The downward trend continues

[BeRational]

Given how many times this has been pointed out to him, I wonder what mental process is at work that allows him to continue to make the same error time after time after time?

Isn't is a sign of madness, when you do the same thing over and over, and expect a different outcome?

[Rhiannon]

Hope, I've noticed you have s tendency to preface some of your unsubstantiated assertions with 'ironically', as though that gives them authority. It doesn't; please stop as it's incredibly irritating.

[ippy]

You have no idea of the signs of the times...




You Ippy, Will you now believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God or will you continue to have no love for the truth? 

All things happen at the times God has planned. Falling away is a sign that the wicked one is about to be revealed.
It is sad that most will never have the warning signs you see or the proof in the words of the Apostles and Christ.
But there will be fewer warnings. At least consider the truth and read the bible fully. See how it lines up with present events and see how in those times they knew the events coming to pass today.

Hi there Sass, I wondered what's the first thing that crosses your mind when you're walking down a high street anywhere and you see one of those old guys walking up and down wearing one of those  "A"  boards with the overhead one up as well, covered in slogans like, " the end of the world is neigh", and handing out dog eared leaflets about agamemnon.

Do you go out wearing an "A" board from time to time Sass?

ippy

[Hope]

No - you recall incorrectly (surprise surprise ...). It's called the negative proof fallacy - it's that error in reasoning that you can hardly put fingers to keyboard without committing.

A rational methodology seeks positive evidence for a particular assertion, not merely the absence of evidence against it. In the absence of such evidence the default position is scepticism, not credulity.

The problem - again as I've said several times before - is that rational methodology isn't necessarily the sole means of arbiting reality.  I realise that you, and others here and elsewhere, want to believe that it is but I have yet to see any argument, rational or otherwise, that provides evidence that is the case (and I've been asking people for 30 or 40 years for such a answer).

[Leonard James]

The problem - again as I've said several times before - is that rational methodology isn't necessarily the sole means of arbiting reality.  I realise that you, and others here and elsewhere, want to believe that it is but I have yet to see any argument that provides evidence that is the case (and I've been asking people for 30 or 40 years for such a answer).

Perhaps you should be providing the evidence of another means.

[Shaker]

The problem - again as I've said several times before - is that rational methodology isn't necessarily the sole means of arbiting reality.

So what else can we use then?

Not that you'll answer the question, of course.

I realise that you, and others here and elsewhere, want to believe that it is but I have yet to see any argument, rational or otherwise, that provides evidence that is the case (and I've been asking people for 30 or 40 years for such a answer).

Still at it

[Shaker]

Perhaps you should be providing the evidence of another means.

We have asked, Len ... believe you me, we've asked ..

[Hope]

So what else can we use then?

We often use non-rational explanations for everyday situations, so requiring only rational explanations for any particular debate seems to fly in the face of normal behaviour.

Not that you'll answer the question, of course.

So, in that sense, I'm no different to anyone else here.  We all work to the extent of what we understand reality to be. 

[Shaker]

We often use non-rational explanations for everyday situations

Do we? Such as?

So, in that sense, I'm no different to anyone else here.  We all work to the extent of what we understand reality to be.

But my understanding of reality conforms to a precise (and wallopingly successful) methodology. When you claim that there is a realm or there are realms of reality outwith that, and are asked to supply your own methodology for evaluating such claims, you fail to do so each and every time. Why is that?

[Gordon]

The problem - again as I've said several times before - is that rational methodology isn't necessarily the sole means of arbiting reality.  I realise that you, and others here and elsewhere, want to believe that it is but I have yet to see any argument, rational or otherwise, that provides evidence that is the case (and I've been asking people for 30 or 40 years for such a answer).

There you go again: you won't get an argument from anyone half-way sensible in favour of philosophical naturalism for the obvious reason that not everything is yet known, so science restricts itself to the limitations of theory and associated methodologies, and goes no further.

You, however, are seeing this approach as being restrictive:  but the burden of proof here is yours and you've had ample opportunity to demonstrate the non-natural and outline methods used to do so - but all you actually do is wave your hands in the air, claim there is some other aspect to reality that can't be apprehended by reason, offer nothing to support your argument and then you run away leaving only assorted fallacies in your wake.

[Gordon]

We often use non-rational explanations for everyday situations, so requiring only rational explanations for any particular debate seems to fly in the face of normal behaviour.

Since non-rational explanations are by definition fallacious then you certainly offer these but others try to avoid such errors. So, just out of interest, what are these 'non-rational explanations' you speak of?
 

So, in that sense, I'm no different to anyone else here.  We all work to the extent of what we understand reality to be.

Which says nothing about what reality actually is as far as this can be known (that is, by having knowledge) - but you are different since your 'understanding' is so clearly fallacious, which has been pointed out to you frequently, so that it would be more accurate to say you have misunderstandings.

[jjohnjil]

The problem - again as I've said several times before - is that rational methodology isn't necessarily the sole means of arbiting reality.  I realise that you, and others here and elsewhere, want to believe that it is but I have yet to see any argument, rational or otherwise, that provides evidence that is the case (and I've been asking people for 30 or 40 years for such a answer).

If you're right, Hope, tell us how you arbitrate reality when faced with other claims.  For instance, if you are told by someone that they had just met Elvis that morning, do you accept it to be true because they have said so ... or do you have some method of verifying the claim ... or do you do what we do with claims of resurrection etc, dismiss them until the fact can be demonstrated in some way?

You could, of course, go to Memphis and dig up Elvis's body ... but I bet you don't. 

[wigginhall]

This is relevant,  not just to Elvis appearing, but to New Age stuff.   I have quite a few friends who are into astrology, Tarot, the I Ching, and so on.   I'm not  interested  in it myself, but if I wanted to investigate it, how would I do it non-rationally?

I mean, one could make guesses, or sort of enjoy oneself getting drunk,  throwing Tarot cards around, or whatever, but none of that would really tell me if Tarot offers genuine insights or not.

Of course,  one could also set up experiments which match predictions with outcomes - this seems fairly rational.   How else?

[OH MY WORLD!]

IPPY!!!
This just in, the town east of me is getting a new Catholic, looks like a cathedral, church. Why, why the crazy atheist inside you screams.
Because attendance is growing in one of my favourite Rocky Mountain towns.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canmore-church-looking-to-expand-1.3478580

[Bubbles]

Hi there Sass, I wondered what's the first thing that crosses your mind when you're walking down a high street anywhere and you see one of those old guys walking up and down wearing one of those  "A"  boards with the overhead one up as well, covered in slogans like, " the end of the world is neigh", and handing out dog eared leaflets about agamemnon.

Do you go out wearing an "A" board from time to time Sass?

ippy

I think you mean ' end of the world is nigh' rather than neigh 

[Shaker]

Perhaps he was feeling a little hoarse.

[ippy]

I think you mean ' end of the world is nigh' rather than neigh 

Spelling Rose I have never been able to get any of it right since as far back as I can remember, I keep saying be impressed with how much I get right in spite of this inability of mine, rather than be surprised when I get it wrong.

Sometimes, more often than I would like, in fact I can't even get the letter order in a word I want to use and spell checker can't pick up my attempts either, it's that bad and it hasn't got any better, no matter how much I write.

I often go to google when I can't get near to the word I want to know how to spell, google says to me "do you mean", I then check the definition to make sure it's the one I'm looking for.

It's that bad so missing "nigh", is small beer in my world.

All of my surrounding family are academically inclined and very successful academically and not in a minor league way either, in those areas, there has to be one that isn't guess who.

ippy   

 

[ippy]

IPPY!!!
This just in, the town east of me is getting a new Catholic, looks like a cathedral, church. Why, why the crazy atheist inside you screams.
Because attendance is growing in one of my favourite Rocky Mountain towns.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canmore-church-looking-to-expand-1.3478580

I wouldn't doubt your word Woody for one minute but it still no matter how successful your church is, it still wont alter the overall downward trend; you see the standards of education keep on improving, communications, and the availability of information is now so exponential and people are no longer as gullible as in the past generations, so unfortunately for your way of thinking, religion is severely on its way back to the past, where it belongs.

Religion wont die out completely but like the UK it'll all gradually diminish with the occasional death throw from time to time like your, child abuse covering, catholic based local church.

ippy

Don't get your hopes up too much Woody       

[Bubbles]

Spelling Rose I have never been able to get any of it right since as far back as I can remember, I keep saying be impressed with how much I get right in spite of this inability of mine, rather than be surprised when I get it wrong.

Sometimes, more often than I would like, in fact I can't even get the letter order in a word I want to use and spell checker can't pick up my attempts either, it's that bad and it hasn't got any better, no matter how much I write.

I often go to google when I can't get near to the word I want to know how to spell, google says to me "do you mean", I then check the definition to make sure it's the one I'm looking for.

It's that bad so missing "nigh", is small beer in my world.

All of my surrounding family are academically inclined and very successful academically and not in a minor league way either, in those areas, there has to be one that isn't guess who.

ippy

The spell checker and auto complete are the bane of my life 

 

[Sebastian Toe]

The spell checker and auto complete are the bane of my life 

 

Me two!

[Brownie]

Mwa aussie!  Never bother with them meself, to much bovver.

[Rhiannon]

My favourite thread title ever on Mumsnet was I Might Be A Mum But I Still Have Brians.

[Shaker]

Lucky old Brian is all I can say.

[Khatru]

My favourite thread title ever on Mumsnet was I Might Be A Mum But I Still Have Brians.

The "dipping your willy in a plastic cup" thread takes some beating.

[Rhiannon]

The "dipping your willy in a plastic cup" thread takes some beating.

Yes, 'do you have a penis beaker?' That one even made it here.