Why is there no verifiable evidence?

[Stranger]

Are you incapable of reading plain English. I have said that I do not rule out the possibility of non-natural things arbitrarily it's just I have no reason to accept them until such evidence is forthcoming (and no that is not an insistence on scientific evidence before you start).

I'm sorry but that's just a fancy way of saying you do hold an ontological position on which your criterion for evidence is based......

.........Hope scoops the pool.

Amazing. You really are incapable of understanding plain English.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm sorry but that's just a fancy way of saying you do hold an ontological position on which your criterion for evidence is based......

.........Hope scoops the pool.


Amazing. You really are incapable of understanding plain English.

sorry? what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The nature of the contribution to this forum is that many of those making that contribution have an intense dislike of sloppy thinking, poor reasoning and bad arguments, 

Funny that never stops them from posting though.

[floo]

Funny that never stops them from posting though.

It certainly doesn't stop you that is for sure.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Funny that never stops them from posting though.

Anyway maybe you could get back to demonstrating your methodology. SO far this is my favourite.

Disturbance by the idea of the Christian god is evidence that there is possibly a God as described by said faith.

Any chance of showing why that follows.

[Shaker]

Anyway maybe you could get back to demonstrating your methodology. SO far this is my favourite.

Any chance of showing why that follows.

Getting a little ahead of ourselves - firstly Vlad has to back up his assertion that anybody is "disturbed" or "upset" by the idea of a god, which he has never done. His example of the contributions to this forum (by his mythical "anti-theists") fails because because people (or at least some of them, at any rate) contribute for the reasons outlined in #192.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Getting a little ahead of ourselves - firstly Vlad has to back up his assertion that anybody is "disturbed" or "upset" by the idea of a god, which he has never done. His example of the contributions to this forum (by his mythical "anti-theists") fails because because people (or at least some of them, at any rate) contribute for the reasons outlined in #192.

I know but even if they were. I mean, wow, non sequitur of the year surely.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The nature of the contribution to this forum is that many of those making that contribution have an intense dislike of sloppy thinking, poor reasoning and bad arguments, and say so.
The forum is called Religion and Ethics so God would naturally be the focus rather than fairies; but the more pertinent reason is that people who believe in a god try to affect the daily lives of the population using said belief as a justification - the most recent example that springs to mind was the attempt of god-believers to prevent same-sex couples from marrying in a civil, secular ceremony (i.e. an action by god-believers attempting to prevent people from engaging in an activity which had nothing whatever to do with them), but there are many more. That deserves to be fought against wherever and whenever it arises.
Prove it.

What a litany of cobblers.
Posting statements on God is a fulltime pastime here. Even if people believed they were in the van at challenging faulty thinking to alight on God in a complete world of faulty thinking is both focussed and unreasonable particularly when accompanied by an evaporation of common decency toward others. It smacks of ''religion as the root of all evil'' thinking, and even Dawkins gave that line up as a bad job.

To the rest of us what we see is people using ontological naturalistic arguments and denying they are doing so.

In terms of the rest not all opponents to gay marriage are religious or even heterosexual, and antitheists and pagans have ignored any claims from different sex couples who want civil partnership on this board and have completely ignored reasonable questions over assisted suicide and workers rights. But to conflate those people with atheists as you conflate certain views with all Christians is a bit slipshod.

Your chief issue forum antitheists is that you are not very skilful with categories or even with diddling the boundaries thereof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Anyway maybe you could get back to demonstrating your methodology. SO far this is my favourite.

Any chance of showing why that follows.

Its one of the possibilities Stephen. The only possible disqualification is to assume ontological naturalism.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Its one of the possibilities Stephen. The only possible disqualification is to assume ontological naturalism.

It is not up to anyone to disqualify it. You need to demonstrate it. Why is this so hard for you to grasp.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

To the rest of us what we see is people using ontological naturalistic arguments and denying they are doing so.

Show me where I have made an ontological naturalistic argument.

For the last time I have never said that the natural is all that can be. However, that doesn't mean that I automatically accept claims of the non-natural source.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is not up to anyone to disqualify it. You need to demonstrate it. Why is this so hard for you to grasp.

I think logic dictates it is a possibility which is all I am claiming.

Since the logic of antitheists merely disliking sloppy thinking is exposable as not sound we are still posed with the question, why are people particularly upset by the claims of Christianity and express it in a particular way and this is demonstrable in their writings and behaviour and, by extension, neurologically.

That should be a question all reasonable people should ponder and not whitewash as you and others seem to be doing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Show me where I have made an ontological naturalistic argument.

For the last time I have never said that the natural is all that can be. However, that does mean that I automatically accept claims of the non-natural source.

It's implicit in your definition of evidence which.... you keep failing to see....
is rooted in ontological naturalistic assumptions.

I refer you to Hope's earlier post.

[Shaker]

What a litany of cobblers.
Posting statements on God is a fulltime pastime here.

On a forum called Religion and Ethics I would expect it to be.

On the BBC Good Food forum, not so much.

Even if people believed they were in the van at challenging faulty thinking to alight on God in a complete world of faulty thinking is both focussed and unreasonable particularly when accompanied by an evaporation of common decency toward others.

Name a larger, more widespread or more pernicious form of faulty thinking.

It smacks of ''religion as the root of all evil'' thinking, and even Dawkins gave that line up as a bad job.

No it doesn't. It's the root of quite a lot of evil and a great deal of pettiness, ugliness and sheer silliness that makes the everyday lives of people unhappier than would otherwise be the case.

In terms of the rest not all opponents to gay marriage are religious or even heterosexual

Straw man - I never claimed that that was the case. But the most consistent, most vocal and most organised opposition to marriage equality came from religious quarters. See also abortion and assisted suicide - opposition not universally religious; opposition overwhelmingly religious. I read the comments of a number of gay people who were against same-sex marriage, but on the basis that it was of no interest to them and/or superfluous rather than that they were set upon denying others the ability to do what they had no desire to do, which was certainly the case with the Church of England, the Catholic Church, Orthodox Judaism, the Muslim Council of Britain ...

[Stranger]

Its one of the possibilities Stephen. The only possible disqualification is to assume ontological naturalism.

If a concept of god is not self-contradictory (which many are), of course it's a possibility. We don't need all the drivel you've been posting to tell us that.

The question is how do we tell if one one of these gods exist.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I think logic dictates it is a possibility which is all I am claiming.

I'm not sure that logic does dictate it. As for a claim though that is fair enough. All you need to do is to show it is more than a possibility if you want your objective claims to be taken seriously.

Since the logic of antitheists merely disliking sloppy thinking is exposable as not sound

You have all your work ahead of you to show why.

we are still posed with the question, why are people particularly upset by the claims of Christianity and express it in a particular way and this is demonstrable in their writings and behaviour and, by extension, neurologically.

That should be a question all reasonable people should ponder and not whitewash as you and others seem to be doing.

I'm not whitewashing anything. I am passionate about lot's of things in life, but what would expect me to argue against on a Christian thread on an R&E board?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

It's implicit in your definition of evidence which.... you keep failing to see....
is rooted in ontological naturalistic assumptions.

I refer you to Hope's earlier post.

I have specifically stated that it is up to Hope and yourself to provide a methodology. Show me where I have ontological naturalistic assumptions.

I would suggest that the more likely reality is that you simply have no methodology and you try to shift the burden on to me by claiming I am an ontological naturalist,

[Bubbles]

Thank you that is clear.

You would have to ask Rose.

I think that when you are walking down the street and people start telling you that you are in need of salvation, that you are a sinner, deficient in some way then some people are going to feel awkward. Trying to make people feel small and inadequate, when they are just going about their day to day business is classic bullying.

Yes, some of them do that, grab people and treat them as if sin is something only non Christians do.

Some Christians think they are unstained by sin, because they have accepted Jesus

Unfortunately I think a high proportion of street preachers are mentally ill.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On a forum called Religion and Ethics I would expect it to be.

On the BBC Good Food forum, not so much.Name a larger, more widespread or more pernicious form of faulty thinking. No it doesn't. It's the root of quite a lot of evil and a great deal of pettiness, ugliness and sheer silliness that makes the everyday lives of people unhappier than would otherwise be the case.
Straw man - I never claimed that that was the case. But the most consistent, most vocal and most organised opposition to marriage equality came from religious quarters. See also abortion and assisted suicide - opposition not universally religious; opposition overwhelmingly religious. I read the comments of a number of gay people who were against same-sex marriage, but on the basis that it was of no interest to them and/or superfluous rather than that they were set upon denying others the ability to do what they had no desire to do, which was certainly the case with the Church of England, the Catholic Church, Orthodox Judaism, the Muslim Council of Britain ...

Yes this is the religionethics forum but it's not that is it........it's the time people spend here railing and raging against God.

The biggest evil is of course the love of money but I can well believe that many unlike Dawkins believe that religion is the greatest evil.

And as for secularism let us not forget that the biggest sink of offence and offenders is yes, you've guessed it, the general population.....and what do you think that means in a frankly humanist and secular nation Shaker?

Most of the laws which you perceive as being progressive were in fact drafted in by a minority in the context of a nation, including  the majority who couldn't have given a shit one way or another...But then we have to put that in the context of your motives for supporting them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have specifically stated that it is up to Hope and yourself to provide a methodology. Show me where I have ontological naturalistic assumptions.

I would suggest that the more likely reality is that you simply have no methodology and you try to shift the burden on to me by claiming I am an ontological naturalist,

No you have a burden given from where you are arguing from and technically I have a burden however, As Hope says, our interpretation of evidence does not equate with yours and we have acknowledged that.
In fact we frequently and possibly unnecessarily make an admission that we have no proof for it.

You do not actually hold the default position nor are you without burden since ontological naturalism carries one. In fact it is worse for you because the lack of methodological support for your implicit position removes virtue from it.

I think you'll agree that given this you guys are playing with a few cards from a different pack.

Have a nice day.

[Enki]

No, disturbance is manifest by contribution to this forum and the nature of that contribution. That particular focus is shown towards God as opposed to fairies, tree dwellers, paganism etc is also manifest.

You are thus seriously in denial. Not only do you not see the elephant but are refusing to see the room as well.

Well, if you are right,then we can safely say that your contributions (just to this thread) suggest your disturbance, and the nature of your disturbance is particularly shown in relation to the idea of non belief in a god.

So, if, as you have already said, that "disturbance by the idea of the Christian god is evidence that there is possibly a God as described by said faith.", then the disturbance by the idea of non belief in a god is possibly evidence that there are possibly no gods at all, as professed by atheists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, if you are right,then we can safely say that your contributions (just to this thread) suggest your disturbance, and the nature of your disturbance is particularly shown in relation to the idea of non belief in a god.

So, if, as you have already said, that "disturbance by the idea of the Christian god is evidence that there is possibly a God as described by said faith.", then the disturbance by the idea of non belief in a god is possibly evidence that there are possibly no gods at all, as professed by atheists.

Having experience non belief of God and belief of God I know that of the two God is the most disturbing idea. But I don't think I'm unique in that.

[jeremyp]

No you have a burden given from where you are arguing from

He's not arguing at all. You are claiming the existence of a certain entity. All we are saying is "OK, so show us your verifiable evidence".

That really is how simple it is.

Notice how I'm not using big words like "ontological" or "naturalistic". We just want you to tell us some fact that, if true, demonstrate the existence of your god and that we can verify for ourselves.

All this crap you are putting up is really just convincing us that you cannot do what we ask, which is fine, you are free to continue to believe in God anyway, but the crap smacks of dishonesty on your part because you cannot admit that your belief in God is based entirely on faith.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He's not arguing at all. You are claiming the existence of a certain entity. All we are saying is "OK, so show us your verifiable evidence".

well God is proposed not just as certain entity but in the same sense that the nature part of ontological naturalism. I believe the phrase ground of being and ultimate and necessary have been mentioned. He's not limited to some kind of big chap you know.

I think you are thinking of God as something contained and less than nature. You'd have to see someone else about something like that.

[Shaker]

Yes this is the religionethics forum but it's not that is it........it's the time people spend here railing and raging against God.

I've yet to see anybody railing and raging against God. What seems to be at work here is that you're confusing this railing and raging business (which again seems to exist only inside your head) with the ability of many highly intelligent and thoughtful people here to dissect and dispense with poor reasoning and bad arguments - their ability to show up theistic arguments as very poor indeed and easily refutable. That's not "railing and raging"; that's using reason to expose sloppy thinking.

And as for secularism let us not forget that the biggest sink of offence and offenders is yes, you've guessed it, the general population.....and what do you think that means in a frankly humanist and secular nation Shaker?

I don't even know what your question means. What's a sink of offence and offenders when it's at home?

Most of the laws which you perceive as being progressive were in fact drafted in by a minority in the context of a nation

In the case of marriage equality, no - that had (and retains) majority public support. Numerous opinion polls supplied upon request. I don't know of the figures for abortion but I suspect that they're the same. And of course, we all know that there's overwhelming public support for some form of assisted suicide law - the opinion polls have never shown anything lower than 70-odd per cent support for decades and usually much more.

including  the majority who couldn't have given a shit one way or another

A group which doesn't include that set of people actively and explicitly attempting to stop a particular measure, as religious bodies do with equal marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, etc.

...But then we have to put that in the context of your motives for supporting them.

Which are what?