AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[Walter]

And if you want the words to appear in a box click on the Quote icon above the screen and this appears [

[Walter]

nope!

[Harrowby Hall]

If you click on Quote above the box containing the information you wish to include in your post then a new reply box appears in which you can compose your reply/contribution.

It will only contain the contribution made by the person who opened that box. Not any material he or she was quoting.

[Walter]

thanks HH I'm still not getting it though

[Aruntraveller]

thanks HH I'm still not getting it though

It's one of those things that's easier to show than explain in writing. So often the case with computers.

[Walter]

Too right mate

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hope, If anyone on your, so called, side of this non argument did come up with totally credible evidence, the world would be saying things like; "do you remember the days when we had atheists"?

Instead of the way things are actually going; "do you remember the days when we had god believers"?

ippy

Use of the word credible is unfortunate here Ippy because it's root Credo means belief.
Look. When ever Jesus is brought up Jesus is either a myth or an agglomeration of characters or a magician.
The gospels are always a work of fiction, or they were written after a supposed safe period of time to be taken seriously.....a period of time we can add not applied to any other histories. There is according to unbelievers no original idea or content, it does not add anything new which isn't already in religion, it is also berated for not being authentically jewish even though the Judaism in mind is post Christian rabbinic Judaism.
As well as that if we haven't covered most non believers Miracles never happen and when that is announced people who will happily bleat about the problem of induction remain mysteriously silent out of partiality for their atheist friends and if you can get one who hasn't bottled at the question of what would you do if you saw a resurrection they would probably say science will come up with a natural explanation.

Now yes all these amount cumulatively to a heavy duty bit of God Evading but they are you will note positive assertions but are never demonstrated beyond the assertion state and now there is a bit of a craze among he atheist colleagues to deny adherence to whichever point one wishes to argue!!!!!!

And then of course any philosophical approach is sneered at.

Now having said all that I think all the aforementioned would put even any reasonable non believer off association with this forum.

[Owlswing]

Use of the word credible is unfortunate here Ippy because it's root Credo means belief.
Look. When ever Jesus is brought up Jesus is either a myth or an agglomeration of characters or a magician.
The gospels are always a work of fiction, or they were written after a supposed safe period of time to be taken seriously.....a period of time we can add not applied to any other histories. There is according to unbelievers no original idea or content, it does not add anything new which isn't already in religion, it is also berated for not being authentically jewish even though the Judaism in mind is post Christian rabbinic Judaism.
As well as that if we haven't covered most non believers Miracles never happen and when that is announced people who will happily bleat about the problem of induction remain mysteriously silent out of partiality for their atheist friends and if you can get one who hasn't bottled at the question of what would you do if you saw a resurrection they would probably say science will come up with a natural explanation.

Now yes all these amount cumulatively to a heavy duty bit of God Evading but they are you will note positive assertions but are never demonstrated beyond the assertion state and now there is a bit of a craze among he atheist colleagues to deny adherence to whichever point one wishes to argue!!!!!!

And then of course any philosophical approach is sneered at.

Now having said all that I think all the aforementioned would put even any reasonable non believer off association with this forum.

Added to your particular brand mixture of bullshit, bollocks, sarcasm, and WUMishness? Yeah, pretty much.

What and whom you do not like you belittle, and without your assistance we would not be able to put off half as many people as we now do.

Thanks, Vlad, for your help in this endeavour, much appreciated.

[Nearly Sane]

Presumably this will have arguments for theists that they could use if  they want to pay for them


http://www.atheistmovie.com

[Walter]

Presumably this will have arguments for theists that they could use if  they want to pay for them


http://www.atheistmovie.com

I watched a short part of the film. It was cringe worthy.  A total embarrassment wrapped  up in a shiny commercial presentation, even worse than the banana episode. Any true Cristian would stay well clear of it.

[jeremyp]

If you are really interested, here is the best visual demonstration of faith I've seen. It's Indy's third trial in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Watch from about 3:16 in. What is unseen becomes seen when the step of faith is taken.

So your faith is fiction just like that film. Is that what you are saying?

[Owlswing]

Presumably this will have arguments for theists that they could use if  they want to pay for them


http://www.atheistmovie.com

Good movie - up to 3:48 seconds - then the bullshit arguments started - a book does not need God to produce it; it takes ink and paper and people!

If any of those who claimed to be atheists changed their minds because of this film they were either weak minded or not true atheists!

[torridon]

If you are really interested, here is the best visual demonstration of faith I've seen. It's Indy's third trial in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Watch from about 3:16 in. What is unseen becomes seen when the step of faith is taken.

To cut Sword some clack on this, if we peel back the layers of fantasy in this scene, we could say it is an analogy for an underlying truth common to all - that is for example, we don't know if we like something before we try it.  Also in scientific method, searching for explanations involves setting up a hypothesis which can be a shot in the dark to be tested, just as Indie tests with his first footfall. What I don't buy is the extent to which believing something can alter objective reality goes anything beyond a placebo effect.  Thus people having faith in a homeopathic remedy might actually get better as a result of their step of faith and likewise, people trying out a religious life might discover that it is to their taste.

[Walter]

beyond a placebo effect.  Thus people having faith in a homeopathic remedy might actually get better as a result of their step of faith and likewise, people trying out a religious life might discover that it is to their taste.

could be, but it doesn't make it true though and that's where the problems start.

[Hope]

could be, but it doesn't make it true though and that's where the problems start.

But nor does that make it untrue, Walter.  There have been a number of thinks that have been used in medicine over the centuries that have only been proved to be efficacious by modern medicine.  Quinine comes to mind.

There is this assumption on the part of some here (an assumption that has no evidentary support that I have ever been given) that says that science will ultimately show faith to be untrue.  Science is as likely to prove faith true as it is to prove it untrue, especially when one remembers that they are dealing with two very different aspects of reality.

[Aruntraveller]

Science is as likely to prove faith true as it is to prove it untrue,

On what are you basing your assessment of probability here?

[Nearly Sane]

But nor does that make it untrue, Walter.  There have been a number of thinks that have been used in medicine over the centuries that have only been proved to be efficacious by modern medicine.  Quinine comes to mind.

There is this assumption on the part of some here (an assumption that has no evidentary support that I have ever been given) that says that science will ultimately show faith to be untrue.  Science is as likely to prove faith true as it is to prove it untrue, especially when one remembers that they are dealing with two very different aspects of reality.

Since science is methodological naturalustic, and the quinine example is a naturalistic claim, all of the above us irrelevant to your supernatural claims. You need a supernaturalistic methodology, you know the one that despite being asked for hundreds of times, you never provide?

[Walter]

Since science is methodological naturalustic, and the quinine example is a naturalistic claim, all of the above us irrelevant to your supernatural claims. You need a supernaturalistic methodology, you know the one that despite being asked for hundreds of times, you never provide?

HOPE
either provide your method to test the supernatural (as you call it) or never mention it again .

[wigginhall]

To cut Sword some clack on this, if we peel back the layers of fantasy in this scene, we could say it is an analogy for an underlying truth common to all - that is for example, we don't know if we like something before we try it.  Also in scientific method, searching for explanations involves setting up a hypothesis which can be a shot in the dark to be tested, just as Indie tests with his first footfall. What I don't buy is the extent to which believing something can alter objective reality goes anything beyond a placebo effect.  Thus people having faith in a homeopathic remedy might actually get better as a result of their step of faith and likewise, people trying out a religious life might discover that it is to their taste.

This is something that baffles me - why can Christians not just accept that their faith gives them comfort, some wise words, and whatever?   There are a set of symbols, which I find impressive, there are rituals, ditto, and so on.   I don't understand why anyone wants to go beyond this, and argue that it's 'true', whatever that means.   I was thinking of the Buddhist phrase, if you see Buddha on the road, kill him, which I take to mean that as soon as you have built a mental edifice of some kind, this is idolatry, and blocks out life.

[Walter]

Well , we are up to reply44 and I'm still no wiser.
If it were all true surly by now I would have become a follower of Christianity, Islam , Buddhism, Judaism or any other faith you care to mention but I havnt .Can anyone see what the problem is?

[Nearly Sane]

Given the earlier film didn't help, maybe this will help the theists. It's the site which covers the theories of the 'world's smartest man'


http://www.ctmu.org

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

[Walter]

Given the earlier film didn't help, maybe this will help the theists. It's the site which covers the theories of the 'world's smartest man'


http://www.ctmu.org

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

OH dear, oh dear. I saw him on the BBC with Michael Mosely.

Just another nutter. He reminds me of Deepak Chopra

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

But nor does that make it untrue, Walter.  There have been a number of thinks that have been used in medicine over the centuries that have only been proved to be efficacious by modern medicine.  Quinine comes to mind.

There is this assumption on the part of some here (an assumption that has no evidentary support that I have ever been given) that says that science will ultimately show faith to be untrue.  Science is as likely to prove faith true as it is to prove it untrue, especially when one remembers that they are dealing with two very different aspects of reality.

Hope-ism:

1. As articles of personal faith lots of people think lots of conjectures to be true.

2. Absent a method to investigate faith claims, those conjectures are not falsification apt.

3. Independent of the faiths of those who believe in them, sometimes the naturalistic tools of logic and science will verify some of those
conjectures.

4. Therefore – um – God!

What’s that you say – “what about step 3?”

Er, is that the time already? Must dash!

[Walter]

Blue,
you crack me up

[Nearly Sane]

OH dear, oh dear. I saw him on the BBC with Michael Mosely.

Just another nutter. He reminds me of Deepak Chopra

He's Deepak squared