Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Nearly Sane]

A non experience is not necessarily contrary to an experience.

Except if you are privileging something about experience to determine truth - in which case it would be both a and not a.

That smacks as though we must privilege the non experience though.

No, we are treating it as true because you are asking that to be done, and providing no methodology. Once again, I'm just pointing out what follows from your position. If I have no methodology and descriptive expereince is a means to truthas you claim then  that non expereince is also true.

[Spud]

I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.

As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.

In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.

Is it really a leap, or just a small step? Some apologists say that since all naturalistic explanations are inadequate to explain Christianity (eg the disciples would not all deliberately lie when alone and faced with execution/multiple witnesses rules out delusion), the resurrection is the only possible one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A non experience is not necessarily contrary to an experience.

Except if you are privileging something about experience to determine truth - in which case it would be both a and not a.

That smacks as though we must privilege the non experience though.

No, we are treating it as true because you are asking that to be done, and providing no methodology. Once again, I'm just pointing out what follows from your position. If I have no methodology and descriptive expereince is a means to truthas you claim then  that non expereince is also true.

Yes you may not have experienced A and I have experienced A. Both can be true.

I have not experienced A therefore it doesn't exist is not valid since it's existence is not contingent on your experience of it.

My experience of A is however contingent on the existence of A

Ah says the Non experiencer. You only think that you have because I have not experienced it.

................get what I'm saying?

[jeremyp]

My experience of A is however contingent on the existence of A

The point is you need to shoe that the experience you have had is actually of A.    You need to tell us how we can tell the difference between A and an imaginary version of A.So far, all you have done is prevaricate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My experience of A is however contingent on the existence of A

The point is you need to shoe that the experience you have had is actually of A.    You need to tell us how we can tell the difference between A and an imaginary version of A.So far, all you have done is prevaricate.

So you agree that A could exist but I imagined it?

What are our options then?
A exists and I have experienced A
A does not exist and I have not experienced A
A does not exist so I have not experienced A
B exists but I am mistaking it for A

1: How do we know A not to exist?
2: How can B be mistaken for A?
3: How is an experience an experience of A?

If it quacks like a duck it is a duck. Of course I could try, delusion or illusion if I were you

[jeremyp]

So you agree that A could exist but I imagined it?

What are our options then?
A exists and I have experienced A
A does not exist and I have not experienced A
A does not exist so I have not experienced A
B exists but I am mistaking it for A

1: How do we know A not to exist?
2: How can B be mistaken for A?
3: How is an experience an experience of A?

No, the questions you must answer are:

1. How do we (and by we I mean all of us, not just you) know that the experience you had was A.

where A is some supernatural phenomenon that you claim exists.

[jeremyp]

If it quacks like a duck it is a duck.

Do you think so?

http://s46.radikal.ru/i111/0912/35/02a91712ffc3.jpg

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you agree that A could exist but I imagined it?

What are our options then?
A exists and I have experienced A
A does not exist and I have not experienced A
A does not exist so I have not experienced A
B exists but I am mistaking it for A

1: How do we know A not to exist?
2: How can B be mistaken for A?
3: How is an experience an experience of A?

No, the questions you must answer are:

1. How do we (and by we I mean all of us, not just you) know that the experience you had was A.

where A is some supernatural phenomenon that you claim exists.

Yes Jezzer Add alternatives but don't specially plead them.

[jeremyp]

No, the questions you must answer are:

1. How do we (and by we I mean all of us, not just you) know that the experience you had was A.

where A is some supernatural phenomenon that you claim exists.

Yes Jezzer Add alternatives but don't specially plead them.

I haven't added anything.  My question is the same one I asked of you pages ago.  You have spent the entire time since then dodging it. 

[Hope]

The former tends to look very much like the latter, and can certainly be treated as such 

Is that so, Shaker.  Is a political belief non-material or non-existent?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, the questions you must answer are:

1. How do we (and by we I mean all of us, not just you) know that the experience you had was A.

where A is some supernatural phenomenon that you claim exists.

Yes Jezzer Add alternatives but don't specially plead them.

I haven't added anything.  My question is the same one I asked of you pages ago.  You have spent the entire time since then dodging it.

I think I've demonstrated the questionability of naturalistic approaches to the analysis of religious experience.
 

[Shaker]

The former tends to look very much like the latter, and can certainly be treated as such 

Is that so, Shaker.

Yes.

Is a political belief non-material or non-existent?

Both material (insofar as it relies upon a particular configuration of matter in brains) and existent, if it occurs in a particular brain.

[jeremyp]

I think I've demonstrated the questionability of naturalistic approaches to the analysis of religious experience.

Well, in the absence of any other approach, you have nothing.  Your beliefs may or may not be true, there is no way to tell.

[Hope]

Both material (insofar as it relies upon a particular configuration of matter in brains) and existent, if it occurs in a particular brain.

This would seem to contradict the comment you made and to which I responded.  So, which is it.

[jeremyp]

Both material (insofar as it relies upon a particular configuration of matter in brains) and existent, if it occurs in a particular brain.

This would seem to contradict the comment you made and to which I responded.  So, which is it.

I see you have no grasp of basic logic. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think I've demonstrated the questionability of naturalistic approaches to the analysis of religious experience.

Well, in the absence of any other approach, you have nothing.  Your beliefs may or may not be true, there is no way to tell.

No. In that case you are suggesting that philosophical naturalism gives rise to existence or experience.

[Shaker]

This would seem to contradict the comment you made and to which I responded.

Only if you didn't understand what I wrote, which is exceedingly likely.

ETA: As I see Jeremy has also just pointed out.

[jeremyp]

Well, in the absence of any other approach, you have nothing.  Your beliefs may or may not be true, there is no way to tell.

No. In that case you are suggesting that philosophical naturalism gives rise to existence or experience.

Nope.  I am saying that, when challenged to come up with a methodology to differentiate between true supernatural events and false ones, you came up with nothing, nada, zip, nowt.  I am not suggesting anything.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry, don't accept that.  If you don't accept it, move on.  Simple as that  And to call theists your enemy is plain silly.

And if we hadn't accepted the religiously motivated (amongst others) idea that gay marriage shouldn't be permitted? If we hadn't accepted the right die shouldn't be permitted?

Some of these religious ideas have profound negative effects on actual people's actual lives. We don't just 'accept it and move on', we research, we learn, we construct arguments and we argue back, we campaign and, increasingly, we win.

To call theists our enemy is not silly - on specific issues they are if not 'the enemy', then certainly amongst them.

And of course, not all theists, by any stretch, fully understand it all:  I don't pretend to, and it was one of my college subjects;  and it has been a life-time study.  For atheists to pretend to fully understand it all, even allegedly having read it all, is being economical with the truth.

Not really. I don't need to read every study on leprechauns to know that they aren't real. I don't need to exhaustively research treatises on the contents of the pot at the end of the rainbow to know that it's not a pot of gold.

You can't dismiss any idea out of hand, but if you read the widely regarded commentaries and there's still nothing logically valid in any of it, it it's all based on circular arguments, question begging and developing ideas from baseless assertions then you can stop researching and just wait for someone to proffer something new.

Life's too short - when you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy.

O.

There is nothing the religious can force you to do, or not to do, if it is against your wishes. And for you to assume that the Bible, or aspects of it are unreal by comparing them to pots of gold and leprechauns, is rather silly.  If you do not accept it, I say again, walk away.  Do you really believe blathering on about it all on here, is in any way doing anything to alter anything, outside of the occasional poster here, and even that's most unlikely!.  And I still maintain that with such an attitude, it is highly unlikely that you have spent any appreciable time bothering to read it all in a meaningful and open manner.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yes the religious can, because if they are in a position of authority they can block you.

Doctors for example.

If your doctor has religious objections to abortion for example, he can make it difficult for you. 

Abortion probably is a bad example, but even if you have private health insurance it the request still has to come via your doctor.

Should he be awkward for some reason, he can make it difficult.

I have had a Catholic doctor in the past  give me a lecture on God before now.

I'm not a Catholic, so don't expect to be lumbered with their beliefs.

Remember, they don't agree with birth control, for married couples and this particular doctor refused to proscribe the pill, his religion being the reason m hence the lecture on God.

Yes I could get the pill elsewhere, but your doctor is often the first port of call.

So I don't agree with you BA.

Religious people do abuse the power they have, sometimes.
[/quote]
You've had a catholic doctor lecture you?
I had half a dozen philosophical naturalists lecturing me!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, in the absence of any other approach, you have nothing.  Your beliefs may or may not be true, there is no way to tell.

No. In that case you are suggesting that philosophical naturalism gives rise to existence or experience.

Nope.  I am saying that, when challenged to come up with a methodology to differentiate between true supernatural events and false ones, you came up with nothing, nada, zip, nowt.  I am not suggesting anything.

No Jeremy that's not strictly true since we've been through the Satan/Leprechaun bit and contingency and necessity and the attributes of God. I think the problem is you can't go beyond the philosophical materialism nor individual and comprehensive psychological incompetence though how that turns into collective psychological competence I don't know.

[jeremyp]

No Jeremy that's not strictly true

 

No it is strictly true. 

since we've been through the Satan/Leprechaun bit and contingency and necessity and the attributes of God.

Which was all totally irrelevant since the challenge wasn't to show that leprechauns and Satan aren't God but to show that an experience you had, allegedly of God was not fabricated by leprechauns or Satan

I think the problem is you can't go beyond the philosophical materialism nor individual and comprehensive psychological incompetence though how that turns into collective psychological competence I don't know.

No the problem is that you get fixated on certain big terms that you don't really understand and you hold them up like a fig leaf over the inadequacy of your argument, hoping nobody will notice.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No Jeremy that's not strictly true

 

No it is strictly true. 

since we've been through the Satan/Leprechaun bit and contingency and necessity and the attributes of God.

Which was all totally irrelevant since the challenge wasn't to show that leprechauns and Satan aren't God but to show that an experience you had, allegedly of God was not fabricated by leprechauns or Satan

I think the problem is you can't go beyond the philosophical materialism nor individual and comprehensive psychological incompetence though how that turns into collective psychological competence I don't know.

No the problem is that you get fixated on certain big terms that you don't really understand and you hold them up like a fig leaf over the inadequacy of your argument, hoping nobody will notice.

Presumably you have a working definition of Satan and Leprechauns and understand the attributes of God or am I more correct in my thesis that you have redefined Satan and Leprechauns as and when it suits your argument.

A Leprechaun which projects images of the almighty into somebodies brain? That is surely susceptible to Ockhams razor.

[Gordon]

I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.

As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.

In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.

Is it really a leap, or just a small step? Some apologists say that since all naturalistic explanations are inadequate to explain Christianity (eg the disciples would not all deliberately lie when alone and faced with execution/multiple witnesses rules out delusion), the resurrection is the only possible one.

Then your apologists must be supremely naive: their confirmation bias is showing (perhaps wearing blinkers and rose-tinted spectacles at the same time has that effect).

We've been through this with Alien, who has struggled with this too: nobody is claiming that these early Christian were 'deluded': no doubt they sincerely believed the Jesus myth, as might be expected given that religiosity was probably the norm back then so that people were highly credulous of a religious narrative much more so than today.

Therefore, without a method to explain it, a resurrection can't be considered likely (e.g. it has no probability) but that people make mistakes and tell lies in support of causes is known human behaviour and as such is a clear possibility: and one that Christians here seem happy to avoid addressing.

[Andy]

I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.

As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.

In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.

Is it really a leap, or just a small step? Some apologists say that since all naturalistic explanations are inadequate to explain Christianity (eg the disciples would not all deliberately lie when alone and faced with execution/multiple witnesses rules out delusion), the resurrection is the only possible one.

Notice the 180 flip here.

All the possible explanations become impossible, and an impossible explanation becomes the only possible one. Of course, when delving in such immense special pleading, one has to turn this all powerful god into a puny, weak and feeble being who only has one possible option.

[Gordon]

I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.

As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.

In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.

Is it really a leap, or just a small step? Some apologists say that since all naturalistic explanations are inadequate to explain Christianity (eg the disciples would not all deliberately lie when alone and faced with execution/multiple witnesses rules out delusion), the resurrection is the only possible one.

Notice the 180 flip here.

All the possible explanations become impossible, and an impossible explanation becomes the only possible one. Of course, when delving in such immense special pleading, one has to turn this all powerful god into a puny, weak and feeble being who only has one possible option.

Yep - the only people they are kidding is, of course, themselves.