Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: ippy on November 01, 2016, 03:08:49 PM
-
I think one reason is more obvious than a lot of others is the built in requirement to indoctrinate the next generation, they all do this, figures largely.
Or taking on these beliefs as comforting/soma like soporific, protective blanket that enables followers to blank off the harder side of everyday life we all have to deal with, one thing is for certain no credible evidence needed or, as it seems to me, wanted.
None of them are believable to me.
ippy
-
I think one reason is more obvious than a lot of others is the built in requirement to indoctrinate the next generation, they all do this, figures largely.
Or taking on these beliefs as comforting/soma like soporific, protective blanket that enables followers to blank off the harder side of everyday life we all have to deal with, one thing is for certain no credible evidence needed or, as it seems to me, wanted.
None of them are believable to me.
ippy
I am fortunate that I can deny entirely "the built in requirement to indoctrinate the next generation", as I was introduced to Paganism, after fifteen years of Christianity, and forty odd years of agnosticism, by my "next generation - my older daughter! Her sister chose to join us after carryoing out her own investigation independant of her father and older sister.
-
I am fortunate that I can deny entirely "the built in requirement to indoctrinate the next generation", as I was introduced to Paganism, after fifteen years of Christianity, and forty odd years of agnosticism, by my "next generation - my older daughter! Her sister chose to join us after carryoing out her own investigation independant of her father and older sister.
The first four words of my previous post had that covered Owl, I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons for taking up these mystic, magical and superstitious beliefs, but I do think very gullible, youngest of children are their main recruiting grounds.
ippy
-
Why do so many still have these religious beliefs?
In my opinion, there are essentially two types of people in this world.
One type sees the world and the universe with evidence for design and sees that something is responsible for it. There is disagreement about what the something is, hence the various religious beliefs.
One type sees the world and the universe and concludes that the only thing that one can be sure about is what can be tested, the empirical. Hence (intentionally or not) there is an assumption of natural causes and explanations only.
From my perspective, I will always be in the former camp as the latter requires something to come from nothing (laws from non-laws, truth from non-truth, life from non-life, etc). Observation apart, discoveries in Physics (e.g. Newton's conservation of xxx laws) contradict that, and it is the contradiction (i.e. a demonstration that it isn't possible) that has made my mind up.
-
I think one reason is more obvious than a lot of others is the built in requirement to indoctrinate the next generation, they all do this, figures largely.
Or taking on these beliefs as comforting/soma like soporific, protective blanket that enables followers to blank off the harder side of everyday life we all have to deal with, one thing is for certain no credible evidence needed or, as it seems to me, wanted.
None of them are believable to me.
ippy
If that is the reason, ippy, why are confirmed atheists converting to various religious beliefs?
-
Why do so many still have these religious beliefs?
In my opinion, there are essentially two types of people in this world.
One type sees the world and the universe with evidence for design and sees that something is responsible for it. There is disagreement about what the something is, hence the various religious beliefs.
One type sees the world and the universe and concludes that the only thing that one can be sure about is what can be tested, the empirical. Hence (intentionally or not) there is an assumption of natural causes and explanations only.
From my perspective, I will always be in the former camp as the latter requires something to come from nothing (laws from non-laws, truth from non-truth, life from non-life, etc). Observation apart, discoveries in Physics (e.g. Newton's conservation of xxx laws) contradict that, and it is the contradiction (i.e. a demonstration that it isn't possible) that has made my mind up.
And would you have your beliefs taught to children as truths? If so what objective, testable, verifiable, etc evidence would you present to show them that your theory was worth believing? Pleas note the lower case 't' at the beginning of the word theory.
-
And would you have your beliefs taught to children as truths? If so what objective, testable, verifiable, etc evidence would you present to show them that your theory was worth believing? Pleas note the lower case 't' at the beginning of the word theory.
Ah, the scientism curriculum The jewel in the crown of the eradication of the religious from freedom of expression.
-
And would you have your beliefs taught to children as truths? If so what objective, testable, verifiable, etc evidence would you present to show them that your theory was worth believing? Pleas note the lower case 't' at the beginning of the word theory.
I would teach them as beliefs. From the Christian perspective, I wouldn't want to force it on them as the individual needs to respond of their own free will.
-
I agree with you, Sword. Tell people "This is what I believe", if they are interested but not, "This is how it is".
If they are sufficiently interested in beliefs, they will also want to know about other beliefs and eventually do some research.
-
I agree with you, Sword. Tell people "This is what I believe", if they are interested but not, "This is how it is".
If they are sufficiently interested in beliefs, they will also want to know about other beliefs and eventually do some research.
Nothing wrong with telling people this is what I believe Brownie, it's the suggestion to young children 'this is the way', 'oh it's only a nativity play', 'oh it's only a whacking great cross on the side of the school' with the addition of 'oh it's only' loads of other things; when added together they amount to guidance', another one, 'oh it's only a short form of a daily religious service of a mainly christian nature.
Where do all of these 'oh it's onlys' stop, where do you draw the line, I would have to agree with the 'oh it's onlys', if there was only a few of them, or they were not continually being reinforced day after day, if that were the case of course I would be overreacting but as you and I know full well that's not the case.
Can you imagine the fuss if a similar method of impregnating the inns and outs of unionism was being aimed at our youngest most vulnerable children on a daily basis?
ippy
-
Nothing wrong with telling people this is what I believe Brownie, it's the suggestion to young children 'this is the way', 'oh it's only a nativity play', 'oh it's only a whacking great cross on the side of the school' with the addition of 'oh it's only' loads of other things; when added together they amount to guidance', another one, 'oh it's only a short form of a daily religious service of a mainly christian nature.
Where do all of these 'oh it's onlys' stop, where do you draw the line, I would have to agree with the 'oh it's onlys', if there was only a few of them, or they were not continually being reinforced day after day, if that were the case of course I would be overreacting but as you and I know full well that's not the case.
Can you imagine the fuss if a similar method of impregnating the inns and outs of unionism was being aimed at our youngest most vulnerable children on a daily basis?
ippy
Look at the crap that is hitting the fan about some of Birmingham's Muslim schools!
-
If that is the reason, ippy, why are confirmed atheists converting to various religious beliefs?
There will always be some that swim against the tide but there you already knew this, last year was the first time the C of E had under a million attend their services, oops.
ippy
-
Look at the crap that is hitting the fan about some of Birmingham's Muslim schools!
I daren't comment, quite strong this will to live, innit.
ippy
-
I daren't comment, quite strong this will to live, innit.
ippy
If I am completely honest there have been and are times when reading some posts on here actually come close to making me lose the will to live. No names/no packdrill.
-
The answer to that is, don't have faith schools; let all schools be secular with a good cross section of pupils. But we've done that one already.
-
There will always be some that swim against the tide but there you already knew this, last year was the first time the C of E had under a million attend their services, oops.
ippy
But unfortunately for you, ippy, the CofE isn't the only Christian organisation in the UK. When non-conformist congregation attendances are taken into account, the church (as opposed to the Church) is holding its own. At the same time, during the year you refer to, attendances at CofE churches at Christmas and Easter rose!!
-
Where do all of these 'oh it's onlys' stop, where do you draw the line, I would have to agree with the 'oh it's onlys', if there was only a few of them, or they were not continually being reinforced day after day, if that were the case of course I would be overreacting but as you and I know full well that's not the case.
I suspect that more of this 'continually being reinforced day after day' takes place in the home - be that a 'faith' home or a 'non-faith' home, ippy. For instance, when did you discuss anything to do with religion with your children - over a Sunday lunch for instance? Many Christian families discuss a wide range of social issues over a period of time - either 'formally' as happened with me as a child (and with my children) with my father starting debates on politics, education, health, sport, religion and non-belief, science and pretty well everything else at Sunday lunchtimes, or informally between parents and children. Remember that one can reinforce attitudes to certain ideas by the omission of them from discussion just as much as you can reinforce them by their inclusion.
Can you imagine the fuss if a similar method of impregnating the inns and outs of unionism was being aimed at our youngest most vulnerable children on a daily basis?
It happens in the Welsh valleys every day, with children being told - in one breathe - that Labour and the unions are the only true saviours of the people and - in the next breathe - how hopeless the Labour Government in Cardiff is.
-
I would teach them as beliefs. From the Christian perspective, I wouldn't want to force it on them as the individual needs to respond of their own free will.
Agreed, Sword.
What they do with those teachings is up to them.
-
I suspect that more of this 'continually being reinforced day after day' takes place in the home - be that a 'faith' home or a 'non-faith' home, ippy. For instance, when did you discuss anything to do with religion with your children - over a Sunday lunch for instance? Many Christian families discuss a wide range of social issues over a period of time - either 'formally' as happened with me as a child (and with my children) with my father starting debates on politics, education, health, sport, religion and non-belief, science and pretty well everything else at Sunday lunchtimes, or informally between parents and children. Remember that one can reinforce attitudes to certain ideas by the omission of them from discussion just as much as you can reinforce them by their inclusion.
It happens in the Welsh valleys every day, with children being told - in one breathe - that Labour and the unions are the only true saviours of the people and - in the next breathe - how hopeless the Labour Government in Cardiff is.
The last you gov poll I saw was 51% of the UK is now non religious, if they're a few points out it's still a healthy trend and my reference to the daily spread of unionism was referring to spreading it within our institutions in an exactly similar way the religious promote their cause as they do at the moment with government support too, is plainly out of order.
What parents do, legally of course, or say in their own homes is their own buisness.
ippy
-
Why do so many still have these religious beliefs?
In my opinion, there are essentially two types of people in this world.
One type sees the world and the universe with evidence for design and sees that something is responsible for it. There is disagreement about what the something is, hence the various religious beliefs.
One type sees the world and the universe and concludes that the only thing that one can be sure about is what can be tested, the empirical. Hence (intentionally or not) there is an assumption of natural causes and explanations only.
From my perspective, I will always be in the former camp as the latter requires something to come from nothing (laws from non-laws, truth from non-truth, life from non-life, etc). Observation apart, discoveries in Physics (e.g. Newton's conservation of xxx laws) contradict that, and it is the contradiction (i.e. a demonstration that it isn't possible) that has made my mind up.
Or maybe there are two types of people in this world. One type can tolerate uncertainty and are happy with 'we don't know, yet'; the other type prefer to have some sort of coherent and fairly fixed worldview at the back of the mind, one that makes reasonable enough sense of our experience.
I'm probably in the former camp, and from your use of the word always, I guess you to be in the latter camp. Always, suggests a fixedness of mind, a mind not being open to new understandings. And despite your protestations about life from non-life and laws from non-laws, somehow a God from no-God draws no such protestations from you; again suggesting you are not willing or able to apply your reasoning without prejudice. This type of thinking is an excuse for belief rather than a genuine reason for belief.
-
Why do so many still have these religious beliefs?
In my opinion, there are essentially two types of people in this world.
One type sees the world and the universe with evidence for design and sees that something is responsible for it. There is disagreement about what the something is, hence the various religious beliefs.
One type sees the world and the universe and concludes that the only thing that one can be sure about is what can be tested, the empirical. Hence (intentionally or not) there is an assumption of natural causes and explanations only.
From my perspective, I will always be in the former camp as the latter requires something to come from nothing (laws from non-laws, truth from non-truth, life from non-life, etc). Observation apart, discoveries in Physics (e.g. Newton's conservation of xxx laws) contradict that, and it is the contradiction (i.e. a demonstration that it isn't possible) that has made my mind up.
If something can't come from nothing, how did your version of god come into being?
-
If something can't come from nothing, how did your version of god come into being?
the problem is their misunderstanding of the concept of 'nothing'
-
It's not just the stuff they teach at schools, you'd think with all of the education and all of the readily available information at the touch of a fingertip, religion should be off on its way, but unfortunately the religionists have left us with this continuing legacy of a kind of self replication that entreats so many to fall hook line and sinker for their myths and the rest.
Nobody really wants to persecute religionists whatever the religion might be, it's only infighters among the various religions that seems to me to be the ones doing the persecution and very few others; all of these religionists should be free to believe whatever they want to believe.
Having said the above every time it's suggested that religion should be for private sphere, those that suggest this are, deemed by the religious, to be persecuting them?
Most of the adult people here in the UK have the right to vote and that's should be the starting and finishing point of where religious opinion should count in any way toward the running of this country, if and when we reach this happy state perhaps we will be hearing a lot less about the inns and outs of these primitive beliefs, it seems pretty obvious to me that the only thing that enables religion to punch over its weight here are the numerous privileges they have here in the UK and it will take some time before we rid ourselves of those privileges in an attempt to create a level playing field.
Perhaps along with doing away with these privileges it might accelerate the already exponential decline of these beliefs, perhaps it's the privileges that are a part of why so many still have these religious beliefs?
ippy
-
I agree with you, Sword. Tell people "This is what I believe", if they are interested but not, "This is how it is".
If they are sufficiently interested in beliefs, they will also want to know about other beliefs and eventually do some research.
Thank you Brownie. :)
-
Agreed, Sword.
What they do with those teachings is up to them.
Thank you Anchorman. :)
-
And despite your protestations about life from non-life and laws from non-laws, somehow a God from no-God draws no such protestations from you; again suggesting you are not willing or able to apply your reasoning without prejudice. This type of thinking is an excuse for belief rather than a genuine reason for belief.
If something can't come from nothing, how did your version of god come into being?
That is because I don't believe in a God from no-God, or that God was created, otherwise there would be an infinite regression.
Floo started a thread on this (Who created the deity? (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10946.0)). The question was answered by several posters (including the poster who started the thread!), but deemed an unacceptable one.
-
the problem is their misunderstanding of the concept of 'nothing'
Please explain this misunderstanding.
Also, can you summarise what this concept of nothing is?
-
That is because I don't believe in a God from no-God, or that God was created, otherwise there would be an infinite regression.
So why do you have a problem with law from no-law, or something from no-thing. If your get-out clause for God is that he was always there why not apply the same principle to law from no-law ?
-
That is because I don't believe in a God from no-God, or that God was created, otherwise there would be an infinite regression.
Floo started a thread on this (Who created the deity? (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10946.0)). The question was answered by several posters (including the poster who started the thread!), but deemed an unacceptable one.
Because there is no answer to that question, as there is no evidence any god exists.
-
Because there is no answer to that question, as there is no evidence any god exists.
Yet you asked
If something can't come from nothing, how did your version of god come into being?
Why are you interested in how a god you claim there is no evidence for came into being?
-
So why do you have a problem with law from no-law, or something from no-thing. If your get-out clause for God is that he was always there why not apply the same principle to law from no-law ?
1. I don't (currently) see any support for e.g. laws always being there, i.e. laws being eternal.
2. Human beings make laws. Behind them is intelligence and purpose. So I see the same applying elsewhere, where laws are discovered.
Are there any natural, non-intelligent processes that have the forethought to create laws?
-
That is because I don't believe in a God from no-God, or that God was created, otherwise there would be an infinite regression.
Floo started a thread on this (Who created the deity? (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10946.0)). The question was answered by several posters (including the poster who started the thread!), but deemed an unacceptable one.
This post of yours Sward conveys to me that you think there is in existence something you call a god; how do you know something like this exists? I would be fascinated to see any of your definitive proof of this gods existence?
Oh yes if you can come up with the verifiable evidence, I'll no longer be what you people call an atheist and no doubt all the other so called atheists that post here on the forum will become believers too.
ippy
-
2. Human beings make laws.
Not always - there are many fundamental natural and physical laws that have nothing to do with humans in their inception. Sure humans have tried to understand and explain them, but they didn't make them. Gravity being a good example.
Behind them is intelligence and purpose.
Explain to me what 'intelligence and purpose' is behind the law of gravity please.
Are there any natural, non-intelligent processes that have the forethought to create laws?
Yup - see above - your notion that laws must be created by humans and must be driven by intelligence and purpose is deeply human centric and anthropomorphic, despite the fact that physical and natural laws govern the entire universe and have done since its inception yet humans have been around for a mere blink of an eye in one minuscule corner of the universe.
-
Always, suggests a fixedness of mind, a mind not being open to new understandings.
Did you notice this bit in my post?
Observation apart, discoveries in Physics (e.g. Newton's conservation of xxx laws) contradict that, and it is the contradiction (i.e. a demonstration that it isn't possible) that has made my mind up.
So it is nothing about wanting to believe.
If someone found tomorrow that e.g. Newton's conservation laws do not apply because you can get momentum from no momentum (e.g. after two objects collide, the momentum after impact is increased with no external agents contributing to it), or that the conservation of mechanical energy no longer applies, etc., then there would be grounds for a re-think.
-
Did you notice this bit in my post?So it is nothing about wanting to believe.
If someone found tomorrow that e.g. Newton's conservation laws do not apply because you can get momentum from no momentum (e.g. after two objects collide, the momentum after impact is increased with no external agents contributing to it), or that the conservation of mechanical energy no longer applies, etc., then there would be grounds for a re-think.
Science is provisional: but we know this already and there is discipline involved in ascertaining a basis to revise our understandings.
Your point is what exactly?
-
It's not just the stuff they teach at schools, you'd think with all of the education and all of the readily available information at the touch of a fingertip, religion should be off on its way, but unfortunately the religionists have left us with this continuing legacy of a kind of self replication that entreats so many to fall hook line and sinker for their myths and the rest.
Oddly enough, ippy, one reason why "religion (isn't) off on its way" is that very same 'readily available information at the touch of a fingertip', with a variety of people - from scientists and scholars to artists and everyday people - explaining why faith (as opposed to dry religion) is no less relevant to 21st century humanity as it was to every other generation. As we know from this board, there are some who 'hear' - or read - and simply mock, dismiss or ridicule what they hear/read; there are some who seriously consider the claims and decide against them and there are some who seriously consider the claims and accept them. I have no problem with the last two groups. I have very little respect for the first group.
-
The last you gov poll I saw was 51% of the UK is now non religious, if they're a few points out it's still a healthy trend and my reference to the daily spread of unionism was referring to spreading it within our institutions in an exactly similar way the religious promote their cause as they do at the moment with government support too, is plainly out of order.
What parents do, legally of course, or say in their own homes is their own buisness.
ippy
I think you'd have to prove that religious people are unhealthy or that religion is some kind of disease Ippy...Yet another amazing claim from a bonkers secularism which doesn't quite realise how bonkers it is.
After all 20th century is replete with secular states which were bad, Stalinist USSR, Pol pot etc. You might reply that doesn't happen in secular societies but then we have to ask why Modern slavery increased in a secular society.
-
As we know from this board, there are some who 'hear' - or read - and simply mock, dismiss or ridicule what they hear/read; there are some who seriously consider the claims and decide against them and there are some who seriously consider the claims and accept them. I have no problem with the last two groups. I have very little respect for the first group.
Since you're referring to here, so presumably you have names in mind, it would be interesting to know who fits each of your categorisations and on what basis.
Care to share?
-
Oh yes if you can come up with the verifiable evidence, I'll no longer be what you people call an atheist and no doubt all the other so called atheists that post here on the forum will become believers too.
I doubt it, ippy. It isn't simply a matter of evidence. It has to do with belief. For instance, I believe that science is a very powerful and important part of real life - I just don't believe that it has, or will ever have, all the answers. After all, pretty well every scientist worth their salt believes that for every answer it provides, it throws up 2 or more questions.
As for the comment 'what you people call an atheist' I doubt anyone has ever called anyone an atheist unless that person has self-defined as one already.
-
Since you're referring to here, so presumably you have names in mind, it would be interesting to know who fits each of your categorisations and on what basis.
Care to share?
I'll leave each individual up to decide which category they fit into. However, one can usually tell who fits where by the tone of their posts.
-
Science is provisional: but we know this already and there is discipline involved in ascertaining a basis to revise our understandings.
Your point is what exactly?
Did you notice that I was responding to Torridon's point?
-
I'll leave each individual up to decide which category they fit into. However, one can usually tell who fits where by the tone of their posts.
As you run away please close the door.
Perhaps, if you aren't prepared to back up something you raised whilst giving the impression that you've thought it through, it would be better to say nothing at all!
-
Did you notice that I was responding to Torridon's point?
So what?
This is a public discussion Forum so you don't get to pick and choose who is allowed to reply to your posts.
-
As you run away please close the door.
Perhaps, if you aren't prepared to back up something you raised whilst giving the impression that you've thought it through, it would be better to say nothing at all!
Sorry, Gordon, but I (and you) can guarantee that if I name and shame, there will be an outcry from a variety of people who believe that they ought to be in one of the other categories, and you - as mods - might well be inundated by reports about my abusive posting. I've seen it happen before, and was a mod when there was a fairly similar situation involving a poster who is no longer here.
-
Or maybe there are two types of people in this world. One type can tolerate uncertainty and are happy with 'we don't know, yet'; the other type prefer to have some sort of coherent and fairly fixed worldview at the back of the mind, one that makes reasonable enough sense of our experience.
I'm probably in the former camp
I think your reductionist naturalism which is not just a world view but a cosmic view precludes you from being in the former group.
-
I'll leave each individual up to decide which category they fit into. However, one can usually tell who fits where by the tone of their posts.
I happen to agree with Hope on this point and he is not running away by not naming anyone.
I've often noticed an attitude which to me is tangible but I'm sure the people concerned are not aware of it; there are Christian posters who have a defensive and/or confrontational attitude towards non-Christians who are equally unaware.
Naming names is a very bad idea, no-one does it all the time and we'd get into the to-ing and fro-ing of having to highlight dates, times, topics, post links to specific posts which would be endless - and pointless.
Debate and discussion would be forgotten in the argy bargy.
-
I happen to agree with Hope on this point and he is not running away by not naming anyone.
I didn't expect him too, Brownie, since true to form I anticipated he'd decline the invitation - but I do think he is running away having posted somewhat naively: being more circumspect in future would be my advice to him.
-
I think your reductionist naturalism...
In which Vlad casually throws out his standard trope of reductionism without bothering first to establish that there's something to reduce from.
Oh well.
-
I think you'd have to prove that religious people are unhealthy or that religion is some kind of disease Ippy...Yet another amazing claim from a bonkers secularism which doesn't quite realise how bonkers it is.
After all 20th century is replete with secular states which were bad, Stalinist USSR, Pol pot etc. You might reply that doesn't happen in secular societies but then we have to ask why Modern slavery increased in a secular society.
I have a suspition English isn't your first language Vlad I've noticed this on quite a few of your posts, have another read or try to get someone more conversant with everyday English to explain where I haven't conveyed an acusation that religious people are unhealthy in any of my posts on this thread and nor have I refered to religion as a disease.
The Pol Pot Starlinest nonsense you have referred to has been debunked so many times I really don'think it's worth the trouble explaining it to you again because it's obvious you are either unable to take it in, or if you do take it in you are totally unable to understand.
Ippy
-
The first four words of my previous post had that covered Owl, I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons for taking up these mystic, magical and superstitious beliefs, but I do think very gullible, youngest of children are their main recruiting grounds.
ippy
Ippy nee Iplova
That is plain bollards. Those wanting converts aim for alienated young adults not kids.
-
Funny you should say that, Humph, but I've known a couple of cases of young men who were seduced into cults. One gave them all his money and then had a breakdown.
There are extreme fringe political groups that do the same. Plenty of lonely young people who don't quite fit in with their peers, long to belong and are vulnerable to such influences.
-
I didn't expect him too, Brownie, since true to form I anticipated he'd decline the invitation - but I do think he is running away having posted somewhat naively: being more circumspect in future would be my advice to him.
Gordon, if I had posted somewhat naively, I'd have done as you suggested in your post - and named names.
-
I have a suspition English isn't your first language Vlad ...
ip, I suspect that Vlad's first language isn't Essglish. ;)
-
Gordon, if I had posted somewhat naively, I'd have done as you suggested in your post - and named names.
I'd suggest the primary nativity was in your posting in a way that noted you had categorised people here that you weren't prepared to follow-up on: you'd have been better, as I said, to have been more circumspect in the first place.
-
I doubt it, ippy. It isn't simply a matter of evidence. It has to do with belief. For instance, I believe that science is a very powerful and important part of real life - I just don't believe that it has, or will ever have, all the answers. After all, pretty well every scientist worth their salt believes that for every answer it provides, it throws up 2 or more questions.
As for the comment 'what you people call an atheist' I doubt anyone has ever called anyone an atheist unless that person has self-defined as one already.
Hope, I'm not an afariest or an aunicornist either, atheist isn't a very exact description of someone that thinks there is no good reason to think there are such things as gods, that'all, no doubt you'll come out firing all of your semantic guns, but never mind that I know that you get my drift but call me an atheist if you wish I really don't mind.
Yes science doesn't have all of the answers but science unlike religious beliefs it doesn't have the luxury of being able to say goddit for anything it hasen't found the answer to.
Ippy
-
ip, I suspect that Vlad's first language isn't Essglish. ;)
Have I performed a typo or spelling mistake? How unusual of me to do something like that, don't go losing any sleep over it Hope, I wont.
Ippy
-
1. I don't (currently) see any support for e.g. laws always being there, i.e. laws being eternal.
2. Human beings make laws. Behind them is intelligence and purpose. So I see the same applying elsewhere, where laws are discovered.
Are there any natural, non-intelligent processes that have the forethought to create laws?
Firstly, there is no support for an eternal god but that doesn't seem to bother you. People arguing for god as a route out of infinite regress are just committing a tautology instead. This way of thinking defines god as the premise that must be required in order to arrive at the desired conclusion, it's back to front logic.
Secondly, is there any reason why laws should not be eternal ? If we say that 2 + 2 = 4, did that mathematical rule not apply before the Big Bang ? Did it only come into effect when an intelligent god came along and said 'let it be' ? I think it far easier to create a case for natural laws being eternal than a complex sentient being - his sentience will provide far more paradoxes than his being solves.
-
Yes science doesn't have all of the answers but science unlike religious beliefs it doesn't have the luxury of being able to say goddit for anything it hasen't found the answer to.
Ippy
ip, you seem to misunderstand religion. It is generally non-believers who believe that 'religious beliefs ... say goddit for anything it hasen't found the answer to'. Religious belief says that God is everything - even the things that science has found the answer to. Until you realise that your caricatures of religious belief are about as far from the truth as science is from leprechaunism, your comments are about as irrelevant to real life as that same leprechaunism.
-
Ippy nee Iplova
That is plain bollards. Those wanting converts aim for alienated young adults not kids.
Don't tell me convey that to the C of E, at their last synod, I haven't got the details to hand, if they have an eqivilant of hansard, this very subject was brought up and not quoting verbatim one of those present was promoting extra attention to the school recruiting grounds.
Ippy
-
ip, you seem to misunderstand religion. It is generally non-believers who believe that 'religious beliefs ... say goddit for anything it hasen't found the answer to'. Religious belief says that God is everything - even the things that science has found the answer to. Until you realise that your caricatures of religious belief are about as far from the truth as science is from leprechaunism, your comments are about as irrelevant to real life as that same leprechaunism.
I indeed do recognise these religious points and see them lacking in the extreem and goddit, a very acurate description of the so sorrowfully inadequate out look of most religionists, how sad.
When you look at the lack of supporting evidence that might support religious magical, mystical and superstition based ideas too, well?
Ippy
-
In which Vlad casually throws out his standard trope of reductionism without bothering first to establish that there's something to reduce from.
Oh well.
Bluehillside you are giving your own definition of reductionism and therefore glossing over the issues with that philosophical position. You just can't help polishing brown ones can you?
-
1. I don't (currently) see any support for e.g. laws always being there, i.e. laws being eternal.
2. Human beings make laws. Behind them is intelligence and purpose. So I see the same applying elsewhere, where laws are discovered.
Are there any natural, non-intelligent processes that have the forethought to create laws?
Ever heard of the Theory of Evolution (by natural selection, etc)? Altruistic behaviour which was a very useful survival trait? ] Human groups articulating those behaviours and making them into a set of rules?
-
ip, you seem to misunderstand religion. It is generally non-believers who believe that 'religious beliefs ... say goddit for anything it hasen't found the answer to'. Religious belief says that God is everything - even the things that science has found the answer to.
I think you are turning into a pantheist. Maybe it was that spell in Nepal ;)
-
Ever heard of the Theory of Evolution (by natural selection, etc)? Altruistic behaviour which was a very useful survival trait? ] Human groups articulating those behaviours and making them into a set of rules?
The problem with altruism is not that it is evolved but that it is not consistently practiced or demonstrated. The type of altruism could be said itself to be selfish behaviour and then since the term selfish behaviour covers all behaviour. The words selfish and altruistic are redundant.
There is really only behaviour.
-
Ever heard of the Theory of Evolution (by natural selection, etc)? Altruistic behaviour which was a very useful survival trait? ] Human groups articulating those behaviours and making them into a set of rules?
In which way is altruistic behaviour a useful survival trait, Susan?
Incidentally, I subscribe to a site called nfpSynergy which produces reports and blogs about a variety of subjects that concern not-for-profits. I seem to remember reading one blog a couple of months ago that suggested that many so-called altruistic acts are actually done to bring kudos to the performer. I suppose that that might therefore answer my question above.
I'll try to find the report/blog.
-
In which way is altruistic behaviour a useful survival trait, Susan?
See The Selfish Gene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene)
-
Bluehillside you are giving your own definition of reductionism and therefore glossing over the issues with that philosophical position. You just can't help polishing brown ones can you?
In which the king of re-definitions wrongly accuses a poster of providing his own definition of a term, while simultaneously failing to grasp that even he can't avoid the reality that "reductionism" requires there to be something from which to reduce, and that he's signally failed to demonstrate that something.
Desperate stuff.
-
I think one reason is more obvious than a lot of others is the built in requirement to indoctrinate the next generation, they all do this, figures largely.
Or taking on these beliefs as comforting/soma like soporific, protective blanket that enables followers to blank off the harder side of everyday life we all have to deal with, one thing is for certain no credible evidence needed or, as it seems to me, wanted.
None of them are believable to me.
ippy
It is a singular truth rather than an issue of many things.
GOD... never ceases to exist or stop loving mankind.
God is an experience of a reality you can only come to by a love of truth and an understanding of who God really is.
You look on the outside of you at the world and all which surrounds you.
But knowing God comes from within by the connection of a persons Spirit with Gods Spirit.
You cannot indoctrinate a person. No more than you can find God by your own understanding.
-
I think one reason is more obvious than a lot of others is the built in requirement to indoctrinate the next generation, they all do this, figures largely.
If that is the case, the indoctrination isn't very successful, ippy. Whilst I accept that there will be a handful of religious people who don't introduce the next generation to a wide range of ideas, most Christians - and even Muslims and Hindus today - are willing to let their children hear about and discuss alternative world views and philosophies. Ironically, from what you and some others I know have said, it seems to be the more atheistic minded amongst us who indoctrinate - 'by omission' - in other words don't discuss religious ideas with their children and don't want them to be introduced to such ideas outside of the home.
-
Hope,
If that is the case, the indoctrination isn't very successful, ippy. Whilst I accept that there will be a handful of religious people who don't introduce the next generation to a wide range of ideas, most Christians - and even Muslims and Hindus today - are willing to let their children hear about and discuss alternative world views and philosophies.
Then why ghettoise their children in "faith" schools when secular schools do that anyway?
Ironically, from what you and some others I know have said, it seems to be the more atheistic minded amongst us who indoctrinate - 'by omission' - in other words don't discuss religious ideas with their children and don't want them to be introduced to such ideas outside of the home.
That's backwards I think - in my experience the approach of most parents mirrors that of secular schools: they're quite willing to discuss the religious ideas that various people have, but what they don't do is to assert that the beliefs of any specific faith are factually true.
-
Hope,
Then why ghettoise their children in "faith" schools when secular schools do that anyway?
I suspect - having never taught in a faith school in this country, or sent my children to one, that they want religion to be taught 'properly' - not as a mere add-on to the curriculum but with a 'proper' emphasis on its role in people's lives. OK, some go overboard by wanting creationism taught, but I'm not sure that most faith schools in the UK (as opposed to the Southern States of America) teach that. State schools teach it as an academic discipline; faith schools teach as a real part of life.
That's backwards I think - in my experience the approach of most parents mirrors that of secular schools: they're quite willing to discuss the religious ideas that various people have, but what they don't do is to assert that the beliefs of any specific faith are factually true.
I'm only going by the reports I've had from atheistically-minded people I know and the odd comment made in posts by one or two folk here.
-
I think one reason is more obvious than a lot of others is the built in requirement to indoctrinate the next generation, they all do this, figures largely.
Or taking on these beliefs as comforting/soma like soporific, protective blanket that enables followers to blank off the harder side of everyday life we all have to deal with, one thing is for certain no credible evidence needed or, as it seems to me, wanted.
None of them are believable to me.
ippy
It is a singular truth rather than an issue of many things.
GOD... never ceases to exist or stop loving mankind.
God is an experience of a reality you can only come to by a love of truth and an understanding of who God really is.
You look on the outside of you at the world and all which surrounds you.
But knowing God comes from within by the connection of a persons Spirit with Gods Spirit.
You cannot indoctrinate a person. No more than you can find God by your own understanding.
-
That deja vu thing. :-\
It's for real!!!!!!
:o :o :o
It is a singular truth rather than an issue of many things.
GOD... never ceases to exist or stop loving mankind.
God is an experience of a reality you can only come to by a love of truth and an understanding of who God really is.
You look on the outside of you at the world and all which surrounds you.
But knowing God comes from within by the connection of a persons Spirit with Gods Spirit.
You cannot indoctrinate a person. No more than you can find God by your own understanding.
It is a singular truth rather than an issue of many things.
GOD... never ceases to exist or stop loving mankind.
God is an experience of a reality you can only come to by a love of truth and an understanding of who God really is.
You look on the outside of you at the world and all which surrounds you.
But knowing God comes from within by the connection of a persons Spirit with Gods Spirit.
You cannot indoctrinate a person. No more than you can find God by your own understanding.
-
If that is the case, the indoctrination isn't very successful, ippy. Whilst I accept that there will be a handful of religious people who don't introduce the next generation to a wide range of ideas, most Christians - and even Muslims and Hindus today - are willing to let their children hear about and discuss alternative world views and philosophies. Ironically, from what you and some others I know have said, it seems to be the more atheistic minded amongst us who indoctrinate - 'by omission' - in other words don't discuss religious ideas with their children and don't want them to be introduced to such ideas outside of the home.
What makes you think I would want to either discuss anything about a subject that only exists in the minds of those involved and doesn't really exist either and there's no evidence to be found that would back it up.
I don't discuss Ferripoplism either because by omission I'm trying my best to indoctrinate people against Ferripoplism and at least that one seems to be working.
Seriously god or gods just don't exist for me, I'm not a no godist more a not whatist? A god what's that?
For me Hope all I know or want to know about gods is that there various happy little groups going around trying to stop me shopping when I chose to etc (one of the more benign irritations your lot have to offer), but I have to admit the fact that so many still go for this soppy primitive stuff intrigues me still, why can't you just shrug it off?
ippy
-
It is a singular truth rather than an issue of many things.
GOD... never ceases to exist or stop loving mankind.
God is an experience of a reality you can only come to by a love of truth and an understanding of who God really is.
You look on the outside of you at the world and all which surrounds you.
But knowing God comes from within by the connection of a persons Spirit with Gods Spirit.
You cannot indoctrinate a person. No more than you can find God by your own understanding.
All assertions Sass, not one statement of fact and I would say people like yourself are prime examples of successful indoctrination where the victim doesn't even realise they've been indoctrinated, even when explaind clearly to them.
ippy
-
There will always be some that swim against the tide but there you already knew this, last year was the first time the C of E had under a million attend their services, oops.
ippy
And as the Word and History bear witness, in each generation there is a faithful remnant. And God's Kingdom go's on.
-
And as the Word and History bear witness, in each generation there is a faithful remnant. And God's Kingdom go's on.
An assertion with nothing to support it.
-
And as the Word and History bear witness, in each generation there is a faithful remnant. And God's Kingdom go's on
An assertion with nothing to support it.
What is your understanding of the assertion, Floo?
-
What is your understanding of the assertion, Floo?
As usual you are avoiding answering questions by asking the questioner something else. It is possible I am quite wrong of course, but you appear to thinkthat this demonstrates your superior knowledge and ability to teach and guide non-believers to believe in an as yet undefined God.
Yes, I have asked you questions here and there, but you obviously haven't noticed that I thought joining in your game might make you aware of it. Obviously not.
-
What is your understanding of the assertion, Floo?
That is not back up by any factual evidence only a belief!
-
And as the Word and History bear witness, in each generation there is a faithful remnant. And God's Kingdom go's on.
Isn't that daft statement of yours supposed to be accompanied by some loud claps of echoing thunder and a couple of strikes of quivering lightening? Woooooh
You people take this stuff so seriously, Why?
ippy
-
That is not back up by any factual evidence only a belief!
What would you consider as factual evidence to support it? If you are claiming that there is no factual evidence, it presupposes that you know what such evidence should look like. Please share some examples.
-
What would you consider as factual evidence to support it? If you are claiming that there is no factual evidence, it presupposes that you know what such evidence should look like. Please share some examples.
God appearing in person so there is no doubt it exists. If it was truly omnipotent surely it could do so in such a way it would convince everyone it exists.
-
What would you consider as factual evidence to support it? If you are claiming that there is no factual evidence, it presupposes that you know what such evidence should look like.
No it doesn't: not even remotely.
Evidence requires an underlying method with describes the context in which said evidence is both identified and shown to be relevant to the phenomena under review, which requires that the phenomena itself is meaningfully defined.
So, you guys will need to sort out your definition first and then you can present your supporting evidence: you see the burden of proof is in your court (so stop trying to shift it).
-
What would you consider as factual evidence to support it? If you are claiming that there is no factual evidence, it presupposes that you know what such evidence should look like.
No it doesn't: not even remotely.
If the claim that there is no evidence, that claim has to be backed up. What is the point of trying to provide evidence for someone who claims there is none?
-
Swprd,
If the claim that there is no evidence, that claim has to be backed up. What is the point of trying to provide evidence for someone who claims there is none?
How would you propose to back up your claim that there's no evidence for leprechauns?
The "point" of providing evidence would be to show people who say there's no evidence to be wrong. Your problem though is that what you call evidence for "God" is epistemically indistinguishable from what I call evidence for leprechauns, eg "faith".
-
If the claim that there is no evidence, that claim has to be backed up. What is the point of trying to provide evidence for someone who claims there is none?
No verifiable evidence has ever been provided.
-
Firstly, there is no support for an eternal god but that doesn't seem to bother you. People arguing for god as a route out of infinite regress are just committing a tautology instead. This way of thinking defines god as the premise that must be required in order to arrive at the desired conclusion, it's back to front logic.
Secondly, is there any reason why laws should not be eternal ? If we say that 2 + 2 = 4, did that mathematical rule not apply before the Big Bang ? Did it only come into effect when an intelligent god came along and said 'let it be' ? I think it far easier to create a case for natural laws being eternal than a complex sentient being - his sentience will provide far more paradoxes than his being solves.
Yes Torridon.........I'd certainly like to see your working out on a few of these points you've made.
Until recently this board had a few who could build a case. Now it's just big personalities.
Looking forward.
-
If the claim that there is no evidence, that claim has to be backed up. What is the point of trying to provide evidence for someone who claims there is none?
Because the primary claim of 'God' is yours, and if you stand by it then it is reasonable to expect you provide the supporting evidence: but remember your subject needs to be meaningfully defined and that any fallacies will fail as arguments, so they aren't evidence.
To date I've yet to encounter a claim of evidence for 'God' that wasn't incoherent or fallacious. I'm open to the idea that credible evidence might be presented, although I'm not confident it will be since the 'God' notion remains incoherent and theists tend to advance the same range of well-worn fallacies.
-
Because the primary claim of 'God' is yours, and if you stand by it then it is reasonable to expect you provide the supporting evidence: but remember your subject needs to be meaningfully defined and that any fallacies will fail as arguments, so they aren't evidence.
To date I've yet to encounter a claim of evidence for 'God' that wasn't incoherent or fallacious. I'm open to the idea that credible evidence might be presented, although I'm not confident it will be since the 'God' notion remains incoherent and theists tend to advance the same range of well-worn fallacies.
On this forum anyway! Step forward all the usual suspects!
-
Because the primary claim of 'God' is yours, and if you stand by it then it is reasonable to expect you provide the supporting evidence: but remember your subject needs to be meaningfully defined and that any fallacies will fail as arguments, so they aren't evidence.
To date I've yet to encounter a claim of evidence for 'God' that wasn't incoherent or fallacious. I'm open to the idea that credible evidence might be presented, although I'm not confident it will be since the 'God' notion remains incoherent and theists tend to advance the same range of well-worn fallacies.
Gordon opens his bowels.
-
Gordon opens his bowels.
even for you, Vlad, that is vacuous.
-
even for you, Vlad, that is vacuous.
I think even Bluehillside has gently reminded Gordon that he has taken the "fallacy"thing beyond its utility by pointing out that the number of fallacies doesn't preclude God from existing.
-
I think even Bluehillside has gently reminded Gordon that he has taken the "fallacy"thing beyond its utility by pointing out that the number of fallacies doesn't preclude God from existing.
since Gordon hasn't claimed that, that would be lying yet again, Vlad. Why is it that you shut down any discussion by this continual lying? You are, you certainly can be better than this.
-
I think even Bluehillside has gently reminded Gordon that he has taken the "fallacy"thing beyond its utility by pointing out that the number of fallacies doesn't preclude God from existing.
Nope - I didn't need reminded, but in that particular post I didn't express myself very well and Blue was quite right to point this out: I used the term 'statement' when I should have said 'argument'. However, I have never claimed that fallacies are anything other than forms of bad argument, and indeed have often said so to enthusiasts of the genre,
-
All assertions Sass, not one statement of fact and I would say people like yourself are prime examples of successful indoctrination where the victim doesn't even realise they've been indoctrinated, even when explaind clearly to them.
ippy
I never had any indoctrination, all things aside. I posted something twice purposely today.
I did it because people pass over things they cannot answer. Today it shows that someone reads but passes over content and just notes posted twice.
God, himself has always lead me. The knowledge I have was NOT man taught it is God taught as with the disciples.
You are so wrong and obviously unable to see real indoctrination.
God is real you just haven't the guts to actually consider this reality.
Because the truth is so frightening to you if you allow yourself to acknowledge the fullness of what that means.
Get your head out of the sand man, you are not an Ostrich and God is still there no matter where you hide. :)
-
Just because god is real in your head Sass, it doesn't mean it is.
-
since Gordon hasn't claimed that, that would be lying yet again, Vlad. Why is it that you shut down any discussion by this continual lying? You are, you certainly can be better than this.
In the pre-referendum discussions, Vlad talked sense. It's a pity he doesn't try talking sense here too. *sad face*
-
Just because god is real in your head Sass, it doesn't mean it is.
It doesn't mean that it isn't either. What's your alternative and what is your evidence for it?
-
It doesn't mean that it isn't either. What's your alternative and what is your evidence for it?
begging the question, NPF, and shifting the burden of proof, the fallacies are strong in this one
-
Sword,
It doesn't mean that it isn't either. What's your alternative and what is your evidence for it?
Can I suggest that you try reading up a little on fallacious reasoning before you post again? You may or may not have something to say that's worth listening to, but for now there's no way of knowing because you keep exiting the discourse by relying on very bad thinking.
-
It doesn't mean that it isn't either. What's your alternative and what is your evidence for it?
Science is likely to explain all in the end, it has done pretty well so far, much better than religion, imo.
-
Sword,
Can I suggest that you try reading up a little on fallacious reasoning before you post again? You may or may not have something to say that's worth listening to, but for now there's no way of knowing because you keep exiting the discourse by relying on very bad thinking.
I don't think Sword is going to read up on anything, let alone on fallacies; and I do find that the word 'smug' keeps popping up in my mind when I read his posts.
-
Science is likely to explain all in the end, it has done pretty well so far, much better than religion, imo.
So your faith is in science then?
-
I don't think Sword is going to read up on anything,
Actually SusanDoris, there's a book I'm going to do a lot of reading-up on. I'll even recommend it to you...
It's called The Bible ;)
-
Actually SusanDoris, there's a book I'm going to do a lot of reading-up on. I'll even recommend it to you...
It's called The Bible ;)
Well, it isn't a book - it's a library. And like many libraries, it is filled with a number of subjects, not all of which agree in the details with one another, in particular on the occasions where they appear to be talking about the same things.
Since the books therein have all been designated 'holy writing', this has unfortunately led to a number of problems. Such as treating the Song of Solomon as if it had some allegorical religious meaning. Whereas, it's a poem about sex.
-
I never had any indoctrination, all things aside. I posted something twice purposely today.
I did it because people pass over things they cannot answer. Today it shows that someone reads but passes over content and just notes posted twice.
God, himself has always lead me. The knowledge I have was NOT man taught it is God taught as with the disciples.
You are so wrong and obviously unable to see real indoctrination.
God is real you just haven't the guts to actually consider this reality.
Because the truth is so frightening to you if you allow yourself to acknowledge the fullness of what that means.
Get your head out of the sand man, you are not an Ostrich and God is still there no matter where you hide. :)
If as you say you managed to avoid being indoctrinated what is it that makes you think and believe this book of yours has a factual base when as you must be aware there's no evidence that would or could confirm any of the magical, mystical and superstition based parts of it to be found anywhere?
Why then do you still believe the magical, mystical and superstition based parts of it without evidence, probably and more than likely because you've been indoctrinated.
If you feel you want to respond please don't start using the bible as evidence to back up the bible, only I'm sure you must realise doing that would make you look daft.
ippy
-
So your faith is in science then?
Name one thing in Science that needs faith, and only faith, to believe it.
Actually SusanDoris, there's a book I'm going to do a lot of reading-up on. I'll even recommend it to you...
It's called The Bible ;)
This sounds somewhat patronising as well as smug, I think.
You may be interested - although more likely not - to know that some years ago I was challenged to read a chapter in a gospel. The Library could only get me a complete New Testament in audio, so I listened to it all the way through over the next week. I recommend doing this - you will then get a better idea of the ludicrous statements littered throughout. As for Paul's letters - well, I bet the recipients used to dread their arrival and probably drew lots to see whose turn it was to have to read and respond.
-
I don't think Sword is going to read up on anything, let alone on fallacies; and I do find that the word 'smug' keeps popping up in my mind when I read his posts.
I wouldn't have said smug S D.
ippy
-
Science is likely to explain all in the end, it has done pretty well so far, much better than religion, imo.
No Floo you don't believe that because people who believe that are supposed to be one of my ''straw men''......ask the usual suspects e.g. Papa Smurf.
-
No Floo you don't believe that because people who believe that are supposed to be one of my ''straw men''......ask the usual suspects e.g. Papa Smurf.
In which Vlad fails to grasp that it precisely is a straw man when he uses it to mis-characterise what posters he's responding to have said. If a different poster says something else, that's another mater.
-
I wouldn't have said smug S D.
ippy
:)
-
In which Vlad fails to grasp that it precisely is a straw man when he uses it to mis-characterise what posters he's responding to have said. If a different poster says something else, that's another mater.
Hillside........... will you now and publicly agree with what Floo has said regarding science or will you now and publicly repudiate it?
-
Hillside........... will you now and publicly agree with what Floo has said regarding science or will you now and publicly repudiate it?
In which Vlad fails to grasp that I have no obligation either to agree with or to repudiate anything. This is the same Vlad though who knows perfectly well that I don't agree with Floo, not least for the philosophical reason that we'd have no way to know whether we ever did know "all".
Will Vlad now "publicly repudiate" his own relentless misrepresentations of what I've said consistently about pretty much everything, and while he's at it publicly repudiate too his own personal re-definitions of "scientism", "philosophical naturalism", "atheism" etc etc?
-
Name one thing in Science that needs faith, and only faith, to believe it.
I'll let Floo answer that one...
Science is likely to explain all in the end.
which sounds very much like a commitment to all causes/explanations having to be ones that rely on empirical evidence.
You may be interested - although more likely not - to know that some years ago I was challenged to read a chapter in a gospel. The Library could only get me a complete New Testament in audio, so I listened to it all the way through over the next week. I recommend doing this - you will then get a better idea of the ludicrous statements littered throughout.
Now that's a recommendation I may take you up on. I try and read through the bible from cover to cover as it helps to get overall pictures.
As for Paul's letters - well, I bet the recipients used to dread their arrival and probably drew lots to see whose turn it was to have to read and respond.
Just out of interest, what were your conclusions about Hebrews 11, that heroic chapter on faith?
-
I'll let Floo answer that one...which sounds very much like a commitment to all causes/explanations having to be ones that rely on empirical evidence.
Well, surprise, surprise! Another question SotS avoids answering.
Now that's a recommendation I may take you up on. I try and read through the bible from cover to cover as it helps to get overall pictures.
Just out of interest, what were your conclusions about Hebrews 11, that heroic chapter on faith?
It was a few years ago so |I do not remember and most certainly haveno intention of allocating any of my life's remaining minutes to looking for it!
-
begging the question, NPF, and shifting the burden of proof, the fallacies are strong in this one
Fallacies... again an atheist, yourself, use a word you can neither prove or sustain in the face of the fact you deliberately ignore the overwhelming evidence of Christians healing and being healed today by the power of God.
The truth is that you ignore and cherry pick actual proof because you cannot face the fact that in todays world Christian men and women are by their actions showing Gods word to be truth.
Healing of terminal cancer and serious illness including the lame walking and blind and deaf hearing are no fallacy.
The fact if you wanted to, you can search and see the evidence for yourself. You hide, like so many behind words such a fallacy and the truth is that you deliberate ignore the evidence in the world today.
Even if given proof and even if you wanted to go and see it for yourself, meet the people and the doctors (some no Christians) the truth is you choose not to believe or look for evidence which proves you wrong.
Until you look for evidence which proves you wrong then you cannot and do not have the right to use arguments of words alone.
Because the world knows you and other atheist cannot prove your case against the reality of God working amongst his own people.
-
I don't think Sword is going to read up on anything, let alone on fallacies; and I do find that the word 'smug' keeps popping up in my mind when I read his posts.
The same can be said about you and other atheists posting here.
Because in light of evidence in the world you choose not to believe. Selective reasoning is not good and it is displayed in huge amounts by atheists here. Thinking that they can ignore the true things that prove God is real and his Son Jesus Christ spoke the truth.
People today do, do as Christ did.They heal the sick and raise the dead. But you do not want the truth otherwise you would look for it where it counts in the real world. I believe atheists are too scared of searching where it matters because they would be left without excuse when it comes to what counts as truth.
-
The same can be said about you and other atheists posting here.
Because in light of evidence in the world you choose not to believe. Selective reasoning is not good and it is displayed in huge amounts by atheists here. Thinking that they can ignore the true things that prove God is real and his Son Jesus Christ spoke the truth.
People today do, do as Christ did.They heal the sick and raise the dead. But you do not want the truth otherwise you would look for it where it counts in the real world. I believe atheists are too scared of searching where it matters because they would be left without excuse when it comes to what counts as truth.
Medics heal the sick, but no one can bring to life someone who is actually dead, that is a LIE!
-
Medics heal the sick, but no one can bring to life someone who is actually dead, that is a LIE!
And where does their medical skill come from, Floo? Furthermore, there have been cases where someone has been buried several days after their death - a death confirmed by medics - and then been found to be alive. Similarly, people have been en-casketed (is that the correct term for bunging someone into a casket prior to burial), only to be found to be alive - despite a medically-signed death certificate.
You can always say, well, they were never dead, but had simply been in a coma, in a deep sleep, or what ever - but there has seldom been any evidence produced to support that alternative explanation (usually the family is too caught up in the joy for anyone to think about looking for evidence).
-
And where does their medical skill come from, Floo? Furthermore, there have been cases where someone has been buried several days after their death - a death confirmed by medics - and then been found to be alive. Similarly, people have been en-casketed (is that the correct term for bunging someone into a casket prior to burial), only to be found to be alive - despite a medically-signed death certificate.
You can always say, well, they were never dead, but had simply been in a coma, in a deep sleep, or what ever - but there has seldom been any evidence produced to support that alternative explanation (usually the family is too caught up in the joy for anyone to think about looking for evidence).
Medical skills came from several years of hard study on the part of the medics, and the contribution of modern science. I repeat no one who is really dead comes back to life. A person might be thought to be dead, but occasionally mistakes are made.
-
And where does their medical skill come from, Floo?
Talent, training and experience.
Furthermore, there have been cases where someone has been buried several days after their death - a death confirmed by medics - and then been found to be alive. Similarly, people have been en-casketed (is that the correct term for bunging someone into a casket prior to burial), only to be found to be alive - despite a medically-signed death certificate.
Details and sources please, including documentation.
You can always say, well, they were never dead, but had simply been in a coma, in a deep sleep, or what ever - but there has seldom been any evidence produced to support that alternative explanation (usually the family is too caught up in the joy for anyone to think about looking for evidence).
Again, details and sources please.
-
Fallacies... again an atheist, yourself, use a word you can neither prove or sustain in the face of the fact you deliberately ignore the overwhelming evidence of Christians healing and being healed today by the power of God.
The truth is that you ignore and cherry pick actual proof because you cannot face the fact that in todays world Christian men and women are by their actions showing Gods word to be truth.
Healing of terminal cancer and serious illness including the lame walking and blind and deaf hearing are no fallacy.
The fact if you wanted to, you can search and see the evidence for yourself. You hide, like so many behind words such a fallacy and the truth is that you deliberate ignore the evidence in the world today.
Even if given proof and even if you wanted to go and see it for yourself, meet the people and the doctors (some no Christians) the truth is you choose not to believe or look for evidence which proves you wrong.
Until you look for evidence which proves you wrong then you cannot and do not have the right to use arguments of words alone.
Because the world knows you and other atheist cannot prove your case against the reality of God working amongst his own people.
NS is an athiest?
Since when?
-
Shouldn't this thread be in religion and ethics?..............another category blunder?
-
Talent, training and experience.
I hope that those aren't the only sources, Gordon. I'd hope that any caring professional will have a love of the subject, a concern for the welfare of others - to name but two. That said, they will also need a mental capacity to learn and a probably a love of learning as well. I understand that the human brain is the least 'evolved' organ since the time that homo sapiens first appeared on earth. In fact, thousands of years after we stopped needing them , the human body includes a number of other obsolete organs.
Details and sources please, including documentation.
http://www.oddee.com/item_98718.aspx I agree that some of these could have been errors as a result of poor medical facilities - but not all.
Similarly, articles like this - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/14/waking-morgue-death-janina-kolkiewicz. I accept that may seem to be arguing that it doesn't occur, but with many of the examples, it is only assumed that they hadn't actually died - there are no references to results of tests carried out after the event. As far as I'm aware, there are no medical tests that can be used to confirm whether the person had wrongly been confirmed as dead, or had actually died and then recovered.
Again, details and sources please.
Surely it is you who ought to be producing the evidence for this point - after all, I've simply reported that there is very little, perhaps even none.
-
Hope,
...it is only assumed that they hadn't actually died...
It's also "only assumed" that leprechauns don't leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. Just out of interest, how would you propose to calculate the odds of a very small number of people misdiagnosing clinical deaths against the odds of genuine re-incarnations that flatly contradict the overwhelming juggernaut of evidence to the effect that such things do not happen?
-
I hope that those aren't the only sources, Gordon. I'd hope that any caring professional will have a love of the subject, a concern for the welfare of others - to name but two. That said, they will also need a mental capacity to learn and a probably a love of learning as well.
As I said: talent, training and experience which covers the intelligence and vocational aspects. Most I worked with, which was quite a few, were also caring people in general and in relation to their work, and bearing in mind the duration of training and acquiring post-qualification experience followed by further specialist training medics to tend to have a strong sense of vocation - but so what: there and many people in all walks of life with similar attributes and a sense of commitment. However there are also some whose qualities are less commendable.
I understand that the human brain is the least 'evolved' organ since the time that homo sapiens first appeared on earth.
On what basis is this your understanding?
In fact, thousands of years after we stopped needing them , the human body includes a number of other obsolete organs.
So what?
http://www.oddee.com/item_98718.aspx I agree that some of these could have been errors as a result of poor medical facilities - but not all.
Not much of a recommendation so surprised you bothered to post it, so on that basis I won't bother thanks. Got anything more substantive?
Similarly, articles like this - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/14/waking-morgue-death-janina-kolkiewicz. I accept that may seem to be arguing that it doesn't occur, but with many of the examples, it is only assumed that they hadn't actually died - there are no references to results of tests carried out after the event.
Did you bother to actually read this? The final paragraph opens with 'So people can be mistaken for dead' and the article notes:
In Mutora’s case it was thought that the atropine he was given by medical staff to counteract the insecticide may have made him appear dead (it slows heart rate). With Williams, meanwhile, much has been made of the fact that the coroner who pronounced him dead, Dexter Howard, was an elected official who didn’t have a medical degree, as is the case in many US states. UK coroners may also have a medical or law degree, but the difference is they don’t have the power to pronounce people dead. That is left to medically trained staff – and for good reason.
So this article is about variable or poor clinical standards - no resurrections involved.
As far as I'm aware, there are no medical tests that can be used to confirm whether the person had wrongly been confirmed as dead, or had actually died and then recovered.
It is quite simple: provided you aren't trying to portray the interval between imminent clinical death, such as via cardiac arrest, and medical intervention being successful in averting clinical death (albeit this may be temporary) then in relation to UK standards those certified as being clinically dead remain dead. I'd estimate that during the early part of my NHS career I was involved with several dozens of in-hospital deaths: there were no mistakes, and given the popularity of cremations in many cases you'd need two qualified medics to make a mistake with the same deceased person.
Had this ever happened (it didn't) it would result in an investigation given the incompetence involved with no doubt referral to professional standards people etc and of course since death certificates are legal documents there would involvement from the Registrar and as such there would be documentary evidence. If you're convinced that dead people don't stay dead then you'll need more than an opinion piece in the Guardian that is in any event about mistakes and not 'resurrections'.
Surely it is you who ought to be producing the evidence for this point - after all, I've simply reported that there is very little, perhaps even none.
Nope - it seems you raised a non-point that I punted straight back to you: if you are acknowledging there is little or no evidence why did you even bother posting as you did in the first place?
-
. . . if you are acknowledging there is little or no evidence why did you even bother posting as you did in the first place?
Sheer force of habit?
-
Hope,
It's also "only assumed" that leprechauns don't leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows.
I think Google earth would have turned up a few. Queue Hillside on revising statement and definitions to fit.
-
Just out of interest, how would you propose to calculate the odds of a very small number of people misdiagnosing clinical deaths against the odds of genuine re-incarnations that flatly contradict the overwhelming juggernaut of evidence to the effect that such things do not happen?
blue, what 'overwhelming juggernaut of evidence' would that be? It's rather like the famous 'spontaneous healing' argument that non-believers like to give when faced by examples of recoveries that have no medical explanation.
-
I think Google earth would have turned up a few. Queue Hillside on revising statement and definitions to fit.
Cue (please note correct spelling) Vlad taking things to an illogical extreme.
-
NS is an athiest?
Since when?
About the same length of time as you've been a theist. On which I can still say that if you have something in your life that gives you as much as your theism does for you, good. You are a sterling advert for your beliefs.
-
blue, what 'overwhelming juggernaut of evidence' would that be? It's rather like the famous 'spontaneous healing' argument that non-believers like to give when faced by examples of recoveries that have no medical explanation.
And the bollox continues. At what point will you just STOP?
Either prove it or shut up.
-
blue, what 'overwhelming juggernaut of evidence' would that be? It's rather like the famous 'spontaneous healing' argument that non-believers like to give when faced by examples of recoveries that have no medical explanation.
A dead person stays dead, sometimes they are thought to be dead when in reality they aren't. As for spontaneous cures, yes they do happen occasionally and no doubt science will provide the answer sooner or later. Why attribute them to a supernatural entity, which in all probability doesn't exist? If god can and does heal people in answer to prayer why doesn't it heal everyone one instead of so very few? I wait for the excuse, that god knows best!
-
If god can and does heal people in answer to prayer why doesn't it heal everyone one instead of so very few?
Have you tried asking God this question Floo?
-
Have you tried asking God this question Floo?
Have you?
-
Have you tried asking God this question Floo?
I'm tired of your inane shite now, I hope you are not in any kind of position of authority over impressionable people in the real world. As long as you confine your bollox to this forum where it's all a bit of a game where we can laugh at you and watch you squirm.
And perhaps you can admit you are just W.U.M.
go on , admit it.
-
...where we can laugh at you and watch you squirm.
Don't think I'm the one squirming somehow. More like the poster below:
I'm tired of your inane shite now
And the person who is forcing you to post here and read the posts of Christians is...
-
Don't think I'm the one squirming somehow. More like the poster below:And the person who is forcing you to post here and read the posts of Christians is...
before I answer this , please confirm your rantings are confined to this forum and not the real world
-
before I answer this , please confirm your rantings are confined to this forum and not the real world
Yes, agreed. I am naturally an optimist, but it does sadden me to think of all the millions of children in the future who will be told that 'God is true' etc before, finally, the real world, humanism, non-belief and a clear distinction between fact and fiction assumes the majority position.
-
Yes, agreed. I am naturally an optimist, but it does sadden me to think of all the millions of children in the future who will be told that 'God is true' etc before, finally, the real world, humanism, non-belief and a clear distinction between fact and fiction assumes the majority position.
The world of Susan Doris doesn't feel like the truth to me.
It seems a transient thing with any ''permanence'' borrowed from cultural Christianity.
-
Yes, agreed. I am naturally an optimist, but it does sadden me to think of all the millions of children in the future who will be told that 'God is true' etc before, finally, the real world, humanism, non-belief and a clear distinction between fact and fiction assumes the majority position.
The world of Susan Doris doesn't feel like the truth to me.
It seems a transient thing with any ''permanence'' borrowed from cultural Christianity.
And interestingly, SusanDoris' post makes exactly the same mistake as adherents of religious belief are accused of doing.
I would have expected SusanDoris to advocate the approach of presenting both sides and allowing the individual to make their own mind up. Alternatively, provide evidence to justify the stance below:
before, finally, the real world, humanism, non-belief and a clear distinction between fact and fiction assumes the majority position.
-
And interestingly, SusanDoris' post makes exactly the same mistake as adherents of religious belief are accused of doing.
I would have expected SusanDoris to advocate the approach of presenting both sides and allowing the individual to make their own mind up. Alternatively, provide evidence to justify the stance below:
Both sides?
-
SotS
There is no '
-
'BOTH SIDES'
-
Both sides?
Those that have a religious belief, and those that don't.
-
Those that have a religious belief, and those that don't.
perhaps the more ridicule you get , the closer to god you feel. Is that it , is that what's going on here?
-
perhaps the more ridicule you get , the closer to god you feel. Is that it , is that what's going on here?
No.
As I've responded to you elsewhere, the truth (or otherwise) of a statement is not affected by how much it is ridiculed. So the fact that this appears to be the only approach you have shows me that your position is not based on anything you can back up as being true (provable or even what you believe).
Maybe you could convince me otherwise? ;)
-
No.
As I've responded to you elsewhere, the truth (or otherwise) of a statement is not affected by how much it is ridiculed. So the fact that this appears to be the only approach you have shows me that your position is not based on anything you can back up as being true (provable or even what you believe).
Maybe you could convince me otherwise? ;)
I am not prepared to 'debate' with you. By doing so would imply there is value in what yo say. Until you can offer ANY EVIDENCE to support YOUR CLAIMS I shall keep up with the ridicule, if I can be bothered.
-
I am not prepared to 'debate' with you. By doing so would imply there is value in what yo say. Until you can offer ANY EVIDENCE to support YOUR CLAIMS I shall keep up with the ridicule, if I can be bothered.
If you are not prepared to debate with someone here, why should they offer anything in the knowledge that you will ignore it anyway, Walter? Remember that the majority of the evidence people of faith will offer will, of necessity, be outside the scope of the narrow physical definition of the term that folk like you insist on using.
-
Yes, agreed. I am naturally an optimist, but it does sadden me to think of all the millions of children in the future who will be told that 'God is true' etc before, finally, the real world, humanism, non-belief and a clear distinction between fact and fiction assumes the majority position.
An interesting use of the argumentum ad populum, Susan. Sadly, what is a 'majority position' today may not be tomorrow, and 'majority positions' aren't always compatible with reality.
-
If you are not prepared to debate with someone here, why should they offer anything in the knowledge that you will ignore it anyway, Walter? Remember that the majority of the evidence people of faith will offer will, of necessity, be outside the scope of the narrow physical definition of the term that folk like you insist on using.
and indeed outside of any methodology that covers these non narrow definitions since despite being asked for it hundreds of times, still nothing.
-
An interesting use of the argumentum ad populum, Susan. Sadly, what is a 'majority position' today may not be tomorrow, and 'majority positions' aren't always compatible with reality.
actually it's not an ad populum. Let's the you through this slowly. an ad pop would be because the majority think it is true, it gives it more validity. Susan Doris' post doesn't argue that - just states that she looks forward to it being in the majority.
-
If you are not prepared to debate with someone here, why should they offer anything in the knowledge that you will ignore it anyway, Walter? Remember that the majority of the evidence people of faith will offer will, of necessity, be outside the scope of the narrow physical definition of the term that folk like you insist on using.
Is there another way? if so share it with us . If you are aware of other methods of determining whether something is genuine /true /real you owe it to the world to reveal it, don't be so selfish.
-
Is there another way? if so share it with us . If you are aware of other methods of determining whether something is genuine /true /real you owe it to the world to reveal it, don't be so selfish.
Is there another way? Well, as I and others have pointed out many times, there is a sizeable 'extra-natural' element to real life - which same call the 'supernatural'. If one doesn't accept the existence of such an element, then whatever anyone says about it will simply fail to register for you.
Its rather like an aboriginal person from the middle of Australia being told about snow during the early years of the British colonisation of the continent. It simply didn't exist in their vocabulary or conceptual store.
-
Is there another way? Well, as I and others have pointed out many times, there is a sizeable 'extra-natural' element to real life - which same call the 'supernatural'. If one doesn't accept the existence of such an element, then whatever anyone says about it will simply fail to register for you.
Its rather like an aboriginal person from the middle of Australia being told about snow during the early years of the British colonisation of the continent. It simply didn't exist in their vocabulary or conceptual store.
asserted. And despite being asked for a methodoliy for it hundreds of timrs, nothing more the repeated assertion.
-
asserted. And despite being asked for a methodoliy for it hundreds of timrs, nothing more the repeated assertion.
Before you started on about methodology. I was asking philosophical materialists for the link with methodological materialism. That has not been forthcoming although it caused a lot of ''atheist shuffle''.
-
Before you started on about methodology. I was asking philosophical materialists for the link with methodological materialism. That has not been forthcoming although it caused a lot of ''atheist shuffle''.
Which philosophical materialists were you asking! Since I am not a philosophical materialist not sure of the relevance.
Of course, if you have a methodology, given I have asked you hundreds of times, it would surely be easier to prevent it rather than indulge yourself in yet another of your tedious,jejune little evasions?
-
Is there another way? Well, as I and others have pointed out many times, there is a sizeable 'extra-natural' element to real life - which same call the 'supernatural'. If one doesn't accept the existence of such an element, then whatever anyone says about it will simply fail to register for you.
Its rather like an aboriginal person from the middle of Australia being told about snow during the early years of the British colonisation of the continent. It simply didn't exist in their vocabulary or conceptual store.
You really don't get it do you . snow exists, its real and it can be proved ,even to an aboriginal person,
Supernatural, doesn't unless you can PROVE IT
-
Which philosophical materialists were you asking! Since I am not a philosophical materialist not sure of the relevance.
Of course, if you have a methodology, given I have asked you hundreds of times, it would surely be easier to prevent it rather than indulge yourself in yet another of your tedious,jejune little evasions?
Stop hanging on to my coat tails.
I've been perfectly honest with you in saying there may only be one methodology. Stop bullshitting.
-
Stop hanging on to my coat tails.
I've been perfectly honest with you in saying there may only be one methodology.
How does that help you Sane?
Why do you think slick antitheist string theorists want falsifiability out of science?
-
Stop hanging on to my coat tails.
I've been perfectly honest with you in saying there may only be one methodology. Stop bullshitting.
So currently for you, there is no supernaturalistic methodology. Hurrah, it'only taken you 6 years, 2 message boards and hundreds if not thousands of posts for you to admit it. Have a French fancy and a nice cup of tea.
-
You really don't get it do you . snow exists, its real and it can be proved ,even to an aboriginal person,
Supernatural, doesn't unless you can PROVE IT
OK. Supernatural is that which cannot possibly be proved or demonstrated by methodological naturalism.
Therefore nature is either eternal....or it popped out of an unnatural nothing. Both of these things are not demonstrable by methodological materialism therefore the supernatural has been demonstrated.....without God having been mentioned.
-
How does that help you Sane?
Why do you think slick antitheist string theorists want falsifiability out of science?
you just put this in reply to your own post. Go have that French fancy, I just suggested.
-
OK. Supernatural is that which cannot possibly be proved or demonstrated by methodological naturalism.
Therefore nature is either eternal....or it popped out of an natural nothing. Both of these things are not demonstrable by methodological materialism therefore the supernatural has been demonstrated.....without God having been mentioned.
Did you really mean to write that?
-
So currently for you, there is no supernaturalistic methodology. Hurrah, it'only taken you 6 years, 2 message boards and hundreds if not thousands of posts for you to admit it. Have a French fancy and a nice cup of tea.
No, I've said this sort of thing before.
I think I have asked you what you mean by method in the suspicion that what you really mean but wont own up to is science. I believe you have yet to give a definition of methodology which is different from science...feel free to do so now.
-
Did you really mean to write that?
Yes...any objections feel free to outline.
-
No, I've said this sort of thing before.
I think I have asked you what you mean by method in the suspicion that what you really mean but wont own up to is science. I believe you have yet to give a definition of methodology which is different from science...feel free to do so now.
What? Why are you asking me for a the methdology (set of methods) to validate your claim?
-
It's Vlad showing his mastery of the tu quoque.
-
Yes...any objections feel free to outline.
you give two possibilities which you then say because neither can be shown to be to true are, both not true. That is logically incoherent. You then claim that your logical incoherence means that a third possibility is true - a further logical incoherence. That third possibility is given no definition so isn't even basically coherent.
-
It's Vlad showing his mastery of the tu quoque.
don't think it is a tu quoque. I just think it makes no sense.
-
What? Why are you asking me for a the methdology (set of methods) to validate your claim?
No I'm asking you what constitutes a valid methodology for you...What would an acceptable methodology look like (as if we don't already know)
-
you give two possibilities which you then say because neither can be shown to be to true are, both not true. That is logically incoherent. You then claim that your logical incoherence means that a third possibility is true - a further logical incoherence. That third possibility is given no definition so isn't even basically coherent.
I never say both are not true..I say one has to be true but both are supernatural feel free to come up with a natural explanation.
Oh I can see another explanation...but darn it that's supernatural as well.
-
I never say both are not true..I say one has to be true but both are supernatural.
can you point me somewhere where the definition in your line
'Supernatural is that which cannot possibly be proved or demonstrated by methodological naturalism' is agreed?
-
No I'm asking you what constitutes a valid methodology for you...What would an acceptable methodology look like (as if we don't already know)
it would look like an set of methods which intra subjectively we could look to validate claims with no assumption of natural causes.
-
it would look like an set of methods which intra subjectively we could look to validate claims with no assumption of natural causes.
In English please.
-
OK. Supernatural is that which cannot possibly be proved or demonstrated by methodological naturalism.
Therefore nature is either eternal....or it popped out of an unnatural nothing. Both of these things are not demonstrable by methodological materialism therefore the supernatural has been demonstrated.....without God having been mentioned.
Is math supernatural?
-
In English please.
Not sure what you are not getting. A methodology is a set of methods. People make claims, but in order to validate them for more than just them, I.e. to achieve inter subjectivity we agree on a set of assumptions. Naturalistic methodology, which is more than just science, it applies in law, history and linguistics amongst others, assumes natural cause and effect! For a non natural claim, we cannot not make that assumption.
-
Not sure what you are not getting. A methodology is a set of methods. People make claims, but in order to validate them for more than just them, I.e. to achieve inter subjectivity we agree on a set of assumptions. Naturalistic methodology, which is more than just science, it applies in law, history and linguistics amongst others, assumes natural cause and effect! For a non natural claim, we cannot not make that assumption.
How does it apply to law, history and linguistics. If the Lord appeared streaking across the sky scientists might try to shoehorn it, law would rely on witness, history would be forced to record it and linguistics would have to establish a new vocabulary or borrow from religion...I think you are putting to great a stock in methodological naturalism.
I understand methodological naturalism to be science...the study of the property and dynamics of the physical.....and I think you do too.
-
Is math supernatural?
Since there is maths which isn't embodied in our universe then ......maybe.
-
OK. Supernatural is that which cannot possibly be proved or demonstrated by methodological naturalism.
Therefore nature is either eternal....or it popped out of an unnatural nothing. Both of these things are not demonstrable by methodological materialism therefore the supernatural has been demonstrated.....without God having been mentioned.
just to let you know
I still pity you , have a nice day
-
How does it apply to law, history and linguistics. If the Lord appeared streaking across the sky scientists might try to shoehorn it, law would rely on witness, history would be forced to record it and linguistics would have to establish a new vocabulary or borrow from religion...I think you are putting to great a stock in methodological naturalism.
I understand methodological naturalism to be science...the study of the property and dynamics of the physical.....and I think you do too.
They are all carried out on an assumption of naturalism. That's why when I was evaluating in my history essay things about JC, Julius Caesar, that I didn't write about the chances he was descended from Venus, though i did about whether the crossing of the Rubicon happened. It's why when writing about delict, I didn't have to write about whether someone magically placed a snail in a lemonade bottle, but rather where the responsibility for the snail getting in the bottle in a naturalistic fashion lay. It's why in linguistics, I had to write about the likelihood of words being passed down rather than being the words of angels.
-
just to let you know
I still pity you , have a nice day
Thank you............would there be any monetary consideration allied to that sense of pity by any chance?
-
They are all carried out on an assumption of naturalism. That's why when I was evaluating in my history essay things about JC, Julius Caesar, that I didn't write about the chances he was descended from Venus, though i did about whether the crossing of the Rubicon happened. It's why when writing about delict, I didn't have to write about whether someone magically placed a snail in a lemonade bottle, but rather where the responsibility for the snail getting in the bottle in a naturalistic fashion lay. It's why in linguistics, I had to write about the likelihood of words being passed down rather than being the words of angels.
Come of it...You and I know there are a million approaches to history. One chooses the perspective one writes from.
Methodological naturalism is science and the operation of that becomes less certain and focussed the further you get from pure science......... so sayeth Chomsky....and he is one of your lot.
-
Come of it...You and I know there are a million approaches to history. One chooses the perspective one writes from.
Methodological naturalism is science and the operation of that becomes less certain and focussed the further you get from pure science......... so sayeth Chomsky....and he is one of your lot.
How we study history, do law or linguistics are all methodological naturalistic. You have missed the point of what Chomsky is saying which is about accuracy, not about them being naturalist in approach.
-
How we study history, do law or linguistics are all methodological naturalistic. You have missed the point of what Chomsky is saying which is about accuracy, not about them being naturalist in approach.
Methodological naturalism is science, Nearly Sane. How does science come into ,say, a history of philosophy or religion? or 'great men'. Would history, law and linguistics shut down after the second coming(careful now...problem of induction and all that)? Does history finally state that the resurrection never happened (does science for that matter?)
Any way, while you argue that all study is basically science, I still don't know what you are taking to be ''method''.
-
How we study history, do law or linguistics are all methodological naturalistic. You have missed the point of what Chomsky is saying which is about accuracy, not about them being naturalist in approach.
How we study history is a choice, how we do law is on witness, philosophy and religion are or have their own linguistic framework.
-
Methodological naturalism is science, Nearly Sane. How does science come into ,say, a history of philosophy or religion? or 'great men'. Would history, law and linguistics shut down after the second coming(careful now...problem of induction and all that)? Does history finally state that the resurrection never happened (does science for that matter?)
Any way, while you argue that all study is basically science, I still don't know what you are taking to be ''method''.
No, methodological naturalism is a set of methods based on an assumption of natural cause and effects. We carry out the study of history and linguistics, the discipline of law based on methods with the assumption of natural cause and effects. I'm not saying history is science.
-
How we study history is a choice, how we do law is on witness, philosophy and religion are or have their own linguistic framework.
and all the choices I know of are based on the assumption of natural cause and effect. Do you have ones that aren't?
-
and all the choices I know of are based on the assumption of natural cause and effect. Do you have ones that aren't?
How about the history of the universe?....is it eternal or does it pop up by itself out of nothing or is it all a no go area because history is methodological naturalism?
-
How about the history of the universe?....is it eternal or does it pop up by itself out of nothing or is it all a no go area because history is methodological naturalism?
what is this 'nothing' you speak of?
-
what is this 'nothing' you speak of?
A good question....is it a 'physicists' nothing. Something with the ability to change AKA Something.(for the rest of us with our noses sufficiently far away from the problem)......or is it Nix, Nada, nothing, the genuine and ultimate non-article?
-
How about the history of the universe?....is it eternal or does it pop up by itself out of nothing or is it all a no go area because history is methodological naturalism?
So that would be a no. Plus a begging the question fallacy, and showing ignorance of how what history is as it is studied. If you want to engage, I suggest you read posts, rather than just returning to some random answer.
I really don't understand why you waste your time on this schtick. Your much better sticking to the experience schtick.
-
So that would be a no. Plus a begging the question fallacy, and showing ignorance of how what history is as it is studied. If you want to engage, I suggest you read posts, rather than just returning to some random answer.
I really don't understand why you waste your time on this schtick.
No, If History is methodological naturalistic how can it adequately describe the history of the universe since it has supernatural ontology?
How history is studied is down to choice.
There is as you so pointed out the problem of induction so what has history to say about an intra subjective global supernatural occurance? Answer....it would report it.
-
No, If History is methodological naturalistic how can it adequately describe the history of the universe since it has supernatural ontology?
How history is studied is down to choice.
There is as you so pointed out the problem of induction so what has history to say about an intra subjective global supernatural occurance? Answer....it would report it.
So how do you choose to study history in a non naturalist way? His dies it establish a supernatural occurrence? That would be back at your methodology that you have admitted you don't have.
And I note further begging the question in your first sentence.
-
No, If History is methodological naturalistic how can it adequately describe the history of the universe since it has supernatural ontology?
How history is studied is down to choice.
There is as you so pointed out the problem of induction so what has history to say about an intra subjective global supernatural occurance? Answer....it would report it.
do you feel my pity? its real, its strong, can you see it , can you measure it?
-
No, If History is methodological naturalistic how can it adequately describe the history of the universe since it has supernatural ontology?
How history is studied is down to choice.
There is as you so pointed out the problem of induction so what has history to say about an intra subjective global supernatural occurance? Answer....it would report it.
Well, historians seem to report that people believed (and believe) in the resurrection, but I've never seen one who would factually report it as an event. That would be like reporting that Caesar was a god, and not simply that people believed it.
-
Well, historians seem to report that people believed (and believe) in the resurrection, but I've never seen one who would factually report it as an event. That would be like reporting that Caesar was a god, and not simply that people believed it.
History, that line from The History Boys puts it into perspective for me.
-
Well, historians seem to report that people believed (and believe) in the resurrection, but I've never seen one who would factually report it as an event. That would be like reporting that Caesar was a god, and not simply that people believed it.
Yes but here's the point. The jesus mythers put forward a history in which jesus does not even exist. Some also argue that it couldn't have happened because naturalism rules against it. I would argue that the former group are putting forward a history but the latter group are not.
Opposing the Jesus myth historians are the historians who produced the New Testament account.
Now how are we to judge these historians? By their history or by their naturalism.
How also would history, and I've asked this a couple of times, treat an intersubjective event not explicable by methodological naturalism?
Would it pack up it's tools and throw it's hands up? or would it report it?
If history is done as methodological naturalism that is a choice rather than a necessity....and one has immediately switched in any case from methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism.
History has no necessary commitment to methodological naturalism...unlike science which actually is methodological naturalism.
-
Yes but here's the point. The jesus mythers put forward a history in which jesus does not even exist. Some also argue that it couldn't have happened because naturalism rules against it. I would argue that the former group are putting forward a history but the latter group are not.
Opposing the Jesus myth historians are the historians who produced the New Testament account.
Now how are we to judge these historians? By their history or by their naturalism.
How also would history, and I've asked this a couple of times, treat an intersubjective event not explicable by methodological materialism?
Would it pack up it's tools and throw it's hands up? or would it report it?
If history is done as methodological materialism that is a choice rather than a necessity....and one has immediately switched in any case from methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism.
History has no necessary commitment to methodological materialism...unlike science which actually is methodological naturalism.
. Since you have admitted that you do not have a methodology that is non naturalistic, no one can choose such a methodology.
-
. Since you have admitted that you do not have a methodology that is non naturalistic, no one can choose such a methodology.
eh?
I think you've entered the realms of scientism Nearly Sane but don't want to admit it.
But what you have shown is that when you say the word method you really mean science.
You also seem to be saying that things only exist because of methodology. So science is the creator for you then.
-
eh?
I think you've entered the realms of scientism Nearly Sane but don't want to admit it.
But what you have shown is that when you say the word method you really mean science.
You also seem to be saying that things only exist because of methodology. So science is the creator for you then.
pity, pity, pity
-
eh?
I think you've entered the realms of scientism Nearly Sane but don't want to admit it.
But what you have shown is that when you say the word method you really mean science.
You also seem to be saying that things only exist because of methodology. So science is the creator for you then.
I hope it is raining where you are Vlad (as it is here) - that is a lot of straw you have there, so be please careful with any naked flames.
-
eh?
I think you've entered the realms of scientism Nearly Sane but don't want to admit it.
But what you have shown is that when you say the word method you really mean science.
You also seem to be saying that things only exist because of methodology. So science is the creator for you then.
Ignore what I say and then make up something else is rather a pathetic tactic, Vlad.
I have continually asked you for a methodology to examine super naturalistic claims. You have admitted you don't have one. Therefore there can be no such methodology to be 'chosen' to study history.
-
Ignore what I say and then make up something else is rather a pathetic tactic, Vlad.
I have continually asked you for a methodology to examine super naturalistic claims. You have admitted you don't have one. Therefore there can be no such methodology to be 'chosen' to study history.
I think Walter put his finger on it by pointing out the ''one fucking thing after another''ness of history. What if one of those things is supernatural?
History has no necessary commitment to yours or any other definition of methodological naturalism but has a commitment to report events....whatever their ''fucking'' providence.
-
I think Walter put his finger on it by pointing out the ''one fucking thing after another''ness of history. What if one of those things is supernatural?
History has no necessary commitment to yours or any other definition of methodological naturalism but has a commitment to report events....whatever their ''fucking'' providence.
Why are you confusing the study of history here with anything that happens? You have claimed that one chooses his to study history but have agreed that there is no methodology that covers non naturalistically events.
Everything could be non naturalistic, you just have no methodology to identify them as being so.
-
I think Walter put his finger on it by pointing out the ''one fucking thing after another''ness of history. What if one of those things is supernatural?
How could you tell it is supernatural?
-
How could you tell it is supernatural?
Vlad has told us that he has no such methodology to do so, so he has openly stated he can't.
-
Vlad has told us that he has no such methodology to do so, so he has openly stated he can't.
In which case Vlad is flying a kite and hoping nobody will notice, which isn't very sensible of Vlad bearing in mind that he is the one holding onto the string.
-
Vlad has told us that he has no such methodology to do so, so he has openly stated he can't.
No I didn't I agreed with you that there is no methodology for assessing supernatural claims not for establishing the supernatural i.e. anything that that cannot, rather than is not, explained by methodological naturalism.
I think I've stated that either the beginning of history or the alternative the eternality of history are supernatural situations or supernatural facts....or are you now suggesting that methodological naturalistic history generates events?
-
No I didn't I agreed with you that there is no methodology for assessing supernatural claims not for establishing the supernatural i.e. anything that that cannot, rather than is not, explained by methodological naturalism.
I think I've stated that either the beginning of history or the alternative the eternality of history are supernatural situations or supernatural facts....or are you now suggesting that methodological naturalistic history generates events?
assessing/establishing here seem synonyms which makes your sentence meaningless. Please expand.
-
In which case Vlad is flying a kite and hoping nobody will notice, which isn't very sensible of Vlad bearing in mind that he is the one holding onto the string.
Well Gordon.....while Nearly Sane is checking his definitions of philosophical naturalism, methodological naturalism and History I will be consulting ,much against my will, my beloved sister in law who has a PhD in history and now teaches it. If she backs up Nearly sane I will consider conceding....and you can hold on to the kite.
-
assessing/establishing here seem synonyms which makes your sentence meaningless. Please expand.
I have shown that the supernatural can be established. We could not say whether it is God X or God Y using science. But you will see that the method for establishing the supernatural is when it is beyond the perview of science.
Now are you saying that nothing is beyond the perview of science or what?
-
No I didn't I agreed with you that there is no methodology for assessing supernatural claims not for establishing the supernatural i.e. anything that that cannot, rather than is not, explained by methodological naturalism.
Then you need to tell us how you'd identify the supernatural when you've just said you have no method for doing so - you are contradicting yourself.
I think I've stated that either the beginning of history or the alternative the eternality of history are supernatural situations or supernatural facts....or are you now suggesting that methodological naturalistic history generates events?
Then tell us how you could ever hope demonstrate these supernatural facts or situations when you also say you've no method of doing so. You seem to have painted yourself into a corner, where your only option is surely to concede that belief in the 'supernatural' is solely a faith position.
-
I have shown that the supernatural can be established. We could not say whether it is God X or God Y using science. But you will see that the method for establishing the supernatural is when it is beyond the perview of science.
Now are you saying that nothing is beyond the perview of science or what?
No, you have asserted it by means of a definition that you appear to have made up. I think there are tons of things science doesn't cover. And under I've written that before many times directly to you.
One of the things beyond the purview of science is what I had for breakfast on this day last year. Are you stating that is 'supernatural'?
-
I have shown that the supernatural can be established.
You haven't: you've only demonstrated that you'd like it to be true.
We could not say whether it is God X or God Y using science. But you will see that the method for establishing the supernatural is when it is beyond the perview of science.
Now are you saying that nothing is beyond the perview of science or what?
That science has its limits isn't disputed, so if we put science to one side what alternatives do you have?
-
Then you need to tell us how you'd identify the supernatural when you've just said you have no method for doing so - you are contradicting yourself.
Which frankly is a small thing compared with having established the supernatural beginning or eternality of the universe. However let me make myself clear once again.
The supernatural can be established when the natural is eliminated....if that is a method then so be it.
I don't expect you to get ''moist'' over anything above or beyond a theist supposedly being ''sussed'' Gordon but for those here for les questions important.........
-
That science has its limits isn't disputed, so if we put science to one side what alternatives do you have?
You tell me, if your not a scientismatist.
First of all you can be a proper historian, philosopher, lawyer, linguist, artist instead of trying to be a scientist manqué.
-
Which frankly is a small thing compared with having established the supernatural beginning or eternality of the universe. However let me make myself clear once again.
The supernatural can be established when the natural is eliminated....if that is a method then so be it.
I don't expect you to get ''moist'' over anything above or beyond a theist supposedly being ''sussed'' Gordon but for those here for les questions important.........
It's like Sherlock Hol-locks!
-
You haven't: you've only demonstrated that you'd like it to be true.
wrong on two counts read this and then tell me two things:
1: What the naturalistic alternative is?
2: There is anything in it which specifically says Vlad likes this to be true.
1: Nature is either created (A supernatural event not penetrable by science) or
2: It popped up out of nothing ( a supernatural event not penetrable by science) or
3: Nature is eternal and has no cause ( a supernatural state not penetrable by science)
-
Which frankly is a small thing compared with having established the supernatural beginning or eternality of the universe. However let me make myself clear once again.
The supernatural can be established when the natural is eliminated....if that is a method then so be it.
I don't expect you to get ''moist'' over anything above or beyond a theist supposedly being ''sussed'' Gordon but for those here for les questions important.........
Desperate stuff, Vlad - perhaps you should stop digging.
-
Desperate stuff, Vlad - perhaps you should stop digging.
Then it should be easy for you to come up with a naturalistic alternative explantion for the sudden appearance or eternality of nature which doesn't stink of scientism.......oh, I see you haven't.
-
wrong on two counts read this and then tell me two things:
1: What the naturalistic alternative is?
2: There is anything in it which specifically says Vlad likes this to be true.
1. To what?
2. Vlad does seem exceedingly keen on 'supernatural' but exceedingly secretive in explaining how he knows anything about it: good at flag-waving for the cause but provides no detail.
1: Nature is either created (A supernatural event not penetrable by science) or
2: It popped up out of nothing ( a supernatural event not penetrable by science) or
3: Nature is eternal and has no cause ( a supernatural state not penetrable by science)
You missed, 4: Don't know, but we'll keep looking into it.
-
Then it should be easy for you to come up with a naturalistic alternative explantion for the sudden appearance or eternality of nature which doesn't stink of scientism.......oh, I see you haven't.
Shifting the burden, Vlad, assisted no doubt by some of your straw men - kinda obvious even for you.
-
1. To what?
2. Vlad does seem exceedingly keen on 'supernatural' but exceedingly secretive in explaining how he knows anything about it: good at flag-waving for the cause but provides no detail.
You missed, 4: Don't know, but we'll keep looking into it.
How can science look into the nothing or no cause out of which nature popped.....or the eternity of nature?
Dunno as an answer?.......I don't think so. Would it wash on university challenge.....I don't think so. Is it even naturalistic?....
And do you really mean dunno?.....Don't you mean Dunno but we know it isn't supernatural?.......and you accuse me of wanting a particular answer.
-
How can science look into the nothing or no cause out of which nature popped.....or the eternity of nature?
Dunno as an answer?.......I don't think so. Would it wash on university challenge.....I don't think so. Is it even naturalistic?....
And do you really mean dunno?.....Don't you mean Dunno but we know it isn't supernatural?.......and you accuse me of wanting a particular answer.
'Don't know' is perhaps the only reasonable answer in the absence of current knowledge: better that being distracted by deepities such as 'the eternity of nature'.
-
'Don't know' is perhaps the only reasonable answer in the absence of current knowledge: better that being distracted by deepities such as 'the eternity of nature'.
It isn't a deepity.
All it means is that the universe has been around forever and has no creator. That's pretty straight forward.
It's clear that i've engaged with someone who has been arguing but hasn't a clue what the argument is?
''Don't know is perhaps the only reasonable answer'' is a deepity though.
-
It isn't a deepity.
All it means is that the universe has been around forever and has no creator. That's pretty straight forward.
Super: surely your Nobel will be in the post directly.
It's clear that i've engaged with someone who has been arguing but hasn't a clue what the argument is?
I haven't a clue about your argument since once we get beyond the deepities, along with your well-worn phrases, you conveniently forget to tell us how we can spot this supernatural stuff,
''Don't know is perhaps the only reasonable answer'' is a deepity though.
Not really - it just means 'don't know', which isn't unduly profound when used to indicate not knowing stuff.
-
Super: surely your Nobel will be in the post directly.
I haven't a clue about your argument since once we get beyond the deepities, along with your well-worn phrases, you conveniently forget to tell us how we can spot this supernatural stuff,
Not really - it just means 'don't know', which isn't unduly profound when used to indicate not knowing stuff.
You should have stopped at ''I haven't a clue'' since that is the only thing that is ''safe'' about your post.
-
You should have stopped at ''I haven't a clue'' since that is the only thing that is ''safe'' about your post.
what's wrong with your thinking that allows you to continue like this?
-
what's wrong with your thinking that allows you to continue like this?
Vassler, Are you suggesting there is something wrong with my thinking?
-
Vassler, Are you suggesting there is something wrong with my thinking?
No, I've already come to that conclusion ,I just want you to tell me what it is