Bringing Christianity into disrepute!

[Shaker]

It wasn't and he contradicted himself in the same post and never addressed the issue.

No way! 

[Hope]

It wasn't and he contradicted himself in the same post and never addressed the issue.

Evidence?

[Hope]

Which if true doesn't affect morality, you can't get an ought from an is. And I don't recall the evidence being provided.

It was those who made the fuss who seemed to express moral outrage, iirc.

[Nearly Sane]

It was those who made the fuss who seemed to express moral outrage, iirc.

Eh? How does that begin to address your lack of understanding of morality and medicine, or the possibility that you didn't provide the evidence, useless, given that lack of understanding in the first place?

[Nearly Sane]

Evidence?

I wrote 17 pages proving it but I can't be bothered posting it.

[Aruntraveller]

Evidence?

No after you.

You have quite a lot of ground to make up.

[Hope]

No after you.

You have quite a lot of ground to make up.

Not really, most of the evidence I've been asked for over the months has been provided by a number of people over those same months.  It has also been provided in a variety of documents that are more than in the public domain. The folk who have evidence to provide are those who question that evidence, but do so by positing possible alternatives without any solid supporting evidence.  Until that evidence is provided it would seem to me that it is those folk who have the ground to make up. 

[Hope]

Eh? How does that begin to address your lack of understanding of morality and medicine, or the possibility that you didn't provide the evidence, useless, given that lack of understanding in the first place?

NS, having worked for a medical and humanitarian agency for almost 8 years, and having a wife who is well-versed in medical matters being trained as an Australian SRN, maternal and child health nurse and midwife - which qualifications and the experience related to them the UK Nursing CXouncil chose to treat as unacceptable back in the 1980s - I have more than a passing knowledge of medicine.  I also have a more than a passing understanding of morality - just because my understanding differs slightly from yours and that of some others here doesn't mean I don't have such an understanding.  You will note that, though I have this difference of understanding, I don't tell you and the others that you lack understanding of the subject.

What I have said is that some here have a lack of knowledge of both culture and biology, insofar as the fact that even 1000 years ago here in the British Isles, women gave birth to children perfectly naturally at a younger age than they have done over the past couple of hundred years is concerned.  That had to do with the lower average life expectancy prevalent at the time.  There were a number of additional dietary/social/cultural and other factors that led to 1) the increase in that average life expectancy between the start and finish of the second millennium and 2) the changed approach to childhood, and thus to the age at which it was felt right for women to be having babies, even if that didn't necessarily reflect the age at which they became mature enough able to bear children - something that has fluctuated across time and across levels of wealth and therefore diet.

[Nearly Sane]

NS, having worked for a medical and humanitarian agency for almost 8 years, and having a wife who is well-versed in medical matters being trained as an Australian SRN, maternal and child health nurse and midwife - which qualifications and the experience related to them the UK Nursing CXouncil chose to treat as unacceptable back in the 1980s - I have more than a passing knowledge of medicine.  I also have a more than a passing understanding of morality - just because my understanding differs slightly from yours and that of some others here doesn't mean I don't have such an understanding.  You will note that, though I have this difference of understanding, I don't tell you and the others that you lack understanding of the subject.

What I have said is that some here have a lack of knowledge of both culture and biology, insofar as the fact that even 1000 years ago here in the British Isles, women gave birth to children perfectly naturally at a younger age than they have done over the past couple of hundred years is concerned.  That had to do with the lower average life expectancy prevalent at the time.  There were a number of additional dietary/social/cultural and other factors that led to 1) the increase in that average life expectancy between the start and finish of the second millennium and 2) the changed approach to childhood, and thus to the age at which it was felt right for women to be having babies, even if that didn't necessarily reflect the age at which they became mature enough able to bear children - something that has fluctuated across time and across levels of wealth and therefore diet.

You do understand evidence is not citing who you are married to? I'll move into the other issues of lack of understanding when you actually start to provide some. Note that isn't saying it doesn't exist, just that so far you seem to show no understanding of what evidence is.


Oh and BTW why are you lying about not telling others they lack understanding as it was you doing precisely that to Floo in reply 242 on this thread that kicked this set of posts off?

[Nearly Sane]

Just to help Hope with his lack of understanding on evidence here is a link.


http://www.mum.org/menarage.htm


Note Hope's original claim on this was that puberty historically happened much earlier than it does now.

[floo]

Just bumping this thread up!

The question I have asked many times and will continue to ask, is what is the point of having a faith if it doesn't make you a better person? As has been proved over and over again on this forum, faith and goodness don't always go together. The theists who are decent people would probably be so even if they didn't have a faith.

[ippy]

Just bumping this thread up!

The question I have asked many times and will continue to ask, is what is the point of having a faith if it doesn't make you a better person? As has been proved over and over again on this forum, faith and goodness don't always go together. The theists who are decent people would probably be so even if they didn't have a faith.

It's easy to understand the social side of the meetings etc., that's involved with claming to have a faith, but where's the need to pretend believing the magic, mysteicism and supernatural content, that apparently doesn't do much, that I've ever seen, to elevate the decency of  those taken in by this unevidenced nonsense.

Ippy

[Hope]

Just bumping this thread up!

The question I have asked many times and will continue to ask, is what is the point of having a faith if it doesn't make you a better person? As has been proved over and over again on this forum, faith and goodness don't always go together. The theists who are decent people would probably be so even if they didn't have a faith.

I think you make a big assumption that people behave here in a way that they would behave in face2face situations, Floo; I also think that you assume that the antics, attitudes and behaviours of some on your side of the debate are somehow better than those of those on the other side.  Aftr all, one could turn your question around and ask what the point of having no faith is if it doesn't make you a better person.

As far as I'm concerned, the folk of no-faith that I have debated with face2face generally seem to feel that they are pretty decent people and are happy with that.  On the other hand, most Christians I know are pretty decent people who believe that they can be better.  In that sense, the now is less important for the Christian; what is more important is how they can become better over time.

[Hope]

It's easy to understand the social side of the meetings etc., that's involved with claming to have a faith, but where's the need to pretend believing the magic, mysteicism and supernatural content, that apparently doesn't do much, that I've ever seen, to elevate the decency of  those taken in by this unevidenced nonsense.

It might be worth understanding that Christians and other religious people don't see any 'magic and mysteicism' (sic) as you call it, ippy.  Supernatural content - yes, in so far as they understand reality to go beyond the mere 'physical' of scientific naturalism.  The very fact that you refer to it as 'magic' simply highlights the paucity of your understanding of faith - something that every single scientist has to rely on for their understanding too, since there is no more independent validation (ie that doesn't need a concept to 'prove' itself) of scientific naturalism than there is religious faith.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

It might be worth understanding that Christians and other religious people don't see any 'magic and mysteicism' (sic) as you call it, ippy.  Supernatural content - yes, in so far as they understand reality to go beyond the mere 'physical' of scientific naturalism.  The very fact that you refer to it as 'magic' simply highlights the paucity of your understanding of faith - something that every single scientist has to rely on for their understanding too, since there is no more independent validation (ie that doesn't need a concept to 'prove' itself) of scientific naturalism than there is religious faith.

Just out of interest, why do you keep blundering back into that mistake? You have it explained to you on one thread, go quiet for a bit, then pop up and repeat it elsewhere.

Why?

Would it help to provide you with a numbered list so whenever you fall off the cliff one of us can say something like, "Hope balls up number 5" or whatever so you can just look it up?

[Shaker]

Hope,

Just out of interest, why do you keep blundering back into that mistake? You have it explained to you on one thread, go quiet for a bit, then pop up and repeat it elsewhere.

See also: fallacy, negative proof - why does he still keep churning that one out after all this time?

Why?

Would it help to provide you with a numbered list so whenever you fall off the cliff one of us can say something like, "Hope balls up number 5" or whatever so you can just look it up?

I've had exactly the same idea myself, bluey. It would save a lot of time - except in the writing of such a list, because to compile a list of every instance of flat assertion and every type of logical fallacy of which we see so much here day in and day out would be a formidable challenge indeed.

Could be an interesting collaborative exercise, though, and worth being stickified. I can see it now: "Ah yes, but there's no evidence that it's not true, is there?" "That's 3(a)."

[ippy]

Hope,

Just out of interest, why do you keep blundering back into that mistake? You have it explained to you on one thread, go quiet for a bit, then pop up and repeat it elsewhere.

Why?

Would it help to provide you with a numbered list so whenever you fall off the cliff one of us can say something like, "Hope balls up number 5" or whatever so you can just look it up?

Just had a look at my PC to see whatever you may have come up with Hope, I note Blue and Shakes have beaten me to it and it looks like yet another drubbing.

Quite simply you come up with a story, we non-religious people  don't, believe your stories, we tell you your stories haven't been substantiated, particularly the magical, mystical and superstition based parts of your stories, so until you can prove otherwise the ball is rather obviously in your court.

We're not looking to make anything up, evidence should be enough for anyone, well in most cases it should.

ippy   

[floo]

It might be worth understanding that Christians and other religious people don't see any 'magic and mysteicism' (sic) as you call it, ippy.  Supernatural content - yes, in so far as they understand reality to go beyond the mere 'physical' of scientific naturalism.  The very fact that you refer to it as 'magic' simply highlights the paucity of your understanding of faith - something that every single scientist has to rely on for their understanding too, since there is no more independent validation (ie that doesn't need a concept to 'prove' itself) of scientific naturalism than there is religious faith.

There is no difference between belief in magic and mysticism and religion like Christianity, imo.

[Hope]

There is no difference between belief in magic and mysticism and religion like Christianity, imo.

And you are entitled to your opinion - but do you have any evidence to support that opinion, Floo?

[floo]

And you are entitled to your opinion - but do you have any evidence to support that opinion, Floo?

You have no evidence to support the notion that religion is any different!

[Hope]

Just out of interest, why do you keep blundering back into that mistake? You have it explained to you on one thread, go quiet for a bit, then pop up and repeat it elsewhere.

Why?

Quite simple, bhs.  From my point of view, and that of other 'people of faith' the so-called explanations are just that - non-explanations.  With a little investigation, they don't hold water.  I will often make this clear on the thread that the non-explanation has been posted on, and then 'go quiet for a bit' for a couple of reasons. 

Firstly, having made my point about the non-explanation, I don't need to repeat that point: secondly, I have a life that may involve not using my computer for some hours, sometimes a day or two.  For instance, currently I'm trying to finish my Fundraising course assignments which have been on hold since the end of October and have tried to avoid using this and other sites between about 10am and late afternoon (at which point I tend to abandon the computer anyway in order to cook evening meal for the family).  Then there are the days I'm at the 2 charities I'm involved with, and then - as today - I help at various events and activities (I'm currently helping at a jobclub held at our church that runs once a week for 8 weeks)

As for my "pop(ping) up and repeat it elsewhere", there are those from your side of the debate who will make the same or very similar non-explanation' on a variety of threads, and I feel that it is my duty to respond to them on that thread - hence the repetition of my point that the 'explaation' doesn't hold water.

[/quote]Would it help to provide you with a numbered list so whenever you fall off the cliff one of us can say something like, "Hope balls up number 5" or whatever so you can just look it up?
[/quote]I suppose I could, if I had the time, do the equivalent for many of the non-explanations that people love to post.  Not sure that I'd manage to get up to 5 on such a list - after all, many of the non-explanations are so similar that one rebuttal can do for several.

[Hope]

You have no evidence to support the notion that religion is any different!

Magic needn't involve a belief in any deity or supernatural element to life, Floo.  Religious faith does.  That's quite a considerable difference.

[Khatru]

Lots of talk about evidence here.

What about the evidence that those executed in Salem, Massachusetts were real witches practising real magic?

Altogether, 19 people were executed. The governor of Massachusetts (William Phips) was involved. A court was established with prosecutors, defenders and judges all respected pillars of the local communities.

Thorough investigations were carried out and witness were cross-examined. A lot of evidence was gathered and many people confessed. All these proceedings were documented with sworn affidavits, interviews and other court documents. 

The Salem Witch Trials were fairly recent and we have the original documents, not copies of copies made centuries later. We have the sworn and signed eye-witness testimonies from the very people who observed the magical events taking place.

There are even volumes written by witnesses to the trial. The evidence and testimonies are plentiful and are far in excess of any supporting evidence there is for Jesus.

If we look at what happened in Salem the same way that we look at what happened in Jerusalem, how can those people not have been witches?  How can they not have been flying through the night sky on their broomsticks and carrying out acts of magic?

[Leonard James]

Quite simple, bhs.  From my point of view, and that of other 'people of faith' the so-called explanations are just that - non-explanations.  With a little investigation, they don't hold water. 

And do you seriously think the Bible stories are watertight? 

[ippy]

Lots of talk about evidence here.

What about the evidence that those executed in Salem, Massachusetts were real witches practising real magic?

Altogether, 19 people were executed. The governor of Massachusetts (William Phips) was involved. A court was established with prosecutors, defenders and judges all respected pillars of the local communities.

Thorough investigations were carried out and witness were cross-examined. A lot of evidence was gathered and many people confessed. All these proceedings were documented with sworn affidavits, interviews and other court documents.

The Salem Witch Trials were fairly recent and we have the original documents, not copies of copies made centuries later. We have the sworn and signed eye-witness testimonies from the very people who observed the magical events taking place.

There are even volumes written by witnesses to the trial. The evidence and testimonies are plentiful and are far in excess of any supporting evidence there is for Jesus.

If we look at what happened in Salem the same way that we look at what happened in Jerusalem, how can those people not have been witches?  How can they not have been flying through the night sky on their broomsticks and carrying out acts of magic?

Couldn't remember so I had a quick look on Wikki, "egotism" food poisoning, by fungus in their diet, the fungus grows in rye and other cereal crops, the symptoms among others are mania and psychosis, was the cause of those women thinking the were witches or something very much like that, can't remember the details; maybe Hope?

Can't remember where I read about it, could have been Newcastle or Aberdeen,  but I read about this somewhere some considerable amount of years ago from now.

ippy

PS sorry about the Newcastle etc but that's where my addled mind went at the time, no,not Newcastle; no not even the least bit amusing, yes I know.

ippy