The downward trend continues

[Sassy]

Sounds like you were the ideal candidate for being indoctrinated Sass, it obviously worked.

ippy

I was never indoctrinated... I knew that God was real.
You never experienced that or did you shut it out?

[floo]

I was never indoctrinated... I knew that God was real.
You never experienced that or did you shut it out?

Your experience doesn't make the existence of god a fact.

[ippy]

I was never indoctrinated... I knew that God was real.
You never experienced that or did you shut it out?

Sass how do you or anyone else shut out something that's not there?

Hang on Sass I've got a load of elves riding unicorns knocking at the front door gotta go now.

ippy

[Hope]

An interesting set of findings in the latest (2015) NatCen's British Social Attitudes survey.

http://bit.ly/2b3R6i0

It will be interesting to see 2016's figures when we get them next year.

[ippy]

An interesting set of findings in the latest (2015) NatCen's British Social Attitudes survey.

http://bit.ly/2b3R6i0

It will be interesting to see 2016's figures when we get them next year.

Most things flap about a bit before they depart, it looks like more of the same to me.

It'll be interesting to see the figures next year; if the numbers of religious believers are on the increase then I wonder which one of us two, Hope, will be the most surprised?

ippy   

[Hope]

It'll be interesting to see the figures next year; if the numbers of religious believers are on the increase then I wonder which one of us two, Hope, will be the most surprised?

I suspect it'll be you, ippy.  After all, when one takes out the element of compulsion - which we've seen a lot of in the West over the centuries, numbers always seem to increase or - at the very least - stay stable (look at the history of the Chinese Church since Mao took control of that country.

Christians were 4 million before 1949.  ...  According to official figures, Christians are 26 million, which excludes children and unregistered churches.[figure from 2003].* On the other hand, some international Christian organizations estimate there are tens of millions more.^

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China
* Lambert, Tony. Counting Christians in China: A Cautionary Report. International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 2003, vol. 27, no 1, p. 6-10.
^Wielander, Gerda. Christian Values in Communist China (Routledge Contemporary China Series) 2013 p.3

Similar stories can be found in many of the nations that have been atheistic in nature during the 20th Century.

[ippy]

I suspect it'll be you, ippy.  After all, when one takes out the element of compulsion - which we've seen a lot of in the West over the centuries, numbers always seem to increase or - at the very least - stay stable (look at the history of the Chinese Church since Mao took control of that country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_China
* Lambert, Tony. Counting Christians in China: A Cautionary Report. International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 2003, vol. 27, no 1, p. 6-10.
^Wielander, Gerda. Christian Values in Communist China (Routledge Contemporary China Series) 2013 p.3

Similar stories can be found in many of the nations that have been atheistic in nature during the 20th Century.

How surprising, your response Hope.

Let's wait and see, the web is a great eye opener of knowledge which doesn't really help your case, just for one and the total lack of viable evidence for any of the magical, mythical, superstition based parts of beliefs, like yours, whichever one it is, doesn't exactly help your cause either.

ippy

[Hope]

How surprising, your response Hope.

Let's wait and see, the web is a great eye opener of knowledge which doesn't really help your case, just for one and the total lack of viable evidence for any of the magical, mythical, superstition based parts of beliefs, like yours, whichever one it is, doesn't exactly help your cause either.

ippy

Yet, the web is also a factor in the spread of the Gospel, and also the spread of numerous explanantions of the validity of religion, which no-one has ever done anymore than question here.  You, and others, can question till your cows come home, but that doesn't mean that the claims aren't true.  Science certainly doesn't disprove them, in fact, many scientists would suggest that it doesn't deal in the same 'currency' as religion and some say that one without the other doesn't make sense.

So, rather than trying, rather childishly (and unsuccessfully), to score points - I'd suggest you take your own advice and 'wait and see'.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Yet, the web is also a factor in the spread of the Gospel, and also the spread of numerous explanantions of the validity of religion, which no-one has ever done anymore than question here.  You, and others, can question till your cows come home, but that doesn't mean that the claims aren't true.  Science certainly doesn't disprove them, in fact, many scientists would suggest that it doesn't deal in the same 'currency' as religion and some say that one without the other doesn't make sense.

As so often, you manage to pack a lot of mistakes into relatively few words here.

First, people here (and elsewhere) have done a lot more than that "question" numerous explanations for the "validity of religion" if by validation you mean the arguments the religious attempt to show that their claims are true. What we've done is to falsify those arguments, which is a very different matter.

Second, yet again your "that doesn't mean that the claims aren't true" is your favourite negative proof fallacy. Stopped clocks are right twice a day - by complete co-incidence the claims of your or any other religion might be true. What it does mean though is that the arguments you attempt to demonstrate that they are true are wrong. Flat wrong.   

Third, it's not that science "can't" disprove them, but rather that they offer nothing with which the methods of science can engage. For the purposes of science, these claims are not even wrong. That though isn't a weakness of science. The weakness here is - if not for the methods of science - you have no method of any kind to distinguish your truth claims from just guessing about stuff.   

Fourth, science without religion makes perfectly good sense. Why wouldn't it?

Do you see now what I mean by your cramming a lot of mistakes into relatively few words?

So, rather than trying, rather childishly (and unsuccessfully), to score points...

The only (successful) "point scoring" here is falsifying the arguments the religious attempt to show that their claims are true. And that's important to disqualify the rights and privileges they often arrogate to their faith claims. 

...I'd suggest you take your own advice and 'wait and see'.

For what?

[Gordon]

Yet, the web is also a factor in the spread of the Gospel,

Just as it is for the spread of busines, shopping, commerce, social interactions, gambling, pornography, current news stories etc etc etc - what is your point here?

... and also the spread of numerous explanantions of the validity of religion, which no-one has ever done anymore than question here.

I think you mean 'rebut', since what we've seen in this small slice of the internet is invalid arguments for religion that involve an impressive range of fallacies.

You, and others, can question till your cows come home, but that doesn't mean that the claims aren't true.  Science certainly doesn't disprove them, in fact, many scientists would suggest that it doesn't deal in the same 'currency' as religion and some say that one without the other doesn't make sense.

Right on cue you're off in the direction of the negative proof fallacy, again. Then you misunderstand or misrepresent science, which doesn't deal in religious superstitions dating from antiquity: but you must know this by now, since its been pointed out to you regularly.

[ippy]

Yet, the web is also a factor in the spread of the Gospel, and also the spread of numerous explanantions of the validity of religion, which no-one has ever done any more than question here.  You, and others, can question till your cows come home, but that doesn't mean that the claims aren't true.  Science certainly doesn't disprove them, in fact, many scientists would suggest that it doesn't deal in the same 'currency' as religion and some say that one without the other doesn't make sense.

So, rather than trying, rather childishly (and unsuccessfully), to score points - I'd suggest you take your own advice and 'wait and see'.   

I have to hand it to you Hope, you just can't give up on the N P F ?

[Hope]

I have to hand it to you Hope, you just can't give up on the N P F ?

A bit like you and the bull-shitting, ippy.

[BeRational]

A bit like you and the bull-shitting, ippy.

But when you use the NPF you destroy your own argument.

So why do you do it?

[Sebastian Toe]

But when you use the NPF you destroy your own argument.

So why do you do it?

What argument? 

[BeRational]

What argument? 

When he attempts an argument he often employs fallacies which just mean his argument is invalid.
This is odd as it has been pointed out to him when he does this, but he never seems to learn

[ippy]

A bit like you and the bull-shitting, ippy.

I'm not with you there Hope, please explain?

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

I'm not with you there Hope, please explain?

He's an odd one all right. Time and time again he makes the same logical mistakes, just ignores the rebuttals, and then makes them again apparently oblivious to the fact of the rebuttals cutting the ground from under him. It's genuinely hard to know whether he just doesn't understand the negative proof fallacy in particular, or whether he does understand it but doesn't care that it's a false argument.

As a tactic just insulting the person who points out his mistake seems an odd approach too, but there it is nonetheless.   

[jeremyp]

Last night I heard the latest episode of Beyond Belief on R4. The subject was The Cultural Revolution and its impact on religion. It turns out that, between the start of the Cultural Revolution (1966) and the death of Mao ten years later, all religion was completely suppressed. So when people claim huge growth in religion in China and Christianity in particular, you have to remember that this is only a response to the relaxation of the rules since 1976 and only represents a return to the levels of religious observance before 1966.

Religions in China are still heavily controlled by the State and, in fact, in recent years, oppression seems to be getting worse although all of the guests on the programme were optimistic for the long term that China will allow reasonable freedom of religion.



 

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

Last night I heard the latest episode of Beyond Belief on R4. The subject was The Cultural Revolution and its impact on religion. It turns out that, between the start of the Cultural Revolution (1966) and the death of Mao ten years later, all religion was completely suppressed. So when people claim huge growth in religion in China and Christianity in particular, you have to remember that this is only a response to the relaxation of the rules since 1976 and only represents a return to the levels of religious observance before 1966.

Religions in China are still heavily controlled by the State and, in fact, in recent years, oppression seems to be getting worse although all of the guests on the programme were optimistic for the long term that China will allow reasonable freedom of religion.

Thanks for the heads up - I'll have a listen. I've noticed too that those who claim rapid growth for their particular faith are very keen on percentages - "There's been a 1,000% growth in Christianity in China in one year alone!" type of thing. If though there was one Christian in China on 01 January and ten of them by 31 December that would be 1,000% growth too. Percentages alone don't in other words tell you very much.   

[jeremyp]

jeremy,

Thanks for the heads up - I'll have a listen. I've noticed too that those who claim rapid growth for their particular faith are very keen on percentages - "There's been a 1,000% growth in Christianity in China in one year alone!" type of thing. If though there was one Christian in China on 01 January and ten of them by 31 December that would be 1,000% growth too. Percentages alone don't in other words tell you very much.   

Yes, in fact the programme claims there are now 26 million Christians in China. 40 years ago there would have appeared to be 0 and that makes it appear that Christianity has had astonishing growth rates but it's still only 2% of the population and maybe 50 years ago it was 4% of the population.

[Hope]

Last night I heard the latest episode of Beyond Belief on R4. The subject was The Cultural Revolution and its impact on religion. It turns out that, between the start of the Cultural Revolution (1966) and the death of Mao ten years later, all religion was completely suppressed. So when people claim huge growth in religion in China and Christianity in particular, you have to remember that this is only a response to the relaxation of the rules since 1976 and only represents a return to the levels of religious observance before 1966.

Religions in China are still heavily controlled by the State and, in fact, in recent years, oppression seems to be getting worse although all of the guests on the programme were optimistic for the long term that China will allow reasonable freedom of religion.

jeremy, tlking with friends who have either left China since Mao took over, or have worked there since 1948, the clamp-down of religion - all religions - started several years before the Cultural Revolution - more like 1959.  What is also worth noting is that all the figures that the programme gave   and are easily available - are for membership of the 'official' church.  It is likely that, if the independently reported figures for unofficial churches are to be even remotely relied on, that 26 million can be multiplied by 3 or 4 times in that sector alone.  The same happened in the USSR, and even in the UK back in the first part of the 2nd millennium.  First, the growth of Protestantism in the 14th and 15th centuries which the state and the Catholic church sought to ignore, and then in the 16th and 17th centuries, the growth of non-conformism - something that, again, the state and this time the CofE sought to minimise/ignore.


Regarding the famous accusations of NFP, I've been discussing this and one or two other threads here with some logicians I know - some religious, some not.  Almost all agree that, yes there is an degree of NFP-ism in several of my posts, but then there is a similar degree of it in many of the other posts because there appears - to them - to be an unevidenced assumption that logic can only deal with 'the natural'. 

Interestingly, most of them (wheter religious or not) point out that this particular thread of debate is nigh on impossible to come to a conclusion on - simply because of the very different starting point that the two sides of the debate are starting from; something that I have been pointing out for several months now.  It's an interesting academic exercise, but with minimal practical value.

[Gordon]

Regarding the famous accusations of NFP, I've been discussing this and one or two other threads here with some logicians I know - some religious, some not.  Almost all agree that, yes there is an degree of NFP-ism in several of my posts, but then there is a similar degree of it in many of the other posts because there appears - to them - to be an unevidenced assumption that logic can only deal with 'the natural'. 

Then please ask them to clearly explain in what ways formal logic can involve the non-natural and let us know what they say.

[Nearly Sane]

Can I ask you get one of these logicians to write up a very quick critique which outlines the question of arguing that thus is simply a matter of starting position, and then deals with the idea that any starting position they see on this thread is equally value with others?

Otherwise it is just you Hope making another assertion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Regarding the famous accusations of NFP, I've been discussing this and one or two other threads here with some logicians I know - some religious, some not.

Have you now?

Really?

Really really?

Almost all agree that, yes there is an degree of NFP-ism in several of my posts...

Only "almost" all?

And no, there's not just "a degree" - you really on it very heavily. Every time you post, "but you can't disprove X" as if not disproving X had anything whatever to say to whether X is true, you fall straight into it. Again and again. 

...but then there is a similar degree of it in many of the other posts because there appears - to them - to be an unevidenced assumption that logic can only deal with 'the natural'.

First, even if that was true a tu quoque does not deflect from your reliance on the NPF. That's more fallacious thinking.

Second, it's not true in any case. If you want to establish that there is such a thing as the non-natural, then you have to make an argument to that effect that's cogent. Simply using logically bad arguments to do the lifting doesn't help you one jot - you need to find some logically sound arguments to establish your premise or, if not, to find some other method to distinguish your claims from just guessing about stuff.       

Interestingly, most of them (wheter religious or not) point out that this particular thread of debate is nigh on impossible to come to a conclusion on - simply because of the very different starting point that the two sides of the debate are starting from; something that I have been pointing out for several months now.  It's an interesting academic exercise, but with minimal practical value.

No, it's quite possible to reach a conclusion. Simple in fact. A logically bad argument is a logically bad argument is a logically bad argument.

And logically bad arguments are always wrong.

What that means is that, every time you attempt one, your position collapses beneath you. That's why it's much more than an academic exercise with "minimal practical value" - the practical value is that it removes your claims from serious consideration because the arguments you attempt to establish them are demonstrably false.   

QED.

Job done.

Finito.

Junk the broken arguments and try some that aren't broken and then perhaps you'd have something worth considering. For now though, your reliance on broken reasoning continues to lock you out of any serious discussion about your faith claims.

I don't know who these supposed logicians are, but I'd ask for my money back if I were you.

PS Just fyi - an appeal to authority is a logically bad move too by the way. 

 

[Nearly Sane]

Oh and while they are doing that Hope, could you them to lay out the 'elements' of the NPF that they think you are showing, and what 'elements' you are not showing?


And while we are on this fact gathering exercise, is there any chance of you getting some of the medics you know that you said had evidence of non naturalistic healing to outline their methodology? Gordon asked you for that a number of times a couple of months ago when you made that claim. But so far nothing. Why is that, Hope?