AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[Owlswing]

By the Ultra's what?

Unnecessary apostrophe - guilty!

Sorry!

[Aruntraveller]

Ah well I will kindly absent myself from your 'we' as I have too much time for the likes of Gonzo, Brownie and Anchorman and their posting

Yes it is a mistake to think that Christians (or indeed any other grouping I can think of come to that) are homogenous.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes it is a mistake to think that Christians (or indeed any other grouping I can think of come to that) are homogenous.

or indeed that something like Christianity tells you much about a person at all

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Opposition = Vlad/SOTS etc

We = any no-Christian who is trying to talk some kind of sense.

Still doesn't make "we" the correct word to use in your case Owls, since you rarely if ever talk sense.

[floo]

Still doesn't make "we" the correct word to use in your case Owls, since you rarely if ever talk sense.

Pot and kettle, Gabby dear!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Pot and kettle, Gabby dear!

Sure, whatever that means in Flooland - thanks dear x

[Brownie]

Write whatever you want to say in a reply.  Then scroll down to the post which you want to quote, highlight the relevant bits and click on Quote.
You can also add something afterwards.  The quote will be in its own box.

PS I have decided I am an Ultra Christian because one definition is "Far out", and I aspiring to being far out, man
(I'll get me coat).

[Owlswing]

Still doesn't make "we" the correct word to use in your case Owls, since you rarely if ever talk sense.

By your definition of sense, maybe, but some of your posts make little or no sense to me and that is what Floo's comment means, an english experession - the pot calling the kettle black - I am sure that your monumental intellect will soon work this one out.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not really.   It's as if an inferiority complex came over Christians, so that they had to justify their ideas via argument and evidence, as if it were a scientific proposition.   This just produces nonsense usually.

The quote given by Gonners is quite good, from Karen Armstrong, about mythos and logos.   I tend to use the word 'symbolic', but it's the same really.   Armstrong also stresses practice, rather than belief, or in the old saying, praxis not doxis.

But I'm guessing really.  I don't know why Christians get so tied up in the effort to prove their ideas 'true'; maybe they're useful (to some), and leave it at that.

Some Muslims these days also do the whole "true" or "logical" thing in relation to religious beliefs, but when pinned down some accept that just because you don't know what the first cause in the universe, if any, was, that does not prove the existence of any particular concept of God. It still remains a belief in a concept, defined in limited ways by different people as a statement of identity. I have no idea how prevalent this was a few centuries ago. 

http://islam-science.net/does-islam-stand-against-science-2-3199/#

Harun Yahya seems to tap into the fears and uncertainties of various Muslim communities. But what do educated Muslims think about evolution? That’s the question Hampshire College’s Hameed is asking in an ambitious three-year study supported by the National Science Foundation. Now halfway through the survey, Hameed is interviewing physicians and medical students in five Muslim countries and three Muslim diasporas in the West.
He has found that attitudes about evolution vary greatly from country to country. For instance, most Pakistani doctors accepted evolution, even human evolution. “But in Malaysia, we were really surprised to find a major rejection of not only human evolution but evolution in general,” he says.
Hameed expected to find more acceptance of modern science because Malaysia has a sophisticated high-tech industry. He and his colleagues now speculate that Muslims are trying to carve out a cultural niche that’s distinct from the more educated Indians and Chinese in Malaysia. “We think the rejection of evolution has become part of their Muslim identity,” he says.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

By your definition of sense, maybe, but some of your posts make little or no sense to me and that is what Floo's comment means, an english experession - the pot calling the kettle black - I am sure that your monumental intellect will soon work this one out.

Ok, so all you and Floo seem to be arguing here is that "sense" is based on each person's individual definition of the word "sense". As in what makes sense to you as you write it might not make any sense to anyone else; what makes sense to Floo as she writes it might not make sense to anyone else; what makes sense to me as I write it might not make sense to anyone else. We're all pots calling kettles black according to Floo if we label anyone else as not making sense, while claiming "we" make sense. Hence I said, whatever Floo's words means in Flooland - she probably knows what she meant - it probably made sense to her as she wrote it.

When you said "we" you did define it as people who were trying to talk sense - no mention of anyone succeeding. In that case we are all probably trying to talk sense.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

So why is it that just about every child from probably 6 years old upwards can do what you can't?

2+2≠5

6 year old child. Can do no problem
Some atheists on this forum. Cannot answer the question.

Sword,

We can do it. We also know though that if we do you'll attempt some entirely specious response along the lines of, "but in this circumstance that proof can be shown to be wrong

No, I won't, otherwise why would I be saying that a 6 year old child can demonstrate why 2+2≠5 without any problem?

So, go ahead. I'm interested in how you answer the question (It's not an attempt to derail the thread, by the way). How would you show mathematically that 2+2≠5. You shouldn't need to go beyond Key Stage 1 Maths, if that helps!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

In which yet again Vlad fails to grasp the import of bluehillside's fourth maxim, namely: If an argument for "God" works equally for leprechauns then it's probably a bad argument.

Naively I used to think it would sink in eventually, but now I'm pretty sure it never will.

Ah well.

Probably because, for the nth time, it is flawed.

Do you really believe leprechauns exist. If so, why? If not, why not?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Thus you could throw, say, Hope's beloved NPF into the hopper, ...

You keep on accusing Hope of this. Please provide evidence to show where he has ever claimed or implied that what he has said is true because it hasn't (or cannot) be disproved.

[Gordon]

Probably because, for the nth time, it is flawed.

Do you really believe leprechauns exist. If so, why? If not, why not?

I'm what way do you think Blue's 4th maxim is flawed?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I'm what way do you think Blue's 4th maxim is flawed?

Because he makes up things that do not exist, hence are false by default and then compares them with aspects of religious belief, e.g. the likely existence of God. There is no common frame of reference unless the starting assumption is that all religious belief is made up, therefore also false by default.

[Gordon]

You keep on accusing Hope of this. Please provide evidence to show where he has ever claimed or implied that what he has said is true because it hasn't (or cannot) be disproved.

Suggest you re-read Hope's posts, and responses to them, for a conglomeration of examples over a considerable period of time. If you wish to dispute where you think the NPF accusation is wrong then by all means quote the post and we can all review it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

No, I won't, otherwise why would I be saying that a 6 year old child can demonstrate why 2+2≠5 without any problem?

So, go ahead. I'm interested in how you answer the question (It's not an attempt to derail the thread, by the way). How would you show mathematically that 2+2≠5. You shouldn't need to go beyond Key Stage 1 Maths, if that helps!

Yes you will – if you think that any six year old can demonstrate it then clearly you think my or anyone else’s demonstration will be flawed in some way. As your attempts so far to harness maths to support you have been fundamentally misplaced though (and despite your ignoring of the subsequent rebuttals) you have all your work ahead of you still to explain how whatever you have in your head demonstrates “God”. 

Probably because, for the nth time, it is flawed.

Do you really believe leprechauns exist. If so, why? If not, why not?

A flaw you’ve yet to demonstrate, and a comment that betrays your continued fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. For the maxim to apply, you merely have to grasp that any argument that works equally for leprechauns and for “God” is probably a bad argument. Actual belief or non-belief in leprechauns is entirely irrelevant for that to be the case. 

You keep on accusing Hope of this. Please provide evidence to show where he has ever claimed or implied that what he has said is true because it hasn't (or cannot) be disproved.

Read his posts. Hope is notorious for his repeated use of the “but you can’t disprove it” NPF as if that had anything whatever to say to the truthfulness of the conjecture he’s attempting. His most recent effort for example was a bog-standard NPF, only this time he added the (spurious) rider that sometimes science will verify subsequently some faith conjectures. It’s still the NPF though, whichever way you look at it.

[SusanDoris]

#164
This post gives a strong impression of Sword of the Spirit in a self-appointed role as teacher and wise adviser to the poor, benighted denizens of R&E, using the Socratic way of teaching by only asking,  never answering,  questions put to him, or something like that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

#164
This post gives a strong impression of Sword of the Spirit in a self-appointed role as teacher and wise adviser to the poor, benighted denizens of R&E, using the Socratic way of teaching by only asking,  never answering,  questions put to him, or something like that.

You mean Sword is trying to usurp Gordon?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Because he makes up things that do not exist, hence are false by default and then compares them with aspects of religious belief, e.g. the likely existence of God. There is no common frame of reference unless the starting assumption is that all religious belief is made up, therefore also false by default.

Try really, really hard to focus here. Really hard...

Whether leprechauns, "God", "X", pixies or anything else is made up is utterly irrelevant to the maxim. Really - made-upness has nothing to do with it: zip; nada; zilch; bugger all. My god, even Vlad was edging toward that realisation yesterday albeit that he then fell off the cliff by thinking that it would have to apply to all arguments rather than to just any of them.

What's being addressed here isn't the object of the belief ("God", leprechauns, whatever) at all. What is being addressed though is the argument(s) used to arrive at that object. Thus for example the NPF is still a very bad argument whether it's used to demonstrate "God", leprechauns or anything else.

To put it another way, even if I was a dyed-in-the wool hard core fundie Christian who thought that the belief "God" wasn't ridiculous at all, I'd still have no choice but to recognise that the NPF is a hopeless way to demonstrate it - especially when I realised that it worked equally for any other conjecture. 

That's the point of the maxim. Surely even you can grasp this now can't you?

Can't you?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

No, I won't, otherwise why would I be saying that a 6 year old child can demonstrate why 2+2≠5 without any problem?

So, go ahead. I'm interested in how you answer the question (It's not an attempt to derail the thread, by the way). How would you show mathematically that 2+2≠5. You shouldn't need to go beyond Key Stage 1 Maths, if that helps!

Sword,

Yes you will – if you think that any six year old can demonstrate it then clearly you think my or anyone else’s demonstration will be flawed in some way.

It isn't about a flaw in anyone's demonstration. As I was saying yesterday, the point is why can a six year old can answer the question directly, yet you keep on evading it? If a six year old could answer the question with key stage 1 Maths, don' t you think I would have to use the same arguments against whatever they came up with?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Read his posts. Hope is notorious for his repeated use of the “but you can’t disprove it” NPF as if that had anything whatever to say to the truthfulness of the conjecture he’s attempting. His most recent effort for example was a bog-standard NPF, only this time he added the (spurious) rider that sometimes science will verify subsequently some faith conjectures. It’s still the NPF though, whichever way you look at it.

I do read his posts.

In my opinion, I think you are arguing against a scenario you think is being claimed, but is not being claimed. If Hope has said, "but you can't disprove it", it doesn't follow that he is therefore claiming his stance as true, by default. I think that this is an assumption on your part, an incorrect one.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#164
This post gives a strong impression of Sword of the Spirit in a self-appointed role as teacher and wise adviser to the poor, benighted denizens of R&E, using the Socratic way of teaching by only asking,  never answering,  questions put to him, or something like that.

So I have never responded to any of your posts with an answer?

[Gordon]

Because he makes up things that do not exist, hence are false by default and then compares them with aspects of religious belief, e.g. the likely existence of God.

This is special pleading on your part, you being a fan of 'God', and a demonstration that you dont understand Blue's point.

There is no common frame of reference unless the starting assumption is that all religious belief is made up, therefore also false by default.

So, what are these 'starting assumptions' for divine agency that you suggest provide a 'common frame of reference' for divine agents?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

It isn't about a flaw in anyone's demonstration. As I was saying yesterday, the point is why can a six year old can answer the question directly, yet you keep on evading it? If a six year old could answer the question with key stage 1 Maths, don' t you think I would have to use the same arguments against whatever they came up with?

I have no idea as you don't appear to have an argument. Your last effort crashed and burned when you tinkered with the starting conditions of a maths question by changing the base value, oblivious to the problem that any answer still relied on the same "world view" (as you would put it) of logic, and unaware that the "anything might be" you were attempting is an open door in any case that says nothing whatever to whether something probably is. 

As you just ignored the rebuttals and repeated the error though, I have little expectation that you'll try to engage with it now.