Alpha

[Brownie]

I don't think there were many material benefits.

[Shaker]

Not material benefits but benefits nonetheless - company, companionship, friendship, community. We're often told that this is the major part of what religion offers people, after all.

[ippy]

I am no fan of the Alpha course. It starts well but has some serious omissions and additions.  AVOID IT!

Wouldn't those serious omissions be reasoned and the rational Woody?

Well I thought it would be.

ippy

[Brownie]

Not material benefits but benefits nonetheless - company, companionship, friendship, community. We're often told that this is the major part of what religion offers people, after all.

Yes it does but, as I said, I don't think the Alpha course offers any of that without conditions, which is why I had misgivings about it.

[Rhiannon]

Yes it does but, as I said, I don't think the Alpha course offers any of that without conditions, which is why I had misgivings about it.

My old pp was removed by the parish he served before this one because the HTB crowd promised the congregation they'd get 'the gifts of the Spirit' and when they didn't they blamed him for 'blocking' it.

[Hope]

No humanist (in at least some senses of the word at any rate), I wobble on that one. The only person who can regard any life as worthwhile (or not) is the individual person who has that life, so the worthwhileness of life is a proximate and not an ultimate category.

Sorry, I'd disagree; a life can be deemed to be worthwhile by other people - perhaps people who rely on that person or people who have close connections to them.  Furthermore, that life can be deemed to worthwhile by people who benefit from that person's actions/study/...

I do know however that making them better involves getting off your knees and actually doing something practical to make it happen.

Unfortunately, "actually doing something practical to make it happen" can be impractical.  For instance, 10 months ago, there was an earthquake in Nepal.  Save from giving money (which we did) we could do nothing practical, in part because of my ill-health at the time.  We prayed that those who were responsible for the expenditure of the money that did come in would be used wisely.  That I believe is eminently practical.

On the other hand, I am prepared to concede that the latter may be pointless - so many of the theists here are so utterly impervious to reason that there's little if any use in pointing out their deployment of fallacy and assertion, you being a prime example in still churning out both (the negative proof fallacy especially) despite having been schooled in why they're wrong multiple times by multiple posters over a long period of time. Saying "Don't do that - that's not a valid argument, that's wrong, and this is why it's wrong ..." does indeed seem to be pointless with some people who evidently just can't take it on board.

The problem with your argument here is that you use the negative proof fallacy just as much - after all, you were asked to give evidence to support an assertion you made and have not been able or willing to do so.

Feel free to provide the methodology by which we can all evaluate your claims and ascertain the difference between prayers with an effect and the operation of sheer random chance, i.e. the difference between a prayer-answering god and random events with no god.

But of course you won't. You never do.
That's called petitioning real people to do actual things, not prayer which is the polar opposite of that.

But nor do you; all you do is appeal to the pre-eminence of science over any other aspects of life, yet you have yet to provide any evidence to show that that is the case.

[Shaker]

Sorry, I'd disagree; a life can be deemed to be worthwhile by other people

Their view doesn't take priority over the possessor of said life.

Unfortunately, "actually doing something practical to make it happen" can be impractical.  For instance, 10 months ago, there was an earthquake in Nepal.  Save from giving money (which we did) we could do nothing practical, in part because of my ill-health at the time.  We prayed that those who were responsible for the expenditure of the money that did come in would be used wisely.  That I believe is eminently practical.

It isn't. It's a way of thinking that you're doing something useful by remote control.

The problem with your argument here is that you use the negative proof fallacy just as much - after all, you were asked to give evidence to support an assertion you made and have not been able or willing to do so.

The problem with this tosh is that you've said exactly this before (August 23rd last year, as I recall), have been asked many, many times to provide evidence for this claim, and have run away each and every time in the six months since then. My answer was given in the first paragraph of my previous reply - you're the one who claims that prayer works in some way (indeed, you've just done so again), not me, so it's up to you to substantiate that claim. Burden of proof and all that. Burden of proof, null hypothesis, Occam's Razor - these are all tools we've come up with to be able to evaluate true claims about reality from the false or at least the not demonstrably true, and your claims fall at each of those hurdles. 

But nor do you; all you do is appeal to the pre-eminence of science over any other aspects of life, yet you have yet to provide any evidence to show that that is the case.

There we go: negative proof fallacy all over again - a classic example.

Science works; works beautifully; we know it does and we know how and we know why. Its pre-eminence in finding out how stuff does what it does is based on its results. If you have an alternative or an adjunct to that, don't just wave your hands, piss or get off the pot - provide some evidence of this alternative/adjunct, some methodology as to how it can be evaluated and we'll talk. Until that happens you're an arrant waste of electrons spitting out logical fallacies and assertions as a Sten gun spits out bullets.

[Hope]

Their view doesn't take priority over the possessor of said life.

Again, I'd disagree.  John Donne makes it very clear that none of us is an island.  None of us can ignore others when deciding what to do with ourselves.

It isn't. It's a way of thinking that you're doing something useful by remote control.

You might think that way, but I know of plenty of such people who appreciate the input from people remote from the situation.

The problem with this tosh is that you've said exactly this before (August 23rd last year, as I recall), have been asked many, many times to provide evidence for this claim, and have run away each and every time. My answer was given in the first paragraph of my previous reply - you're the one who claims that prayer works in some way, not me, so it's up to you to substantiate that claim. Burden of proof and all that. Burden of proof, null hypothesis, Occam's Razor - these are all tools we've come up with to be able to evaluate true claims about reality from the false or at least the not demonstrably true, and your claims fall at each of those hurdles.

They only fall at the first hurdle if science and the naturalistic approach to reality is the sole approach we have  - and you have yet to provide us with any evidence that that is the case - so, a good example of your use of tyhe negative proof fallacy on your part.

Science works; works beautifully; we know it does and we know how and we know why. Its pre-eminence in finding out how stuff does what it does is based on its results. If you have an alternative or an adjunct to that, don't just wave your hands, piss or get off the pot - provide some evidence of this alternative/adjunct, some methodology as to how it can be evaluated and we'll talk. Until that happens you're an arrant waste of electrons spitting out logical fallacies and assertions as a Sten gun spits out bullets.

Science works, to a large extent.  Few, if any, Christians would diagree - however, you have never shown any evidence that it is the sole arbiter of reality.  Ironically, you will only allow forms of evidence that fit the naturalistic approach, meaning that any evidence you were to produce to show the sole arbiter-ness of the naturalistic approach wouldn't stand up to a charge of bias.

Tht is why I often argue that we are debating from such different worldviews as to make such debate impossible. 

[Shaker]

They only fall at the first hurdle if science and the naturalistic approach to reality is the sole approach we have  - and you have yet to provide us with any evidence that that is the case - so, a good example of your use of tyhe negative proof fallacy on your part.

I've already explained this for you; I can't understand it for you.

Science works, to a large extent.  Few, if any, Christians would diagree - however, you have never shown any evidence that it is the sole arbiter of reality.

That's because anybody who proposes something else other than what we know about and know works (let alone works as wonderfully well as it does) bears the burden of proof for giving us a reason to think that there's anything to it. That's how it works. As I said before, piss or get off the pot. Back up your claims. Show us the evidence. Show us the methodology. Show us the money. Show us anything, but give over with the fucking hand-waving and the bald assertion because while it may go down a bundle at your local Jesus fan club, with rational, sceptical people it doesn't wash.

[Leonard James]

I've already explained this for you; I can't understand it for you.
That's because anybody who proposes something else other than what we know about and know works (let alone works as wonderfully well as it does) bears the burden of proof for giving us a reason to think that there's anything to it. That's how it works. As I said before, piss or get off the pot. Back up your claims. Show us the evidence. Show us the methodology. Show us the money. Show us anything, but give over with the fucking hand-waving and the bald assertion because while it may go down a bundle at your local Jesus fan club, with rational, sceptical people it doesn't wash.

 

[Gordon]

They only fall at the first hurdle if science and the naturalistic approach to reality is the sole approach we have

Then feel free to regale us with an alternative: the full monty mind, including the methodology by which we can identify and review evidence.

- and you have yet to provide us with any evidence that that is the case - so, a good example of your use of tyhe negative proof fallacy on your part.

Nope, and despite your encouragement and expertise in its use some of us aren't daft enough to commit the negative proof fallacy even when invited to do so: the burden of proof is yours.

Science works, to a large extent.  Few, if any, Christians would diagree - however, you have never shown any evidence that it is the sole arbiter of reality.

Because that is your job: burden of proof again.

Ironically, you will only allow forms of evidence that fit the naturalistic approach, meaning that any evidence you were to produce to show the sole arbiter-ness of the naturalistic approach wouldn't stand up to a charge of bias.

Nonsense - the only meaningful evidence available at present is naturalistic but you're free to demonstrate non-naturalistic evidence provided you support it with an appropriate methodology.

Tht is why I often argue that we are debating from such different worldviews as to make such debate impossible.

Nope - unless you can demonstrate the methodology to support your claim of something other than naturalism then you don't have a 'different worldview': all you have is assertion based on fallacious reasoning.

[Shaker]

That's the way to do it 

[Brownie]

My old pp was removed by the parish he served before this one because the HTB crowd promised the congregation they'd get 'the gifts of the Spirit' and when they didn't they blamed him for 'blocking' it.

That takes the biscuit.  I'm lost for words!

[OH MY WORLD!]

Shaker is confused, he's thinking of the material benefits of that atheist Sunday Assembly. Happy clappy time at the godless assembly near you.

[jeremyp]

They only fall at the first hurdle if science and the naturalistic approach to reality is the sole approach we have  - and you have yet to provide us with any evidence that that is the case - so, a good example of your use of tyhe negative proof fallacy on your part.

Science works, to a large extent.  Few, if any, Christians would diagree - however, you have never shown any evidence that it is the sole arbiter of reality.

Here is the way it works: Science is an approach to finding out about reality. It's the only approach I know of that works and I observe that it is spectacularly successful.

I am quite open to the possibility that other approaches may exist, but, personally, I can't think of any. You say you have got one, but I don't just accept your assertions on your say so. If you want me to accept your assertion, you need to tell me what your alternative approach is. Furthermore, the fact that you keep repeating your assertion without backing it up makes me think your assertion is false. After all, if it were true, why wouldn't you tell me what it is?

[Leonard James]

Here is the way it works: Science is an approach to finding out about reality. It's the only approach I know of that works and I observe that it is spectacularly successful.

I am quite open to the possibility that other approaches may exist, but, personally, I can't think of any. You say you have got one, but I don't just accept your assertions on your say so. If you want me to accept your assertion, you need to tell me what your alternative approach is. Furthermore, the fact that you keep repeating your assertion without backing it up makes me think your assertion is false. After all, if it were true, why wouldn't you tell me what it is?

I'm sure it is because, like Alan Burns, he doesn't have one. They are both so indoctrinated by their beliefs and personal experiences that they refute any other view.

[SusanDoris]

My report on the Alpha course I attended about 18 years ago was nowhere near as critical as I would write today. I've just tried to find the link, but it's coming up with 'Info Icon' about bing unavailable.  I'll try again later.

[Hope]

Here is the way it works: Science is an approach to finding out about reality. It's the only approach I know of that works and I observe that it is spectacularly successful.

It is only spectacularly successful within that range of reality that it relates to.  There is sufficient evidence to suggest that this isn't the sole aspect of reality. 

I am quite open to the possibility that other approaches may exist, but, personally, I can't think of any. You say you have got one, but I don't just accept your assertions on your say so. If you want me to accept your assertion, you need to tell me what your alternative approach is. Furthermore, the fact that you keep repeating your assertion without backing it up makes me think your assertion is false. After all, if it were true, why wouldn't you tell me what it is?

The problem with this argument is that - has been said in previous threads - evidence of the sort you believe in is necessarily physical, and therefore any other evidence doesn't fit your parameters.  As I've said before, the problem with the discussions on this and other boards is that protaganists come to the debate with all-but exclusive understandings of life.

[Hope]

That takes the biscuit.  I'm lost for words!

Likewise, Brownie.  Knowing the folk at HTB as I do, this doesn't match my knowledge of their way of thinking.

[Gordon]

It is only spectacularly successful within that range of reality that it relates to.  There is sufficient evidence to suggest that this isn't the sole aspect of reality.

Well post it rather than just claim it - then we can evaluate it.
 

The problem with this argument is that - has been said in previous threads - evidence of the sort you believe in is necessarily physical, and therefore any other evidence doesn't fit your parameters.

What other evidence?

As I've said before, the problem with the discussions on this and other boards is that protaganists come to the debate with all-but exclusive understandings of life.

You've yet to demonstrate a non-naturalistic 'understanding' of anything: just claiming that there is some ineffable and mysterious 'range of reality' seems like a clear misunderstanding on your part if you can't support it with arguments that aren't inherently fallacious.

[Khatru]

It is only spectacularly successful within that range of reality that it relates to.  There is sufficient evidence to suggest that this isn't the sole aspect of reality. 
The problem with this argument is that - has been said in previous threads - evidence of the sort you believe in is necessarily physical, and therefore any other evidence doesn't fit your parameters.  As I've said before, the problem with the discussions on this and other boards is that protaganists come to the debate with all-but exclusive understandings of life.

The evidence for our reality is plentiful, if you want us to seriously consider your deity then you'll need to bring empirical evidence to the discussion.  Strangely, you have as much difficulty doing this as an Australian Aborigine would in providing evidence that the Dreamtime Snake was for real.

You say there is another way of looking at reality....... please share with us just what has to be done to measure this realm.  How do we observe it and where is the evidence for it?

Science is the investigation of the universe using observation and reason. What we have with science is trust and expectation based on a long and brilliantly successful career of explaining and predicting nature. Science has been so incredibly successful in this area that we expect it to continue succeeding.

Religion, by contrast, has a history of failure. Where are your religion's successes with physical reality? You've got a flat earth with four corners under a dome with a stationary earth orbited by a sun. You have, quite possibly, a ratio of three for Pi.  You've got cud chewing rabbits, giants, dragons, witches cockatrices and unicorns.  You've got people with lifespans that run to the best part of a thousand years.  You've got a talking snake and donkey and a woman who was turned into a pillar of salt.

Then of course there's a flood that covers the entire earth and a boat that carried every single species of animal.  You've got people coming back from the dead (thousands of them).  You've got a guy walking on water, turning water into wine and calming a stormy sea water and another guy being swallowed by a big fish and living to tell the tale.  You can even genetically modify goats by floating bits of tree bark in water.

I nearly forgot to mention the demons - making people sick and causing mayhem.

It's a world full of miracle workers, magic and visions where apparently man is beset by the forces of evil arrayed against him by the greatest super villain in the universe.

So, I'm sure you'll excuse me for expressing a slight bias in favour of the scientific method.

[john]

The evidence for our reality is plentiful, if you want us to seriously consider your deity then you'll need to bring empirical evidence to the discussion.  Strangely, you have as much difficulty doing this as an Australian Aborigine would in providing evidence that the Dreamtime Snake was for real.

You say there is another way of looking at reality....... please share with us just what has to be done to measure this realm.  How do we observe it and where is the evidence for it?

Science is the investigation of the universe using observation and reason. What we have with science is trust and expectation based on a long and brilliantly successful career of explaining and predicting nature. Science has been so incredibly successful in this area that we expect it to continue succeeding.

Religion, by contrast, has a history of failure. Where are your religion's successes with physical reality? You've got a flat earth with four corners under a dome with a stationary earth orbited by a sun. You have, quite possibly, a ratio of three for Pi.  You've got cud chewing rabbits, giants, dragons, witches cockatrices and unicorns.  You've got people with lifespans that run to the best part of a thousand years.  You've got a talking snake and donkey and a woman who was turned into a pillar of salt.

Then of course there's a flood that covers the entire earth and a boat that carried every single species of animal.  You've got people coming back from the dead (thousands of them).  You've got a guy walking on water, turning water into wine and calming a stormy sea water and another guy being swallowed by a big fish and living to tell the tale.  You can even genetically modify goats by floating bits of tree bark in water.

I nearly forgot to mention the demons - making people sick and causing mayhem.

It's a world full of miracle workers, magic and visions where apparently man is beset by the forces of evil arrayed against him by the greatest super villain in the universe.

So, I'm sure you'll excuse me for expressing a slight bias in favour of the scientific method.

Brilliant Khatru.

That just about sums it up.

But why should we care if some people believe such non sense?

Because they influence others...... especially in the case of someone like Hope who claims to be a teacher. God knows what damage he is doing to young developing minds, telling them to believe rubbish things without evidence or despite it.

It is really scary that the which doctors still hold influence.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Well John, I would never let children near you. What a rotter you seem to be. Full of atheist hate for a teacher who is a person of faith. No, you are the one that would damage school children not Hope.

[Shaker]

Well John, I would never let children near you. What a rotter you seem to be. Full of atheist hate for a teacher who is a person of faith. No, you are the one that would damage school children not Hope.

A teacher's private and personal beliefs - religious, political, moral or otherwise - are supposed to stay private and personal. A teacher's job is to educate by teaching the curriculum. With older students especially it's entirely possible that a teacher's personal beliefs may come out in the context of a broader discussion, but on the whole it's inadvisable since it can be as bad or worse for the teacher themself as it may be for the pupils. I think we can all pretty well imagine how a science teacher is going to be regarded if it becomes known that he or she thinks the world is 6,000 years old and that evolution didn't and doesn't occur.

That aside, I think the position amongst the members of the reality-based community of the forum is both unambiguous and unanimous: instead of merely asserting that something is the case (such as that there are other realms of reality), cough up with the evidence for this and a methodology for evaluating such claims and acertaining their truth or falsity. It's only pious hand-waving otherwise to which nobody is obliged to give the time of day.

[floo]

Brilliant Khatru.

That just about sums it up.

But why should we care if some people believe such non sense?

Because they influence others...... especially in the case of someone like Hope who claims to be a teacher. God knows what damage he is doing to young developing minds, telling them to believe rubbish things without evidence or despite it.

It is really scary that the which doctors still hold influence.

It is fine for people to believe in a faith but proselytising, especially where children are concerned, is always WRONG!