Speaking in 'tongues'

[Shaker]

Polishing the vicar - that really was a LOL moment. Thanks for that ipples 

[ippy]

Polishing the vicar - that really was a LOL moment. Thanks for that ipples 

Yes these days; well errhm?

ippy

[ippy]

Poor Hope seems to have a problem with written English! I have stated my position so many times it has become BORING! But here it is again.

Whilst I believe ALL deities belonging to the world's religions, including Christianity, are human creations, there is just an outside chance a deity of some sort could exist in another dimension. I don't believe if that is the case humans are in touch with it. Now is that clear enough Hope, or do you need it put in reception class first reading books simple language?

He'll still find something to nit pick about exactly what it is he likes to think you're saying.

ippy

It is rather sad that Hope hasn't anything better to occupy his time, rather than posting nonsense statements on this forum, which are very easily refuted!

The odd few religious acquaintances of mine all seems to me they're in some kind of other world, arranging flowers, fitting curtains, polishing the Vicar, all at various churches or wherever Vicars live these days; I note to a person all of their children are meticulosity indoctrinated, makes me want to puke.
 
If I told you some of the world views these children have acquired, all when they still have the cradle marks.

ippy

Fortunately for my husband and I, our three Christian daughters are very down to earth where their faith is concerned; their deeds do the talking, not their words!

You say down to Earth?

ippy

[Sassy]

What is the difference between the bogeyman under the bed and the deity/HS? There is no evidence any of them exist.

In view of the number of times you mention them Floo, it would seem that you believe in both - despite your protestations to the contrary.

Asking a question (trying to achieve the near-impossible, i.e. getting a straight answer out of you) is not the same as believing in the existence of anything contained within that question, is it?

You mean you do not know the answer as to the evidence for deity/HS and opposed to that of a bogey man?

Well the answer given by Hope is because it is obvious in the case of the Christian/Jewish God. That Jesus Christ, what he did is the ultimate proof having been foretold and the fact God has actually spoken to mankind from the beginning. No evidence of a bogey man but you could I suppose compare him to Satan... LOL.

Creation and us, are the evidence seen. No real explanation as to why we exist at all... Other than God and Genesis 1.

[Leonard James]

There are none so blind as those who won't see! 

[Hope]

There are none so blind as those who won't see! 

Precisely, Len.  You put it very succinctly   

[Leonard James]

There are none so blind as those who won't see! 

Precisely, Len.  You put it very succinctly   

Moreover, I do it with my eyes and mind wide open.

[Hope]

Whilst I believe ALL deities belonging to the world's religions, including Christianity, are human creations, there is just an outside chance a deity of some sort could exist in another dimension. I don't believe if that is the case humans are in touch with it. Now is that clear enough Hope, or do you need it put in reception class first reading books simple language?

Yes, it is perfectly clear, but as I've asked on a number of occasions, I'd like some evidence that what you believe has anything to do with reality

It is rather sad that Hope hasn't anything better to occupy his time, rather than posting nonsense statements on this forum, which are very easily refuted!

The problem is, Floo, that in order to refute another person's opinions or statements, one has to provide evidence.  You - and you aren't alone - have never produced that evidence.  All you have produced is opinion.  Often that opinion is wrapped up in the form of assertion, but  it doesn't take a great deal of education to realise that that is all it is - unevidenced assertion.

[Hope]

There are none so blind as those who won't see! 

Precisely, Len.  You put it very succinctly   

Moreover, I do it with my eyes and mind wide open.

And do you have any external evidence to show that your eyes and mind are wide open or is this just your opinion?

[Shaker]

I'd like some evidence that what you believe has anything to do with reality

People have been asking the same of you for months at least to my knowledge and have you provided it? Have you buggery.

The problem is, Floo, that in order to refute another person's opinions or statements, one has to provide evidence.  You - and you aren't alone - have never produced that evidence.  All you have produced is opinion.  Often that opinion is wrapped up in the form of assertion, but  it doesn't take a great deal of education to realise that that is all it is - unevidenced assertion.

There goes my military-spec irony-o-meter!

[Hope]

The odd few religious acquaintances of mine all seems to me they're in some kind of other world, arranging flowers, fitting curtains, polishing the Vicar, all at various churches or wherever Vicars live these days; I note to a person all of their children are meticulosity indoctrinated, makes me want to puke.

You must have some really weird acquaintances, ippy.  My religious acquaintences are mostly working in the fields of medicine, business, education, international development, economics, parenting, sport, etc.
 

If I told you some of the world views these children have acquired, all when they still have the cradle marks.

...what would you be trying to say?  That parents across the world teach their children about their own belief systems, be that atheism or animism, Hinduism or Christianity?

[Hope]

There goes my military-spec irony-o-meter!

Not surprised; irony-o-meters aren't decided to deal with rality, Shaker.  After all, you are no better.  You make assertions on a regular basis, clearly based on what you believe, but without providing any evidence that that belief is in tune with reality.

[Leonard James]

And do you have any external evidence to show that your eyes and mind are wide open or is this just your opinion?

The evidence is abundant everywhere, in the form of people who believe in gods for which there is no evidence. 

[Shaker]

There goes my military-spec irony-o-meter!

Not surprised; irony-o-meters aren't decided to deal with rality, Shaker.  After all, you are no better.  You make assertions on a regular basis, clearly based on what you believe, but without providing any evidence that that belief is in tune with reality.

Any point asking which ones? Nah, tried that before - "good reasons" for homosexuality being viewed with revulsion, where I've used the negative proof fallacy more than you, etc.

[Hope]

There goes my military-spec irony-o-meter!

Not surprised; irony-o-meters aren't decided to deal with rality, Shaker.  After all, you are no better.  You make assertions on a regular basis, clearly based on what you believe, but without providing any evidence that that belief is in tune with reality.

Any point asking which ones? Nah, tried that before - "good reasons" for homosexuality being viewed with revulsion, where I've used the negative proof fallacy more than you, etc.

You produced one earlier - "It is all the same at the end of the day ..." (post #6) on the 'Atheism and Meaning' thread

Then there was this one on the 'Just supposing ...' thread

The scientifically literate understand the limitations of science, but it's precisely because they're scientifically literate that they also know its strengths and understand what makes the application of the scientific method matchless in understanding reality. It's a poor, pathetic view of the world that can't provide its own methodology and has to limp along behind science looking for gaps and, to paraphrase Dara O'Briain, filling in the blanks with whatever fairy tale most appeals.

The assertion is that because theists - who not believe that science is the be-all and end-all of life - can't produce a methodology that is limited to scientific parameters, they are limping 'along behind science looking for gaps and, to paraphrase Dara O'Briain, filling in the blanks with whatever fairy tale most appeals'.

As I have said numerous times, your posts reflect your world-view; a world-view that, in my understanding, is limited to and by science.  It will not allow for anything that science can't explain.  Yet, you have not provided any hard evidence that it is a world-view that is line with reality, relying instead on the circular argument that because X doesn't fit into the scientific parameters you have hedged yourself around with, X can't exist.

[floo]

What is the difference between the bogeyman under the bed and the deity/HS? There is no evidence any of them exist.

In view of the number of times you mention them Floo, it would seem that you believe in both - despite your protestations to the contrary.

Asking a question (trying to achieve the near-impossible, i.e. getting a straight answer out of you) is not the same as believing in the existence of anything contained within that question, is it?

You mean you do not know the answer as to the evidence for deity/HS and opposed to that of a bogey man?

Well the answer given by Hope is because it is obvious in the case of the Christian/Jewish God. That Jesus Christ, what he did is the ultimate proof having been foretold and the fact God has actually spoken to mankind from the beginning. No evidence of a bogey man but you could I suppose compare him to Satan... LOL.

Creation and us, are the evidence seen. No real explanation as to why we exist at all... Other than God and Genesis 1.

Another post from Sass which is worthy of a giggle.

[Shaker]

You produced one earlier - "It is all the same at the end of the day ..." (post #6) on the 'Atheism and Meaning' thread

Addressed in some detail and at some length - despite which you must have missed it.

The assertion is that because theists - who not believe that science is the be-all and end-all of life - can't produce a methodology that is limited to scientific parameters, they are limping 'along behind science looking for gaps and, to paraphrase Dara O'Briain, filling in the blanks with whatever fairy tale most appeals'.

Yes, that's right. How many times have the likes of you and Alien been asked to provide a methodology for determining the truth of your beliefs about reality, and what has been the result?

As I have said numerous times, your posts reflect your world-view; a world-view that, in my understanding, is limited to and by science.  It will not allow for anything that science can't explain.  Yet, you have not provided any hard evidence that it is a world-view that is line with reality, relying instead on the circular argument that because X doesn't fit into the scientific parameters you have hedged yourself around with, X can't exist.

No, that would be yet another example of the negative proof fallacy, and we all know that you've practically got exclusive rights to that one. It's more to do with the fact that the worldview to which I adhere has a methodology which allows claims to be evaluated with the absolute minimum of personal preference and subjective bias, allows for claims to be tested, shared with others for them to test, and so on and so forth. Your methodology is ... well, what is it, exactly? You lot seem incredibly unwilling to say. Remember that you and your ilk can't go bandying around words such as "limited" and "reality" when you can't provide any method by which reality can even be known and your so-called "limits" to be demonstrated to be limits. Without such a methodology (demonstrated to exist; shown to work) this is just sloganeering.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You produced one earlier - "It is all the same at the end of the day ..." (post #6) on the 'Atheism and Meaning' thread

Addressed in some detail and at some length - despite which you must have missed it.

The assertion is that because theists - who not believe that science is the be-all and end-all of life - can't produce a methodology that is limited to scientific parameters, they are limping 'along behind science looking for gaps and, to paraphrase Dara O'Briain, filling in the blanks with whatever fairy tale most appeals'.

Yes, that's right. How many times have the likes of you and Alien been asked to provide a methodology for determining the truth of your beliefs about reality, and what has been the result?

As I have said numerous times, your posts reflect your world-view; a world-view that, in my understanding, is limited to and by science.  It will not allow for anything that science can't explain.  Yet, you have not provided any hard evidence that it is a world-view that is line with reality, relying instead on the circular argument that because X doesn't fit into the scientific parameters you have hedged yourself around with, X can't exist.

No, that would be yet another example of the negative proof fallacy, and we all know that you've practically got exclusive rights to that one. It's more to do with the fact that the worldview to which I adhere has a methodology which allows claims to be evaluated with the absolute minimum of personal preference and subjective bias, allows for claims to be tested, shared with others for them to test, and so on and so forth. Your methodology is ... well, what is it, exactly? You lot seem incredibly unwilling to say. Remember that you and your ilk can't go bandying around words such as "limited" and "reality" when you can't provide any method by which reality can even be known and your so-called "limits" to be demonstrated to be limits. Without such a methodology (demonstrated to exist; shown to work) this is just sloganeering.

Science has a method......How does that help you out Shakey in your quest to seek the ultimate athegasm?

[ippy]

The odd few religious acquaintances of mine all seems to me they're in some kind of other world, arranging flowers, fitting curtains, polishing the Vicar, all at various churches or wherever Vicars live these days; I note to a person all of their children are meticulosity indoctrinated, makes me want to puke.

You must have some really weird acquaintances, ippy.  My religious aquaintances are mostly working in the fields of medicine, business, education, international development, economics, parenting, sport, etc.
 

If I told you some of the world views these children have acquired, all when they still have the cradle marks.

...what would you be trying to say?  That parents across the world teach their children about their own belief systems, be that atheism or animism, Hinduism or Christianity?

Yes it's weird and they're probably well educated too; oh and the second part of that mailing, yes the determination of religious believers to fill the heads of children with insupportable nonsense, takes some believing?

ippy

P S, did you see my wife on Songs of Praise last and this week? She's one of the many non-religious gospel singers that were there. 

[OH MY WORLD!]

Filling heads with religious lyrics was she. Praise the Lord Ippy!

[Hope]

and the second part of that mailing, yes the determination of religious believers to fill the heads of children with insupportable nonsense, takes some believing?

No more so than the determination I've met amongst a number of atheists 'to fill the heads of their children with unsupportable nonsense', ippy.  That's why I worded that 2nd part of my post in the way I did.

[jakswan]

and the second part of that mailing, yes the determination of religious believers to fill the heads of children with insupportable nonsense, takes some believing?

No more so than the determination I've met amongst a number of atheists 'to fill the heads of their children with unsupportable nonsense', ippy.  That's why I worded that 2nd part of my post in the way I did.

Well I know Christians that torture their children so ....

[Hope]

You can't support any of your faith 'nonsense' either, however many times you have been ask to do so!

Floo, you seem to assume that the scientific method of evidence is the only one.  My experience of life is that it isn't.  Until you see that bigger picture, you'll never understand any evidence for 'faith'.  However, since you do subscribe to this 'science-only' approach, you should be able to present some evidence for your position that we can all understand.

[Hope]

Well I know Christians that torture their children so ....

Evidence, please, Jakswan.

[jakswan]

Well I know Christians that torture their children so ....

Evidence, please, Jakswan.

Some I've met.