Disproofs of God.

[Owlswing]

I don't believe I saw the answer to my question. If you are not presenting paganism as a fact are you presenting it as a fiction...or just weird shit as gleaned from your posts to me?

Just for once listen to what is said to you instead of what you want to hear!

Paganism is a FACT!

I have stated and I state yet again in the forlorn hope that sometime in the dim and distant future you will listen to what is said to you and not what you want to hear!

I do not claim that the existence of Pagan GODS and GODDESSES are FACTS - I state categorically that their EXISTENCE is a statement of FAITH!

If you can't understand the difference you are, probably a bigger idiot than your posts suggest!

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN US ENDS HERE!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that pigeon!

I dont believe I saw the answer to my question.

Says the man who’s never answered any of the countless questions he’s been asked…

If you are not presenting paganism as a fact are you presenting it as a fiction...or just weird shit as gleaned from your posts to me?

No, he’s posting it as something he believes to be a fact but he knows he can’t justify as such to other people.

Oh, and that of course is the difference between his approach and to his faith beliefs yours – neither of you can justify them as objectively true, but you pretend otherwise. In the unlikely event that Owls ever asserted that paganism should be the established faith with the queen as its head, that its beliefs should be taught as facts to young children in special schools, that a daily act of worship to its deities should be mandated by law for all schools, that its clerics (druids?) should routinely be consulted on matters of moral import and their views broadcast, that pagan officials should sit by right in the legislature etc then – but only then – should you expect the same response that your faith attracts when it arrogate such rights to itself.

But then again, you knew that already didn’t you.   

[Owlswing]

Stop that pigeon!

Says the man who’s never answered any of the countless questions he’s been asked…

No, he’s posting it as something he believes to be a fact but he knows he can’t justify as such to other people.

Oh, and that, of course, is the difference between his approach and to his faith beliefs yours – neither of you can justify them as objectively true, but you pretend otherwise. In the unlikely event that Owls ever asserted that paganism should be the established faith with the queen as its head, that its beliefs should be taught as facts to young children in special schools, that a daily act of worship to its deities should be mandated by law for all schools, that its clerics (druids?) should routinely be consulted on matters of moral import and their views broadcast, that pagan officials should sit by right in the legislature etc then – but only then – should you expect the same response that your faith attracts when it arrogate such rights to itself.

But then again, you knew that already didn’t you.   

A comment upon the highlighted above.

Druidry is one branch of Paganism, based originally, if I remember aright, mostly in Wales and supposedly wiped out by one of the Caesars on Anglesey.

The Norse, Celtic. Greek, Roman all have their own followers.

However, just because you are a member of a Coven based in Manchester does not stop your Coven identifying with A Goddess and A God from any of the old Pagan religions.

There used to be a group, in Surrey, I think, whose attendant deities were a Hindu Goddess and a Sikh God. The rituals were basically the same as those of another group whose Goddess and God were both of Welsh origin.

One of the beauties of the path, you choose your deities, you do not have them forced upon you by your postcode and the colour of your skin!
 

Owlswing

)O(

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Owls,

A comment upon the highlighted above.

Druidry is one branch of Paganism, based originally, if I remember aright, mostly in Wales and supposedly wiped out by one of the Caesars on Anglesey.

The Norse, Celtic. Greek, Roman all have their own followers.

However, just because you are a member of a Coven based in Manchester does not stop your Coven identifying with A Goddess and A God from any of the old Pagan religions.

There used to be a group, in Surrey, I think, whose attendant deities were a Hindu Goddess and a Sikh God. The rituals were basically the same as those of another group whose Goddess and God were both of Welsh origin.

One of the beauties of the path, you choose your deities, you do not have them forced upon you by your postcode and the colour of your skin!
 

Owlswing

)O(

Thanks for the gen. I like the last part especially. One of the many oddities about the faith claims of Vlad and his ilk is that he/they seem to be oblivious to the remarkable co-incidence of the only true god just happening to be the one most proximate to him/them in time and place. Born at a different time or elsewhere no doubt he'd be just assertive about Allah or Zeus etc being the real deal instead. What are the chances eh?       

[SteveH]

Hi Owls,

Thanks for the gen. I like the last part especially. One of the many oddities about the faith claims of Vlad and his ilk is that he/they seem to be oblivious to the remarkable co-incidence of the only true god just happening to be the one most proximate to him/them in time and place. Born at a different time or elsewhere no doubt he'd be just assertive about Allah or Zeus etc being the real deal instead. What are the chances eh?     

That is indeed a killer objection to any religion claimed as objectively true. Fortunately, I don't believe in the objective truth of Christianity, only in its (much more important) subjective, "true for me" truth.

[Nearly Sane]

That is indeed a killer objection to any religion claimed as objectively true. Fortunately, I don't believe in the objective truth of Christianity, only in its (much more important) subjective, "true for me" truth.

I've never really understood the idea of 'true for me'. What is the meaning for you and why is it much more important?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I've never really understood the idea of 'true for me'. What is the meaning for you and why is it much more important?

Doesn’t it just mean something like, “I know I can’t justify this belief with reason, but I find it meaningful nonetheless so choose to accept it as if I could”? The great advantage for the believer is that he doesn’t have to tie himself in rhetorical knots to rationalise the belief, and for the rest of us there’s no expectation that we too should take the belief seriously.   

[SteveH]

NS,

Doesn’t it just mean something like, “I know I can’t justify this belief with reason, but I find it meaningful nonetheless so choose to accept it as if I could”? The great advantage for the believer is that he doesn’t have to tie himself in rhetorical knots to rationalise the belief, and for the rest of us there’s no expectation that we too should take the belief seriously.

Exactemundo.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Doesn’t it just mean something like, “I know I can’t justify this belief with reason, but I find it meaningful nonetheless so choose to accept it as if I could”? The great advantage for the believer is that he doesn’t have to tie himself in rhetorical knots to rationalise the belief, and for the rest of us there’s no expectation that we too should take the belief seriously.

It seems to me to try and give some extra validity to it by smuggling in the concept of truth. It's trivially true to say I like marmite but I wouldn't talk about true there. It's a fact but 'true for me' always feels like something extra is being stated.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

It seems to me to try and give some extra validity to it by smuggling in the concept of truth. It's trivially true to say I like marmite but I wouldn't talk about true there. It's a fact but 'true for me' always feels like something extra is being stated.

I’m not so sure about that. It seems to me to be statement about the value someone finds just from having the belief without being overmuch concerned with whether the object of the belief is real or not. It’s akin to mindfulness or to yoga perhaps in that respect, so even if someone says “but you have no sound reasons to think the object of your beliefs are real” the answer can legitimately be, “I know. So what though?”. That seems to me to be different from the position most theists take – various Christians here for example have said that, if ever there was evidence that Jesus wasn’t resurrected then their faith would fall apart. To them it matters – really matters – that the statements on fact on which their faith relies are actually, unequivocally true.       

[Owlswing]

NS,

I’m not so sure about that. It seems to me to be a statement about the value someone finds just from having the belief without being overmuch concerned with whether the object of the belief is real or not. It’s akin to mindfulness or to yoga perhaps in that respect, so even if someone says “but you have no sound reasons to think the object of your beliefs are real” the answer can legitimately be, “I know. So what though?”. That seems to me to be different from the position most theists take – various Christians here, for example, have said that, if ever there was evidence that Jesus wasn’t resurrected then their faith would fall apart. To them it matters – really matters – that the statements on the fact on which their faith relies are actually, unequivocally true.     

Put simply, as I have tried to do ever since the first objection to my religion was posted on this forum - my belief in my deities is a matter of FAITH and NOT FACT!

When I was a kid, quite a few moons ago - the religion I was brought up in was actually referred to even by its priests etc, as the Christian FAITH, not the Christian FACT!

Not that I have any hope of the Christian Philistines hereon ever seeing or ceding the point!

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I’m not so sure about that. It seems to me to be statement about the value someone finds just from having the belief without being overmuch concerned with whether the object of the belief is real or not. It’s akin to mindfulness or to yoga perhaps in that respect, so even if someone says “but you have no sound reasons to think the object of your beliefs are real” the answer can legitimately be, “I know. So what though?”. That seems to me to be different from the position most theists take – various Christians here for example have said that, if ever there was evidence that Jesus wasn’t resurrected then their faith would fall apart. To them it matters – really matters – that the statements on fact on which their faith relies are actually, unequivocally true.     

and to someone saying it's 'True to me' just seems like saying it really really matters but I'm trying to avoid being questioned on it by smuggling the idea of truth into opinion. What does 'true' mean there?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think Owlswing is trying to run with both the hare and the hounds.
I don't know what Hillside is playing at.

[Nearly Sane]

I think Owlswing is trying to run with both the hare and the hounds.
I don't know what Hillside is playing at.

And what about Mr Micawber?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And what about Mr Micawber?

If he could kindly explain what he means as ''true for me'' and if Mr Hillside explain precisely what he considers as objective truth things might proceed rather more spiffingly.

[Nearly Sane]

If he could kindly explain what he means as ''true for me'' and if Mr Hillside explain precisely what he considers as objective truth things might proceed rather more spiffingly.

Wouldn't that be lovely, Mr Wisdom?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wouldn't that be lovely, Mr Wisdom?

One lives in hope Mr sane.

[Owlswing]

I think Owlswing is trying to run with both the hare and the hounds.

A CHALLENGE TO THE CHRISTIANS ON THIS FORUM WHO cONSIDER PAGANISM TO BE A LOAD OF RUBBISH!
   
TO Vlad and any and all other Christians who think that Pagan beliefs are nonsense and that Christianity is the ONE TRUE RELIGION.

I hereby offer you a chance to prove it, and me to disprove it!

On the night of the next Full moon, the Harvest Moon, on September 2 at 0622 I will ask the Goddess to protect me from the prayers of anyone of a non-Pagan belief system until the next Full Moon, the Hunters Moon, on October 1 at 2205.

You, Vlad, and any others, who consider that my belief in my deities is rubbish as the only true deity is the God of the Christians, will on Sundays September 6, 13, 20, 27 say prayers to your God for him to smite me with a dislocated left hip!

If by October 2 I have suffered the specified injury I will change back to being a fully functional Christian, a status I dumped at age 15!

If, on the other hand, I have not suffered from a dislocated hip you will meet me between 10.00 and 12.00 in Trafalgar Square, at the bottom of the steps from the National Gallery, so I can show myself uninjured. I will be identifiable by the tattoo on my left forearm of the Green Man, The God of the Forests and Woods.

Please note that I have absolute confidence that I WILL not be injured on one of two counts - One - your God is incapable of hurting someone under the Goddess’ protection - and/or two - that you will not have the guts to try it, just in case you are proven wrong, that for all your prayers I am unhurt.

I was going to ask, if I was unhurt, that you each kiss my nether regions but I decided to be merciful!

[Stranger]

Atheist someone who cannot disprove God but acts as though he has.

Wow, in one sentence, Vlad demonstrates, yet again, that he doesn't understand the burden of proof, nor the fact the the unqualified word "God" is meaningless, and, in using it as a signature, apparently wants to advertise his ignorance in every post.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A CHALLENGE TO THE CHRISTIANS ON THIS FORUM WHO cONSIDER PAGANISM TO BE A LOAD OF RUBBISH!
   
TO Vlad and any and all other Christians who think that Pagan beliefs are nonsense and that Christianity is the ONE TRUE RELIGION.

I do not believe paganism is a load of rubbish or nonsense. I do believe that Christianity in its New Testament formulation is the most comprehensive account of the divine we have.

I hereby offer you a chance to prove it, and me to disprove it!

Since I do not believe what you attribute to me I don’t want to prove it.

On the night of the next Full moon, the Harvest Moon, on September 2 at 0622 I will ask the Goddess to protect me from the prayers of anyone of a non-Pagan belief system until the next Full Moon, the Hunters Moon, on October 1 at 2205.

You, Vlad, and any others, who consider that my belief in my deities is rubbish as the only true deity is the God of the Christians, will on Sundays September 6, 13, 20, 27 say prayers to your God for him to smite me with a dislocated left hip!

If by October 2 I have suffered the specified injury I will change back to being a fully functional Christian, a status I dumped at age 15!

If, on the other hand, I have not suffered from a dislocated hip you will meet me between 10.00 and 12.00 in Trafalgar Square, at the bottom of the steps from the National Gallery, so I can show myself uninjured. I will be identifiable by the tattoo on my left forearm of the Green Man, The God of the Forests and Woods.

Unfortunately as Peter Cook once said I shall not be taking part since I shall be watching television at that those times. If you are in a public place please observe social distancing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wow, in one sentence, Vlad demonstrates, yet again, that he doesn't understand the burden of proof, nor the fact the the unqualified word "God" is meaningless, and, in using it as a signature, apparently wants to advertise his ignorance in every post.

Again I see there has been absolutely zero reflection on why atheism rather than agnosticism is the default position.

You will note that that not unreasonable request does not shift any burden from the theist position.
You will note that but your arseclenching fanaticism will probably prevent it from sinking in.

[ekim]

and to someone saying it's 'True to me' just seems like saying it really really matters but I'm trying to avoid being questioned on it by smuggling the idea of truth into opinion. What does 'true' mean there?

It may mean that to some but it can also mean that as an inner experience that experience is true for me but it may not be for you.  There may be no way of demonstrating that truth intellectually, but if you carry out certain practices regularly like meditation or prayer you may have a similar inner experience which will be true for you.  Hope and faith are suggested as preliminary requirements,  'hope' meaning being open to the possibility and 'faith' being persistent with a method or way that is suggested.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

If he could kindly explain what he means as ''true for me'' and if Mr Hillside explain precisely what he considers as objective truth things might proceed rather more spiffingly.

Mr Hillside has on numerous occasions taken you through epistemology 101, explained the probabilistic nature of truth, shown you that a statement is true only inasmuch as it cannot be refuted but necessarily only according to the current state of knowledge, illustrated the argument with analogies like the sandcastle model etc only for you to ignore or misrepresent every part of it. What then would be the point of doing it again? Dear god, if you can’t even grasp the basics of the burden of proof what hope is there of you ever grasping the basics of knowledge theory?

Try to grasp this at least: Owls’ truth about a goddess and my truth about an apple falling if I drop it are on an epistemological spectrum. When there’s not much supporting argument or evidence we call the former truth beliefs “subjective”, and when there’s lots of supporting argument and evidence we call the latter truth beliefs “objective”. They’re both beliefs though - the probability of the former isn’t zero (how would you know definitively that his Goddess doesn’t exist?), and the probability of the latter isn’t 1 (how would you know definitively that one day the apple wouldn’t go sideways?).

What though is the point of even trying to explain this to you again?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stop that Pigeon!

Again I see there has been absolutely zero reflection on why atheism rather than agnosticism is the default position.

Again I see that you fundamentally misunderstand or misrepresent the category difference between atheism and agnosticism. It’s quite possible to be an agnostic atheist – “the truth or otherwise of the claim “God” is unknowable, but the arguments you try to justify that claim are all wrong”.   

You will note that that not unreasonable request does not shift any burden from the theist position.

Gibberish.

You will note that but your arseclenching fanaticism will probably prevent it from sinking in.

And the ad hom fallacy to finish.

0/10 – see me

[Stranger]

Again I see there has been absolutely zero reflection on why atheism rather than agnosticism is the default position.

Here we go again...

The default position, as has been explained to you endless times, is not to accept a proposition as true unless you are given reason to do so. That's about belief. If the proposition is unfalsifiable, then you have to accept that it might be true, then you can call that being agnostic if you want but that is about absolute knowledge, hence you can be an agnostic atheist.

If the proposition is meaningless, such as "God exists", without any qualification as to the meaning of the word "God", that leads ignosticism (I have no idea what you even mean).

The problem with the label agnostic is that it is often taken as a sort of 50/50 "don't know" position, which simply doesn't apply when you see no reason whatsoever to take an idea seriously. Although strictly it means that nothing is or can be known about the existence or nature of God, which is also not a default position, but an actual claim in itself.

Have you got all that?