Evangelising young children

[Hope]

You can't get out of a lie by telling another one.

Enough people here believe that they can.

If you genuinely, seriously think that evidence has been produced then finally cite or produce it rather than just insist that others have done so.

Sorry, blue, but on a different forum where we had very similar discussions to those we have here - and a very similar type of membership - simply repeating the same evidence ad nauseam made no difference.  Folk like yourself either ignored it or made less than successful attempts to discredit it however many times it was repeated.  The same has occurred a few times here since I joined the forum in 2011.

Surely as a theist you should have this stuff at your fingertips shouldn't you?

Possibly - but I'm afraid that I'm not one for copying posts or saving threads to my hard-drive for future reference as I know some folk do.  Remembering hard evidence over time is far harder than simply casting doubt on it without any solid supporting evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

This now seems bizarre, as you are making comments, about what others' experiences are like. As you say the experience is the experience and that doesn't mean that some one is attributing a cause, rather that what they experience feels like a cause., or feels like a god to them.

As to the idea that rationality is explainable, given the lack of free will, then that merely becomes a case of 'you would say that, wouldn't you'.  I don't know anyone who doesn't act as if the things they think are real, aren't actually real, and I am not even sure if it can be done.

[Hope]

That's not what I said. The experience is the experience is the experience. What I said was that the cause some people decide is responsible for the experience is (indistinguishable from) a guess.

Interestingly, blue, exactly the same could be said for your understanding of the world. 

You can see it in the sense that, say, the NPF is explicable and the person committing it could therefore say, "Ah, now I understand it" (though not Hope, obviously). The point though was rather that acting as if something is real and it actually being real are qualitatively different things.

I think mther reason I don't come up with "Ah, now I understand it" is that all people here do is claim an NPF, without providing any solid explanation, let alone evidence for that claim.  In which case, why would I choose to "Ah, now I understand it" along the lines that they want, as opposed to understanding it as a means of their avoiding the issue?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Enough people here believe that they can.

That may or may not be true but, either way, a tu quoque is just another fallacy so it won't dig you out of the hole.

Sorry, blue, but on a different forum where we had very similar discussions to those we have here - and a very similar type of membership - simply repeating the same evidence ad nauseam made no difference.  Folk like yourself either ignored it or made less than successful attempts to discredit it however many times it was repeated.  The same has occurred a few times here since I joined the forum in 2011.

Folks "like" me may or may not have done that, but I haven't. If your seriously think there to have been evidence then why on earth would you not want to tell us on this mb what it is rather than just tell us here that it exists but you don't like telling this forum what it is?

Possibly - but I'm afraid that I'm not one for copying posts or saving threads to my hard-drive for future reference as I know some folk do.

So you're telling us that you believe in something you call "God" and moreover that you think this God to be a fact for others too, only you don't have access to any sort of evidence that would support the contention.

Really?

Really really?

Does that not seem a little odd to you? If I had such a belief damn right I'd know what the evidence is that supports it. You seem to be remarkably relaxed about relying just on a vague assertion that someone somewhere has done it so that's ok then.   

Remembering hard evidence over time is far harder than simply casting doubt on it without any solid supporting evidence.

The "solid supporting evidence" is that it's trivially easy to falsify the reasoning you attempt to demonstrate your god. Absent any evidence from you, what more could anyone do?

[Nearly Sane]

Enough people here believe that they can.
Sorry, blue, but on a different forum where we had very similar discussions to those we have here - and a very similar type of membership - simply repeating the same evidence ad nauseam made no difference.  Folk like yourself either ignored it or made less than successful attempts to discredit it however many times it was repeated.  The same has occurred a few times here since I joined the forum in 2011.
Possibly - but I'm afraid that I'm not one for copying posts or saving threads to my hard-drive for future reference as I know some folk do.  Remembering hard evidence over time is far harder than simply casting doubt on it without any solid supporting evidence.

If you cannot remember the evidence, then citing it as convincing is worthless, since you cannot remember it.

[Gordon]

  ,
I think mther reason I don't come up with "Ah, now I understand it" is that all people here do is claim an NPF, without providing any solid explanation, let alone evidence for that claim.

It has been explained to you many times, and in context too since these explanations refer to the content of your own posts.

In which case, why would I choose to "Ah, now I understand it" along the lines that they want, as opposed to understanding it as a means of their avoiding the issue?

Nope - there isn't an 'issue' to avoid, in that when you deploy this fallacy you are making a reasoning error rather than a cogent argument. The only issue that arises is your apparent inability to avoid fallacies.

[Nearly Sane]

Interestingly, blue, exactly the same could be said for your understanding of the world. 
I think mther reason I don't come up with "Ah, now I understand it" is that all people here do is claim an NPF, without providing any solid explanation, let alone evidence for that claim.  In which case, why would I choose to "Ah, now I understand it" along the lines that they want, as opposed to understanding it as a means of their avoiding the issue?

Are you asking for an explanation of the negative proof fallacy? Or are you asking for an explanation of how it applies to individual posts? The second doesn't make much sense if you think you understand it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

This now seems bizarre, as you are making comments, about what others' experiences are like. As you say the experience is the experience and that doesn't mean that some one is attributing a cause, rather that what they experience feels like a cause., or feels like a god to them.

But the experience is essentially a personal, subjective mater. What some do though is to reach for explanatory causes that are true for everyone, objective. Apples falling may "feel like" pixies pulling them down with very thin strings to me, but I have no basis to argue that pixie theory is a fact.

As to the idea that rationality is explainable, given the lack of free will, then that merely becomes a case of 'you would say that, wouldn't you'.  I don't know anyone who doesn't act as if the things they think are real, aren't actually real, and I am not even sure if it can be done.

Either you decide that all is illusory and that any truth is as valid as any other, or you accept the model of the way the world appears to be and act accordingly. The world appears to be material, and the appearance of inter-subjective experience provides a framework to navigate it. And that's good enough. Within that paradigm you can take logically false arguments and explain why they are logically false.

If we don't do that, what choice do we have but to accept any irrational conjecture as a fact?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Interestingly, blue, exactly the same could be said for your understanding of the world.

Well, we could test that. My understanding is that the lift will get you to the ground more safely than will jumping out of the window. Fred's "experience" may be that jumping out of the 22nd storey window is the safest option.

Why not test each understanding and then have your beneficiaries tell us which is probabilistically more true?   

I think mther reason I don't come up with "Ah, now I understand it" is that all people here do is claim an NPF, without providing any solid explanation, let alone evidence for that claim.  In which case, why would I choose to "Ah, now I understand it" along the lines that they want, as opposed to understanding it as a means of their avoiding the issue?

It's been "solidly" explained to you many, many, many times. That you keep repeating it is a function of your inability to comprehend, not of the inadequacy of the explanation.

There is no "issue" as you think it to be when your means of getting to it is fallacious thinking - the NPF in particular. The fallacious thinking is the only issue. 

Look, I'll show you. Again.

You can't disprove leprechauns. Therefore leprechauns are real. Can we now discuss the issue of what leprechauns have for breakfast please?

Can you see the faulty reasoning there? 

[Nearly Sane]

All experience including any involving scientific verification is personal and subjective. That we allow ourselves inter subjectiveness to validate something doesn't get us beyond guessing in your use of the term.


Note the question of what an experience 'feels' like is you making an assumption about how others experience things which you don't have any warrant for. I'd rather try and get the information from those who have the experiences, than you telling me about their experiences.


But if you accept that the material world and naturalism, you are back at no free will. In which case you wouldn't see any irrationality of your own position! Further you are using your experiences to state what us true for others, just as you want to deny others doing this.

[ippy]

Perhaps you were thinking of this, ippy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5674934/Richard-Dawkins-launches-childrens-summer-camp-for-atheists.html

Looks and sounds about right to me, I'm sure it's not perfect but there's no indoctrination involved, which of course, has to be better than piling on the usual load of old religious tripe.

ippy   

[Hope]

Looks and sounds about right to me, I'm sure it's not perfect but there's no indoctrination involved, which of course, has to be better than piling on the usual load of old religious tripe.

ippy

Did you - or anyone you know - attend the camp, ippy?

[ippy]

Did you - or anyone you know - attend the camp, ippy?

Looks and sounds about right to me, I'm sure it's not perfect but there's no indoctrination involved, which of course, has to be better than piling on the usual load of old religious tripe.

If teaching how to work out things for one's self = indoctrination, you may have something Hope.

ippy

[Hope]

Hope,

Well, we could test that. My understanding is that the lift will get you to the ground more safely than will jumping out of the window. Fred's "experience" may be that jumping out of the 22nd storey window is the safest option.

Well, iirc, the latter (albeit slightly modified) turned out to be true on 9/11.     I do find the use of these extreme, and highly unrealistic examples quite amusing - notice that you only introduce 'the 22nd storey' in the sentence following the comparison.  Equally, one might argue that the lift will get you to the ground floor more safely (or quicker) than by jogging down the stairs: I suppose it depends on what floor one is on, when you start the timing, whether the lift is a modern hi-speed one or a more ancient, slow one; are the lifts busy and therefore require you to stand in front of them for a long time; is there a power cut partway through your journey; ..., etc.?

Why not test each understanding and then have your beneficiaries tell us which is probabilistically more true?

See above   

It's been "solidly" explained to you many, many, many times. That you keep repeating it is a function of your inability to comprehend, not of the inadequacy of the explanation.

Its been explained as 'solidly' as your opening gambit above, blue.  I believe that I knocked that down fairly straightforwardly.  If that degree of 'solidity' is all you can muster, ...

You can't disprove leprechauns. Therefore leprechauns are real. Can we now discuss the issue of what leprechauns have for breakfast please?

Can you see the faulty reasoning there?

Yes, I can see the faulty reasoning here: its in your first two sentences.  Leprechauns (or trolls, as in Iceland) have always been and remain fictional concepts.  It is why they only ever appear in such things a fairy tales and legends.  Even those who 'believe' in them acknowledge that.

Conversely, religious issues such as the Virgin Birth or the resurrection of Jesus are reported as fact by people who were either present at the time or who knew of such eye-witnesses.  This tends not to be the case with Hindu or Buddhist holy documents as they were not written down for many centuries -

In ancient times, the scriptures were transmitted orally, from one generation to next, in verse form to aid memorization, for many centuries before they were written down

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindu_scriptures

'Corruption' over this length of time is very different to that over a matter of 2 or 3 decades.

[ippy]

Well, iirc, the latter (albeit slightly modified) turned out to be true on 9/11.     I do find the use of these extreme, and highly unrealistic examples quite amusing - notice that you only introduce 'the 22nd storey' partway through the second part of the equation.  Equally, one might argue that the lift will get you to the ground floor more safely (or quicker) than by jogging down the stairs: I suppose it depends on what floor one is on, when you start the timing, whether the lift is a modern hi-speed one or a more ancient, slow one; are the lifts busy and therefore require you to stand in front of them for a long time; is there a power cut partway through your journey; ..., etc.?
See above   
Its been explained as 'solidly' as your opening gambit above, blue.  I believe that I knocked that down fairly straightforwardly.  If that degree of 'solidity' is all you can muster, ...
Yes, I can see the faulty reasoning here: its in your first two sentences.  Leprechauns (or trolls, as in Iceland) have always been and remain fictional concepts.  It is why they only ever appear in such things a fairy tales and legends.  Even those who 'believe' in them acknowledge that.

Conversely, religious issues such as the Virgin Birth or the resurrection of Jesus are reported as fact by people who were either present at the time or who knew of such eye-witnesses.  This tends not to be the case with Hindu or Buddhist holy documents as they were not written down for many centuries -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindu_scriptures

'Corruption' over this length of time is very different to that over a matter of 2 or 3 decades.

Is this a serious post Hope?

ippy

[Hope]

Looks and sounds about right to me, I'm sure it's not perfect but there's no indoctrination involved, which of course, has to be better than piling on the usual load of old religious tripe.

If teaching how to work out things for one's self = indoctrination, you may have something Hope.

ippy

Why do you simply repeat poists that people challenge you on, ippy.  To me, it simply makes your argument sound even less viable.

If, as I assume you are, you are saying that you nor anyone you know attended the camp, how can you be certain that there was no indoctrination involved?  Can you be certain that, if a child asked something that questioned the underlying assumptions of the camp, the adults answered honestly, as opposed to shrugging off or even ignoring the question?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

All experience including any involving scientific verification is personal and subjective. That we allow ourselves inter subjectiveness to validate something doesn't get us beyond guessing in your use of the term.

You're in danger of falling into Vlad territory here - true can't be true unless it's absolutely true etc.

Yes, of course all experience is personal inasmuch as we have no means of reaching outside of that. In that context though, we call some things "subjective" and others "objective" - ie, we categorise truths that provide solutions differently from those that don't. Light being travelling photons and not elfs with torches is objective enough to be "true" for example.     

Note the question of what an experience 'feels' like is you making an assumption about how others experience things which you don't have any warrant for. I'd rather try and get the information from those who have the experiences, than you telling me about their experiences.

Again, I make no comment on what an experience feels like. I really don't doubt that, say, some people's experience really, really feels like being at one with the universe. Fine.

When though that persona had a dodgy prawn biryani that's known to cause such feelings but gives "God" as the cause nonetheless, then the categorisation of (probably) objective from (probably) subjective is useful if we are to proceed in the world.     

But if you accept that the material world and naturalism, you are back at no free will. In which case you wouldn't see any irrationality of your own position! Further you are using your experiences to state what us true for others, just as you want to deny others doing this.

No, I'm just saying that the "me" that appears to be finds enough reason to conclude that one answer is more probably true than another. I think free will is a red herring here - absent "true" free will then of course all is deterministic anyway. Functioning as if there is "true" free will though forces us to "decide" between available explanations. Any discussion here and elsewhere must be predicated on the "as if" model - what other option is there?   

[Nearly Sane]

I have no idea what 'absolutely' true means and I am not commenting in truth but on experience and how we use it. You are taking the position that experience cannot determine cause without guessing, I'm just asking you to be consistent.


I am challenging that there is an idea if degrees of objectivity though and all you offer on that is your usual ad populum her, combined with your usual leap over the hard solipsism issue.


In terms of acting 'as if' free will exists, I agree we have no choice but to do so. But that has no use in dealing with the issue that your position on an assumption of naturalism means that lack of free will follows. If that weretrye then your claim to rationality is worth less

[ippy]

Why do you simply repeat poists that people challenge you on, ippy.  To me, it simply makes your argument sound even less viable.

If, as I assume you are, you are saying that you nor anyone you know attended the camp, how can you be certain that there was no indoctrination involved?  Can you be certain that, if a child asked something that questioned the underlying assumptions of the camp, the adults answered honestly, as opposed to shrugging off or even ignoring the question?

R D's well known intention is to be true to the facts as we understand them today, I've not heard anything that make me think he would have any reason to go back on his words; perhaps you've heard something that I haven't?

ippy   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Well, iirc, the latter (albeit slightly modified) turned out to be true on 9/11.     I do find the use of these extreme, and highly unrealistic examples quite amusing - notice that you only introduce 'the 22nd storey' partway through the second part of the equation.  Equally, one might argue that the lift will get you to the ground floor more safely (or quicker) than by jogging down the stairs: I suppose it depends on what floor one is on, when you start the timing, whether the lift is a modern hi-speed one or a more ancient, slow one; are the lifts busy and therefore require you to stand in front of them for a long time; is there a power cut partway through your journey; ..., etc.?

Oh dear. The comparison was between a naturalistic answer (the lift) and a non-naturalistic one (the window). Just substituting the latter for a naturalistic alternative misses the point entirely. 

See above

I did. You went straight off the rails     

Its been explained as 'solidly' as your opening gambit above, blue.  I believe that I knocked that down fairly straightforwardly.  If that degree of 'solidity' is all you can muster, ...

But as so often your belief here is flat wrong. The explanation of the NPF is perfectly straightforward - and "solid". Why you can't grasp it is a matter for you, not for others.

Yes, I can see the faulty reasoning here: its in your first two sentences.

Halle-flippin'-llujah!

Leprechauns (or trolls, as in Iceland) have always been and remain fictional concepts.  It is why they only ever appear in such things a fairy tales and legends.  Even those who 'believe' in them acknowledge that.

NOOOOOOOOOO! You haven't understood it at all. Dear god but you're obtuse. It's a point in logic regardless of the examples that populate it.

Not being able to falsify something says nothing whatsoever to whether that thing is true.

Now write that down a hundred times.

Orbiting teapots are a daft idea too - does that invalidate the force of Russell's analogy do you think?

Why not?   

Conversely, religious issues such as the Virgin Birth or the resurrection of Jesus are reported as fact by people who were either present at the time or who knew of such eye-witnesses.  This tends not to be the case with Hindu or Buddhist holy documents as they were not written down for many centuries

Give-me-freakin'-strength.

Whether true or epistemically useful or not, THAT HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE NPF.

Really, nothing whatever.

Zip.

Zilch.

Nada.   
 

In ancient times, the scriptures were transmitted orally, from one generation to next, in verse form to aid memorization, for many centuries before they were written down
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindu_scriptures

'Corruption' over this length of time is very different to that over a matter of 2 or 3 decades.

Lovely. Now then - back to the NPF we were actually discussing. There may or may not be good reasons to believe something to be true. As a SEPARATE matter though, arguing that something is true BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE FALSIFIED is broken thinking.

Stop doing it, and then perhaps we can consider the DIFFERENT arguments you think you have for your beliefs.

[Nearly Sane]

R D's well known intention is to be true to the facts as we understand them today, I've not heard anything that make me think he would have any reason to go back on his words; perhaps you've heard something that I haven't?

ippy

In terms of Hope's questions, you have replied with your own NPF.

[ippy]

In terms of Hope's questions, you have replied with your own NPF.

I wonder why I left my comment open to correction by Hope, what do you think N S?

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

Quite so. It's remarkable how quickly some elide from that to heated discussions about why "God" drowns people in tsunamis or cures little Timmy of his limp but not little Alam of her cancer.

If you are going to invoke God 'taking people away' you also have to invoke 'God receiving people in heaven' and also why wicked Mr Stalin took 30 million people away with no belief of anybody receiving
anybody anywhere but a great belief they would be reduced to forgotten dust.

[Nearly Sane]

I wonder why I left my comment open to correction by Hope, what do you think N S?

ippy

except you're the one making the claim about what happened at the summer school, so asking Hope  for proof against that is simply NPF, just as Hope does so frequently

[Nearly Sane]

If you are going to invoke God 'taking people away' you also have to invoke 'God receiving people in heaven' and also why wicked Mr Stalin took 30 million people away with no belief of anybody receiving
anybody anywhere but a great belief they would be reduced to forgotten dust.

Holy missed point, Vlad man! Blue isn't 'invoking' anything just noting that the elision of the two 'why' meanings is begging the question which allows other discussions without any validity of the questions being established. Your post is irrelevant to the point.