Why do so many still have these religious beliefs?

[Hope]

Yes, agreed. I am naturally an optimist, but it does sadden me to think of all the millions of children in the future who will be told that 'God is true' etc before, finally, the real world, humanism, non-belief and a clear distinction between fact and fiction assumes the majority position.

An interesting use of the argumentum ad populum, Susan.  Sadly, what is a 'majority position' today may not be tomorrow, and 'majority positions' aren't always compatible with reality.

[Nearly Sane]

If you are not prepared to debate with someone here, why should they offer anything in the knowledge that you will ignore it anyway, Walter?  Remember that the majority of the evidence people of faith will offer will, of necessity, be outside the scope of the narrow physical definition of the term that folk like you insist on using.

and indeed outside of any methodology that covers these non narrow definitions  since despite being asked for it hundreds of times, still nothing.

[Nearly Sane]

An interesting use of the argumentum ad populum, Susan.  Sadly, what is a 'majority position' today may not be tomorrow, and 'majority positions' aren't always compatible with reality.

actually it's not an ad populum. Let's the you through this slowly. an ad pop would be because the majority think it is true, it gives it more validity. Susan Doris' post doesn't argue that - just states that she looks forward to it being in the majority.

[Walter]

If you are not prepared to debate with someone here, why should they offer anything in the knowledge that you will ignore it anyway, Walter?  Remember that the majority of the evidence people of faith will offer will, of necessity, be outside the scope of the narrow physical definition of the term that folk like you insist on using.

Is there another way? if so share it with us . If you are aware of other methods of determining whether something is genuine /true /real you owe it to the world to reveal it, don't be so selfish.

[Hope]

Is there another way? if so share it with us . If you are aware of other methods of determining whether something is genuine /true /real you owe it to the world to reveal it, don't be so selfish.

Is there another way?  Well, as I and others have pointed out many times, there is a sizeable 'extra-natural' element to real life - which same call the 'supernatural'.  If one doesn't accept the existence of such an element, then whatever anyone says about it will simply fail to register for you.

Its rather like an aboriginal person from the middle of Australia being told about snow during the early years of the British colonisation of the continent.  It simply didn't exist in their vocabulary or conceptual store.

[Nearly Sane]

Is there another way?  Well, as I and others have pointed out many times, there is a sizeable 'extra-natural' element to real life - which same call the 'supernatural'.  If one doesn't accept the existence of such an element, then whatever anyone says about it will simply fail to register for you.

Its rather like an aboriginal person from the middle of Australia being told about snow during the early years of the British colonisation of the continent.  It simply didn't exist in their vocabulary or conceptual store.

asserted. And despite being asked for a methodoliy for it hundreds of timrs, nothing more the repeated assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

asserted. And despite being asked for a methodoliy for it hundreds of timrs, nothing more the repeated assertion.

Before you started on about methodology. I was asking philosophical materialists for the link with methodological materialism. That has not been forthcoming although it caused a lot of ''atheist shuffle''.

[Nearly Sane]

Before you started on about methodology. I was asking philosophical materialists for the link with methodological materialism. That has not been forthcoming although it caused a lot of ''atheist shuffle''.

Which philosophical materialists were you asking! Since I am not a philosophical materialist not sure of the relevance.

Of course, if you have a methodology, given I have asked you hundreds of times, it would surely be easier to prevent it rather than indulge yourself in yet another of your tedious,jejune little evasions?

[Walter]

Is there another way?  Well, as I and others have pointed out many times, there is a sizeable 'extra-natural' element to real life - which same call the 'supernatural'.  If one doesn't accept the existence of such an element, then whatever anyone says about it will simply fail to register for you.

Its rather like an aboriginal person from the middle of Australia being told about snow during the early years of the British colonisation of the continent.  It simply didn't exist in their vocabulary or conceptual store.

You really don't get it do you . snow exists, its real and it can be proved ,even to an aboriginal person,
Supernatural, doesn't unless you can PROVE IT

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which philosophical materialists were you asking! Since I am not a philosophical materialist not sure of the relevance.

Of course, if you have a methodology, given I have asked you hundreds of times, it would surely be easier to prevent it rather than indulge yourself in yet another of your tedious,jejune little evasions?

Stop hanging on to my coat tails.

I've been perfectly honest with you in saying there may only be one methodology. Stop bullshitting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop hanging on to my coat tails.

I've been perfectly honest with you in saying there may only be one methodology.

How does that help you Sane?
Why do you think slick antitheist string theorists want falsifiability out of science?

[Nearly Sane]

Stop hanging on to my coat tails.

I've been perfectly honest with you in saying there may only be one methodology. Stop bullshitting.

So currently for you, there is no supernaturalistic methodology. Hurrah, it'only taken you 6 years, 2 message boards and hundreds if not thousands of posts for you to admit it. Have a French fancy and a nice cup of tea.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really don't get it do you . snow exists, its real and it can be proved ,even to an aboriginal person,
Supernatural, doesn't unless you can PROVE IT

OK. Supernatural is that which cannot possibly be proved or demonstrated by methodological naturalism.
Therefore nature is either eternal....or it popped out of an unnatural nothing. Both of these things are not demonstrable by methodological materialism therefore the supernatural has been demonstrated.....without God having been mentioned.

[Nearly Sane]

How does that help you Sane?
Why do you think slick antitheist string theorists want falsifiability out of science?

you just put this in reply to your own post. Go have that French fancy, I just suggested.

[Nearly Sane]

OK. Supernatural is that which cannot possibly be proved or demonstrated by methodological naturalism.
Therefore nature is either eternal....or it popped out of an natural nothing. Both of these things are not demonstrable by methodological materialism therefore the supernatural has been demonstrated.....without God having been mentioned.

Did you really mean to write that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So currently for you, there is no supernaturalistic methodology. Hurrah, it'only taken you 6 years, 2 message boards and hundreds if not thousands of posts for you to admit it. Have a French fancy and a nice cup of tea.

No, I've said this sort of thing before.
I think I have asked you what you mean by method in the suspicion that what you really mean but wont own up to is science. I believe you have yet to give a definition of methodology which is different from science...feel free to do so now.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did you really mean to write that?

Yes...any objections feel free to outline.

[Nearly Sane]

No, I've said this sort of thing before.
I think I have asked you what you mean by method in the suspicion that what you really mean but wont own up to is science. I believe you have yet to give a definition of methodology which is different from science...feel free to do so now.

What? Why are you asking me for a the methdology (set of methods) to validate your claim? 

[wigginhall]

It's Vlad showing his mastery of the tu quoque.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes...any objections feel free to outline.

you give two possibilities which you then say because neither can be shown to be to true are, both not true. That is logically incoherent. You then claim that your logical incoherence means that a third possibility is true - a further logical incoherence. That third possibility is given no definition so isn't even basically coherent.

[Nearly Sane]

It's Vlad showing his mastery of the tu quoque.

don't think it is a tu quoque. I just think it makes no sense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What? Why are you asking me for a the methdology (set of methods) to validate your claim?

No I'm asking you what constitutes a valid methodology for you...What would an acceptable methodology look like (as if we don't already know)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

you give two possibilities which you then say because neither can be shown to be to true are, both not true. That is logically incoherent. You then claim that your logical incoherence means that a third possibility is true - a further logical incoherence. That third possibility is given no definition so isn't even basically coherent.

I never say both are not true..I say one has to be true but both are supernatural feel free to come up with a natural explanation.

Oh I can see another explanation...but darn it that's supernatural as well.

[Nearly Sane]

I never say both are not true..I say one has to be true but both are supernatural.

can you point me somewhere where the definition in your line

'Supernatural is that which cannot possibly be proved or demonstrated by methodological naturalism' is agreed?

[Nearly Sane]

No I'm asking you what constitutes a valid methodology for you...What would an acceptable methodology look like (as if we don't already know)

it would look like an set of methods which intra subjectively we could look to validate claims with no assumption of natural causes.