The H O Lords debate about religion, schools etc.

[Hope]

Have you got anything to offer other than a predictably feeble attempt to shift the burden of proof?

Shifting the burden of proof?  Those who make claims are those who hold that burden.  ippy, and several others on both sides of the debate, have made claims of various sorts.  Those on the religious side of the debate have tried to provide evidence even though it is often difficult to squash it into the limitations of naturalistic, scientific evidence.  Those on your side of the debate have rarely even attempted to give any evidence.

[Gordon]

Those on the religious side of the debate have tried to provide evidence even though it is often difficult to squash it into the limitations of naturalistic, scientific evidence. 

In what way is it difficult when you have yet to offer any evidence at all?

Those on your side of the debate have rarely even attempted to give any evidence.

Evidence of what? Sounds like you are inviting us to commit the negative proof fallacy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In what way is it difficult when you have yet to offer any evidence at all?

Evidence of what? Sounds like you are inviting us to commit the negative proof fallacy.

1) Any positively asserted position carries a burden of proof whether it is a statement of a negative or not.
2)Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


Now demonstrate the implied position ''atheism equals reason''.
Also that the universe is God free.

[Gordon]

1) Any positively asserted position carries a burden of proof whether it is a statement of a negative or not.

Very good, grasshopper, until we get to the 'whether' bit, which looks an attempted switcheroo of said burden in a thinly disguised invite to commit the NPF. Moreover the approach of yours falls flat on its face when someone simply notes that you aren't offering an argument at all.

2) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

A cliche of course, and absence of evidence is exactly that: no evidence, which in the context of this discussion given Hope's claims of having evidence yet to be presented.

Now demonstrate the implied position ''atheism equals reason''.
Also that the universe is God free.

No thanks, since I haven't claimed either of these I'm not obliged to defend them.

[Stranger]

Those on the religious side of the debate have tried to provide evidence even though it is often difficult to squash it into the limitations of naturalistic, scientific evidence.

Nobody has asked you to squash it into anything - just to offer any hint of objective evidence or sound argument. Your continued statements about science and naturalism are dishonest in the extreme.

Those on your side of the debate have rarely even attempted to give any evidence.

Evidence of what? Unless you (or anybody else) can provide anything that can distinguish claims of a god from just guessing, then the claim that it is nothing more than a guess is fully justified by your inability to do so.

Nobody (that I'm aware of) is claiming that it is a guess that must be wrong (although some specific god claims can be ruled out by logic or evidence).

[Stranger]

Now demonstrate the implied position ''atheism equals reason''.
Also that the universe is God free.

Back to depleting the world's stock of straw....

[ippy]

Shifting the burden of proof?  Those who make claims are those who hold that burden.  ippy, and several others on both sides of the debate, have made claims of various sorts.  Those on the religious side of the debate have tried to provide evidence even though it is often difficult to squash it into the limitations of naturalistic, scientific evidence.  Those on your side of the debate have rarely even attempted to give any evidence.

Hope, other than this N P F offering of yours you seem to be a reasonably rationa person, as I'm not offering any theories about anything in particularhow can I prove anything about something or anything I'm not offering and it makes me wonder why you seem to be unable to to understand this?

I don't actually believe that there is no such thing as a god of any kind, it's just I have never seen anything that is any where near credible to even suggest any such thing exists so as far as I am concerned there is no reason to even go looking for one of these fabled god things that, generally religious believing people, keep banging on about.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hope, other than this N P F offering of yours you seem to be a reasonably rationa person, as I'm not offering any theories about anything in particularhow can I prove anything about something or anything I'm not offering and it makes me wonder why you seem to be unable to to understand this?

I don't actually believe that there is no such thing as a god of any kind, it's just I have never seen anything that is any where near credible to even suggest any such thing exists so as far as I am concerned there is no reason to even go looking for one of these fabled god things that, generally religious believing people, keep banging on about.

ippy

What is your definition of the word credible?

[ippy]

What is your definition of the word credible?

Why not Google it Vlad, why do you need me?

ippy

[Hope]

Why not Google it Vlad, why do you need me?

ippy

You sometimes use definitions that don't appear in dictionaries, let alone on Google, ippy.  Hence VahI's request for the one you are using in this case.

[Hope]

Nobody has asked you to squash it into anything - just to offer any hint of objective evidence or sound argument.

Sorry SK, all that has been asked for is evidence that can be verified by a naturalistic, scientific method.  We all know that there are aspects of life that are beyond the scientific envelope.  Whether they will always be, is open to debate, but then we all have to accept that we often take things on faith, rather than on scientific and naturalistic grounds. 

Your continued statements about science and naturalism are dishonest in the extreme.

They reflect what many intelligent and even scientific people argue.

Evidence of what? Unless you (or anybody else) can provide anything that can distinguish claims of a god from just guessing, then the claim that it is nothing more than a guess is fully justified by your inability to do so.

I am aware of that, but then there are plenty of things that society, or members of society takes on the grounds of faith than on fact.  The current referendum campaign is a perfect example.

Nobody (that I'm aware of) is claiming that it is a guess that must be wrong (although some specific god claims can be ruled out by logic or evidence).

Yet, there are real-life issues that contradict logic and for which there is no evidence - but still exist/occur.  I seem to remember that the BBC website was carrying an article a week or so back on a British cyclist (?) who confounded medical opinion as to her recovery from injury.  Logic and evidence seems to have been disproven.

[Stranger]

Sorry SK, all that has been asked for is evidence that can be verified by a naturalistic, scientific method.

This blatantly untrue. Myself, and several other posters, have asked you repeatedly for any objective evidence or sound argument.

Why are you lying? What do you think it will achieve?

I am aware of that, but then there are plenty of things that society, or members of society takes on the grounds of faith than on fact.  The current referendum campaign is a perfect example.

The comparison is ridiculous in the extreme. The 'correct' way to vote is not a matter of objective reality. It depends on your priorities and speculation about possible consequences that cannot be accurately predicted.

You are claiming that your god is an objective truth for everybody - a matter of fact.

Yet, there are real-life issues that contradict logic and for which there is no evidence - but still exist/occur.  I seem to remember that the BBC website was carrying an article a week or so back on a British cyclist (?) who confounded medical opinion as to her recovery from injury.  Logic and evidence seems to have been disproven.

Another absurdity. We know that we don't understand everything about how humans can recover. An example of an unexpected recovery doesn't disprove evidence (in fact, it is evidence), let alone logic.

It is quite obvious you have no conception of what logic is, as a subject. I suggest educating yourself:-
http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/120/9-logic.htm

[Gordon]

Sorry SK, all that has been asked for is evidence that can be verified by a naturalistic, scientific method.

Not true - you have frequently been asked for the methodology that supports your evidence claims: to date you have supplied neither.

We all know that there are aspects of life that are beyond the scientific envelope.

Do 'we'? Perhaps you'd care to list some of these, say 5 to start with, and we can explore them further.

  Whether they will always be, is open to debate, but then we all have to accept that we often take things on faith, rather than on scientific and naturalistic grounds.

Again, do 'we'? Some examples please, as requested above. 

I am aware of that, but then there are plenty of things that society, or members of society takes on the grounds of faith than on fact.  The current referendum campaign is a perfect example.

It is a silly and ridiculous example since it involves a subjective assessment of the issues either presented by others or that from personal interests and concerns.

Yet, there are real-life issues that contradict logic and for which there is no evidence - but still exist/occur.  I seem to remember that the BBC website was carrying an article a week or so back on a British cyclist (?) who confounded medical opinion as to her recovery from injury.  Logic and evidence seems to have been disproven.

No they haven't - you are just excessively credulous.

[Hope]

This blatantly untrue. Myself, and several other posters, have asked you repeatedly for any objective evidence or sound argument.

Precisely, objective evidence that can be substantiated by the application of scientific methods.  Unfortunately, there are aspects of life which - as I've said before - individuals and society take as read, but which don't have a scientific explanation.

Why are you lying? What do you think it will achieve?

I'm hoping that, by challenging the 'science has all the answers' attitude prevalent here, there will one or two who question their attitude.  'Lying' doesn't come into the equation.

The comparison is ridiculous in the extreme. The 'correct' way to vote is not a matter of objective reality. It depends on your priorities and speculation about possible consequences that cannot be accurately predicted.

Again, I couldn't agree more - but no-one suggests that a Johnson or a Farage, a Cameron or a Cox is not intelligent or sensible.  If we are to decide the future of our nation on the basis of "priorities and speculation about possible consequences that cannot be accurately predicted" why shouldn't we live life according to other "priorities and speculation about possible consequences that cannot be accurately predicted"?

You are claiming that your god is an objective truth for everybody - a matter of fact.

No, I'm claiming that my God has provided a means to salvation to all humanity.  It is for each individual to choose or reject that means.

Another absurdity. We know that we don't understand everything about how humans can recover. An example of an unexpected recovery doesn't disprove evidence (in fact, it is evidence), let alone logic.

Is this the reason why some scientists and medics seem concerned when their predictions and logic don't work out?

It is quite obvious you have no conception of what logic is, as a subject. I suggest educating yourself:-
http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/120/9-logic.htm

SK, I think I first met that kind of article when I was at school 45-odd years ago.  The concept of logic was something that we studied alongside our 'O'- and 'A'-level subjects.  The problem is that logic is too complex to be laid down in a simple formulaic way as it is in your link.  It also fails to account for illogical but real events and actions that have an impact on real life.

[Hope]

Not true - you have frequently been asked for the methodology that supports your evidence claims: to date you have supplied neither.

Actually, I and others have provided such a methodology but, since folk like yourself regard anything that doesn't fit the scientific methodology that you espouse as non-method/non-evidence, of course you don't acknowledge the validity of such material.

That is largely why, in answer to bhs' "Are we done here?" thread, and many other similar threads, I have argued that we are arguing from two so distinctly different starting points that I wouldn't say that 'We're done', because I'm not sure that we've ever started.  There has certainly never, in all the debates I've been involved with - both face-to-face and virtually - an argument put forward by someone arguing from your POV that has held water.

Do 'we'? Perhaps you'd care to list some of these, say 5 to start with, and we can explore them further.

OK, we take it for granted that some people will regard something as beautiful, but that others won't.  I've heard several 'scientific' explanations for this, but none have been particularly convincing.

Then another is why 2 or more children brought up in the same way and in the same family rarely if ever hold exactly the same belief systems, attitudes and opinions.  The nature/nurture' arguement is often rolled out in an attempt to explain this but rarely gives a satisfactory explanation - probably because the issues involved are too complex to reduce to such a process.

I have to go out for a while soon, so I'll leave it at that for now.  Neither of these examples have easy answers - if they did, I think I'd have heard or seen them a long time ago.  In my opinion, part of the answers come from aspects of human life that go beyond the scientific - that ask the questions about purpose and value.

[Shaker]

Actually, I and others have provided such a methodology

Where?

When?

Will it be on some other online forum that for some unspecified reason you can't provide a link to?

Was it on this one, but - whoops - it got removed in a purge?

Was the cat sick on it?

What will the excuse be this time?

Neither of these examples have easy answers - if they did, I think I'd have heard or seen them a long time ago.

On past showing, unlikely.

[Stranger]

Precisely, objective evidence that can be substantiated by the application of scientific methods.

You are lying again. I didn't say that, you added it. Any method that will establish that your claim that your god is real, is anything more than a guess, will do.

If we are to decide the future of our nation on the basis of "priorities and speculation about possible consequences that cannot be accurately predicted" why shouldn't we live life according to other "priorities and speculation about possible consequences that cannot be accurately predicted"?

No reason at all. However, that is not the way to approach matters of objective fact. Either your god is a reality for everyone or it is somehow in the category of "priorities and speculation about possible consequences that cannot be accurately predicted" and therefore not a reality for everybody.

Treating value judgements or uncertain predictions as matters of objective fact or vice versa, is a mistake.

No, I'm claiming that my God has provided a means to salvation to all humanity.  It is for each individual to choose or reject that means.

If your god is not an objective truth for everybody and a matter of fact, then this statement makes no sense.

Is this the reason why some scientists and medics seem concerned when their predictions and logic don't work out?

Medics being surprised by a recovery has nothing whatsoever to do with logic. If they are 'concerned', then it is because they know that their knowledge is incomplete.

SK, I think I first met that kind of article when I was at school 45-odd years ago.  The concept of logic was something that we studied alongside our 'O'- and 'A'-level subjects.  The problem is that logic is too complex to be laid down in a simple formulaic way as it is in your link.  It also fails to account for illogical but real events and actions that have an impact on real life.

Either you didn't pay any attention 45 years ago or you've since forgotten everything you learned. Logic is a subject that is useful in certain circumstances - specifically in making a valid argument based on stated premises.

It isn't supposed to cover the subjective or illogical (obviously) - but if your god falls into those categories then it isn't a real, objective entity, that is true for everybody.

[Gordon]

Actually, I and others have provided such a methodology but, since folk like yourself regard anything that doesn't fit the scientific methodology that you espouse as non-method/non-evidence, of course you don't acknowledge the validity of such material.

No you haven't, so when do we actually get to see this stuff? You tell us what it isn't but not what it is.

That is largely why, in answer to bhs' "Are we done here?" thread, and many other similar threads, I have argued that we are arguing from two so distinctly different starting points that I wouldn't say that 'We're done', because I'm not sure that we've ever started.

Well you certainly haven't - you've yet to define your 'starting point'

There has certainly never, in all the debates I've been involved with - both face-to-face and virtually - an argument put forward by someone arguing from your POV that has held water.

What points of view are you referring to?
 

OK, we take it for granted that some people will regard something as beautiful, but that others won't.  I've heard several 'scientific' explanations for this, but none have been particularly convincing.

What explanations are these and why do you find then unconvincing?

Then another is why 2 or more children brought up in the same way and in the same family rarely if ever hold exactly the same belief systems, attitudes and opinions.  The nature/nurture' arguement is often rolled out in an attempt to explain this but rarely gives a satisfactory explanation - probably because the issues involved are too complex to reduce to such a process.

Again this is a highly simplistic critique, so what problems do you have with the science you have encountered to date? If the issues are 'too complex' for naturalistic investigation, which I assume is your implication here, then presumably you can set out these complexities as you see them: this is where the methodology underpinning your views will be informative. 

I have to go out for a while soon, so I'll leave it at that for now.  Neither of these examples have easy answers - if they did, I think I'd have heard or seen them a long time ago.  In my opinion, part of the answers come from aspects of human life that go beyond the scientific - that ask the questions about purpose and value.

Then you'll need to explain on what basis you hold the opinion that these 'aspects of human life' you refer to 'go beyond the scientific' without falling head-first into multiple fallacies. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why not Google it Vlad, why do you need me?

ippy

You seem to not know that credible means believe able.

[ippy]

You seem to not know that credible means believe able.

So then, for the sake of argument only, going by some of the stuff you write here on the forum I think it would be credible for me to believe that you're foul mouthed in your every day dealings with others?

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So then, for the sake of argument only, going by some of the stuff you write here on the forum I think it would be credible for me to believe that you're foul mouthed in your every day dealings with others?

ippy

How do you mean? ''Hello Mr Postman, got any fucking letters for me''.....or more ''Oi, Twat...... get your trousers on and give me my letters''?

[Shaker]

Quite ... close to your postman then, Vlad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Quite ... close to your postman then, Vlad?

How can you be close to anyone who wears shorts in winter?

[Nearly Sane]

How can you be close to anyone who wears shorts in winter?

Winter is coming