Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: ippy on August 20, 2016, 11:47:05 AM
-
They can't keep their hands off of our children and it looks like upping the anti to me; I suppose it's in line with their exponentially disastrous continuing loss of support every year:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/02/church-stresses-urgent-need-to-focus-evangelism-on-children-young-people-and-their-parents
ippy
-
They can't keep their hands off of our children and it looks like upping the anti to me; I suppose it's in line with their exponentially disastrous continuing loss of support every year:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/02/church-stresses-urgent-need-to-focus-evangelism-on-children-young-people-and-their-parents
ippy
As far as I'm aware this post is pure paranoia since you have a choice and this is a secular society
-
Children do not have a choice.
-
Children do not have a choice.
I was gonna say that.
-
Ippy
Thank you for posting the link.
I'd like to see the, for example, AofC questioned in a Supreme Court of some kindwhere he must tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, conceding only a minuscule percentage to the just about impossibility of a god appearing, and asked to provide one verifiable fact about the God he believes exists. Next in line, the Pope.
And then he could be commanded to state why he jjustifies teaching falsehoods to children as facts, instead of teaching how beliefs have been a part of history..
Belated alteration: I think 'facts' should be 'truths', even though the latter allows too much wriggle room.
-
As far as I'm aware this post is pure paranoia since you have a choice and this is a secular society
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get you (or your children in this instance).
-
Ippy
Thank you for posting the link.
I'd like to see the, for example, AofC questioned in a Supreme Court of some kindwhere he must tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, conceding only a minuscule percentage to the just about impossibility of a god appearing, and asked to provide one verifiable fact about the God he believes exists. Next in line, the Pope.
And then he could be commanded to state why he jjustifies teaching falsehoods to children as facts, instead of teaching how beliefs have been a part of history..
Thank you SD, it's this aspect of religions that really worries and bothers me the most, they can't keep their hands off of our young children.
It's necessary to break this circle of indoctrinating the children to indoctrinate their children to then indoctrinate their children and on and on; there's no easy answer.
That's the trouble, those that are successfully indoctrinated aren't even aware that they have been successfully indoctrinated.
There has to be a way of freeing future generations from these unhelpful false dogmas, it's probably secularism that has the best chance of success in this area.
ippy
-
They can't keep their hands off of our children and it looks like upping the anti to me; I suppose it's in line with their exponentially disastrous continuing loss of support every year:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2016/02/church-stresses-urgent-need-to-focus-evangelism-on-children-young-people-and-their-parents
ippy
No they can't, can they, ippy. It happens in science lessons at school, in children's and many other types of TV programme, etc. Everything is all about the primacy of evolution.
-
I'd like to see the, for example, AofC questioned in a Supreme Court of some kindwhere he must tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, conceding only a minuscule percentage to the just about impossibility of a god appearing, and asked to provide one verifiable fact about the God he believes exists. Next in line, the Pope.
And then he could be commanded to state why he jjustifies teaching falsehoods to children as facts, instead of teaching how beliefs have been a part of history..
Susan, as I've stated many times before, the evidence against 'the AofC' is about as strong as that in his favour. None of those who believe in the primacy of science, be that here or elsewhere, has managed to provide any evidence that is independent of science, and therefore not biased to prove your belief.
-
No they can't, can they, ippy. It happens in science lessons at school, in children's and many other types of TV programme, etc. Everything is all about the primacy of evolution.
The difference is that evolution isn't a personal belief.
-
No they can't, can they, ippy. It happens in science lessons at school, in children's and many other types of TV programme, etc. Everything is all about the primacy of evolution.
Evolution isn't a fantasy, it has a lot of evidence to support it, unlike religion.
-
The difference is that evolution isn't a personal belief.
But nor is it an alternative to creation, Maeght, as Professor Denis Alexander writes in his book - 'Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose?'.
The ultimate question isn't so much 'how' humanity came to exist, but 'why'. Some here would argue that that second element is irrelevant; others wouldn't. Unfortunately, it is never addressed in any way by the likes of Attenborough or Cox. For them, the 'how' aspect of evolution is paramount. That is why I responded to ippy's OP in the way I did - people are being indoctrinated into ignoring the big questions.
-
Evolution isn't a fantasy, it has a lot of evidence to support it, unlike religion.
Floo, I am in no way suggesting that it is a fantasy, just that evolution only addresses one aspect of reality. See my response to Maeght.
-
If we ever discover the exact cause of how the universe came into being, I bet it is nothing to do with the god featured in the Bible.
-
None of those who believe in the primacy of science, be that here or elsewhere, has managed to provide any evidence that is independent of science, and therefore not biased to prove your belief.
Utter twaddle, as is usual from you these days: you seem to have forgotten we are all waiting for you to produce 'evidence that is independent of science'.
-
No they can't, can they, ippy. It happens in science lessons at school, in children's and many other types of TV programme, etc. Everything is all about the primacy of evolution.
Susan, as I've stated many times before, the evidence against 'the AofC' is about as strong as that in his favour. None of those who believe in the primacy of science, be that here or elsewhere, has managed to provide any evidence that is independent of science, and therefore not biased to prove your belief.
You live in a democracy with the freedom to make NPF statements etc, but the complacency I see when, occasionally, I steel myself to read your posts is quite frightening really.
-
The ultimate question isn't so much 'how' humanity came to exist, but 'why'. Some here would argue that that second element is irrelevant; others wouldn't.
Then you need to demonstrate that in this context 'why' is a valid question without recourse to your favourite fallacies.
Unfortunately, it is never addressed in any way by the likes of Attenborough or Cox. For them, the 'how' aspect of evolution is paramount.
They are scientists presenting science programmes for crying out loud.
That is why I responded to ippy's OP in the way I did - people are being indoctrinated into ignoring the big questions.
They are being educated to think sceptically: this is a good thing, albeit bad news for organised religion here in the UK.
-
But nor is it an alternative to creation, Maeght,
No, partly since evolution says nothing about how life started on this planet, only about how existing life has changed.
as Professor Denis Alexander writes in his book - 'Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose?'.
And his answer is? I'm not familiar with this book.
Creation by God is a personal belief and should be taught as such - evolution isn't, it is a scientific theory which is very, very well supported and should be taught as such.
The ultimate question isn't so much 'how' humanity came to exist, but 'why'. Some here would argue that that second element is irrelevant; others wouldn't. Unfortunately, it is never addressed in any way by the likes of Attenborough or Cox. For them, the 'how' aspect of evolution is paramount.
Because that is what evolution is about. 'Why' ishould be covered by philosophy and religion and is a matter of personal belief, not science.
That is why I responded to ippy's OP in the way I did - people are being indoctrinated into ignoring the big questions.
I don't think that is true at all. The 'big question' as you call it (I wouldn't agree with that as I think there is no why as in a purpose so its not a big question at all for me) is covered elsewhere and is just not part of the scientific material which is being taught.
-
Hope,
But nor is it an alternative to creation, Maeght, as Professor Denis Alexander writes in his book - 'Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose?'.
Seems like an odd title. Why not, say, "Architecture or Morris Dancing: Do we have to choose?"
Evolution has nothing to do with "creation" (whatever that means). It's actually to do with speciation after something exists.
The ultimate question isn't so much 'how' humanity came to exist, but 'why'.
No, it's not even a question at all if you mean "why" in its purposive sense. For that to be a meaningful question, you'd need to demonstrate first a sentient being to decide on the why.
Some here would argue that that second element is irrelevant; others wouldn't.
No, it's not even irrelevant. It's just not a coherent question at all.
Unfortunately, it is never addressed in any way by the likes of Attenborough or Cox.
Presumably because the question is meaningless.
For them, the 'how' aspect of evolution is paramount.
No, it's not "paramount" at all - it's just the only show in town if you want a cogent, well-evidenced theory for speciation that has predictive power and that - so far at least - hasn't been falsified.
That is why I responded to ippy's OP in the way I did - people are being indoctrinated into ignoring the big questions.
Spectacular nonsense. There's no "indoctrination" because the evidence speaks for itself, and there's no "big question" when the question you attempt is just white noise.
Apart from all that though...
Oh, I'll say doodle-oo now I think because I have every confidence that you'll be true to form and just disappear for a bit now your position has been falsified.
-
Hillside
For you creation is whatever SeanCarroll says it is.
Prof Davey surprised me by confusing the question "Why is there anything anyway?." With " why am I here?" And then counters on about evolution which as you say is unconnected.
By the way, Why is there something........and not nothing?
-
Hillside
By the way, Why is there something........and not nothing?
Neither you nor anybody else know the answer to that.
-
By the way, Why is there something........and not nothing?
Why would there be a God, and not no God ?
-
Why would there be a God, and not no God ?
A good question.
Why then is my original question a bad one?
-
Thank you SD, it's this aspect of religions that really worries and bothers me the most, they can't keep their hands off of our young children.
It's necessary to break this circle of indoctrinating the children to indoctrinate their children to then indoctrinate their children and on and on; there's no easy answer.
That's the trouble, those that are successfully indoctrinated aren't even aware that they have been successfully indoctrinated.
There has to be a way of freeing future generations from these unhelpful false dogmas, it's probably secularism that has the best chance of success in this area.
ippy
Perhaps you were thinking of this, ippy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5674934/Richard-Dawkins-launches-childrens-summer-camp-for-atheists.html
-
Utter twaddle, as is usual from you these days: you seem to have forgotten we are all waiting for you to produce 'evidence that is independent of science'.
Gordon, you have had it presented by a variety of people over the years -including by a few non-believers. You have chosen to either disbelieve it or ignore it. That is your prerogative, but saying that you are "waiting for ... to produce ..." such evidence is a downright lie. After all, your big arguement against most of it is that it IS independent of science - a condition that doesn't seem to exist in your view.
-
Gordon, you have had it presented by a variety of people over the years -including by a few non-believers. You have chosen to either disbelieve it or ignore it. That is your prerogative, but saying that you are "waiting for ... to produce ..." such evidence is a downright lie. After all, your big arguement against most of it is that it IS independent of science - a condition that doesn't seem to exist in your view.
Then I must be lying too as I haven't seen it. I have seen assertions of such by you that have been clearly and cogently challenged, and such challenges you have consistently ignored.
-
Gordon, you have had it presented by a variety of people over the years -including by a few non-believers.
Nope - which is why I keep asking you.
You have chosen to either disbelieve it or ignore it.
To date there has been nothing to consider, never mind disbelieve or ignore.
That is your prerogative, but saying that you are "waiting for ... to produce ..." such evidence is a downright lie.
No it isn't: and all you need do is simply produce the evidence you keep referring to.
After all, your big arguement against most of it is that it IS independent of science - a condition that doesn't seem to exist in your view.
No it isn't - that there is something non-natural, as in being independent of science, is your claim to demonstrate (just in case you've forgotten).
-
A good question.
Why then is my original question a bad one?
It's not a bad question, it is a good one.
It is the goddidit answer that looks dodgy to me, firstly because of the anthropocentric quality of most god claims, and secondly because it fails to fully resolve the original question, leaving unanswered 'why god rather than no god ?'. In other words it is an exercise in goal post shifting that carries a superficial appearance of being a profound explanation when in reality it is no such thing.
-
It is the goddidit answer that looks dodgy to me, firstly because of the anthropocentric quality of most god claims, and secondly because it fails to fully resolve the original question, leaving unanswered 'why god rather than no god ?'. In other words it is an exercise in goal post shifting that carries a superficial appearance of being a profound explanation when in reality it is no such thing.
Yet no-one has managed to produce even a vaguely rigorous explanation for why the the universe exists, why the various species of earth evolved as they did, or even how they came into existence in the first place. I'm afraid that the usual 'circumstances developed such that life was able to come into being' is less than regorous in anyone's book.
-
Alien,
Perhaps you were thinking of this, ippy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5674934/Richard-Dawkins-launches-childrens-summer-camp-for-atheists.html
There's a difference between being taught what to think and being taught how to think.
Try reading the article.
-
Vlad,
A good question.
Why then is my original question a bad one?
It's a bad one (but potentially a good one) because it's ambiguous. Do you mean "why" in its purposive sense, or "why" in its "by what process" sense?
As has been noted, inserting "God" as the answer just moves the question back a step, but that's a different matter.
-
No, partly since evolution says nothing about how life started on this planet, only about how existing life has changed.
And his answer is? I'm not familiar with this book.
His argument is largely summarised by your comment above. Evolution is nothing more than an explanation of how life developed from its simplest form, not an explanation as to how it came into existence in the first place. There is threfore no dichotomy between the two understandings as they are answering different questions. Unfortunately, I don't have my copy to hand as i have lent to someone, so I'm unable to give you any meaningful quotes from it.
Creation by God is a personal belief and should be taught as such - evolution isn't, it is a scientific theory which is very, very well supported and should be taught as such.
Yet, as you indicate above, they don't even attempt to answer the same questions. What proof do you have that 'Creation by God is a personal belief' and not a true statement in the same way as evolution is? Even the Big Bang Theory requires an initiatory influence od some sort.
Because that is what evolution is about. 'Why' ishould be covered by philosophy and religion and is a matter of personal belief, not science.
I would agree that the question shouldn't necessarily be covered by science (though i think that there are plenty of times that it has historically covered the topic); it is also why requiring an explanation of the why questions and answers in a scientific format is a rather pointless exercise.
I don't think that is true at all. The 'big question' as you call it (I wouldn't agree with that as I think there is no why as in a purpose so its not a big question at all for me) is covered elsewhere and is just not part of the scientific material which is being taught.
In a way I'd agree, Maeght. I do not believe, in the way that some here seem to, that there is a fundamental divide between science and faith. What is fundamental is the divide between the questions they are asking and hence the answers that they provide. For me philosophy is just as important for human understanding as 'natural, physical science'.
-
Vlad,
It's a bad one (but potentially a good one) because it's ambiguous. Do you mean "why" in its purposive sense, or "why" in its "by what process" sense?
As has been noted, inserting "God" as the answer just moves the question back a step, but that's a different matter.
I agree that the problem with the 'why'word is that it has at least 2 different meanings (a problem that most other languages overcome by using different words!!). However, often the twom eanings you refer to are interconnected - which for me where faith and science interact.
-
Hope,
Gordon, you have had it presented by a variety of people over the years -including by a few non-believers. You have chosen to either disbelieve it or ignore it. That is your prerogative, but saying that you are "waiting for ... to produce ..." such evidence is a downright lie. After all, your big arguement against most of it is that it IS independent of science - a condition that doesn't seem to exist in your view.
You can't get out of a lie by telling another one.
If you genuinely, seriously think that evidence has been produced then finally cite or produce it rather than just insist that others have done so.
Surely as a theist you should have this stuff at your fingertips shouldn't you?
-
Hope,
I agree that the problem with the 'why'word is that it has at least 2 different meanings (a problem that most other languages overcome by using different words!!). However, often the twom eanings you refer to are interconnected - which for me where faith and science interact.
But if you want to ask a "why" question, you need to be clear about which meaning you intend.
-
It is the goddidit answer that looks dodgy to me, firstly because of the anthropocentric quality of most god claims, and secondly because it fails to fully resolve the original question, leaving unanswered 'why god rather than no god ?'. In other words it is an exercise in goal post shifting that carries a superficial appearance of being a profound explanation when in reality it is no such thing.
Yet no-one has managed to produce even a vaguely rigorous explanation for why the the universe exists, why the various species of earth evolved as they did, or even how they came into existence in the first place. I'm afraid that the usual 'circumstances developed such that life was able to come into being' is less than regorous in anyone's book.
So, in so far as that is reasonable, the honest position to take, is we don't know. The goddidit position is merely a sleight of hand, it obscures the discomfort of an unanswerable question by positing another unanswerable to hide it, and once this imposter of a solution becomes established it becomes a bridgehead to be loaded with all manner of anthropocentric and cultural baggage, so we get a god who not only creates something rather than nothing, but also, as it happens, he is fond of Jews and dislikes gays and is always on the side of armies marching into battle.
-
Hope,
But if you want to ask a "why" question, you need to be clear about which meaning you intend.
and the muddying of the meaning reads like a deliberate attempt of begging the question to get to the purposive meaning without establishing its validity.
-
What proof do you have that 'Creation by God is a personal belief' and not a true statement in the same way as evolution is?
The difference is evidence.
Evolutionary theory is derived from evidence. Theological beliefs are not, they are just beliefs.
-
Hope,
Evolution is nothing more than an explanation of how life developed from its simplest form, not an explanation as to how it came into existence in the first place. There is threfore no dichotomy between the two understandings as they are answering different questions.
Quite. Why on earth then would anyone write a book called 'Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose?' when the answer is available in one brief sentence?
(I'm assuming here that the book doesn't consist of a dedication to his wife, a very short list of contents, and a Chapter 1 with only the word "no".)
-
NS,
and the muddying of the meaning reads like a deliberate attempt of begging the question to get to the purposive meaning without establishing its validity.
Quite so. It's remarkable how quickly some elide from that to heated discussions about why "God" drowns people in tsunamis or cures little Timmy of his limp but not little Alam of her cancer.
-
Alien,
There's a difference between being taught what to think and being taught how to think.
Try reading the article.
Hmmm it does seem loaded to the idea that religion is bad which is surely a 'what' to think?
-
NS,
Hmmm it does seem loaded to the idea that religion is bad which is surely a 'what' to think?
I read it as more about teaching rational enquiry, sceptical thinking etc. If the claims of the religious can stand up to that then well and good, but that's a second order issue. Why wouldn't anyone want their children to be well-equipped to rebut bad thinking of any kind?
Look at, say, Hope's relentless use of fallacies here for an example of what happens when someone isn't so equipped.
-
NS,
I read it as more about teaching rational enquiry, sceptical thinking etc. If the claims of the religious can stand up to that then well and good, but that's a second order issue. Why wouldn't anyone want their children to be well-equipped to rebut bad thinking of any kind?
Look at, say, Hope's relentless use of fallacies here for an example of what happens when someone isn't so equipped.
But it approaches it with an assumption that religious thinking is rational, which despite some attempts on here, isn't universal in religious thought. There is an odd connection that I have previously discussed here with wigginhall through the development of a more sola scriptura strand of Christianity at the Reformation to the rationality of the Enlightenment to an attempt by some to move religion onto an evidenced based approach.
I sometimes think when reading the posts of Hope where he talks about different perspectives that he is still stuck in the idea of equivalence in the method. He misuses the term evidence in a way that calls out for a method that looks at facts in the same way as the naturalistic methods but his whole position is that this is some kind of different claim. In some way there is an idea that just as say you and I 'experience' the number 22 bus, Hope and, I would say Vlad as well from his comments, 'experience' something they call God. They also seem to think that in talking about that experience with others, despite the paucity of the language that you or I see, that there is a common validation of the experience not being unique.
Given that I think that Hope has a point in saying that there are two different perspectives, but fails to actually realise that the different perspective he has needs to be talked about in a different way rather than go down this trope of evidence that the dog ate.
-
Yet no-one has managed to produce even a vaguely rigorous explanation for why the the universe exists,
Possibly because either there isn't one, where the 'why' in a purposeful sense is fallacious (by begging the question), or if there is some purpose to the universe it isn't yet known. Bertrand Russell's view on this: 'The universe may have a purpose, but nothing we know suggests that, if so, this purpose has any similarity to ours.'
why the various species of earth evolved as they did,
Again if the 'why' is code for purpose then this question seems fallacious.
or even how they came into existence in the first place. I'm afraid that the usual 'circumstances developed such that life was able to come into being' is less than regorous in anyone's book.
Abiogenesis is a separate area of study: that it happened is self-evident, 'how' it happened isn't yet known but is being investigated whereas 'why' abiogenesis happened may not be a valid question; because it may be a fallacious one.
-
NS,
But it approaches it with an assumption that religious thinking is rational, which despite some attempts on here, isn't universal in religious thought.
Personally I'd prefer it to be called "rational camp" or some such rather than "atheist camp" specifically, but the principle is the same. I don't see it as approaching religious beliefs as if they're rational at all - that's rather the point! What it does though is to equip children with the tools to engage when the religious do attempt rational arguments for their beliefs (Hope and his beloved NPF for example).
Once they have that it doesn't matter much whether the content of the claim is religious or something else - bad thinking is bad thinking regardless of the conclusions it leads to.
There is an odd connection that I have previously discussed here with wigginhall through the development of a more sola scriptura strand of Christianity at the Reformation to the rationality of the Enlightenment to an attempt by some to move religion onto an evidenced based approach.
As you're fond of telling us, trying to use naturalistic methods like reason to demonstrate non-natural conjectures like "God" is a fool's errand from the get-go though. That the religious have nothing else in their locker to distinguish their claims from just guessing isn't I think a problem for the rationalist.
I sometimes think when reading the posts of Hope where he talks about different perspectives that he is still stuck in the idea of equivalence in the method. He misuses the term evidence in a way that calls out for a method that looks at facts in the same way as the naturalistic methods but his whole position is that this is some kind of different claim. In some way there is an idea that just as say you and I 'experience' the number 22 bus, Hope and, I would say Vlad as well from his comments, 'experience' something they call God.
Quite. And that leads us back to the problem of finding ten people before breakfast who each think they've experienced completely different "somethings" just as sincerely, genuinely etc as Hope and Vlad think they've experienced their "God(s)". Why any one of them would think we should take any one "experience" claim more seriously than any other such claim is unknowable, but there is it is nonetheless.
They also seem to think that in talking about that experience with others, despite the paucity of the language that you or I see, that there is a common validation of the experience not being unique.
Memetics - start with an idea, spread it, build on it, reinforce the positive feedback and eventually the opinion becomes a cult becomes a religion. That so many deistic narratives are culturally determined tells us that, or at least implies it strongly.
Given that I think that Hope has a point in saying that there are two different perspectives, but fails to actually realise that the different perspective he has needs to be talked about in a different way rather than go down this trope of evidence that the dog ate.
Two or two million different perspectives - doesn't matter much for this purpose. There's the common perspective of inter-subjective experience underpinned by reason such that almost everyone will take the lift rather than jump out of the window, and then there's - well - the anything goes free-for-all of "I really think I experienced X, therefore X is real" of which Hope, Vlad et al provide sub-sets.
Vlad even went so far as to assert that desiring a relationship with something "points to" that something being real, though despite countless times of asking he's steadfastly avoided telling us what connection he thinks there to be between the two.
-
Yet no-one has managed to produce even a vaguely rigorous explanation for why the the universe exists
I agree and one of the most vague and least rigorous explanations is goddidit.
-
There seems to be a problem though in the assumption that experiences that some claim to have had are a form of guessing. This doesn't seem to be a that makes sense to talk about experience. I don't feel my experiences are jije guesses and if others seem to have had the same experience then I will necessarily feel that works as some validation. That others may have experiences which might be read as contradictory is, I think, something that we have to be careful about. There are many on here who see the contradictions as lacking, Gonnagle for instance.
Despite the fact that there is no evidence for free will, and that the assumptions built into our naturalistic methodology, mean that it is ruled out, we all act as if it does exist. For those with experiences that chime with the non naturalistic, perhaps they are doubly doomed by the lack of free will, and by being in thrall to experience, as are we all, to believe the way they do. That doesn't mean that we should allow sloppy thinking but rather that we might encourage people to explain why they believe in language that suits it.
-
NS,
There seems to be a problem though in the assumption that experiences that some claim to have had are a form of guessing.
I’ve always said that such claims are indistinguishable from guessing (or lying or mistake or delusion or any manner of other non-factual explanations). The difference is important if the proponents of these beliefs expect others to take their claims more seriously than they would guesses.
This doesn't seem to be a that makes sense to talk about experience. I don't feel my experiences are jije guesses and if others seem to have had the same experience then I will necessarily feel that works as some validation. That others may have experiences which might be read as contradictory is, I think, something that we have to be careful about. There are many on here who see the contradictions as lacking, Gonnagle for instance.
The issue isn’t I think the “experience” as such, but rather the cause(s) that people attribute to their experiences: “I had a really strong feeling one day, therefore God X was responsible for it”. I don’t deny the fact of experiences – such things are commonplace, and can also be induced by hypnosis, drugs etc – but I do deny that we should just accept the causes some give for their experiences in the absence of a method to eliminate all the other possible (but natural and less personally thrilling) causes.
Despite the fact that there is no evidence for free will, and that the assumptions built into our naturalistic methodology, mean that it is ruled out, we all act as if it does exist.
Yes, but acting as if free will is real and asserting it as an objective fact are very different matters. “I choose to live my life as if God is real” is fine; “God is a fact for you and for me both” isn’t.
For those with experiences that chime with the non naturalistic, perhaps they are doubly doomed by the lack of free will, and by being in thrall to experience, as are we all, to believe the way they do. That doesn't mean that we should allow sloppy thinking but rather that we might encourage people to explain why they believe in language that suits it.
No issue with that – if anyone wants to do that rather than abuse the vocabulary of reason that’s fine by me. It’d be quite a relief in fact as endlessly falsifying the efforts of some here is frankly a bit dull. Whatever that language might be though, it would have all its work ahead of it still if the person using it wanted to build a bridge from “true for me” opinion to “true for you too” fact.
-
In what sense is an experience a guess? Telling someone that what they experienced is 'indistinguishable from a guess' I.e. that it is a guess makes no sense to me. I agree that experiences can be wrong but a delusion doesn't seem to me 'indistinguishable from a guess'. Further if we question experience as a like a guess then due to problem of hard solipsism we create that problem for all experience.
BTW the point about free will is that the naturalistic methodology means that it dies not exist. If we say science is the method we use to investigate the natural world then the in built assumptions mean that the beliefs we have are mere effects. You have no choice in your position, just as Hope has no choice in his. In that case even were you being irrational, you wouldn't see it.
-
NS,
In what sense is an experience a guess? Telling someone that what they experienced is 'indistinguishable from a guess' I.e. that it is a guess makes no sense to me. I agree that experiences can be wrong but a delusion doesn't seem to me 'indistinguishable from a guess'. Further if we question experience as a like a guess then due to problem of hard solipsism we create that problem for all experience.
That's not what I said. The experience is the experience is the experience. What I said was that the cause some people decide is responsible for the experience is (indistinguishable from) a guess.
They're very different things: a profound experience of one-ness with the universe is a profound experience of one-ness with the universe. Whether it was a god that caused it or a plate of bad shellfish on the other hand is a different matter.
BTW the point about free will is that the naturalistic methodology means that it dies not exist. If we say science is the method we use to investigate the natural world then the in built assumptions mean that the beliefs we have are mere effects. You have no choice in your position, just as Hope has no choice in his. In that case even were you being irrational, you wouldn't see it.
You can see it in the sense that, say, the NPF is explicable and the person committing it could therefore say, "Ah, now I understand it" (though not Hope, obviously). The point though was rather that acting as if something is real and it actually being real are qualitatively different things.
-
You can't get out of a lie by telling another one.
Enough people here believe that they can.
If you genuinely, seriously think that evidence has been produced then finally cite or produce it rather than just insist that others have done so.
Sorry, blue, but on a different forum where we had very similar discussions to those we have here - and a very similar type of membership - simply repeating the same evidence ad nauseam made no difference. Folk like yourself either ignored it or made less than successful attempts to discredit it however many times it was repeated. The same has occurred a few times here since I joined the forum in 2011.
Surely as a theist you should have this stuff at your fingertips shouldn't you?
Possibly - but I'm afraid that I'm not one for copying posts or saving threads to my hard-drive for future reference as I know some folk do. Remembering hard evidence over time is far harder than simply casting doubt on it without any solid supporting evidence.
-
This now seems bizarre, as you are making comments, about what others' experiences are like. As you say the experience is the experience and that doesn't mean that some one is attributing a cause, rather that what they experience feels like a cause., or feels like a god to them.
As to the idea that rationality is explainable, given the lack of free will, then that merely becomes a case of 'you would say that, wouldn't you'. I don't know anyone who doesn't act as if the things they think are real, aren't actually real, and I am not even sure if it can be done.
-
That's not what I said. The experience is the experience is the experience. What I said was that the cause some people decide is responsible for the experience is (indistinguishable from) a guess.
Interestingly, blue, exactly the same could be said for your understanding of the world.
You can see it in the sense that, say, the NPF is explicable and the person committing it could therefore say, "Ah, now I understand it" (though not Hope, obviously). The point though was rather that acting as if something is real and it actually being real are qualitatively different things.
I think mther reason I don't come up with "Ah, now I understand it" is that all people here do is claim an NPF, without providing any solid explanation, let alone evidence for that claim. In which case, why would I choose to "Ah, now I understand it" along the lines that they want, as opposed to understanding it as a means of their avoiding the issue?
-
Hope,
Enough people here believe that they can.
That may or may not be true but, either way, a tu quoque is just another fallacy so it won't dig you out of the hole.
Sorry, blue, but on a different forum where we had very similar discussions to those we have here - and a very similar type of membership - simply repeating the same evidence ad nauseam made no difference. Folk like yourself either ignored it or made less than successful attempts to discredit it however many times it was repeated. The same has occurred a few times here since I joined the forum in 2011.
Folks "like" me may or may not have done that, but I haven't. If your seriously think there to have been evidence then why on earth would you not want to tell us on this mb what it is rather than just tell us here that it exists but you don't like telling this forum what it is?
Possibly - but I'm afraid that I'm not one for copying posts or saving threads to my hard-drive for future reference as I know some folk do.
So you're telling us that you believe in something you call "God" and moreover that you think this God to be a fact for others too, only you don't have access to any sort of evidence that would support the contention.
Really?
Really really?
Does that not seem a little odd to you? If I had such a belief damn right I'd know what the evidence is that supports it. You seem to be remarkably relaxed about relying just on a vague assertion that someone somewhere has done it so that's ok then.
Remembering hard evidence over time is far harder than simply casting doubt on it without any solid supporting evidence.
The "solid supporting evidence" is that it's trivially easy to falsify the reasoning you attempt to demonstrate your god. Absent any evidence from you, what more could anyone do?
-
Enough people here believe that they can.
Sorry, blue, but on a different forum where we had very similar discussions to those we have here - and a very similar type of membership - simply repeating the same evidence ad nauseam made no difference. Folk like yourself either ignored it or made less than successful attempts to discredit it however many times it was repeated. The same has occurred a few times here since I joined the forum in 2011.
Possibly - but I'm afraid that I'm not one for copying posts or saving threads to my hard-drive for future reference as I know some folk do. Remembering hard evidence over time is far harder than simply casting doubt on it without any solid supporting evidence.
If you cannot remember the evidence, then citing it as convincing is worthless, since you cannot remember it.
-
,
I think mther reason I don't come up with "Ah, now I understand it" is that all people here do is claim an NPF, without providing any solid explanation, let alone evidence for that claim.
It has been explained to you many times, and in context too since these explanations refer to the content of your own posts.
In which case, why would I choose to "Ah, now I understand it" along the lines that they want, as opposed to understanding it as a means of their avoiding the issue?
Nope - there isn't an 'issue' to avoid, in that when you deploy this fallacy you are making a reasoning error rather than a cogent argument. The only issue that arises is your apparent inability to avoid fallacies.
-
Interestingly, blue, exactly the same could be said for your understanding of the world.
I think mther reason I don't come up with "Ah, now I understand it" is that all people here do is claim an NPF, without providing any solid explanation, let alone evidence for that claim. In which case, why would I choose to "Ah, now I understand it" along the lines that they want, as opposed to understanding it as a means of their avoiding the issue?
Are you asking for an explanation of the negative proof fallacy? Or are you asking for an explanation of how it applies to individual posts? The second doesn't make much sense if you think you understand it.
-
NS,
This now seems bizarre, as you are making comments, about what others' experiences are like. As you say the experience is the experience and that doesn't mean that some one is attributing a cause, rather that what they experience feels like a cause., or feels like a god to them.
But the experience is essentially a personal, subjective mater. What some do though is to reach for explanatory causes that are true for everyone, objective. Apples falling may "feel like" pixies pulling them down with very thin strings to me, but I have no basis to argue that pixie theory is a fact.
As to the idea that rationality is explainable, given the lack of free will, then that merely becomes a case of 'you would say that, wouldn't you'. I don't know anyone who doesn't act as if the things they think are real, aren't actually real, and I am not even sure if it can be done.
Either you decide that all is illusory and that any truth is as valid as any other, or you accept the model of the way the world appears to be and act accordingly. The world appears to be material, and the appearance of inter-subjective experience provides a framework to navigate it. And that's good enough. Within that paradigm you can take logically false arguments and explain why they are logically false.
If we don't do that, what choice do we have but to accept any irrational conjecture as a fact?
-
Hope,
Interestingly, blue, exactly the same could be said for your understanding of the world.
Well, we could test that. My understanding is that the lift will get you to the ground more safely than will jumping out of the window. Fred's "experience" may be that jumping out of the 22nd storey window is the safest option.
Why not test each understanding and then have your beneficiaries tell us which is probabilistically more true?
I think mther reason I don't come up with "Ah, now I understand it" is that all people here do is claim an NPF, without providing any solid explanation, let alone evidence for that claim. In which case, why would I choose to "Ah, now I understand it" along the lines that they want, as opposed to understanding it as a means of their avoiding the issue?
It's been "solidly" explained to you many, many, many times. That you keep repeating it is a function of your inability to comprehend, not of the inadequacy of the explanation.
There is no "issue" as you think it to be when your means of getting to it is fallacious thinking - the NPF in particular. The fallacious thinking is the only issue.
Look, I'll show you. Again.
You can't disprove leprechauns. Therefore leprechauns are real. Can we now discuss the issue of what leprechauns have for breakfast please?
Can you see the faulty reasoning there?
-
All experience including any involving scientific verification is personal and subjective. That we allow ourselves inter subjectiveness to validate something doesn't get us beyond guessing in your use of the term.
Note the question of what an experience 'feels' like is you making an assumption about how others experience things which you don't have any warrant for. I'd rather try and get the information from those who have the experiences, than you telling me about their experiences.
But if you accept that the material world and naturalism, you are back at no free will. In which case you wouldn't see any irrationality of your own position! Further you are using your experiences to state what us true for others, just as you want to deny others doing this.
-
Perhaps you were thinking of this, ippy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5674934/Richard-Dawkins-launches-childrens-summer-camp-for-atheists.html
Looks and sounds about right to me, I'm sure it's not perfect but there's no indoctrination involved, which of course, has to be better than piling on the usual load of old religious tripe.
ippy
-
Looks and sounds about right to me, I'm sure it's not perfect but there's no indoctrination involved, which of course, has to be better than piling on the usual load of old religious tripe.
ippy
Did you - or anyone you know - attend the camp, ippy?
-
Did you - or anyone you know - attend the camp, ippy?
Looks and sounds about right to me, I'm sure it's not perfect but there's no indoctrination involved, which of course, has to be better than piling on the usual load of old religious tripe.
If teaching how to work out things for one's self = indoctrination, you may have something Hope.
ippy
-
Hope,
Well, we could test that. My understanding is that the lift will get you to the ground more safely than will jumping out of the window. Fred's "experience" may be that jumping out of the 22nd storey window is the safest option.
Well, iirc, the latter (albeit slightly modified) turned out to be true on 9/11. ;) I do find the use of these extreme, and highly unrealistic examples quite amusing - notice that you only introduce 'the 22nd storey' in the sentence following the comparison. Equally, one might argue that the lift will get you to the ground floor more safely (or quicker) than by jogging down the stairs: I suppose it depends on what floor one is on, when you start the timing, whether the lift is a modern hi-speed one or a more ancient, slow one; are the lifts busy and therefore require you to stand in front of them for a long time; is there a power cut partway through your journey; ..., etc.?
Why not test each understanding and then have your beneficiaries tell us which is probabilistically more true?
See above
It's been "solidly" explained to you many, many, many times. That you keep repeating it is a function of your inability to comprehend, not of the inadequacy of the explanation.
Its been explained as 'solidly' as your opening gambit above, blue. I believe that I knocked that down fairly straightforwardly. If that degree of 'solidity' is all you can muster, ...
You can't disprove leprechauns. Therefore leprechauns are real. Can we now discuss the issue of what leprechauns have for breakfast please?
Can you see the faulty reasoning there?
Yes, I can see the faulty reasoning here: its in your first two sentences. Leprechauns (or trolls, as in Iceland) have always been and remain fictional concepts. It is why they only ever appear in such things a fairy tales and legends. Even those who 'believe' in them acknowledge that.
Conversely, religious issues such as the Virgin Birth or the resurrection of Jesus are reported as fact by people who were either present at the time or who knew of such eye-witnesses. This tends not to be the case with Hindu or Buddhist holy documents as they were not written down for many centuries -
In ancient times, the scriptures were transmitted orally, from one generation to next, in verse form to aid memorization, for many centuries before they were written down
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindu_scriptures
'Corruption' over this length of time is very different to that over a matter of 2 or 3 decades.
-
Well, iirc, the latter (albeit slightly modified) turned out to be true on 9/11. ;) I do find the use of these extreme, and highly unrealistic examples quite amusing - notice that you only introduce 'the 22nd storey' partway through the second part of the equation. Equally, one might argue that the lift will get you to the ground floor more safely (or quicker) than by jogging down the stairs: I suppose it depends on what floor one is on, when you start the timing, whether the lift is a modern hi-speed one or a more ancient, slow one; are the lifts busy and therefore require you to stand in front of them for a long time; is there a power cut partway through your journey; ..., etc.?
See above
Its been explained as 'solidly' as your opening gambit above, blue. I believe that I knocked that down fairly straightforwardly. If that degree of 'solidity' is all you can muster, ...
Yes, I can see the faulty reasoning here: its in your first two sentences. Leprechauns (or trolls, as in Iceland) have always been and remain fictional concepts. It is why they only ever appear in such things a fairy tales and legends. Even those who 'believe' in them acknowledge that.
Conversely, religious issues such as the Virgin Birth or the resurrection of Jesus are reported as fact by people who were either present at the time or who knew of such eye-witnesses. This tends not to be the case with Hindu or Buddhist holy documents as they were not written down for many centuries -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindu_scriptures
'Corruption' over this length of time is very different to that over a matter of 2 or 3 decades.
Is this a serious post Hope?
ippy
-
Looks and sounds about right to me, I'm sure it's not perfect but there's no indoctrination involved, which of course, has to be better than piling on the usual load of old religious tripe.
If teaching how to work out things for one's self = indoctrination, you may have something Hope.
ippy
Why do you simply repeat poists that people challenge you on, ippy. To me, it simply makes your argument sound even less viable.
If, as I assume you are, you are saying that you nor anyone you know attended the camp, how can you be certain that there was no indoctrination involved? Can you be certain that, if a child asked something that questioned the underlying assumptions of the camp, the adults answered honestly, as opposed to shrugging off or even ignoring the question?
-
NS,
All experience including any involving scientific verification is personal and subjective. That we allow ourselves inter subjectiveness to validate something doesn't get us beyond guessing in your use of the term.
You're in danger of falling into Vlad territory here - true can't be true unless it's absolutely true etc.
Yes, of course all experience is personal inasmuch as we have no means of reaching outside of that. In that context though, we call some things "subjective" and others "objective" - ie, we categorise truths that provide solutions differently from those that don't. Light being travelling photons and not elfs with torches is objective enough to be "true" for example.
Note the question of what an experience 'feels' like is you making an assumption about how others experience things which you don't have any warrant for. I'd rather try and get the information from those who have the experiences, than you telling me about their experiences.
Again, I make no comment on what an experience feels like. I really don't doubt that, say, some people's experience really, really feels like being at one with the universe. Fine.
When though that persona had a dodgy prawn biryani that's known to cause such feelings but gives "God" as the cause nonetheless, then the categorisation of (probably) objective from (probably) subjective is useful if we are to proceed in the world.
But if you accept that the material world and naturalism, you are back at no free will. In which case you wouldn't see any irrationality of your own position! Further you are using your experiences to state what us true for others, just as you want to deny others doing this.
No, I'm just saying that the "me" that appears to be finds enough reason to conclude that one answer is more probably true than another. I think free will is a red herring here - absent "true" free will then of course all is deterministic anyway. Functioning as if there is "true" free will though forces us to "decide" between available explanations. Any discussion here and elsewhere must be predicated on the "as if" model - what other option is there?
-
I have no idea what 'absolutely' true means and I am not commenting in truth but on experience and how we use it. You are taking the position that experience cannot determine cause without guessing, I'm just asking you to be consistent.
I am challenging that there is an idea if degrees of objectivity though and all you offer on that is your usual ad populum her, combined with your usual leap over the hard solipsism issue.
In terms of acting 'as if' free will exists, I agree we have no choice but to do so. But that has no use in dealing with the issue that your position on an assumption of naturalism means that lack of free will follows. If that weretrye then your claim to rationality is worth less
-
Why do you simply repeat poists that people challenge you on, ippy. To me, it simply makes your argument sound even less viable.
If, as I assume you are, you are saying that you nor anyone you know attended the camp, how can you be certain that there was no indoctrination involved? Can you be certain that, if a child asked something that questioned the underlying assumptions of the camp, the adults answered honestly, as opposed to shrugging off or even ignoring the question?
R D's well known intention is to be true to the facts as we understand them today, I've not heard anything that make me think he would have any reason to go back on his words; perhaps you've heard something that I haven't?
ippy
-
Hope,
Well, iirc, the latter (albeit slightly modified) turned out to be true on 9/11. ;) I do find the use of these extreme, and highly unrealistic examples quite amusing - notice that you only introduce 'the 22nd storey' partway through the second part of the equation. Equally, one might argue that the lift will get you to the ground floor more safely (or quicker) than by jogging down the stairs: I suppose it depends on what floor one is on, when you start the timing, whether the lift is a modern hi-speed one or a more ancient, slow one; are the lifts busy and therefore require you to stand in front of them for a long time; is there a power cut partway through your journey; ..., etc.?
Oh dear. The comparison was between a naturalistic answer (the lift) and a non-naturalistic one (the window). Just substituting the latter for a naturalistic alternative misses the point entirely.
See above
I did. You went straight off the rails
Its been explained as 'solidly' as your opening gambit above, blue. I believe that I knocked that down fairly straightforwardly. If that degree of 'solidity' is all you can muster, ...
But as so often your belief here is flat wrong. The explanation of the NPF is perfectly straightforward - and "solid". Why you can't grasp it is a matter for you, not for others.
Yes, I can see the faulty reasoning here: its in your first two sentences.
Halle-flippin'-llujah!
Leprechauns (or trolls, as in Iceland) have always been and remain fictional concepts. It is why they only ever appear in such things a fairy tales and legends. Even those who 'believe' in them acknowledge that.
NOOOOOOOOOO! You haven't understood it at all. Dear god but you're obtuse. It's a point in logic regardless of the examples that populate it.
Not being able to falsify something says nothing whatsoever to whether that thing is true.
Now write that down a hundred times.
Orbiting teapots are a daft idea too - does that invalidate the force of Russell's analogy do you think?
Why not?
Conversely, religious issues such as the Virgin Birth or the resurrection of Jesus are reported as fact by people who were either present at the time or who knew of such eye-witnesses. This tends not to be the case with Hindu or Buddhist holy documents as they were not written down for many centuries
Give-me-freakin'-strength.
Whether true or epistemically useful or not, THAT HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE NPF.
Really, nothing whatever.
Zip.
Zilch.
Nada.
In ancient times, the scriptures were transmitted orally, from one generation to next, in verse form to aid memorization, for many centuries before they were written down
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindu_scriptures
'Corruption' over this length of time is very different to that over a matter of 2 or 3 decades.
Lovely. Now then - back to the NPF we were actually discussing. There may or may not be good reasons to believe something to be true. As a SEPARATE matter though, arguing that something is true BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE FALSIFIED is broken thinking.
Stop doing it, and then perhaps we can consider the DIFFERENT arguments you think you have for your beliefs.
-
R D's well known intention is to be true to the facts as we understand them today, I've not heard anything that make me think he would have any reason to go back on his words; perhaps you've heard something that I haven't?
ippy
In terms of Hope's questions, you have replied with your own NPF.
-
In terms of Hope's questions, you have replied with your own NPF.
I wonder why I left my comment open to correction by Hope, what do you think N S?
ippy
-
NS,
Quite so. It's remarkable how quickly some elide from that to heated discussions about why "God" drowns people in tsunamis or cures little Timmy of his limp but not little Alam of her cancer.
If you are going to invoke God 'taking people away' you also have to invoke 'God receiving people in heaven' and also why wicked Mr Stalin took 30 million people away with no belief of anybody receiving
anybody anywhere but a great belief they would be reduced to forgotten dust.
-
I wonder why I left my comment open to correction by Hope, what do you think N S?
ippy
except you're the one making the claim about what happened at the summer school, so asking Hope for proof against that is simply NPF, just as Hope does so frequently
-
If you are going to invoke God 'taking people away' you also have to invoke 'God receiving people in heaven' and also why wicked Mr Stalin took 30 million people away with no belief of anybody receiving
anybody anywhere but a great belief they would be reduced to forgotten dust.
Holy missed point, Vlad man! Blue isn't 'invoking' anything just noting that the elision of the two 'why' meanings is begging the question which allows other discussions without any validity of the questions being established. Your post is irrelevant to the point.
-
except you're the one making the claim about what happened at the summer school, so asking Hope for proof against that is simply NPF, just as Hope does so frequently
Were I making a direct claim about RD's school you may have had a point, I was referring to RD's past record and added a proviso, allowing for the possibility that I may have missed something; all without tripping over myself with unnecessary overuse of language.
ippy
-
Were I making a direct claim about RD's school you may have had a point, I was referring to RD's past record and added a proviso, allowing for the possibility that I may have missed something; all without tripping over myself with unnecessary overuse of language.
ippy
To quote you, claim in bold. Perhaps you should try accurate language next time.
'Looks and sounds about right to me, I'm sure it's not perfect but there's no indoctrination involved, which of course, has to be better than piling on the usual load of old religious tripe.'
-
To quote you, claim in bold. Perhaps you should try accurate language next time.
'Looks and sounds about right to me, I'm sure it's not perfect but there's no indoctrination involved, which of course, has to be better than piling on the usual load of old religious tripe.'
Post 62 of mine it looks like you may have missed it N S: If teaching how to work out things for one's self = indoctrination, you may have something Hope.
ippy
-
Post 62 of mine it looks like you may have missed it N S: If teaching how to work out things for one's self = indoctrination, you may have something Hope.
ippy
And? This is just you repeating the claim you denied making. And then resorted to the NPF.
-
And? This is just you repeating the claim you denied making. And then resorted to the NPF.
If that's how you wish to interpret my posts N S; I've left my posts open to challenge unlike Hope's.
ippy
-
What proof do you have that 'Creation by God is a personal belief' and not a true statement in the same way as evolution is?
Evolution is a scientific theory with a vast amont of supporting material evidence, hence is not an equivalent to the belief in creation by God. If evidence was found to falsify evolution by natural selection then the theory would be invalidated. There is no material evidence for creation by God and is clearly to me a matter of personal belief - I don't really understand why you don't think it is, can you explain why?
-
If that's how you wish to interpret my posts N S; I've left my posts open to challenge unlike Hope's.
ippy
You made a claim, were challenged on it, resorted to the NPF, and denied making the claim. I am just pointing out what you have done.
-
You made a claim, were challenged on it, resorted to the NPF, and denied making the claim. I am just pointing out what you have done.
If that's how you see things N S, fine, we just differ and that's fine too.
ippy
-
Even the Big Bang Theory requires an initiatory influence of some sort.
That it was God is a personal belief.
For me philosophy is just as important for human understanding as 'natural, physical science'.
As important for understanding human thinking perhaps but not the material world.
-
That it was God is a personal belief.
As important for understanding human thinking perhaps but not the material world.
hmmm, how does an understanding of the material world not start from a philosophic position?
-
R D's well known intention is to be true to the facts as we understand them today, I've not heard anything that make me think he would have any reason to go back on his words; perhaps you've heard something that I haven't?
ippy
Well, having heard several of his recorded 'debates', I'd question the "well known intention ... to be true to the facts as we understand them today" claim. In just about every debate I've heard he has generalised about Christianity and religious faith in general in seriously questionable ways. Furthermore, he has made claims about the primcy of scientific thought that have had absolutely no supporting evidence alongside them.
-
Hope,
Oh dear. The comparison was between a naturalistic answer (the lift) and a non-naturalistic one (the window). Just substituting the latter for a naturalistic alternative misses the point entirely.
Yet jumping out of a window is no less naturalistic than using a lift - possibly more so in the case of a fire when the lift is not usable, or if from the 2nd floor when it'll be quicker than using the lift. I'm afraid that your use of the natuarlistic/non-naturalistic dichotomy doesn't work here.
But as so often your belief here is flat wrong. The explanation of the NPF is perfectly straightforward - and "solid". Why you can't grasp it is a matter for you, not for others.
Whereas the instant falling back on 'NFP' as some here like to use as their argument suggests a shallowness of argument.
Halle-flippin'-llujah!
I'm glad you acknowledge your faulty reasoning.
NOOOOOOOOOO! You haven't understood it at all. Dear god but you're obtuse. It's a point in logic regardless of the examples that populate it.
A logic which, of course, relies on a purely naturalistic understanding of existence.
Not being able to falsify something says nothing whatsoever to whether that thing is true.
But nor does it say anything about that thing being false. As I've pointed out on numerous occasions before, reality has a vast number of elements and different levels; your reliance on the naturalisic alone ignores many of those levels and elements.
Orbiting teapots are a daft idea too - does that invalidate the force of Russell's analogy do you think?
You're the one who keeps introducing such ideas; so its for you to answer your own questions.
Whether true or epistemically useful or not, THAT HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE NPF.
You're the one with the NPF hang-ups; you need to deal with those yourself. I'm dealing in far broader terms.
-
This non naturalistic understanding, Hope? Got any method yet? Or are you going you run away on it again? Or say the god ate your homework! Or that you listed it but you have forgotten all about what it was!
-
Well, having heard several of his recorded 'debates', I'd question the "well known intention ... to be true to the facts as we understand them today" claim. In just about every debate I've heard he has generalised about Christianity and religious faith in general in seriously questionable ways. Furthermore, he has made claims about the primcy of scientific thought that have had absolutely no supporting evidence alongside them.
As opposed to to your claims about non naturalistic evidence which despite you being asked for a methodology to judge such evidence, you have never provided? Care to now? Or just make a vacuous reference to it have being provided before?
-
As I've pointed out on numerous occasions before, reality has a vast number of elements and different levels; your reliance on the naturalisic alone ignores many of those levels and elements.
You have certainly claimed this but you always run away from the thread before explaining how you know these things to be non naturalistic. In case you have forgotten this is where we were up to.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12376.msg628794#msg628794
You have several posts on that thread awaiting answers.
-
As I've pointed out on numerous occasions before, reality has a vast number of elements and different levels; your reliance on the naturalisic alone ignores many of those levels and elements.
Yet you have consistently failed to specify what you claim to have pointed out.
Since, to follow your line of thought, you say reality has 'elements' and 'different levels' that are non-naturalistic this suggests two aspects of the non-natural that you've been able to categorise - so perhaps you'll be good enough to provide two lists, one being the 'elements' and the other the 'levels', along with the method used to do the categorisation: this should be a doddle since, as you say, you've pointed this out on 'numerous occasions'.
You're the one with the NPF hang-ups; you need to deal with those yourself. I'm dealing in far broader terms.
No: you are the one with NPF issues, in that you seem unable to recognise your continued use of this fallacy when it has been pointed out to you in relation to your own posts. You may think you are 'dealing in far broader terms': but you only think that, since you haven't as yet set out what these 'terms' are without using various forms of fallacious reasoning.
-
Well, having heard several of his recorded 'debates', I'd question the "well known intention ... to be true to the facts as we understand them today" claim. In just about every debate I've heard he has generalised about Christianity and religious faith in general in seriously questionable ways. Furthermore, he has made claims about the primcy of scientific thought that have had absolutely no supporting evidence alongside them.
What claims has RD made about religion that are questionable?
He's more or less put religion in the bag sewn it up and chucked it in the river time and time again and since you mention it why wouldn't evidence based scientific claims have primacy over any superstition based revelation?
Again I can only assume RD in common with any other non-religious person, in general we're not inclined to think of ourselves as aunicornists or a afairyists either; NPF?
Now "Star Trek".
ippy
-
hmmm, how does an understanding of the material world not start from a philosophic position?
Of course any scientific investigation of the material world starts with a thought. Is that a philosophical position?
-
You have certainly claimed this but you always run away from the thread before explaining how you know these things to be non naturalistic. In case you have forgotten this is where we were up to.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12376.msg628794#msg628794
You have several posts on that thread awaiting answers.
The more you play the naturalistic card the more naturalism becomes only distinguishable by it's ''Anything but God'' imperative.
And that is a lousy basis for veracity as it is well within the orbit of a circular argument.
-
Of course any scientific investigation of the material world starts with a thought. Is that a philosophical position?
but surely it implies the position that it is understandable?
-
Alien,
There's a difference between being taught what to think and being taught how to think.
Try reading the article.
Yeh, done that. Now what?
-
Hmmm it does seem loaded to the idea that religion is bad which is surely a 'what' to think?
Wot NS said.
-
Looks and sounds about right to me, I'm sure it's not perfect but there's no indoctrination involved, which of course, has to be better than piling on the usual load of old religious tripe.
ippy
Again, wot NS said.
-
Again, wot NS said.
Good to see you posting again.
-
but surely it implies the position that it is understandable?
Sorry?
-
Sorry?
If you start investigating the material world scientifically, you are taking a position that this is achievable that methodological naturalism can work, I.e. that in terms of the methods, the material world is understandable. That seems to me a philosophical position.
-
If you start investigating the material world scientifically, you are taking a position that this is achievable that methodological naturalism can work, I.e. that in terms of the methods, the material world is understandable. That seem to me a philosophical position.
Fine.
-
Good to see you posting again.
Thanks, NS. I've had a break as I felt that we were going over the same things time and again. I've been taking part in some atheist Facebook discussions, but got banned from three of those, one after asking just a couple of questions. I tried to get some of them to come here, but none would come. It was all a bit ranty.
I'll probably be here just from time to time as and when an interesting (IMO) subject comes up.
-
Thanks, NS. I've had a break as I felt that we were going over the same things time and again. I've been taking part in some atheist Facebook discussions, but got banned from three of those, one after asking just a couple of questions. I tried to get some of them to come here, but none would come. It was all a bit ranty.
I'll probably be here just from time to time as and when an interesting (IMO) subject comes up.
Feel free to ask questions.
I find that atheists are pretty good at answering because we do not mind not knowing something
-
Yes, I can see the faulty reasoning here: its in your first two sentences. Leprechauns (or trolls, as in Iceland) have always been and remain fictional concepts. It is why they only ever appear in such things a fairy tales and legends. Even those who 'believe' in them acknowledge that.
Conversely, religious issues such as the Virgin Birth or the resurrection of Jesus are reported as fact by people who were either present at the time or who knew of such eye-witnesses. This tends not to be the case with Hindu or Buddhist holy documents as they were not written down for many centuries -
Which real person who was there reported the virgin birth as fact?
'Corruption' over this length of time is very different to that over a matter of 2 or 3 decades.
With the Nativity stories, we are not talking about corruption but fiction.
Anyway, that's all a side issue. The point of the leprechaun thing is that all the same arguments you use for God (especially the negative proof fallacy) also work for leprechauns. We all agree leprechauns are definitely fictional therefore the arguments you use for God must be worthless.
-
Feel free to ask questions.
I find that atheists are pretty good at answering because we do not mind not knowing something
A very sensible strategy in the case of atheists.
-
A very sensible strategy in the case of atheists.
If something is not known it is best to be truthful.
Making up answers to avoid it, is childish.
-
A very sensible strategy in the case of atheists.
its a very sensible strategy for everyone.
-
Feel free to ask questions.
I find that atheists are pretty good at answering because we do not mind not knowing something
I'd agree with you for the atheists here, but not at ExposingReligion or Exposing Religion (note the space) on Facebook, both being places I have been banned for asking questions that none of you lot would get upset about. The other place I can't remember. As I say, I was only there for two questions.
-
I'd agree with you for the atheists here, but not at ExposingReligion or Exposing Religion (note the space) on Facebook, both being places I have been banned for asking questions that none of you lot would get upset about. The other place I can't remember. As I say, I was only there for two questions.
Just out of interest, Alan what were the questions?
-
If something is not known it is best to be truthful.
Making up answers to avoid it, is childish.
I'm afraid yours and others accusation of ''making it up'' is an opinion and in fact a made up answer.
I'm afraid your tragedy is you guys will never face up to your, er , tragedy.
-
I'm afraid yours and others accusation of ''making it up'' is an opinion and in fact a made up answer.
I'm afraid your tragedy is you guys will never face up to your, er , tragedy.
So you know everything?
-
So you know everything?
Where do you get that from?
How do you get from religious encounter to omniscience?
-
I'm afraid yours and others accusation of ''making it up'' is an opinion and in fact a made up answer.
I'm afraid your tragedy is you guys will never face up to your, er , tragedy.
Vlad you have a very overactive imagination if your posts are an indication of your brain function! :D
-
Where do you get that from?
How do you get from religious encounter to omniscience?
So from time to time you too have to admit to not knowing.
A religious encounter could be an mistake on the person's part if they are not omniscient.
-
So from time to time you too have to admit to not knowing.
A religious encounter could be an mistake on the person's part if they are not omniscient.
From time to time I admit to not knowing but I fail to see how you get from that to specifically not knowing whether there is a God.
Also I don't see how you could get from not being omniscient to that being a guarantee that religious encounter is a ''mistake''.
If we follow your logic to it's conclusion any knowledge could be a mistake.
-
I'd agree with you for the atheists here, but not at ExposingReligion or Exposing Religion (note the space) on Facebook, both being places I have been banned for asking questions that none of you lot would get upset about. The other place I can't remember. As I say, I was only there for two questions.
Not objective morality and the Kalam Cosmological I hope ? No wonder you got yerself banned. ???
(WB btw ;) )
-
Not objective morality and the Kalam Cosmological I hope ? No wonder you got yerself banned. ???
(WB btw ;) )
But surely lack of patience with a potential convert indicates the end of a movement.
Don't worry though I'm sure there will be a priest on hand to administer the last rites to New Atheism.
-
From time to time I admit to not knowing but I fail to see how you get from that to specifically not knowing whether there is a God.
Also I don't see how you could get from not being omniscient to that being a guarantee that religious encounter is a ''mistake''.
If we follow your logic to it's conclusion any knowledge could be a mistake.
Agreed, any knowledge could be a mistake. We do not know anything to be true for absolute certainty.
If you could make a mistake, then your encounter with any supposed god could also be a mistake.
I assume you agree with this?
-
But surely lack of patience with a potential convert indicates the end of a movement.
Don't worry though I'm sure there will be a priest on hand to administer the last rites to New Atheism.
Is it a movement?
I do not knowingly belong to a movement, I just lack a belief.
I lack a belief in lots of things, and many you will share with me. So are we in many shared movements?
-
Agreed, any knowledge could be a mistake. We do not know anything to be true for absolute certainty.
If you could make a mistake, then your encounter with any supposed god could also be a mistake.
I assume you agree with this?
Yes it is one of a range of possibilities which includes:
It might not be a mistake.
It might be a personal mistake of a real experience.
Have you considered that your ongoing experience is mistaken?
-
Yes it is one of a range of possibilities which includes:
It might not be a mistake.
It might be a personal mistake of a real experience.
Have you considered that your ongoing experience is mistaken?
Yes I could be mistaken, I am a lot, and have had to correct a mistake today!
But I am not saying that there is no god.
Are you saying that god exists?
-
Is it a movement?
I do not knowingly belong to a movement, I just lack a belief.
I lack a belief in lots of things, and many you will share with me. So are we in many shared movements?
No, I believe you could be the only atheist in an entire global population of believers.
New atheism is to the young atheist about town who is loud and proud in the same way as flared trousers were to the young fashionista.
Why do you lack belief?
-
No, I believe you could be the only atheist in an entire global population of believers.
New atheism is to the young atheist about town who is loud and proud in the same way as flared trousers were to the young fashionista.
Why do you lack belief?
I lack belief as that is the default position (for everyone)
The question is ALWAYS, why DO you believe.
Do you believe a god exists?
-
Yes I could be mistaken, I am a lot, and have had to correct a mistake today!
But I am not saying that there is no god.
Are you saying that god exists?
I am, yes.
-
I am, yes.
Is it by personal revelation, in which case that only applies to you, or do you have good evidence to support your belief?
If your reasons for believing can be picked apart to be shown to have fallacies or assertions, would you then question your belief?
-
I lack belief as that is the default position (for everyone)
The question is ALWAYS, why DO you believe.
Do you believe a god exists?
Unfortunately, for you, if you concede that God is a possibility you must also explain why you lack belief in him.
Even worse than that is that possible answers of explanation for your lack of belief can be put forward quite logically.
You use the word default position shamanically. Again your POV is opinion.
-
Is it by personal revelation, in which case that only applies to you, or do you have good evidence to support your belief?
If your reasons for believing can be picked apart to be shown to have fallacies or assertions, would you then question your belief?
Everything held must be because it has been revealed to one personally.
How can you explain why you are arguing that Christianity is unique to me when it is held by others.
In terms of picking the reasons for belief apart you as a mere uncommitted agnostic have less cause to have attempt a picking apart of personal experience than I have unless you are a stinking lying atheist of the type who pretends to a lack of belief.
The picking apart has been picked apart.
-
Unfortunately, for you, if you concede that God is a possibility you must also explain why you lack belief in him.
Even worse than that is that possible answers of explanation for your lack of belief can be put forward quite logically.
You use the word default position shamanically. Again your POV is opinion.
You are wrong.
Everything is a possibility, but I do not have to answer to an infinite number of things that might be true.
The way it works, is that you have to explain and have evidence for the stuff you DO believe to be true.
The default position for everyone is to NOT belief a position until such time as that position is supported by compelling evidence.
What evidence compels you to believe in a god?
-
Everything held must be because it has been revealed to one personally.
How can you explain why you are arguing that Christianity is unique to me when it is held by others.
In terms of picking the reasons for belief apart you as a mere uncommitted agnostic have less cause to have attempt a picking apart of personal experience than I have unless you are a stinking lying atheist of the type who pretends to a lack of belief.
The picking apart has been picked apart.
I do not believe that all Christians believe the same thing at all. They just have the same name for the belief set.
In fact I do not believe there are 2 Christians as I think they all believe something different and personal to them. Find 5 people that call themselves Christian, and you have found 5 christianities, each one personal.
I lack believe in your and in fact every body elses god, and that is not a lie, why would you think it would be.
I have not had a personal revelation, and I have seen no evidence up to the job of convincing me there is a god.
To date, no god believer has put forward any evidence that is no logically flawed or full of assertions.
-
You are wrong.
Everything is a possibility, but I do not have to answer to an infinite number of things that might be true.
The way it works, is that you have to explain and have evidence for the stuff you DO believe to be true.
The default position for everyone is to NOT belief a position until such time as that position is supported by compelling evidence.
What evidence compels you to believe in a god?
If everything is possible then some things are going to be contradictory.
For now let's leave aside your contention that atheism is the default and the necessity for you to establish that positive assertion.
You are not yet an atheist if you believe that God is possible but an agnostic. By definition you cannot lack a belief in God since you consider God a possibility.
You cannot therefore lack belief in God.
We are left then to ponder your commitment to atheism.
No doubt your justification for lacking belief in God in the face of God being a possibility is due to compelling evidence.....or should that be a lack of compelling evidence? In which case you have to at least explain how compelling the evidence needs to be.
-
I do not believe that all Christians believe the same thing at all. They just have the same name for the belief set.
In fact I do not believe there are 2 Christians as I think they all believe something different and personal to them. Find 5 people that call themselves Christian, and you have found 5 christianities, each one personal.
I lack believe in your and in fact every body elses god, and that is not a lie, why would you think it would be.
I have not had a personal revelation, and I have seen no evidence up to the job of convincing me there is a god.
To date, no god believer has put forward any evidence that is no logically flawed or full of assertions.
Again, your five different christianities is merely an opinion. Demonstrate you are not exaggerating the differences at the expense of the similarities.
-
By definition you cannot lack a belief in God since you consider God a possibility.
You cannot therefore lack belief in God.
Of course you can.
-
If everything is possible then some things are going to be contradictory.
For now let's leave aside your contention that atheism is the default and the necessity for you to establish that positive assertion.
You are not yet an atheist if you believe that God is possible but an agnostic. By definition you cannot lack a belief in God since you consider God a possibility.
You cannot therefore lack belief in God.
We are left then to ponder your commitment to atheism.
No doubt your justification for lacking belief in God in the face of God being a possibility is due to compelling evidence.....or should that be a lack of compelling evidence? In which case you have to at least explain how compelling the evidence needs to be.
My lawn has either an odd number or even number of blades of grass. This is a simple fact.
I do not believe it has an even number, and nor do I believe it has an odd number.
I have no evidence to form a belief one way or another, so I lack a belief in the odd or evenness of the number.
-
Of course you can.
Why...of course?
I think it's commitment you lack......with a bit of a reverse Pascal's wager thrown in.
-
My lawn has either an odd number or even number of blades of grass. This is a simple fact.
I do not believe it has an even number, and nor do I believe it has an odd number.
I have no evidence to form a belief one way or another, so I lack a belief in the odd or evenness of the number.
In other words you are agnostic about it.
Also you have said you do not believe in God but the God Free status quo of the universe.....and yet you consider God to be a possibility.......You have therefore committed to the universe being God free. Why have you done this? and how is it indeed possible if you consider God to be a possibility.
Sounds like you want your cake and eat it.
-
My lawn has either an odd number or even number of blades of grass. This is a simple fact.
I do not believe it has an even number, and nor do I believe it has an odd number.
I have no evidence to form a belief one way or another, so I lack a belief in the odd or evenness of the number.
Get out and count them you lazy b*****.
-
Sorry to bring this up Be Rational but earlier on you did say that Atheism was the default position.
Could you now justify that positive assertion.
-
My lawn has either an odd number or even number of blades of grass. This is a simple fact.
I do not believe it has an even number, and nor do I believe it has an odd number.
I have no evidence to form a belief one way or another, so I lack a belief in the odd or evenness of the number.
You believe that they could be either odd or even.
So you have a belief about the oddness and evenness of the number.
-
Sorry to bring this up Be Rational but earlier on you did say that Atheism was the default position.
Could you now justify that positive assertion.
Not believing things is the default position.
So atheism is the default position on the existence of gods.
Simple. This is basic logic.
-
You believe that they could be either odd or even.
So you have a belief about the oddness and evenness of the number.
I believe that one will be true, but I have no way to form a believe about which one.
In the same way your god either exists or it does not, a bit like the odd or even situation.
Again, I have no data or evidence to come down on one position so I do not believe either.
So should you, unless you have compelling evidence which cannot be shown to be logically flawed.
Do you have such evidence?
-
In other words you are agnostic about it.
Also you have said you do not believe in God but the God Free status quo of the universe.....and yet you consider God to be a possibility.......You have therefore committed to the universe being God free. Why have you done this? and how is it indeed possible if you consider God to be a possibility.
Sounds like you want your cake and eat it.
You seem to have committed to a one God universe. Is that correct?
-
Get out and count them you lazy b*****.
At least that is possible, and then I would believe.
What can I do to determine god?
-
At least that is possible, and then I would believe.
What can I do to determine god?
Read the Bible?
-
Read the Bible?
Ok why would that help?
I assume you know there are other holy book for other gods, but that has not persuaded you, so the existence of a book is not the driver.
Why would I believe stuff written in a book.
That is not evidence of a god, that is evidence that people believed in a god.
I already know that people believe in a god, I just cannot understand why.
-
Why...of course?
I think it's commitment you lack......with a bit of a reverse Pascal's wager thrown in.
I'm sure you do, but that's not the case. I have absolutely no belief in god or Gods, but accept I could be wrong and gods or God may exist, I just don't currently have a belief in any. You cannot prove a negative so cannot say with certainty that there is no God or gods but I certainly have no belief in any.
-
Ok why would that help?
Because unbelief is not the default position until you check out possible evidence.
-
......unless you are a stinking lying atheist of the type who pretends to a lack of belief.
So not an atheist then. Just a dishonest believer.
Come on then mane names. Who are the dishonest believers around here?
-
Sorry Brownie, I didn't notice, been a bit on the busy side, I was only trying to have a little gentile fun with Floo, nothing sinister.
Haven't you ever noticed how Jewish men don white scarves for all sorts of religious occasions and ceremonies, only Floo you did mention your husbands circumstance.
ippy
-
Because unbelief is not the default position until you check out possible evidence.
So do you personally hold mutually contradictory views as true until you have reviewed the evidence?
-
Because unbelief is not the default position until you check out possible evidence.
You can't have a belief in something you know nothing about can you?
-
You believe that they could be either odd or even.
So you have a belief about the oddness and evenness of the number.
In the case of my lawn I KNOW that they will be either odd or even. However, as I have no evidence to point to which is true I lack belief. I don't know which position is correct. No belief involved at all.
-
Because unbelief is not the default position until you check out possible evidence.
Yes it is, how could it be otherwise.
There are an infinite number of things you could believe in, but at the moment you do not, because you are not aware of them.
-
So do you personally hold mutually contradictory views as true until you have reviewed the evidence?
Huh? Expand please :)
-
You can't have a belief in something you know nothing about can you?
No, that's why I said 'read the Bible'.
-
Huh? Expand please :)
You seem to suggest that you believe everything until it is shown to be wrong.
In reality the default position is to NOT believe anything until the evidence compels you.
-
I'm sure you do, but that's not the case. I have absolutely no belief in god or Gods, but accept I could be wrong and gods or God may exist, I just don't currently have a belief in any. You cannot prove a negative so cannot say with certainty that there is no God or gods but I certainly have no belief in any.
But would you say that like the grass in BR's garden it is as likely there is a God as God free?
Is suggesting a universe which is God free a negative?
If I am the controller of the Piccadilly Line I could confirm that the line was cow free for instance.
-
Huh? Expand please :)
You said that unbelief was not the default option. Therefore, belief is the default option. Therefore, given two or more contradictory claims you must hold them all to be true unless you hold unbelief or non belief to be the default.
-
Ok why would that help?
I assume you know there are other holy book for other gods, but that has not persuaded you, so the existence of a book is not the driver.
Why would I believe stuff written in a book.
That is not evidence of a god, that is evidence that people believed in a god.
I already know that people believe in a god, I just cannot understand why.
It didn't start as a book, but as word of mouth. It's someone's testimony. I feel like I should let others explain this to you because I am rubbish at it. gods with a small g are really just objects and it is common sense that they have no personality or power except what we give them. It is also common sense that a being which created the physical universe would have a personality, since it created beings with personalities. The Bible is a bit like when you are given an equation with an unknown, 'x', then you are told the value of x and asked to prove that it's the correct value. Suppose x is the manifestation of the creator of the universe. Now prove that Jesus is x by reading the Old and New Testaments.
-
You said that unbelief was not the default option. Therefore, belief is the default option. Therefore, given two or more contradictory claims you must hold them all to be true unless you hold unbelief or non belief to be the default.
I think the agnostic position is the default option. That means one cannot commit to one or the other. I don't actually know many in that position.
-
But would you say that like the grass in BR's garden it is as likely there is a God as God free?
Perhaps a step back is needed in terms of definitions since while it seems we can define 'grass' in terms that we could all sign up to, which makes coming to a view about whether or not grass is present a meaningful question - but we don't seem to have a definition of 'god' that works on the same basis as 'grass' does.
Without a definition of 'god' that is precise enough to engage with - and to date I've yet to see one that wasn't fallacious - there isn't anything in the label 'god' that is sufficient as a meaningful definition.
-
You seem to suggest that you believe everything until it is shown to be wrong.
In reality the default position is to NOT believe anything until the evidence compels you.
That sounds OK. However, if someone were to say, there are millions more stars than you can see with the naked eye, and tell me he has seen them, then I wouldn't believe or disbelieve until I'd seen them for myself.
-
No, that's why I said 'read the Bible'.
We were talking about atheism being the default position weren't we and I'm not sure anyone just born can read the Bible can they?
-
I think the agnostic position is the default option. That means one cannot commit to one or the other. I don't actually know many in that position.
Yep.
-
You seem to suggest that you believe everything until it is shown to be wrong.
In reality the default position is to NOT believe anything until the evidence compels you.
Not too sure about that.
-
I think the agnostic position is the default option. That means one cannot commit to one or the other. I don't actually know many in that position.
That's not what agnostic means. though is it? It ios a philosphical position about whether it is possible to know about the existence of God or gods, not an I'm not 100% sure either way position.
-
It didn't start as a book, but as word of mouth. It's someone's testimony.
Which involves the risks of mistakes and lies, and unless you can deal with these risks without special pleading creeping in then this testimony is inadequate (given these risks).
If you can't deal with these risks, and you can't given the provenance problems alone (putting the claims to one side) then the Bible is no more than culturally relevant, and decliningly so.
The Bible is a bit like when you are given an equation with an unknown, 'x', then you are told the value of x and asked to prove that it's the correct value. Suppose x is the manifestation of the creator of the universe. Now prove that Jesus is x by reading the Old and New Testaments.
On this basis I can 'prove' that Sherlock Holmes smoked a pipe: can you now see the problem with taking the Bible contents as being factual?
-
Children do not have a choice.
Yes they do, they may be forced to go through the motions at a young age, but what you think and believe is your own.
This is because children are open to many different interpretations of things and as they grow up they form opinions of their own.
I suspect the children who sometimes take the religious route do so because of the peer group they mix with.
What they really really believe, may not be what people assume it is.
Because most children go to school ( that teaches a broad spectrum ) they get a balance of things taught plus with a child's natural challenging of parential views, I'm surprised people think children just meekly wander into religion because their parents did.
One only has to see Floo's posts sometimes, and you realise sometimes religious parents can actually put children off.
Children might be powerless to express it at a young age, but as they get older they do.
The best protection for children is a broad education.
That way, they make their own choices.
It's when you take away a broad education that their choices lessen.
It's a matter of perception as to whether that is a good or bad thing and many religious schools try to protect their youngsters from things like drugs and unwanted pregnancy by not giving them such a broad education about such matters.
The argument is that as their experiences are limited, so their need to be educated about the more negative elements of our society, lessens.
Think the Amish or chabad Jews.
Because the child doesn't mix within a society that gets involved in drugs etc, it is already protected.
Well, so the argument goes.
-
No, that's why I said 'read the Bible'.
Have you read the Qran?
Have you read the Book of Mormon?
Have you read the Bhagavad Gita?
-
Have you read the Qran?
Have you read the Book of Mormon?
Have you read the Bhagavad Gita?
I've read bits. fairly large Bits.
In my twenties they all these and the Bible seemed fairly dry dusty and meaningless. They didn't get me going at all.
That changed and the Bible began to mean something to me the others don't so much although one can appreciate the sweep of their canvasses.
-
I think the agnostic position is the default option. That means one cannot commit to one or the other. I don't actually know many in that position.
As Meaght has pointed out this only shows that you don't understand what agnostic means.
But you also show your dodgy reasoning in equating possible with equally probable, as you did in an earlier post. Just because something cannot be shown to be false does not mean that the chances of it being true are 50:50. I think this is where you make your biggest mistake. You tell us that you have had an experience of God. We can't say whether you are correct or not in ascribing the cause of your experience to an objectively true God or just a God experience. That does not mean that they are 50:50. Seriously, think about it for a few minutes.
By the way, I notice that you have not responded to request to name those how are dishonest believers.
-
As Meaght has pointed out this only shows that you don't understand what agnostic means.
But you also show your dodgy reasoning in equating possible with equally probable, as you did in an earlier post. Just because something cannot be shown to be false does not mean that the chances of it being true are 50:50. I think this is where you make your biggest mistake. You tell us that you have had an experience of God. We can't say whether you are correct or not in ascribing the cause of your experience to an objectively true God or just a God experience. That does not mean that they are 50:50. Seriously, think about it for a few minutes.
Steady on Taylor old chap. It was Be Rational who introduced the analogy of odd and even Grass. Not me......it's a completely shite analogy IMHO.
A god experience? That would be a phenomena of mental incompetence I take it.....and I think you hope it.....or at least believe it.
-
Steady on Taylor old chap. It was Be Rational who introduced the analogy of odd and even Grass. Not me......it's a completely shite analogy IMHO.
A god experience? That would be a phenomena of mental incompetence I take it.....and I think you hope it.....or at least believe it.
No, I only ask you how you can tell it is a true experience of an objectively true God. It's what I have always asked and never received a response.
But do you except that in BR's analogy no belief is required? As I pointed out.
And still we wait for the names of the lying believers.
-
No, I only ask you how you can tell it is a true experience of an objectively true God. It's what I have always asked and never received a response.
But do you except that in BR's analogy no belief is required? As I pointed out.
And still we wait for the names of the lying believers.
There are only two ways to go in any experience. It's happening or it is psychological incompetence.
What are you talking about 'lying believers'
-
There are only two ways to go in any experience. It's happening or it is psychological incompetence.
What are you talking about 'lying believers'
No. You have an experience, no one doubts that. But what is the cause of it? That is logic.
You mentioned lying atheists that really believed. If you really believe you are not an atheist.
unless you are a stinking lying atheist of the type who pretends to a lack of belief.
-
No. You have an experience, no one doubts that. But what is the cause of it? That is logic.
You mentioned lying atheists that really believed. If you really believe you are not an atheist.
Point 1. I thought I mentioned a logical possibility which is completely open to investigation......mental incompetence.
I think the lying atheist problem comes from my exchange with Be Rational. He gives the grass analogy....he talks about not having a belief or commitment either way.... Is he lying therefore about being an atheist by commitment or what?
-
But would you say that like the grass in BR's garden it is as likely there is a God as God free?
Is suggesting a universe which is God free a negative?
If I am the controller of the Piccadilly Line I could confirm that the line was cow free for instance.
Gets a bit countryside between Arnos Grove and Cockfosters, you may have something Vlad.
ippy
-
I've read bits. fairly large Bits.
In my twenties they all these and the Bible seemed fairly dry dusty and meaningless. They didn't get me going at all.
That changed and the Bible began to mean something to me the others don't so much although one can appreciate the sweep of their canvasses.
Where did it all start going wrong and you've ended up where you are now Vlad?
ippy
-
Wot, on R&E?
Blame the internet.
-
Where did it all start going wrong and you've ended up where you are now Vlad?
ippy
It all happened to me Ippy.
You of course are all self made which only goes to show that shoddy workmanship still exists Ha Ha.
-
Point 1. I thought I mentioned a logical possibility which is completely open to investigation......mental incompetence.
Did you? How can we investigate your claim to an experience of an objectively true god?
I think the lying atheist problem comes from my exchange with Be Rational. He gives the grass analogy....he talks about not having a belief or commitment either way.... Is he lying therefore about being an atheist by commitment or what?
No, because not having a belief , either way, (in god(s)s) is what define an atheist. You insinuated that there were people who pretend to be atheists but actually believe that god(s) exist. Hence my question, who are they?
-
Did you? How can we investigate your claim to an experience of an objectively true god?
No, because not having a belief , either way, (in god(s)s) is what define an atheist. You insinuated that there were people who pretend to be atheists but actually believe that god(s) exist. Hence my question, who are they?
No I maintained that there were people who were committed to the idea of God Free (AKA atheists) while pleading agnosticism.
But I am sure that there are people who believe but pretend to atheism.
-
But I am sure that there are people who believe but pretend to atheism.
Maybe, but I would put money on the numbers of such people being miniscule compared to their opposite counterparts, those who don't really believe, but pretend to. Let's see, we have Pascal's Wager, social conformity, peer pressure, marriage, fear of mortality, trying to get your kids into a high performing faith school, tradition, general neediness, could go on .....
-
Maybe, but I would put money on the numbers of such people being miniscule compared to their opposite counterparts, those who don't really believe, but pretend to. Let's see, we have Pascal's Wager, social conformity, peer pressure, marriage, fear of mortality, trying to get your kids into a high performing faith school, tradition, general neediness, could go on .....
Since you are trying to ''win the trophy'' lets analyse this.
1: Pascals wager. There is an atheists understanding of this and a Christian understanding. The two are different
2: Social conformity. No argument there but remember this is a secular society.
3: Peer pressure. Ditto.
4: Marriage. Difficult to see how that ties in with an existential conversion.
5: Trying to get kids into a high performing school. Concede but this is offset by pretending to be a Christian in the workplace or down the pub etc.
6: Fear of mortality. Difficult to see how pretending to have faith sorts this one out. Also doesn't commitment to not believing in the self sort this one out?
7: Tradition see 2 and 3.
8: General neediness. How needy?........ Non believer on the religionethics forum needy?
Could go on: We know.
-
.... committed to the idea of God Free
What does that actually mean?
-
http://swordartonline.wikia.com/wiki/Godfree
-
What does that actually mean?
It means that atheism is neither neutral nor merely the lack of belief in God but a positive commitment to the idea that the world works without God.
-
It means that atheism is neither neutral nor merely the lack of belief in God but a positive commitment to the idea that the world works without God.
If some one has no belief in the existence of God then of course they think the world works without God. But I think you mean more than that don't you?
-
It means that atheism is neither neutral nor merely the lack of belief in God but a positive commitment to the idea that the world works without God.
Atheists do not believe a God exists.
That does NOT mean they believe there are no gods.
Can you understand that simple point after all these years?
-
Since you are trying to ''win the trophy'' lets analyse this.
1: Pascals wager. There is an atheists understanding of this and a Christian understanding. The two are different
2: Social conformity. No argument there but remember this is a secular society.
3: Peer pressure. Ditto.
4: Marriage. Difficult to see how that ties in with an existential conversion.
5: Trying to get kids into a high performing school. Concede but this is offset by pretending to be a Christian in the workplace or down the pub etc.
6: Fear of mortality. Difficult to see how pretending to have faith sorts this one out. Also doesn't commitment to not believing in the self sort this one out?
7: Tradition see 2 and 3.
8: General neediness. How needy?........ Non believer on the religionethics forum needy?
Could go on: We know.
I suppose it works both ways. Conformity is a powerful human universal; we have a tendency to want to fit in with the overarching cultural context we find ourselves in. Take a survey of all those venerable stone churches in every English village; statistics reveal that the pews are pretty empty now by and large, and all those empty pews are ones that in a bygone age would have been filled by casuals, those there for social and cultural reasons rather than authentic conviction; in my grandfather's day it was expected to put on your best and go to church on a Sunday morning, it was what all decent people did. Now the cultural norms have changed and the expectation to conform to a common stereotype is less. I can see this working the opposite way also, if I were a christian in Stalinist Russia, I would probably keep quiet about it; likewise if I were a muslim apostate in Saudi, I would probably keep quiet about it.
-
It means that atheism is neither neutral nor merely the lack of belief in God but a positive commitment to the idea that the world works without God.
I don't see that 'positive commitment' is particularly appropriate. That would be a bit like trying to argue there are people who are really motivated to not play chess. Doesn't really make a lot of useful sense.
-
It didn't start as a book, but as word of mouth. It's someone's testimony. I feel like I should let others explain this to you because I am rubbish at it. gods with a small g are really just objects and it is common sense that they have no personality or power except what we give them. It is also common sense that a being which created the physical universe would have a personality, since it created beings with personalities. The Bible is a bit like when you are given an equation with an unknown, 'x', then you are told the value of x and asked to prove that it's the correct value. Suppose x is the manifestation of the creator of the universe. Now prove that Jesus is x by reading the Old and New Testaments.
And eye witness accounts are always accurate are they? Besides which, when something is written down probably many years later, exaggeration and lies are bound to creep in.
-
The other thing is that the Gospels are surely a record of what people believed rather than a pure historical record. The writers were not impartial.
-
I don't see that 'positive commitment' is particularly appropriate. That would be a bit like trying to argue there are people who are really motivated to not play chess. Doesn't really make a lot of useful sense.
With all due respect that statement seems to me to be 'category sloppy'.....as if theism or naturalism are somehow games to be played.
Also there is a bit of the ''Carry on'' as if there is no God about what you are suggesting.
That is a choice. To be Camusian about it, isn't life about carrying on or ending it all. How one carries on is greatly significant and more so than the odd game of chess.
-
The other thing is that the Gospels are surely a record of what people believed rather than a pure historical record. The writers were not impartial.
And yet there were no such considerations or qualms when the Billions lined up outside Waterstones to Nuzzle at the teat of Dawkin's The God Delusion.
-
And yet there were no such considerations or qualms when the Billions lined up outside Waterstones to Nuzzle at the teat of Dawkin's The God Delusion.
Even Dicky doesn't say there are no gods, he just points out it's very unlikely and that there is no evidence that would support the god, gods ideas.
ippy
-
And yet there were no such considerations or qualms when the Billions lined up outside Waterstones to Nuzzle at the teat of Dawkin's The God Delusion.
Must have missed that, sounds awful,
-
I suppose it works both ways. Conformity is a powerful human universal; we have a tendency to want to fit in with the overarching cultural context we find ourselves in. Take a survey of all those venerable stone churches in every English village; statistics reveal that the pews are pretty empty now by and large, and all those empty pews are ones that in a bygone age would have been filled by casuals, those there for social and cultural reasons rather than authentic conviction; in my grandfather's day it was expected to put on your best and go to church on a Sunday morning, it was what all decent people did. Now the cultural norms have changed and the expectation to conform to a common stereotype is less. I can see this working the opposite way also, if I were a christian in Stalinist Russia, I would probably keep quiet about it; likewise if I were a muslim apostate in Saudi, I would probably keep quiet about it.
Not much to disagree with here although Methodist, Baptist chapels, Quaker meeting houses stand testimony to enthusiasm.
Also I wonder about the lifespan of the more secular organisations whose existence has left infrastructure now abandoned, the Oddfellows, temperance societies, the cooperative movements.
Yes church attendance has fallen but look at the declining number of pubs.
-
The other thing is that the Gospels are surely a record of what people believed rather than a pure historical record. The writers were not impartial.
Very true.
-
Vlad,
Do you believe my lawn has an odd number of blades of grass?
If not, does this mean you believe it has an even number of blades of grass?
-
Not much to disagree with here although Methodist, Baptist chapels, Quaker meeting houses stand testimony to enthusiasm.
Also I wonder about the lifespan of the more secular organisations whose existence has left infrastructure now abandoned, the Oddfellows, temperance societies, the cooperative movements.
Yes church attendance has fallen but look at the declining number of pubs.
And the correlation between churches and pubs is?
-
And the correlation between churches and pubs is?
They are both public places were anyone is welcome
They both take up your free time
You can often get some wine in both.
People sit in other people's company.
People often dress up to go in them
Both can support a community.
You get a set of locals in each one.
Lots really.
It's a meeting place.
-
There is also a correlation between the number of churches and crime in an area.
-
With all due respect that statement seems to me to be 'category sloppy'.....as if theism or naturalism are somehow games to be played.
Also there is a bit of the ''Carry on'' as if there is no God about what you are suggesting.
That is a choice. To be Camusian about it, isn't life about carrying on or ending it all. How one carries on is greatly significant and more so than the odd game of chess.
Not quite sure what this all means, perhaps it is a touch endowed with Vladerian kitsch. We are all born with a state of partial knowledge; we'd like to understand everything but we can't. Many take up with a somewhat traditional belief in a God as the basis of an ultimate explanation for everything; to some of us that doesn't look plausible so we don't set about building a faith or nurturing a belief. Hence we remain without theist faith, ie atheist. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim; I make no positive claim about some grand transcendental narrative that explains all, I am content to wait for whatever enlightenment might come via small incremental improvements in our understanding through research. In the meantime, we carry on, of course, chocolate still tastes good, the dog still needs walking, we take whatever pleasures come our way.
-
Vlad,
Do you believe my lawn has an odd number of blades of grass?
If not, does this mean you believe it has an even number of blades of grass?
I am agnostic about the number of blades of grasp. I neither disbelieve there are equal numbers nor do I disbelieve there are odd numbers.
Are you trying to grass me up?
-
Not quite sure what this all means, perhaps it is a touch endowed with Vladerian kitsch. We are all born with a state of partial knowledge; we'd like to understand everything but we can't. Many take up with a somewhat traditional belief in a God as the basis of an ultimate explanation for everything; to some of us that doesn't look plausible so we don't set about building a faith or nurturing a belief. Hence we remain without theist faith, ie atheist. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim; I make no positive claim about some grand transcendental narrative that explains all, I am content to wait for whatever enlightenment might come via small incremental improvements in our understanding through research. In the meantime, we carry on, of course, chocolate still tastes good, the dog still needs walking, we take whatever pleasures come our way.
I accept that you do not have theist belief but I cannot accept you have no commitment to a God free view of the world.
When people talk about God or God free or naturalism does the sound fade out for you or does the sound start to burble like bad DBS radio?
No......you have a position on it and a commitment to that position.
The only people who can really plead to lack any belief are not on this ....or any like forum.
That isn't you.
-
I am agnostic about the number of blades of grasp. I neither disbelieve there are equal numbers nor do I disbelieve there are odd numbers.
Are you trying to grass me up?
Agnostic is not an answer. I am not asking what you KNOW, I am asking what you BELIEVE.
If you do not know something, automatically you cannot believe it either.
So, you like me MUST not believe there are an odd number AND also not believe that there are an even number, whilst KNOWING that it MUST be odd or even.
-
Agnostic is not an answer. I am not asking what you KNOW, I am asking what you BELIEVE.
If you do not know something, automatically you cannot believe it either.
So, you like me MUST not believe there are an odd number AND also not believe that there are an even number, whilst KNOWING that it MUST be odd or even.
But if you had noticed earlier this grass business is a shit analogy of believing in the existence of God or believing in a God free universe or in other words a universe with a necessary God and a God Free universe.
-
Agnostic is not an answer. I am not asking what you KNOW, I am asking what you BELIEVE.
If you do not know something, automatically you cannot believe it either.
So, you like me MUST not believe there are an odd number AND also not believe that there are an even number, whilst KNOWING that it MUST be odd or even.
If you are making this analogy of your position against my position then I am the one who has counted the grass and you are the one who is not prepared to.
-
There is also a correlation between the number of churches and crime in an area.
Yes - they're always nicking lead from the roof.
-
If you are making this analogy of your position against my position then I am the one who has counted the grass and you are the one who is not prepared to.
Fine, tell me how you counted the grass so that I can do the same.
What if I get a different result?
-
If you are making this analogy of your position against my position then I am the one who has counted the grass and you are the one who is not prepared to.
Also, do you now accept that you can not believe in the odd and even number of blades of grass at the same time.
This is exactly the same position as a god, where to god would be for example the even number of blades.
Without evidence you cannot believe.
-
I am agnostic about the number of blades of grasp.
Do you think it is possible to know what the number of blades of grass is?
-
I accept that you do not have theist belief but I cannot accept you have no commitment to a God free view of the world.
When people talk about God or God free or naturalism does the sound fade out for you or does the sound start to burble like bad DBS radio?
No......you have a position on it and a commitment to that position.
The only people who can really plead to lack any belief are not on this ....or any like forum.
That isn't you.
Are you saying that since a lack of belief in God means that you are bound to see the world as being free of God makes that a belief?
-
Are you saying that since a lack of belief in God means that you are bound to see the world as being free of God makes that a belief?
Yes, It's faith that God isn't going to pop up which suggests a commitment to a view of God would be were he to, er, be and irritation of the mentioning of God.
Whatever it is there is a commitment going on and a position on the providence of pretty much everything.
It is a faith that a god free universe carries on....Hosanna!
-
I accept that you do not have theist belief but I cannot accept you have no commitment to a God free view of the world.
When people talk about God or God free or naturalism does the sound fade out for you or does the sound start to burble like bad DBS radio?
No......you have a position on it and a commitment to that position.
The only people who can really plead to lack any belief are not on this ....or any like forum.
That isn't you.
I might have a position on god claims but that is not the same as having a commitment either way. Some people believe a worldwide flood took place in the Bronze Age; I don't buy that but it's not because I am committed to a counter view, it is merely the lack of evidence in support. If some geological evidence in support of that claim turns up, then we can look at it. Commitment has nothing to do with it. Commitment implies some sort of loyalty going on, that's not the way it works; we are either persuaded by the alleged evidence for a claim or we are not; in this we are passive, we do not choose what to find persuasive.
-
Vlad is desperate to show that atheism is a fully fledged belief system, with a burden of proof. This is designed to let him off the hook vis a vis his own beliefs.
I think there are atheists who are committed to the idea of a God-free world, but many atheists are not like this. They are agnostic atheists, where 'agnostic' refers to not knowing, and 'atheist' to lack of belief. The ones with a commitment are presumably gnostic atheists, that is, a 7 on the Dawkins scale.
It also seems odd to tell people what their beliefs are - "you are, in fact, committed to X and Y". Hang on, that's for me to decide.
-
Yes, It's faith that God isn't going to pop up ....
No its not. I have no belief in God but if God popped up fair enough.
... which suggests a commitment to a view of God would be were he to, er, be and irritation of the mentioning of God.
Sorry?
Whatever it is there is a commitment going on and a position on the providence of pretty much everything.
It is a faith that a god free universe carries on....Hosanna!
No, it is a statement of the current position of belief.
-
Vlad is desperate to show that atheism is a fully fledged belief system, with a burden of proof. This is designed to let him off the hook vis a vis his own beliefs.
I think there are atheists who are committed to the idea of a God-free world, but many atheists are not like this. They are agnostic atheists, where 'agnostic' refers to not knowing, and 'atheist' to lack of belief. The ones with a commitment are presumably gnostic atheists, that is, a 7 on the Dawkins scale.
It also seems odd to tell people what their beliefs are - "you are, in fact, committed to X and Y". Hang on, that's for me to decide.
We have to make some sense of what people are telling us.
And what it comes down to is IMHO/IMHE is, on this forum, I am arguing with you as at least a 7 on the Dawkins scale but when it comes down to interrogating me with regards to the convictions of a 7 I am in fact not a 7.
If you are what you say, if you really have nothing to say about God or naturalism why are you here?
-
Vlad is desperate to show that atheism is a fully fledged belief system, with a burden of proof.
No I am desperate for those who claim that atheism is the big non to stop arguing from philosophical naturalism.
Only those atheists who haven't posted on this forum are not guilty of that.
Talk about trying to tell people what they are about.
-
We have to make some sense of what people are telling us.
And what it comes down to is IMHO/IMHE is, on this forum, I am arguing with you as at least a 7 on the Dawkins scale but when it comes down to interrogating me with regards to the convictions of a 7 I am in fact not a 7.
If you are what you say, if you really have nothing to say about God or naturalism why are you here?
I can't tell if that's addressed to me or if it's indirect speech, addressed to a fictitious person. Well, it doesn't make sense, to say 'if you really have nothing to say about God or naturalism', since people might have tons to say, whatever their beliefs. I don't believe in shamanism, but I find it very interesting.
-
I can't tell if that's addressed to me or if it's indirect speech, addressed to a fictitious person. Well, it doesn't make sense, to say 'if you really have nothing to say about God or naturalism', since people might have tons to say, whatever their beliefs. I don't believe in shamanism, but I find it very interesting.
It's not addressed to you since I take it you are some kind of associate of Zen Buddhism.
-
It's not addressed to you since I take it you are some kind of associate of Zen Buddhism.
We have to make some sense of what people are telling us.
And what it comes down to is IMHO/IMHE is, on this forum, I am arguing with you as at least a 7 on the Glitter scale but when it comes down to interrogating me with regards to the convictions of a 7 I am in fact not a 7.
If you are what you say, if you really have nothing to say about shagging small children up the Gary why are you here?
-
No I am desperate for those who claim that atheism is the big non to stop arguing from philosophical naturalism.
I don't see how anyone could argue a case based on supernaturalism. By definition, that would be unamenable to investigation or reason. We have to work with what there is.
-
I suppose 1 on the Glitter scale, is 'I like large-breasted women who cook a decent Irish stew'. OK, can we base arguments for philosophical naturalism on this? After all, she might be a fantasy, she might be sent from Satan, or she might be Theresa May, or she might be your sister. In that case, why are you here, you filth?
-
I don't see how anyone could argue a case based on supernaturalism. By definition, that would be unamenable to investigation or reason. We have to work with what there is.
You seem to have mistaken methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism here. Never mind, you have outed yourself as.....a faithhead.
Next.
-
You seem to have mistaken methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism here. Never mind, you have outed yourself as.....a faithhead.
Next.
Well, next it would be interesting to see your defence of the supernatural.
-
But if you had noticed earlier this grass business is a shit analogy of believing in the existence of God or believing in a God free universe or in other words a universe with a necessary God and a God Free universe.
You are wrong, it fits perfectly.
Perhaps that's why you are scared to engage with it?
-
Yes, It's faith that God isn't going to pop up which suggests a commitment to a view of God would be were he to, er, be and irritation of the mentioning of God.
Whatever it is there is a commitment going on and a position on the providence of pretty much everything.
It is a faith that a god free universe carries on....Hosanna!
I have no faith at all.
I do not believe a god exists, is NOT the same as believing there is no god(s)
-
Well, next it would be interesting to see your defence of the supernatural.
The defence of the supernatural involves establishing the crockness of the ''natural''.
-
The defence of the supernatural involves establishing the crockness of the ''natural''.
Even if you could, that would still not do it.
The case for A is not made by finding B false.
You have to find evidence for A nothing else matters.
-
The defence of the supernatural involves establishing the crockness of the ''natural''.
Not really. Be Rational beat me to it. It's another of your false dichotomies. If we don't understand consciousness, that does not = God.
-
The defence of the supernatural involves establishing the crockness of the ''natural''.
Go on then - but remember it is okay to say 'We don't know'.
-
Even if you could, that would still not do it.
The case for A is not made by finding B false.
You have to find evidence for A nothing else matters.
I'm afraid you've set yourself up with your grass analogy.
If God or nature is the equivalent of even number or odd number of grass plants in your garden then establishing Odd falsifies even.
-
Even if you could, that would still not do it.
The case for A is not made by finding B false.
You have to find evidence for A nothing else matters.
The case against B can be the same as the case for A as your lawn teaches us.
-
That there are odd or even blades of grass isn't analogous with God or no God though.
Assuming there is an area of grass to be examined the odd or even number of blades/leaves/stems within a given area is potentially knowable, where the options are mutually exclusive and there is a method presumably where grass 'plants' can be counted (say within a 20cm square area).
To use the same analogy/dichotomy for 'God' would require some form of measure and associated method that is analogous to how grass would be counted - which is????
-
That there are odd or even blades of grass isn't analogous with God or no God though.
Thank you.
-
I'm afraid you've set yourself up with your grass analogy.
If God or nature is the equivalent of even number or odd number of grass plants in your garden then establishing Odd falsifies even.
I agree where there are only 2 possible options.
But there may be a third unknown option which you have not realised.
The point about a god, it either exists or it does not so it is digital, as is the odd or even number of blades of grass. There are no third options.
-
I agree where there are only 2 possible options.
But there may be a third unknown option which you have not realised.
The point about a god, it either exists or it does not so it is digital, as is the odd or even number of blades of grass. There are no third options.
I don't think this odd/even analogy works well in this case.
Given a method to accurately count grass, which seems likely, this when applied to the odd/even question would confirm one of only two possibilities: odd or even, where the result of 'even' falsifies 'odd', and vice versa. So, applying this approach to 'god'/'no god' would require a comparable method involving criteria that has the potential to falsify 'no god' if the criteria is present in some way, or if absent to falsify 'god'.
I don't think there is such a method because I don't think 'god' is a meaningful enough conjecture about which detectable criteria can be clearly stated, along with a method to investigate the presence or absence of these criteria.
-
I don't think this odd/even analogy works well in this case.
Given a method to accurately count grass, which seems likely, this when applied to the odd/even question would confirm one of only two possibilities: odd or even, where the result of 'even' falsifies 'odd', and vice versa. So, applying this approach to 'god'/'no god' would require a comparable method involving criteria that has the potential to falsify 'no god' if the criteria is present in some way, or if absent to falsify 'god'.
I don't think there is such a method because I don't think 'god' is a meaningful enough conjecture about which detectable criteria can be clearly stated, along with a method to investigate the presence or absence of these criteria.
I agree.
Perhaps the person making the claim should define god, then describe the method to establish this god exists.
Someone could say that music was their god, and I would believe that god existed, but I would not accept any supernatural powers for music, unless that could also be shown.
-
I agree.
Perhaps the person making the claim should define god, then describe the method to establish this god exists.
Someone could say that music was their god, and I would believe that god existed, but I would not accept any supernatural powers for music, unless that could also be shown.
I think it's already been suggested a few times.
Interestingly enough those who weren't prepared to attempt the method
cited a lack of belief in God as the reason therefore suggesting a pre-eminence of belief in any methodology.
-
I think it's already been suggested a few times.
Interestingly enough those who weren't prepared to attempt the method
cited a lack of belief in God as the reason therefore suggesting a pre-eminence of belief in any methodology.
What's the method?
-
What's the method?
Sending out an 'if you exist' or even 'do you exist' message into the darkness which is the uncertainty of whether God exists or not. Anyone can do it.
-
Sending out an 'if you exist' or even 'do you exist' message into the darkness which is the uncertainty of whether God exists or not. Anyone can do it.
If that is done and there is no response, the usual comeback is that the subject is;
a) not doing it 'correctly' in the first place
b) not recognising that there has actually been a response
c) not listening properly
d) not waiting long enough for a response
e) some other excuse......
....so what is the process to do it 'correctly'?
-
Sending out an 'if you exist' or even 'do you exist' message into the darkness which is the uncertainty of whether God exists or not. Anyone can do it.
It does not give an answer so your method is no good.
-
Sending out an 'if you exist' or even 'do you exist' message into the darkness which is the uncertainty of whether God exists or not. Anyone can do it.
Not exactly very scientific is it. In searching for exoplanets, Nasa have developed far more reliable methods for determining the existence of something. If you got a job in astrophysics would you still be satisfied with your technique and stand there yelling at space, or would you start to see the value in more objective structured methods of enquiry ?
-
Sending out an 'if you exist' or even 'do you exist' message into the darkness which is the uncertainty of whether God exists or not. Anyone can do it.
What if you don't get a reply? Does that mean there is no god?
The reason I ask is because I did exactly that as a teenager and I'm still waiting.
If you do get a reply, how do you distinguish between God and telepathic aliens?
-
What if you don't get a reply? Does that mean there is no god?
The reason I ask is because I did exactly that as a teenager and I'm still waiting.
If you do get a reply, how do you distinguish between God and telepathic aliens?
Good question.
-
If that is done and there is no response, the usual comeback is that the subject is;
a) not doing it 'correctly' in the first place
b) not recognising that there has actually been a response
c) not listening properly
d) not waiting long enough for a response
e) some other excuse......
Without prejudice toward yourself
It is possible not to be genuine in this.
I did warn about having expectations but, rather be expectant
D) God is not a gumball machine....also if you have expectations you could be waiting a long time.
People claiming not being responded to are rendered suspect of all you complain to be suspected of, just like those who claim to be responded to are accused of madness, delusion, lying etc. I guess it's part of the territory.
I'm afraid you could still be coming to your realisation of God.
....so what is the process to do it 'correctly'?
Without prejudice toward yourself
It is possible not to be genuine in this.
I did warn about having expectations but, rather be expectant
D) God is not a gumball machine....also if you have expectations you could be waiting a long time.
People claiming not being responded to are rendered suspect of all you complain to be suspected of, just like those who claim to be responded to are accused of madness, delusion, lying etc. I guess it's part of the territory.
I'm afraid you could still be coming to your realisation of God.
In terms of the correct way....be genuine, I don't think I can expand on our original discussions. I don't think there's an added express delivery route on this.
Do you still wish to have a relationship with God as you intimated?
If that was and is the case I think you are already on journey.
-
Without prejudice toward yourself
It is possible not to be genuine in this.
I did warn about having expectations but, rather be expectant
D) God is not a gumball machine....also if you have expectations you could be waiting a long time.
People claiming not being responded to are rendered suspect of all you complain to be suspected of, just like those who claim to be responded to are accused of madness, delusion, lying etc. I guess it's part of the territory.
I'm afraid you could still be coming to your realisation of God.
In terms of the correct way....be genuine, I don't think I can expand on our original discussions. I don't think there's an added express delivery route on this.
Do you still wish to have a relationship with God as you intimated?
If that was and is the case I think you are already on journey.
This is all just an excuse for the method failing.
Either you have a method to test this god or you don't.
Blaming other people for not being genuine is absurd.
Why not just accept that you believe in god for bad reasons.
-
It does not give an answer so your method is no good.
Another poster, the moderation and I are setting something up. It is taking weeks to come to fruition. I am sure it will happen at a suitable time.
I am heartened that you in fact understood my instructions or at least interpreted them.
Did you want it to work? Did you want knowledge of God to be revealed through a relationship with God?
-
Another poster, the moderation and I are setting something up. It is taking weeks to come to fruition. I am sure it will happen at a suitable time.
I am heartened that you in fact understood my instructions or at least interpreted them.
Did you want it to work? Did you want knowledge of God to be revealed through a relationship with God?
I would love nothing more.
Is it real or just imagined?
Do you have a real method that ensures success?
-
I would love nothing more.
Is it real or just imagined?
Do you have a real method that ensures success?
If you would love nothing more than a relationship with God then I suggest you are not completely alienated toward him.
On the other hand and speculating on God's attitude based on someone wanting confirmation that God was another item IN the universe to be treated as such and I was NOT that, would I want you to come away with the wrong end of the stick and give you what was false or misleading information about myself? Not really sure....there may be a case not to answer.
Mercifully it's finally between you and God.....It's your journey, not mine.
-
Without prejudice toward yourself
It is possible not to be genuine in this.
I did warn about having expectations but, rather be expectant
D) God is not a gumball machine....also if you have expectations you could be waiting a long time.
Why would I have to wait a long time?
If I don't have expectations, then for how long should I wait?
-
This is all just an excuse for the method failing.
Either you have a method to test this god or you don't.
Blaming other people for not being genuine is absurd.
Why not just accept that you believe in god for bad reasons.
No, I am aware of people for whom such an approach has worked,
even eventually after time.
So how can you say the method has failed.
I guess it's like people for whom marriage doesn't work, they think others must be faking marital bliss or success.
-
even eventually after time.
after what time?
-
after what time?
Sometimes years.
-
No, I am aware of people for whom such an approach has worked,
even eventually after time.
So how can you say the method has failed.
I guess it's like people for whom marriage doesn't work, they think others must be faking marital bliss or success.
So you can just keep saying it has not worked yet.
This is crazy and is not a method just an excuse for failure
-
So you can just keep saying it has not worked yet.
This is crazy and is not a method just an excuse for failure
But apparently it has worked.
Also you sound as if you want all variables to be independent and control variables.
-
after what time?
I cannot say.
-
But apparently it has worked.
Also you sound as if you want all variables to be independent and control variables.
There is no evidence that it works just assertion.
When I try the method it fails which gives a no go answer.
-
There is no evidence that it works just assertion.
When I try the method it fails which gives a no go answer.
....So why isn't your statement that it doesn't work NOT just assertion?
-
Did you want it to work? Did you want knowledge of God to be revealed through a relationship with God?
It would be far better for knowledge of God to be revealed through science. Then we can be more confidant it is something real, and not just a trick of the mind that some people seem to be adept at, others not. Like Mulder, people who want to believe will find a way to convince themselves somehow or other, that is why we had to derive scientific method. to remove the personal, the subjective, and all the biases that come with individual minds to inch closer to real objective truth.
-
How could a naturalistic method that explicitly excludes non naturalistic claims do this? it doesn't reveal morality or beauty. Science is extraordinary but I suspect we overload it with demands. It cannot even reveal who won the FA Cup in 1927, or what a 'game' is.
-
....So why isn't your statement that it doesn't work NOT just assertion?
It is. They both are. That's why it is essentially not a method
-
It would be far better for knowledge of God to be revealed through science. Then we can be more confidant it is something real, and not just a trick of the mind that some people seem to be adept at, others not. Like Mulder, people who want to believe will find a way to convince themselves somehow or other, that is why we had to derive scientific method. to remove the personal, the subjective, and all the biases that come with individual minds to inch closer to real objective truth.
Your post appeals to some pretty vague ideas on psychological incompetence which are then generalised.
When I have mentioned science in this thread it is analogous.
Given that, the speed at which I suspect some opponents have tried a suggestion to punt a message into the cloud of unknowing about God and concluding that there is nothing there, is astonishing given it takes at least two or three days to cultivate a petri dish.
-
How could a naturalistic method that explicitly excludes non naturalistic claims do this? it doesn't reveal morality or beauty. Science is extraordinary but I suspect we overload it with demands. It cannot even reveal who won the FA Cup in 1927, or what a 'game' is.
Yes that is right I think. The claim that humans can have knowledge of, or a relationship with something, implies that that something is part of the natural order. That of course contradicts the companion claim that god is supernatural.
-
Yes that is right I think. The claim that humans can have knowledge of, or a relationship with something, implies that that something is part of the natural order. That of course contradicts the companion claim that god is supernatural.
I think you are claiming the totality of cosmos for science here whereas NS strikes me that he is talking about science having limits in successfully describing what you have termed nature.
-
....So why isn't your statement that it doesn't work NOT just assertion?
Because the method was tried and failed.
If the method is sound it will work EVERY time
-
Yes that is right I think. The claim that humans can have knowledge of, or a relationship with something, implies that that something is part of the natural order. That of course contradicts the companion claim that god is supernatural.
Why imbue the natural order with this slightly mystic tinge? Given we can't break out of hard solipsism, we need to be careful about moving beyond the practical to dreams of truthiness.
Note for any theists going down this route and agreeing with me, that's enormously problematic for all truth claims as it attacks the notion of truth. Agreeing with this means you can never cite another person's views or beliefs as in any way related to yours (hard solipsism again).
-
Because the method was tried and failed.
If the method is sound it will work EVERY time
ergo medicine isn't science.
-
ergo medicine isn't science.
Yes it is
-
Because the method was tried and failed.
So far that is an assertion.
How long was it between you starting the experiment and concluding that it had failed?
It sounds like you have turned a dependent variable (time taken for result to appear) into an independent variable ( If it doesn't happen within X minutes it hasn't worked)
-
Yes it is
But there are different results at different times so it by your approach is neither a method nor science.
-
But there are different results at different times so it by your approach is neither a method nor science.
Yes it is
-
So far that is an assertion.
How long was it between you starting the experiment and concluding that it had failed?
It sounds like you have turned a dependent variable (time taken for result to appear) into an independent variable ( If it doesn't happen within X minutes it hasn't worked)
And you exclude possibility of it not working by your approach. You build in unfalsifiability. In which case it means that contradictory positions are validated by it. Logically this seems untenable
-
Yes it is
Not by your logic. Surely to be rational you should be consistent. In one case you say inconsistent results mean something is neither a method nor a science and then in the case of medicine with inconsistent results you insist it is?
-
And you exclude possibility of it not working by your approach. You build in unfalsifiability. In which case it means that contradictory positions are validated by it. Logically this seems untenable
Have I, where did I do that ? I think science only gets us a certain way beyond that which is amenable to it. That idea comes from Chomsky although you seem to share the sentiment.
Given that science can help, a little, BR has failed in his basic science by turning a dependent variable into an independent.
I think you may have made a good Chomskyesque case for the limits of the application in science and then insisted on applying it utterly.
-
Have I, where did I do that ? I think science only gets us a certain way beyond that which is amenable to it. That idea comes from Chomsky although you seem to share the sentiment.
Given that science can help, a little, BR has failed in his basic science by turning a dependent variable into an independent.
I think you may have made a good Chomskyesque case for the limits of the application in science and then insisted on applying it utterly.
But when people follow your method and do not get the answer YOU did, you just say they did not do it correctly.
This is not an honest approach.
How does your method handle different answers to yours?
-
But when people follow your method and do not get the answer YOU did, you just say they did not do it correctly.
Be Rational, you have eliminated a dependent variable and replaced it with an independent variable or something.
We do not know the time taken.
-
Have I, where did I do that ? I think science only gets us a certain way beyond that which is amenable to it. That idea comes from Chomsky although you seem to share the sentiment.
Given that science can help, a little, BR has failed in his basic science by turning a dependent variable into an independent.
I think you may have made a good Chomskyesque case for the limits of the application in science and then insisted on applying it utterly.
It only taking us so far doesn't give a free pass to anything that claims to go further. If you want to cite Chomsky as an authority then you will need to accept he would insist on the limits of any other claims such as yours and that your built in unfalsifiability makes it not a method.
And you have done it by positing that any negative results are to be ignored
-
Be Rational, you have eliminated a dependent variable and replaced it with an independent variable or something.
We do not know the time taken.
So consistency is irrelevant. lack of response is irrelevant - unfaslfiable - no method - Chomsky saya no
-
Be Rational, you have eliminated a dependent variable and replaced it with an independent variable or something.
We do not know the time taken.
So I can claim ANYTHING and just say you have not tried long enough.
SO I claim that Kevin the Magic leprechaun created the universe, and if you seek him earnestly he will reveal this to you.
Do not seek him and tell me he has not revealed himself to you, as you already know the answer to that.
-
So consistency is irrelevant. lack of response is irrelevant - unfaslfiable - no method - Chomsky saya no
How is there inconsistency?
To use an analogy of cultivating bacteria.
Be Rational has done the equivalent of saying
If one opens a petri dish and closes it and count the numbers immediately one learns whether there are microbes in the atmosphere.
-
So I can claim ANYTHING and just say you have not tried long enough.
SO I claim that Kevin the Magic leprechaun created the universe, and if you seek him earnestly he will reveal this to you.
Do not seek him and tell me he has not revealed himself to you, as you already know the answer to that.
How is Kevin distinguishable from God?
-
How is Kevin distinguishable from God?
How is god distinguishable from Kevin?
-
How is Kevin distinguishable from God?
If Kevin the Magic Leprechaun created the Universe, then he is God.
-
How is there inconsistency?
To use an analogy of cultivating bacteria.
Be Rational has done the equivalent of saying
If one opens a petri dish and closes it and count the numbers immediately one learns whether there are microbes in the atmosphere.
Why are you talking about Be Rational. I am talking about your inconsistency, Be Rational is irrelevant to that? You want to use Chomsjy to talk about method and then ignore that in Chomsky's terms your method is spurious. Why is that?
-
If Kevin the Magic Leprechaun created the Universe, then he is God.
Yes.....so where would that put claims that he looks on those occasions when he chooses to appear like a small irish chap dressed in Green?
Of at least secondary interest I would have thought.
-
Why are you talking about Be Rational. I am talking about your inconsistency, Be Rational is irrelevant to that? You want to use Chomsjy to talk about method and then ignore that in Chomsky's terms your method is spurious. Why is that?
I'm sorry you've lost me. When you talk about method you seem to be talking about science........have you got that right?
And then you seem to be talking about the limits of science while insisting on science being the final arbiter of everything. That seems contradictory.
Unless of course you mean compliance with science is the cast iron standard for any method?
Please enlighten.
-
Yes.....so where would that put claims that he looks on those occasions when he chooses to appear like a small irish chap dressed in Green?
Of at least secondary interest I would have thought.
Kevin did not have a son that was nailed to a cross.
That's a difference.
-
No, I am aware of people for whom such an approach has worked,
even eventually after time.
So how can you say the method has failed.
How long does one persist before accepting that the experiment has failed ? It's not always good policy to keep on banging away at something that is clearly not working.
-
Kevin did not have a son that was nailed to a cross.
Damn difficult proving a negative isn't it.
-
How long does one persist before accepting that the experiment has failed ? It's not always good policy to keep on banging away at something that is clearly not working.
Seems to vary but apparently people are finding a relationship with God.
How long before they should give up string theory?
-
Damn difficult proving a negative isn't it.
So you accept that using your method I have come up with Kevin the leprechaun as the true creator of the universe.
This means that your belief if god is now wrong.
Will you stop believing and convert to Kevinism?
If not why not, as I used your method and got a success.
-
Seems to vary but apparently people are finding a relationship with God.
How does this relationship manifest itself? Never quite worked that out.
-
Seems to vary but apparently people are finding a relationship with God.
How long before they should give up string theory?
Of course string theory is not a thing with its own existence such that one could have a relationship with. But if the claim for god is that it is some sort of independent being capable of holding telepathic relationships with humans then what are we to make of the variability of response. Why would god be so erratic ? A benevolent god would treat people with fairness and not respond to some immediately whilst seemingly ignoring others. If I kept asking a girl for a date and she kept ignoring my approaches, after some time, the right thing to do is give up and walk away.
-
An interesting point here about the validity of experience, which has been made before, but I am old and repetitive. If someone experiences a reciprocal relationship with God, this gets top marks, and is pronounced valid, I suppose. However, what about Jim who doesn't? His experience is also valid, isn't it?
In other words, the avenue of personal experience seems to be a cul de sac.
-
So you accept that using your method I have come up with Kevin the leprechaun as the true creator of the universe.
This means that your belief if god is now wrong.
Will you stop believing and convert to Kevinism?
If not why not, as I used your method and got a success.
Are you telling the truth?
-
Are you telling the truth?
Is the aborigine, relating his communion with his ancestors, telling the truth ?
-
Are you telling the truth?
Yes are you?
-
Yes are you?
I am yes.
If you are telling the truth I look forward to your posts now being philosophical naturalistbollocks free and debating with you as a fellow and different type of theist.
-
An interesting point here about the validity of experience, which has been made before, but I am old and repetitive. If someone experiences a reciprocal relationship with God, this gets top marks, and is pronounced valid, I suppose. However, what about Jim who doesn't? His experience is also valid, isn't it?
In other words, the avenue of personal experience seems to be a cul de sac.
Cul-de-sac as opposed to throughway to what Wiggs?
-
I am yes.
If you are telling the truth I look forward to your posts now being philosophical naturalistbollocks free and debating with you as a fellow and different type of theist.
But this destroys your method.
Are you not concerned about that, or does truth not interest you?
-
But this destroys your method.
Are you not concerned about that, or does truth not interest you?
No, You sent a message out to God and found the magical Kevin....That is clearly more of a success than a failure.
Unfortunately for you, you have to be a Kevinist for ever or expose yourself as self confessed deluded or an apostate or a liar about your encounter in which it will become obvious whether the truth interests you.
You would have missed that because of your....how does Nearly Sane put it?................Vlad Obsession.
-
Cul-de-sac as opposed to throughway to what Wiggs?
I thought you were going to show a throughway to the supernatural.
-
I thought you were going to show a throughway to the supernatural.
I'm sorry but I think the supernatural to be a bollocks concept defined by the original bollocks concept, Nature.
-
I cannot say.
You just did in #256, didn't you?
-
I'm sorry you've lost me. When you talk about method you seem to be talking about science........have you got that right?
And then you seem to be talking about the limits of science while insisting on science being the final arbiter of everything. That seems contradictory.
Unless of course you mean compliance with science is the cast iron standard for any method?
A final
Please enlighten.
I appear to have lost you because you are making stuff up about what I've said. At no point have I said, implied,or hinted at science being the final arbiter if everything. Indeed, i have written precisely the opposite on this and many other threads. I have no idea why you do this as it stifles debate. Please stop lying about what I have written. Please retract the lying about what I have written.
-
Yes.....so where would that put claims that he looks on those occasions when he chooses to appear like a small irish chap dressed in Green?
Of at least secondary interest I would have thought.
True but is it worse than choosing to appear as a two-a-penny apocalyptic preacher or a bush that is on fire?
-
I'd agree with you for the atheists here, but not at ExposingReligion or Exposing Religion (note the space) on Facebook, both being places I have been banned for asking questions that none of you lot would get upset about. The other place I can't remember. As I say, I was only there for two questions.
Facebook groups like that are there for a big group hug. I have had similar issues with the various incarnations of Heterosexual Awareness Month on Facebook
-
My apologies for not letting people know that I wasn't going to be around for a couple of weeks. If anyone left a question for me Ill be pleased to respond however. If not, can I assume that there's just been more of Vlad's relentless reinvention of words and terms to suit his purpose followed by his out-of-hand dismissal of his own straw men?
Plus ça change as I heard no-one say in La Belle France...
-
My apologies for not letting people know that I wasn't going to be around for a couple of weeks. If anyone left a question for me Ill be pleased to respond however. If not, can I assume that there's just been more of Vlad's relentless reinvention of words and terms to suit his purpose followed by his out-of-hand dismissal of his own straw men?
Plus ça change as I heard no-one say in La Belle France...
You might want to have a look at the Formal Debate
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?board=28.0
-
NS,
You might want to have a look at the Formal Debate
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?board=28.0
Thanks for posting this. I'll have a look, but to be frank any attempt Vlad makes at debating anything is so bedevilled by his remorseless re-invention of language to suit his purpose that it's probably not worth the effort. The only way perhaps would be to post first a glossy of what the various terms he abuses actually mean and to insist that he stick to their meanings thereafter. He's so heavily invested in straw men versions of "philosophical materialism", "atheism", "scientism" etc however that I can't see him doing the decent thing so late in the day.
-
NS,
Thanks for posting this. I'll have a look, but to be frank any attempt Vlad makes at debating anything is so bedevilled by his remorseless re-invention of language to suit his purpose that it's probably not worth the effort. The only way perhaps would be to post first a glossy of what the various terms he abuses actually mean and to insist that he stick to their meanings thereafter. He's so heavily invested in straw men versions of "philosophical materialism", "atheism", "scientism" etc however that I can't see him doing the decent thing so late in the day.
There is some quite good stuff on the comments section around the whole question of definition.
-
NS,
There is some quite good stuff on the comments section around the whole question of definition.
Thanks again for the steer. There are 70+ posts there so it's a lot to wade through, and it seems that Vlad hasn't (or has just ignored them) because some of his straw man re-definitions here post date some of the corrections there. You noticed earlier here I see that he flat out lied about your position - oddly in much the same way that Dryghten's Toe (a sort of Vlad with "O" levels) did about me a while back when he suggested that I thought that only phenomena that had been demonstrated to exist do exist.
That's what I find so frustrating sometimes - any debate or discussion is impossible when one party just makes up his own meanings for words and term, mis-ascribes them to his interlocutor and than attacks them. I can't tell you how many times for example I've explained to Vlad that "philosophical materialism" means, "the material is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable" with no comment whatever on anything else that might be, yet time and again he goes quiet for a bit and then repeats his "it means that you think that the material is necessarily all there is or can be" nonsense.
I used to think that is was just misunderstanding, but the corrections have been ignored so often that I've concluded that it's deep dishonesty borne of an investment in bad thinking that he cannot bear to back away from.
-
I was wondering yesterday if you were on holiday, blue. Good to see you back, hope you had a good time.
We are in status quo, as you will see (apart from the aforementioned Formal Debate section).
-
Hi Brownie,
I was wondering yesterday if you were on holiday, blue. Good to see you back, hope you had a good time.
I did indeed, and thank you.
We are in status quo, as you will see (apart from the aforementioned Formal Debate section).
Do you mean that we agree that just making up new meanings for words so as to suit your argument is bad form? If so, then yes - we do agree about that.
-
;D That wasn't what I meant but, yes, it is (wouldn't mind making up some new words though).