Gabriella,
Because it’s not a mistake. What he said (Reply 27831) was:
"But I can find no arguments to support the existence of leprechauns, but overwhelming evidence for the existence of God."
So far as he’s concerned, praying for an event then that event happening is objective evidence for god. You might not think it is, but that’s his claim nonetheless.
Are you claiming to be a mind reader? Because I can't find the word "objective" in AB's reply. I see the word "evidence" and the word "overwhelming" but maybe you can point out where the word "objective" appears - did the word "objective" transfer from AB's mind to your mind and bypassed the forum altogether?
That his experience of praying and his prayers being answered gives him the impression or is evidence for him for his concept of God, does not make it objective evidence that has been investigated and tested.
Because you’re wrong again - you’re confusing “as if” truths with epistemic “definitely is” truths. AB (and others) think their various faith claims (“god” etc) are categorical facts about the world rather than just beliefs that inform the way they live their lives. In other words, he thinks that his god is necessarily therefore my god too.
Nope, you're wrong again. The key word in your sentence "AB (and others) think their various faith claims (“god” etc) are categorical facts about the world" is "think".
Thinking or accepting it to be true without objective evidence is a belief. Establishing it to be true makes it a fact, until new evidence proves an alternative fact. So if you could provide a link to AB saying he has evidence of the objective kind to prove God a fact, I would be happy to take a look
Wrong again. I asked you why you’d introduced forensics into the conversation. You said that you hadn’t. I explained that you had, and why. You then said that your denial referred only to one specific definition of the term. As I first raised the term though, then the primary meaning I intended stands. QED
Which bit are you asserting (as usual without evidence) to be wrong? Are you asserting that I didn't say in #27495 "can you refer me to the post where I introduced forensics into the conversation as I thought I had been talking about testimony as evidence that other people may/may not find credible, so not sure what I am supposed to have said about forensics."
Or are you asserting, without evidence, that I didn't say further on (#27536) that I was talking about testimony and wasn't referring to forensics?
You then explained that you were using meaning 1 of the Merriem-Webster online dictionary for "forensics" and I explained that I was using meaning 3 in the Merriem-Webster definition and meaning 1 of the Oxford online dictionary and the Cambridge online dictionary, and thanked you for clarifying which meaning you were using. The evidence for this statement is in #27564.
So, we have my evidence for my statements on the forum in the replies I have provided numbers for. Over to you for your evidence for your assertions. By the way, you failed to explain what was dishonest about me explaining I had assumed a different dictionary meaning from you in my responses. Perhaps you can explain why you called it dishonest. The only explanation I can come up with is that you don't understand the meaning of the word "dishonest". Or a possible explanation is that you like to throw out accusations in the hope of distracting us from your failure to provide evidence to support your assertions. It doesn't work.
Oh, and the irony of “you really don't seem to understand some of the words you use” is clearly lost on you here – the meaning was precisely as I and the dictionary intended it to be - ie, "related to court proceedings".
Please explain the irony part. Are you claiming that it's impossible for you to misuse a word, simply because you understood the meaning of "forensics" when you used it? It's perfectly possible you understood how to correctly use "forensics" in a sentence but got yourself into problems understanding how to correctly use the word "dishonestly".
As we both know that that’s not true, why bother with it? I even found AB’s quote in a subsequent Reply, albeit that you ignored it (see above).
As we both know you have yet to find a quote where AB said he had objective evidence, why are you still pretending you have justified your assertions?
Your other trick is to demand evidence when the truths are axiomatic: advertising works (that’s why there’s a big industry doing it); there’s no special reason for religion to be exempt from that principle; declining “sales” isn’t evidence of an exemption (some products are just unsellable) etc. Demanding then evidence that advertising works for religion as it does for anything else is just shifting the burden of proof. If you think that for some reason religion isn’t advertising apt, it’s your job to explain why.
Your trick is to assert that advertising works as an argument for a conclusion you have reached about religious privilege, and keep blustering about how you don't need to provide evidence to justify your claim when you are challenged, in the hope that if you repeat it enough times the person challenging your assertion will just give up. It won't work. It's your job to justify your claim in relation to religion - your claim, your burden of proof.
By the way, the existence of a big advertising industry is not evidence for a claim that advertising works in a particular situation. I explained where you went wrong before - to know if something has worked in a particular situation, you need to prove it with metrics, by identifying the organisation's goals, identifying KPIs that can be used to monitor if those goals have been reached and identify and investigate any variances. Sensible people don't just assume it has worked.
Nice straw man there. No-one said that it does claim that science does that. In fact it just skips that bit and goes straight to “it’s factually true”. Apparently as true as the earth orbiting the sun and germs causing diseases.
Which page number and paragraph in the document does it state this? Or is this another one of your claims that you can't evidence?
You might think that science is “the only method we currently have for proving objective fact” (your terminology is askew by the way – science doesn’t claim to “prove” anything, but rather to provides tentative models that are in principle falsifiable), but the point is that the RCs it seems don’t – and so they teach their “facts” without it.
I see them teaching beliefs. The evidence for this is that the document is about Religious Education and religion is a belief or faith system, hence it is an education about a particular belief. If you want quotes from the document it says on page 3 (or page 6 of the PDF), para 4 "Religious Education has developed in a way that reflects the particular identity of our Catholic schools in England and Wales. It teaches about
the faith in the context of a school which proclaims the Gospel, and invites the individual to respond to the message of Christ...." (my emphasis).
Your turn. All you have provided here is your belief that they are somehow teaching facts without objective evidence, though you seem at a loss to explain how you are categorising their beliefs as "facts" as opposed to their faith.
I have. That and logic.
Nope - you've provided your assertions and opinions. While interesting, other opinions are available.
To the contrary, if someone actually did engage with the arguments rather than endlessly distract, divert, prevaricate, put up straw men etc I’d be happy to respond in kind. Very few religious believers here seem willing or able to do that though – not sure why.
Interesting opinion - others are available.
See above. I quoted him just a few posts after the one you replied to. Perhaps you missed it?
His quote does not contain the word "objective". Try again.
