Gabriella,
Briefly:
You’re terribly confused. He thinks he has objectively true evidence because the claim he thinks this (supposed) evidence (supposedly) validates is an objectively true one – ie, he thinks that its validating “god” for him means it must also therefore validate the same god for me if only I’d realise it.
Nope, you're confused. He says in #27383 that his evidence "is not just personal faith - it is also based on a lifetime of experiences and seeing how God works through other people."
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.27375Reads to me as if he is expecting you to believe God as fact if you open yourself to the same experiences he has had e.g. of seeing how God works through other people. If you have a post to quote, where he says that it's not just faith or experience but he has objective/ testable evidence, then by all means let's see the post.
You’re embarrassing yourself now. He “thinks” his god is my god in just the same way that I “think” the earth orbiting the sun is as true for him as it is for me. That his confidence in his supposed evidence is entirely misplaced is neither here no there – that’s his claim nonetheless.
No, you're embarrassing yourself now. We already know he thinks his god is true - we were discussing whether he has claimed to have objective evidence for what he thinks to be true.
You got something wrong and I corrected it. You know as well as I do that when I said “forensics’ you thought it meant, “to do with bodies and stuff” or similar (there’s no shame in that by the way – most people do) and so you denied it without bothering to look it up. When I explained that it could just mean “concerning court proceedings” so used it correctly, you then dissembled into denying one secondary definition of it as if that in some way invalidated what I’d said.
Rather than keep twisting the wind about this with ever more convoluted post rationalisations why not just accept it and move on?
I ask you to back up specific statements and assertions you made with evidence, and I get this waffle instead and zero evidence. Pretty much what I expected from you.
And you know as well as I do that you have no evidence to dispute that I was querying what I had said about "forensics" based on me using a different dictionary definition of "forensics" from you. You know as well as I do that the dictionary definition I was using was meaning 3 in your preferred online dictionary, which says "relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems" or meaning 1 of the Oxford English dictionary "Relating to or denoting the application of scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of crime." You're absolutely right on one thing though, there is no shame in assuming a different dictionary definition from the one you were using until you clarified the definition that you were using, and then thanking you for clarifying your intended meaning and agreeing that I was using a different meaning from you. But by all means carry on making yourself look ridiculous by repeatedly demonstrating that you can't support your narratives with any actual evidence or quotes.
This is bonkers. It was ironic because you accused me of not understanding a word I’d used when in fact I’d used it perfectly correctly.
Yes it must be tiresome for you, constantly being challenged about what you post on a debate forum rather than people just agreeing with you. By the way, I said you didn't understand the meaning of the word "dishonest". If you think you used the term correctly, by all means provide the evidence of my alleged dishonesty.
Stop digging – see above. AB thinks he has objective evidence for an objectively true god. If he thought he had only subjective evidence for his personal belief “god”, then he couldn’t make the claim. Repeatedly telling me that he can’t have objective evidence is neither here nor there – that’s what he thinks he has, however daft his position.
Stop digging yourself- it's pretty simple - if AB has claimed that he has objective evidence you will be able to provide the evidence.
Why are you doing this to yourself? If you think that for some mysterious reason advertising works for all goods and services except for religion, then it’s your job to explain why it’s the exception. Until you do, there’s no reason to think otherwise. (You might also by the way want to explain your thinking to the US evangelicals in particular who spend $ms on it every year.)
Why are you doing this to yourself? I've already explained that I think advertising only works if there are metrics to prove it has worked - must be the accountant in me needing KPIs rather than believing assertions about financials when it comes to organisations. You're the one making generalisations and seeking to apply it to every situation - your claim about the impact of CofE privilege, your burden of proof.
It’s been evidenced already. If you can’t or won’t read it, that’s not my problem.
So you keep claiming. Where is this evidence? Quote from RC document, page number, paragraph number, explanation of your interpretation of the quote?
Oh dear. What it thinks is that its beliefs are objectively true facts about the world. It doesn’t think, “God exists, but only for RCs” or similar, and it thinks this presumably because it also thinks “faith” is a reliable means of identifying these supposedly objectively true facts about the world.
Kind of pointless to believe your beliefs are not true.
Your claim though was the RC document is evidence that RC schools are teaching beliefs as facts. So over to you for the evidence to back up this claim. Quote, Page number, paragraph number, explanation of your interpretation of the quote?
You can dissemble and obfuscate about this as much as you like, but that’s what they claim. That you and I might think the claim to be utter rowlocks is neither here nor there – that’s the claim nonetheless, which is why it teaches these things precisely as facts to the pupils who attend its schools.
Evidence? Quote, page number, paragraph number.... you know the drill.
Unless you finally manage actually to engage with the reasoning that undoes you, this is not something you can know to be the case.
Time for your nap I think.
Your opinion that you have presented any reasoning that undoes me is noted. Other opinions are available. By the way, thanks for your thoughtful suggestion of a nap but don't worry I have plenty of energy to keep discussing this with you. But you take a nap if you feel you need one before continuing the discussion.
Nor does it say, “and this evidence is written on a piece of paper”. There’s no need to try again as it’s a slam dunk in any case – see above variously.
Oh don't worry - I will be happy to keep going - as the slam dunk is just your wildly optimistic hope rather than reality.
