Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Evidence is just an 'admin task'. Hmmm...

When the evidence concerns only whether I can support a contention rather than whether the contention is true, yes. If, say, I were to produce a string of posts that showed him to have said what I recall he said he would be able to say, "yes that does indeed support what you say" while at no point needing to concern himself with whether it falsifies a claim of denial he's made. Why? Because he's made no such denial. Until he does, proving he said it is irrelevant.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

When the evidence concerns only whether I can support a contention rather than whether the contention is true, yes. If, say, I were to produce a string of posts that showed him to have said what I recall he said he would be able to say, "yes that does indeed support what you say" while at no point needing to concern himself with whether it falsifies a claim of denial he's made. Why? Because he's made no such denial. Until he does, proving he said it is irrelevant.   

Lots of word to evade providing evidence for your claim

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Lots of word to evade providing evidence for your claim

OK, so you don't get it. With a bit of luck, Vlad does though. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

OK, so you don't get it. With a bit of luck, Vlad does though.

I get you are not providing evidence

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not at all, and I've no idea why you infer that from what I asked. All I wanted to know was a little more about your upbringing, because I think it is relevant to people who claim not to have been religious and then suddenly to become so. Typically you'll find these people actually had a religious upbringing and therefore while they may have rebelled for a while are really returning to their upbringing 'norm' (so to speak) rather than suddenly turing to a religion that had never been part of their lives before.

You really won't let an explanation get in the way of your thesis. In the sixties if you were in the village of course the church was there in the background and people who never went did send there children there. Even though they did not take religion seriously themselves. It sounds like you are putting through a weird fallacy only truly religious parents send their kids to sunday school

Thanks for the information.

which you will no doubt go ahead and ignore since it is not in line with your thesis.

Really - regardless of the generation and location I think it has only ever been the 'done thing' to go to sunday school for the children of parents who are bringing up their children to be religious. How old are you Vlad - I thought you were broadly of my generation - and certainly my experience was that sunday school was there for the kids of religious parents. There was nothing close to a universal expectation that all kids should go to sunday school. But then I went to a non religious school. Perhaps you can tell us whether your parents chose to send you to a faith school or a non faith school.

Was my description of my parents as average, belief that there might be something there, religious people are odd not good enough for you? They sent me to the local school, my parents not having there own car until 1964, which was a Cof E primary which everyone in the village went to and then to a non religious school.

I'll stop you there - I think the number of kids being brought up as atheists is vanishingly small. Sure children may be brought up by atheist parents, and religion won't feature in those households, but that is not the same as bringing children up as atheist.

So you are happy to say that people are religious because of any old vague cultural contact with religion but atheists are not atheists because of their upbringing by atheists?
 If you went to a non religious school what then is your experience of Cof E schools? I went to a Cof E primary but a non religious secondary.
It sounds that your experience is limited, your information anecdotal. Was it a town you brought up in? To believe that sunday schools were just used by religious parents in the style of Islamic religious schools is just extremely naive, that and your evident stupefactionl that parents could send their kids to sunday school for a bit of peace and quiet leads me to believe that your life experience is not broad enough to comment on certain matters.

I'm afraid that because of your offensive garbage you are now further down the league than even Hillside.


 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

OK, so you don't get it. With a bit of luck, Vlad does though.

Hi Hillside........ how's the bumper portfolio of classic turdpolishes coming on?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

Hi Hillside........ how's the bumper portfolio of classic turdpolishes coming on?

You deny saying, I'll look for evidence that you did (which no doubt you'll ignore as you have every other time you've been caught out with citations). What's the problem?

[Nearly Sane]

Pidge,

You deny saying, I'll look for evidence that you did (which no doubt you'll ignore as you have every other time you've been caught out with citations). What's the problem?

That you have not provided evidence for your claim?

[Gordon]

Now I would be interested to know who here was brought up as an atheist and dragged by their parents down to the Headshrinkers if they showed the slightest interest in religion?

I would kind of qualify, expect that your characterisation doesn't really apply.

I was brought up in a family without religion but not by an 'atheist' family: it was just the case that religion was simply irrelevant and so, for example, I wasn't christened, and none of my children or grandchildren have been either. Discussions about the merits or otherwise of religion vs atheism were absent primarily because it never mattered, so the notion that I was somehow deliberately exposed to 'atheism' would be wrong in my case. Religion, for me, was a background activity that affected others, but not me.

I only ever encountered religious activity at school, but I was exempted from hymns/prayers/services etc. Looking back my not being of any religion but also not even christened (which may have been unusual for a child born in 1952), so that I couldn't be considered a Christian by default, seemed to be an anomaly back then - not that I was bothered.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I would kind of qualify, expect that your characterisation doesn't really apply.

When you say you were brought up in an environment where religion didn't matter that seems to sum up the majority of people. I don't think you are anything special. So I'm not sure you qualify. I guess I want to hear from people who grew up in households where the mere mention of religion would incur at least being grounded and having to read one's Bertrand Russell. Where Pa would take t'family copy of Sartre and read it to the family filling 'em wit' despair at t'absurd.
Do you agree that you are what you are regarding your position toward religion due to your environment applies to atheism as well as religion?

[ProfessorDavey]

It sounds that your experience is limited, your information anecdotal.

My experience is limited, as is yours. But the information I am basing my views on isn't anecdote, nor my limited experience, but academic research on religiosity in the UK and the impact of upbringing. Research indicates that well over 90% of adults who are religious were brought up in a religious household. So the numbers of people who are religious as adults when their parents were completely non religious is tiny - that's my point. Maybe you are one of those people, but if so you are a rarity.

So for most religious adults (who were brought up by religious parents in a religious household) the claim of suddenly coming to religion later in life is a tad disingenuous as they were brought up religious. Sure they might have a phase where they 'rebelled' (as many teenagers and young adults do agains their upbringing) but their claimed conversion is merely a return to being a chip off the old block.

I am perfectly happy to accept that you might be one of those very rare people - a religious adult not brought up in a religious household. I remain skeptical, however, that in the 70s (I was young then too) that it was the default that all kids went to sunday school (even in a village) unless there was a push, for example, from being at a CofE primary school (which lets face it reflects a religious upbringing).

I'm afraid that because of your offensive garbage you are now further down the league than even Hillside.

I don't believe I was being offensive, merely asking about your background and putting it into the context of the research on religiosity of adults and their upbringing.

[Gordon]

When you say you were brought up in an environment where religion didn't matter that seems to sum up the majority of people. I don't think you are anything special. So I'm not sure you qualify. I guess I want to hear from people who grew up in households where the mere mention of religion would incur at least being grounded and having to read one's Bertrand Russell. Where Pa would take t'family copy of Sartre and read it to the family filling 'em wit' despair at t'absurd.
Do you agree that you are what you are regarding your position toward religion due to your environment applies to atheism as well as religion?

I'd imagine that in an actively religious household there would be some religious activity going on - be it church attendance, Sunday school for the kids or just discussions about religion around the kitchen table: i.e. something that was clearly pro-religious in nature. I've always taken the view that if religiously inclined parents encourage their children to become involved too, where they think this is in the best interests of their children, then that is a matter for them and really is none of my business.

It may well be the case that in households that have no religious affiliation there may well be discussions about religion, such as when any children involved encountered religion in school and their reactions to this or whether they should be involved in religious observances while at school, that may well involve parents/adults explaining their own absence of religious affiliation or critiquing what children report to them about what they are taught. To what extent you think this is promoting atheism surely depends on the nature of specific family conversations and the individuals involved - I'm not interested in stamp-collecting so I never made the effort to actively encourage my children to not collect stamps.

My own experience of family life with a complete absence of any religion affiliation was, and still is as regards younger family members, that in terms of daily life, religion is simply a non-issue (aside from my posting here).

[Alan Burns]

I, amongst others, have asked you repeatedly to give explanations to substantiate your assertions. In fact just recently I quoted my post from 2016, when I  commented:
Quote

    My overriding problem with Alan's ideas is that they never involve any sort of explanation. To simply assert a 'soul' seems to me to be attempting to fill a gap(if indeed it actually exists) with a word which has no explanatory value. We are never told how the soul explains consciousness, how it reacts to/informs the brain, where it is located, how it functions etc. As I see it, it could just as well be named x the unknown for all the use it is.

As usual, you didn't even bother to reply. You have never given any explanation in answering such questions, you have never described any methodology which supports your  assertions, and now what you seem to be doing is bitch about the scientific approach.

That seems hypocritical to me, Alan.

The concept of the human soul is not just my assertion.  It is intrinsically linked throughout the whole history of humanity.

I have no explanation for how the human soul does what it does.  I just witness to what I believe is the evidence of the human soul working within our material body by giving us the freedom which defies any material definition or explanation.

The soul is your true self, and the truth sets you free.

[Stranger]

The concept of the human soul is not just my assertion.  It is intrinsically linked throughout the whole history of humanity.

Like lots of other superstitions.

I have no explanation for how the human soul does what it does.  I just witness to what I believe is the evidence of the human soul working within our material body by giving us the freedom which defies any material definition or explanation.

Except the existence of such evidence is just your assertion as is your blind faith that you are omniscient about the physical world and therefore able to pronounce with certainty what can or cannot have a material explanation.

If we add in that your whole 'argument' rests on a self-contradictory idea of 'freedom' and that you often claim to have 'sound logic' (as well as evidence) that you can never produce, and we find that all you are actually witnessing to is how much your faith has compromised both your reasoning and your honesty.

[ippy]

If anyone has questions for Alan, send them to me and I'll go out into my garden and read them in full to the concrete bird bath we have out there________

Regards to all, ippy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

That you have not provided evidence for your claim?

Damn right – why would I want to dance to the house troll’s tune? If Vlad wants to deny it (ie, basically being a proponent of the WLC objective morality schtick – he rarely argues for anything, but he does align himself with people who do) then I’ll look for posts when he’s done that (which inevitably he’d then ignore anyway). If he doesn’t want to deny it though, then whether or not I’d be able to find such posts is neither here nor there.

[Enki]

The concept of the human soul is not just my assertion.  It is intrinsically linked throughout the whole history of humanity.

It really doesn't matter who makes such an assertion, without corroborating evidence or logical argument it's still an assertion. Furthermore the word 'soul' is used in so many different contexts  its meaning is vague and ill defined.

I have no explanation for how the human soul does what it does.

So, no reason for me to believe in the existence of some sort of entity which you call the 'soul' then.

 

I just witness to what I believe is the evidence of the human soul working within our material body

In other words you are simply stating your beliefs without any evidence whatever

by giving us the freedom which defies any material definition or explanation.

I totally disagree, but I am willing to change my mind if you can produce evidence or logic which supports your view. I see no reason at all to think that our freedom is not linked to a deterministic system, whether it be a materialistic one or not.

The soul is your true self, and the truth sets you free.

Assertion, yet again, and therefore rather pointless. Why on earth should I believe somebody else's mere assertion?

It seems fairly obvious, whilst others, at least, give reasons linked to evidence or reasons linked to logic for their views, you decry or ignore their approach and rely purely on your own personal convictions and assertions. To me, that  is no way to argue your case at all. It just seems bereft of any content whatever, sad to say.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Damn right – why would I want to dance to the house troll’s tune? If Vlad wants to deny it (ie, basically being a proponent of the WLC objective morality schtick – he rarely argues for anything, but he does align himself with people who do) then I’ll look for posts when he’s done that (which inevitably he’d then ignore anyway). If he doesn’t want to deny it though, then whether or not I’d be able to find such posts is neither here nor there.

I would like to see you provide evidence for your claim.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

I'm afraid that because of your offensive garbage you are now further down the league than even Hillside.

Ah yes, play the "I'm offended" card. Probably your best bet, what with never being able or willing to address the arguments that falsify you. Must be awful for you - endlessly being shown to be wrong by an interlocutor who's right. That said, it's a pretty desperate last refuge to resile to don't you think?   

[Alan Burns]

Ah yes, play the "I'm offended" card. Probably your best bet, what with never being able or willing to address the arguments that falsify you. Must be awful for you - endlessly being shown to be wrong by an interlocutor who's right. That said, it's a pretty desperate last refuge to resile to don't you think?   

what makes you so sure that you are right?
What is it within you that can make this claim?
Can it be just an inevitable reaction of physically defined cause and effect?
Is there a specific neuron cell in your brain which deems you to be right?

[Gordon]

What is it within you that can make this claim?
Can it be just an inevitable reaction of physically defined cause and effect?

Probably.

Is there a specific neuron cell in your brain which deems you to be right?

More than one, I'd imagine.

[SusanDoris]

what makes you so sure that you are right?
What is it within you that can make this claim?
Can it be just an inevitable reaction of physically defined cause and effect?
Is there a specific neuron cell in your brain which deems you to be right?

Drivel as usual of course, but you might actually consider that the 'inevitable result' you are constantly talking about is different for each individual person because each person's accumulation of ideas, neurons etc is different, I.e. individual.  each person's 'result'  will be individually inevitable.   

[torridon]

what makes you so sure that you are right?
What is it within you that can make this claim?
Can it be just an inevitable reaction of physically defined cause and effect?
Is there a specific neuron cell in your brain which deems you to be right?

The idea of a master neuron is wrong, phenomena of mind are all emergent phenomena.  This is also why the idea of a soul fails, it is wrong for the same reason (and more) that a master neuron arrangement is wrong. It is a logic fail.

[Stranger]

what makes you so sure that you are right?

Well, claiming absolute certainty is something you do more than most. The difference mainly being that you are unable to ptovide any supporting evidence or logic.

What is it within you that can make this claim?
Can it be just an inevitable reaction of physically defined cause and effect?

It's either the result of cause and effect ('physical' is still irrelevant) or it involves randomness (which would really help with being right). If it wasn't completely self-contradictory, how do you think the ability to have done differently without randomness would help with anything that humans do or claim?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My experience is limited, as is yours. But the information I am basing my views on isn't anecdote, nor my limited experience, but academic research on religiosity in the UK and the impact of upbringing. Research indicates that well over 90% of adults who are religious were brought up in a religious household. So the numbers of people who are religious as adults when their parents were completely non religious is tiny - that's my point. Maybe you are one of those people, but if so you are a rarity.

So for most religious adults (who were brought up by religious parents in a religious household) the claim of suddenly coming to religion later in life is a tad disingenuous as they were brought up religious. Sure they might have a phase where they 'rebelled' (as many teenagers and young adults do agains their upbringing) but their claimed conversion is merely a return to being a chip off the old block.

I am perfectly happy to accept that you might be one of those very rare people - a religious adult not brought up in a religious household. I remain skeptical, however, that in the 70s (I was young then too) that it was the default that all kids went to sunday school (even in a village) unless there was a push, for example, from being at a CofE primary school (which lets face it reflects a religious upbringing).
I don't believe I was being offensive, merely asking about your background and putting it into the context of the research on religiosity of adults and their upbringing.

When was this research done since I am talking of events over 50 years ago?
The seventies? I was a man by the mid seventies.