"Well first I only have one mind and as far as I am aware it's not built in concentric circles...

However, I think the same thing about RHP members who believe in gods as I do about all
people who believe in gods. That they are wrong and deluded. [about their belief in god/s]


[b]You do have a way of ask ...[text shortened]... cutter the same: googlefudge/Grampy Bobby/googlefudge/ GB, etc. lol

[hidden]Ugh...[/hidden]

Communication is meant to convey ideas from one mind to another.

If the 'style' of the communication makes the intended meaning less clear
then that style is flawed.

Just as it's fine to have many different styles of handwriting as long as the
words are clear and easy to read, it's fine to have different styles of writing
so long as the meaning doesn't become obscured.

Your convoluted sentences are frequently unclear, sometimes to the point of
indecipherable.

Convoluted sentences and confusingly formatted posts make your posts unpleasant
to read.

"... an individualized communication styles ..." is grammatically incorrect.

I am unsure what a "... personal [mark] of incorrectness..." is.

And "Imagine if we were all cookie cutter the same: googlefudge/Grampy Bobby/googlefudge/ GB, etc."
is almost nonsensical.


Casual conversation [which is what you seem to keep insisting this is] should not
be like trying to decipher a cryptic crossword.

And given that on the internet with the written word only it's very hard to convey tone
or give emotional context you have to convey it all with the words.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Communication is meant to convey ideas from one mind to another.

If the 'style' of the communication makes the intended meaning less clear
then that style is flawed.

Just as it's fine to have many different styles of handwriting as long as the
words are clear and easy to read, it's fine to have different styles of writing
so long as the meani ...[text shortened]... s very hard to convey tone
or give emotional context you have to convey it all with the words.

To what extent would you ascribe the dysfunctional coding--decoding--coding--decoding of meaning embedded in language to lack of shared frames of reference, rejection of bothersome content, dismissal of substance vs. convoluted style per se?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
To what extent would you ascribe the dysfunctional coding--decoding--coding--decoding of meaning embedded in language to lack of shared frames of reference, rejection of bothersome content, dismissal of substance vs. convoluted style per se?

In your case the problem is 90% style, 10% everything else.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Did Laidlaw, Broun, Stoppard, Chesterton and Goethe get it wrong?

1) "God exists whether or not men may choose to believe in Him. The reason why many people do not believe in God is not so much that it is intellectually impossible to believe in God, but because belief in God forces that thoughtful person to face the fact that he is accountable ...[text shortened]... hen a man finally decides that he is not God." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe) Your thoughtful replies?[/b]

The first three - passive- agressive moral sermon.
The fourth - coffe bar syllogism (unworthy of father Brown)

The fifth ---> just a German romanticism.