Why do so many still have these religious beliefs?

[2Corrie]

 

There will always be some that swim against the tide but there you already knew this, last year was the first time the C of E had under a million attend their services, oops.

ippy

And as the Word and History bear witness, in each generation there is a faithful remnant. And God's Kingdom go's on.

[floo]

And as the Word and History bear witness, in each generation there is a faithful remnant. And God's Kingdom go's on.

An assertion with nothing to support it.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

And as the Word and History bear witness, in each generation there is a faithful remnant. And God's Kingdom go's on

An assertion with nothing to support it.

What is your understanding of the assertion, Floo?

[SusanDoris]

What is your understanding of the assertion, Floo?

As usual you are avoiding answering questions by asking the questioner something else. It is possible I am quite wrong of course, but you appear to thinkthat this demonstrates your superior knowledge and ability to teach and guide non-believers to believe in an as yet undefined God.

Yes, I have asked you questions here and there, but you obviously haven't noticed that I thought joining in your game might make you aware of it. Obviously not.

[floo]

What is your understanding of the assertion, Floo?

That is not back up by any factual evidence only a belief!

[ippy]

And as the Word and History bear witness, in each generation there is a faithful remnant. And God's Kingdom go's on.

Isn't that daft statement of yours supposed to be accompanied by some loud claps of echoing thunder and a couple of strikes of quivering lightening? Woooooh

You people take this stuff so seriously, Why?

ippy

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

That is not back up by any factual evidence only a belief!

What would you consider as factual evidence to support it? If you are claiming that there is no factual evidence, it presupposes that you know what such evidence should look like. Please share some examples.

[floo]

What would you consider as factual evidence to support it? If you are claiming that there is no factual evidence, it presupposes that you know what such evidence should look like. Please share some examples.

God appearing in person so there is no doubt it exists. If it was truly omnipotent surely it could do so in such a way it would convince everyone it exists.

[Gordon]

What would you consider as factual evidence to support it? If you are claiming that there is no factual evidence, it presupposes that you know what such evidence should look like.

No it doesn't: not even remotely.

Evidence requires an underlying method with describes the context in which said evidence is both identified and shown to be relevant to the phenomena under review, which requires that the phenomena itself is meaningfully defined.

So, you guys will need to sort out your definition first and then you can present your supporting evidence: you see the burden of proof is in your court (so stop trying to shift it).

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

What would you consider as factual evidence to support it? If you are claiming that there is no factual evidence, it presupposes that you know what such evidence should look like.

No it doesn't: not even remotely.

If the claim that there is no evidence, that claim has to be backed up. What is the point of trying to provide evidence for someone who claims there is none?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Swprd,

If the claim that there is no evidence, that claim has to be backed up. What is the point of trying to provide evidence for someone who claims there is none?

How would you propose to back up your claim that there's no evidence for leprechauns?

The "point" of providing evidence would be to show people who say there's no evidence to be wrong. Your problem though is that what you call evidence for "God" is epistemically indistinguishable from what I call evidence for leprechauns, eg "faith". 

[floo]

If the claim that there is no evidence, that claim has to be backed up. What is the point of trying to provide evidence for someone who claims there is none?

No verifiable evidence has ever been provided.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly, there is no support for an eternal god but that doesn't seem to bother you. People arguing for god as a route out of infinite regress are just committing a tautology instead. This way of thinking defines god as the premise that must be required in order to arrive at the desired conclusion, it's back to front logic.

Secondly, is there any reason why laws should not be eternal ?  If we say that 2 + 2 = 4, did that mathematical rule not apply before the Big Bang ? Did it only come into effect when an intelligent god came along and said 'let it be' ? I think it far easier to create a case for natural laws being eternal than a complex sentient being - his sentience will provide far more paradoxes than his being solves.

Yes Torridon.........I'd certainly like to see your working out on a few of these points you've made.
Until recently this board had a few who could build a case. Now it's just big personalities.

Looking forward.

[Gordon]

If the claim that there is no evidence, that claim has to be backed up. What is the point of trying to provide evidence for someone who claims there is none?

Because the primary claim of 'God' is yours, and if you stand by it then it is reasonable to expect you provide the supporting evidence: but remember your subject needs to be meaningfully defined and that any fallacies will fail as arguments, so they aren't evidence.

To date I've yet to encounter a claim of evidence for 'God' that wasn't incoherent or fallacious. I'm open to the idea that credible evidence might be presented, although I'm not confident it will be since the 'God' notion remains incoherent and theists tend to advance the same range of well-worn fallacies.

[Owlswing]

Because the primary claim of 'God' is yours, and if you stand by it then it is reasonable to expect you provide the supporting evidence: but remember your subject needs to be meaningfully defined and that any fallacies will fail as arguments, so they aren't evidence.

To date I've yet to encounter a claim of evidence for 'God' that wasn't incoherent or fallacious. I'm open to the idea that credible evidence might be presented, although I'm not confident it will be since the 'God' notion remains incoherent and theists tend to advance the same range of well-worn fallacies.

On this forum anyway! Step forward all the usual suspects!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because the primary claim of 'God' is yours, and if you stand by it then it is reasonable to expect you provide the supporting evidence: but remember your subject needs to be meaningfully defined and that any fallacies will fail as arguments, so they aren't evidence.

To date I've yet to encounter a claim of evidence for 'God' that wasn't incoherent or fallacious. I'm open to the idea that credible evidence might be presented, although I'm not confident it will be since the 'God' notion remains incoherent and theists tend to advance the same range of well-worn fallacies.

Gordon opens his bowels.

[Nearly Sane]

Gordon opens his bowels.

even for you, Vlad, that is vacuous.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

even for you, Vlad, that is vacuous.

I think even Bluehillside has gently reminded Gordon that he has taken the "fallacy"thing beyond its utility by pointing out that the number of fallacies doesn't preclude God from existing.

[Nearly Sane]

I think even Bluehillside has gently reminded Gordon that he has taken the "fallacy"thing beyond its utility by pointing out that the number of fallacies doesn't preclude God from existing.

since Gordon hasn't claimed that, that would be lying yet again, Vlad. Why is it that you shut down any discussion by this continual lying? You are, you certainly can be better than this.

[Gordon]

I think even Bluehillside has gently reminded Gordon that he has taken the "fallacy"thing beyond its utility by pointing out that the number of fallacies doesn't preclude God from existing.

Nope - I didn't need reminded, but in that particular post I didn't express myself very well and Blue was quite right to point this out: I used the term 'statement' when I should have said 'argument'. However, I have never claimed that fallacies are anything other than forms of bad argument, and indeed have often said so to enthusiasts of the genre,

[Sassy]

All assertions Sass, not one statement of fact and I would say people like yourself are prime examples of successful indoctrination  where the victim doesn't even realise they've been indoctrinated, even when explaind clearly to them.

ippy

I never had any indoctrination, all things aside. I posted something twice purposely today.
I did it because people pass over things they cannot answer. Today it shows that someone reads but passes over content and just notes posted twice.

God, himself has always lead me. The knowledge I have was NOT man taught it is God taught as with the disciples.

You are so wrong and obviously unable to see real indoctrination.

God is real you just haven't the guts to actually consider this reality.
Because the truth is so frightening to you if you allow yourself to acknowledge the fullness of what that means.

Get your head out of the sand man, you are not an Ostrich and God is still there no matter where you hide. 

[floo]

Just because god is real in your head Sass, it doesn't mean it is.

[SusanDoris]

since Gordon hasn't claimed that, that would be lying yet again, Vlad. Why is it that you shut down any discussion by this continual lying? You are, you certainly can be better than this.

In the pre-referendum discussions, Vlad talked sense. It's a pity he doesn't try talking sense here too. *sad face*

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Just because god is real in your head Sass, it doesn't mean it is.

It doesn't mean that it isn't either. What's your alternative and what is your evidence for it?

[Nearly Sane]

It doesn't mean that it isn't either. What's your alternative and what is your evidence for it?

begging the question, NPF, and shifting the burden of proof, the fallacies are strong in this one