Spirituality

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

PS No news then on your latest tranche of lies that I called you out on?

Why is that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

An accusation that’s easily been falsified.

No, they were based on the failure of leprechaunists to make a logically robust case to justify their beliefs.

Nope, he outlines his grounds in reply #4. They are based in methodological empiricism. Like any sane person, He has heard the reports, determined from them that they should yield empirical evidence, none of which has presently been found. He is an aleprechaunist.

You substitute a different approach on his behalf. Namely there is no logical argument for leprechauns as there is no logical argument for magic....and then the jump to God. It's not therefore the lack of an argument that the sensible are aleprechaunist, it is the lack of physical empirical evidence for Leprechauns.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not particularly familiar with the Unitarians or the Arians, but the Seventh Day Adventists have an orthodoxy - it's sort of what makes them a distinguishable group.

But as I have said even they would admit to not being mainstream.

How am I supposed to choose when there's absolutely nothing to base it upon - Christianity, surely, is the sum of the actions and beliefs of those people calling themselves Christians, so all of them.

No, Christianity is faith in Jesus Christ. I'm not sure you can sum beliefs, it sounds like you are proposing an equation. I would like to see your working out here.

What's 'new' about atheism?  Is it new just because we don't feel we have to be quiet about it?

Wikipedia has a list of the characteristics of new atheism and there are several threads based around these on this forum. There is a bit more to it than just not feeling you have to keep quite about it. Namely a superior attitude towards those who don't think they have to be loud n' proud of their atheism(See Dawkins, the God Delusion). Turning ignorance of religion into a virtue therefore being in praise of intellectual sloppiness. Being, as the atheist evolutionary biologist D O Wilson put it, a stealth religion. New atheism certainly has it's apostles, The four horsemen. It's saints, I believe there was a recent competition for new atheists to paint a Icon sorry portrait of a new atheist saint, Christopher Hitchens, the best icon to be judged namely St Stephen Fry. We could also maybe talk about naked glorification of Horse Laugh arguments. 

It's not supposed to be, of itself; it's yet another demonstration that the allegedly perfectly moral being of God has some pretty fundamental immoral .

''Fundamental immorality''? what do you mean by that? How do you arrive at what is moral and what is immoral?

No-one, so far as I can see, has ever suggested that atheism is an automatic claim to moral superiority or an inoculation against immorality.

Are you familiar with Laurence Krauss on religion or the Richard Dawkins Documentary slyly entitled ''The root of all evil?''

And I'm not sure that anyone said the majority of it was down to 'the religious impulse' - or even implied the 'Christian' impulse.  I think if people forwent Christianity some things would improve, some things would get worse, but the things that would get worse we don't need Christianity to replace (charities, community works) whereas some of the bad things that we'd lose there's no obvious replacement for (institutional homophobia, Christian nationalism, certain strands of white supremacy, certain strands of misogyny).

So christian mysogeny bad, other mysogyny ok because it isn't Christian? How would you lose institutional homophobia? Christian nationalism? Not apparently a feature in african American churches. White supremacy? Not found in the african american churches. Mysogyny? Rife in the New atheist and scientific community.

I am not trying to make a Tu quoque argument here, just a counter to your implication that if Christianity was removed somebody who would have been, say, a paedophile priest would stop being a paedophile, a homophobe would not be homophobic or the mysogynist, well, you get the point.

God is perfect, in morality, in knowledge, in action;
God has the capacity to forgive or condemn;
God will either welcome us into an afterlife or condemn us to some sort of punishment (for eternity? Limbo?)
The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament (who is also Jesus, who is also the Holy Spirit?)
There are no other gods (and Angels and saints, for some reason, aren't divine beings like demigods because this is Different^TM;

If you are serious about finding out what the mainstream of Christianity prioritises You could start with the creeds.

[Outrider]

But as I have said even they would admit to not being mainstream.

Which is not to say that their take is definitively wrong, nor does it speak to whether they have an orthodoxy of their own.

No, Christianity is faith in Jesus Christ. I'm not sure you can sum beliefs, it sounds like you are proposing an equation.

If Christianity were just faith in Jesus then how come gay people get ostracised - Christianity is not just faith, Christianity is the expression of that faith in innumerable ways, by all the variations of Christians.  If Christianity were just faith it wouldn't be problematic, because it would be entirely personal.  It isn't, Christianity can be personal, but there are Christians out there who are practiced at being Christian at people.

 I would like to see your working out here. Wikipedia has a list of the characteristics of new atheism and there are several threads based around these on this forum.[/quote]

I've looked at the Wikipedia definition, I've seen the threads here. I still don't see what makes it 'new' - it's the same argument it always was, that there is insufficient basis to accept the various claims of gods, souls, spirits etc.  How does not knuckling under the social pressure to keep quiet about it make it 'new'?

There is a bit more to it than just not feeling you have to keep quite about it.

There really isn't, or someone would have pointed out what it was.

Namely a superior attitude towards those who don't think they have to be loud n' proud of their atheism(See Dawkins, the God Delusion).

You mean that when people tell him to shut up he doesn't... People have called him 'shrill' and 'hateful' and 'superior' because he doesn't conform to their expectation; it comes from the same place that sees a critique of religion as an unforgiveable attack on them.  He gets called 'militant' for having an opinion, whilst religious proponents need to be both brown and bearing arms to earn that - I'm not sure what Christian terrorists have to do to be called 'militant', it seems to slide off the teflon coating their prayers give them.

Turning ignorance of religion into a virtue therefore being in praise of intellectual sloppiness.

Claiming that not falling for the myth that theology has something useful to contribute is not an ignorance of religion.  He's well aware of religion, and makes his case for why it has no reliable foundation.

Being, as the atheist evolutionary biologist D O Wilson put it, a stealth religion.

Which, ironically, falls foul of being ignorant of what religion is...

New atheism certainly has it's apostles, The four horsemen.

Oh no, we have people who are famous, that definitely makes it a religion, why didn't you say so.... I now have to choose between the Church of Harris or the Church of Coronation Street.  This sort of false equivalence only becomes laughable when you realise that you're trying to ridicule people you disagree with by pointing out that you think they're falling foul of the same nonsense that your own chosen system already employs.

It's saints, I believe there was a recent competition for new atheists to paint a Icon sorry portrait of a new atheist saint, Christopher Hitchens, the best icon to be judged namely St Stephen Fry.

So art can only be viewed as an expression of religion?

We could also maybe talk about naked glorification of Horse Laugh arguments.

If you don't like people laughing at your beliefs, maybe you need beliefs that aren't quite so laughable?

''Fundamental immorality''? what do you mean by that? How do you arrive at what is moral and what is immoral?

I think.  I look at the world, and the people in it, and I think what might cause harm or distress.  Just like absolutely everybody else.

Are you familiar with Laurence Krauss on religion or the Richard Dawkins Documentary slyly entitled ''The root of all evil?''

A title, as I recall, that Professor Dawkins expressed his distaste for at the time, and since - he managed to get a question mark added in order to make it an enquiry not a statement, but that was as much as he could get from them.

So christian mysogeny bad, other mysogyny ok because it isn't Christian?

Way to deliberately misrepresent - all misogyny is bad, Christian misogyny is merely one thread of it. Hence my use of the phrase 'certain strands of misogyny' to indicate that not all misogyny originates from a Christian source, or even religion in general.

How would you lose institutional homophobia?

See the end of the institutions that promote it, obviously...

Christian nationalism? Not apparently a feature in african American churches.

But manifest in many, many others - Russian orthodox, American Evangelical, Hungary, Uganda...

White supremacy? Not found in the african american churches.

And therefore all of Christianity can be given a pass?

Mysogyny? Rife in the New atheist and scientific community.

Rife?  Present, certainly, but not foundational to the enterprise - there isn't an atheist equivalent to St Paul's (alleged) comments in Corinthians I or Timothy I.  Which is not to say that it doesn't need to be addressed, but I'd suggest it's a manifestation of broader culture that's been brought across, whereas the Christian foundation has been part of the development of that cultural background.

I am not trying to make a Tu quoque argument here, just a counter to your implication that if Christianity was removed somebody who would have been, say, a paedophile priest would stop being a paedophile, a homophobe would not be homophobic or the mysogynist, well, you get the point.

I avoided the paedophile references deliberately - I see nothing in the foundation of Christianity (or the other religions) that leads to that, nothing that would make someone a paedophile.  That many churches in their preference for a celibate priesthood have lent themselves to paedophiles as a hiding place is an unfortunate byproduct - I think we can hold the churches accountable for their lamentable failure to adequately investigate or protect their adherents, but in that they are as flawed as other major institutions that put their reputation ahead of the welfare of those they owed a duty of care to.  I think in some instances - the Roman Catholic Church, in particular - they continue to be reticent in that area whereas most other institutions have moved forward to some extent.

As to homophobia - yes, I genuinely think that without the overt religious doctrine of homophobia that many people would not feel that way who currently do, or would be considerably less excited about it, similarly for misogyny.  When you have the head of the Ugandan Anglican Church rebuking the Archbishop of Canterbury publicly for writing that gays and lesbians should not be persecuted by the secular authorities I can't see how you can argue that Christianity in at least some areas is not actively fomenting homophobia.

If you are serious about finding out what the mainstream of Christianity prioritises You could start with the creeds.

Christianity is not a book.  Christianity is not creed, tenets or doctrines - if Christianity was a problematic book I could put the book back on the shelf.  Christianity is about how Christians interpret those creeds, how they manifest their belief in everyday life, how they vote for repugnant retrograde laws and policies based on those beliefs, how they justify attacks on people going about their own business, how they expect special treatment.  It's not an editing job to remove the perniciousness of Christianity from society, it's an education job, and you don't educate creeds, you educate people.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So that’s it is it? I listed your latest tranche of lies and you’ve just ignored all that to move on to something else. Why is that? Oh well, I should expect nothing better from you I guess…

Nope, he outlines his grounds in reply #4. They are based in methodological empiricism. Like any sane person, He has heard the reports, determined from them that they should yield empirical evidence, none of which has presently been found. He is an aleprechaunist.

Leaving aside for now that he also included “examples of wishes being granted under lab conditions”, I also explained to you shortly afterwards that absence of evidence of the wee fellas when manifesting in physical form tells you nothing about their existence when in supernatural form. 

I have heard the reports for “god” manifesting himself in the world too, determined from them that they should yield empirical evidence, none of which has presently been found. I am an atheist. See – it’s the same argument isn’t it.

You substitute a different approach on his behalf. Namely there is no logical argument for leprechauns as there is no logical argument for magic....and then the jump to God. It's not therefore the lack of an argument that the sensible are aleprechaunist, it is the lack of physical empirical evidence for Leprechauns.

Wrong again – see above. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, and in any case exactly the same is true of your claim “god”.

As you’ve just run away from it again, here’s the (latest) question you’ve decided to avoid: if your complaint is that reason and evidence aren’t suitable to investigate and validate your claim “god”, if you want that claim to be taken seriously what method would you propose should be used instead?

I can ask the same question in bold, or perhaps in a bright colour if that helps you? Capital letters maybe?       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,



Leaving aside for now that he also included “examples of wishes being granted under lab conditions”,

Has it occured to you that if one is wanting to use lab conditions, then it is empirical evidence that one is seeking?

I also explained to you shortly afterwards that absence of evidence of the wee fellas when manifesting in physical form tells you nothing about their existence when in supernatural form.

But it does yield humour and a little absurdity....We therefore have our material for someone to misuse via a horses laugh fallacy.

 
I have heard the reports for “god” manifesting himself in the world too, determined from them that they should yield empirical evidence,

Jesus is both Human and divine if you could now explain how the divine yields empirical evidence this might help your case here.

none of which has presently been found. I am an atheist. And ,obviously a philosophical empiricist See – it’s the same argument isn’t it.

Obviously there is evidence for Jesus, recorded witnesses to the resurrection in the epistles based on two empirical statements. He was dead and subsequently he was alive.
 
Now, none of that was done in a lab, but if one accepts it one has evidence for Jesus and evidence for a highly improbable event/miracle/wish give which is lacking in the case of the Leprechaun.

Also God remains unfalsified because the divine is not subject to empirical analysis. Where as the Leprechaun is and on the strength of absence of the expected empirical evidence I am an aleprechaunist and my grounds and reasons for being a theist are independent of my grounds and reasons for being a leprechaunist.

Have an utterly nice day. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Has it occured to you that if one is wanting to use lab conditions, then it is empirical evidence that one is seeking?

Has it occurred to you that it isn’t? No matter how unlikely the outcome, what “laboratory conditions” do you think could demonstrate a non-empirical claim like a bona fide “miracle” rather than just a co-incidence? You’re hoist by your own petard here. 

But it does yield humour and a little absurdity....We therefore have our material for someone to misuse via a horses laugh fallacy.

No you therefore haven’t:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Any chance of you stopping lying about this? Maybe a brief lying sabbatical if not lying at all is too high a bar for you?   

Jesus is both Human and divine…

So the story goes…

…if you could now explain how the divine yields empirical evidence this might help your case here.

More stupidity – if Jesus could be material only when he felt like it presumably he could also have left material evidence of his activities when he was. Same goes for leprechauns. 

Obviously there is evidence for Jesus, recorded witnesses to the resurrection in the epistles based on two empirical statements. He was dead and subsequently he was alive.

As there are witness statements and the like for leprechauns too. So?
 

Now, none of that was done in a lab, but if one accepts it one has evidence for Jesus and evidence for a highly improbable event/miracle/wish give which is lacking in the case of the Leprechaun.

No it isn’t – you have only hearsay for both. So?

Also…

…You can’t have an “also” when all your prior efforts have collapsed in a heap of bad reasoning. 

God remains unfalsified because the divine is not subject to empirical analysis.

So what type of analysis should instead be applied to the claim “God”? Oh wait though – you’ll never answer that will you. Sorry, my bad.

Where as the Leprechaun is and on the strength of absence of the expected empirical evidence I am an aleprechaunist and my grounds and reasons for being a theist are independent of my grounds and reasons for being a leprechaunist.

Wrong again. Leprechauns can flit in and out of the material at will. I make this claim because that’s my “faith”. God/Jesus can flit in and out of the material at will. You make that claim because that’s your “faith”.

Neither entities though seems to have left any empirical evidence of their activities when they were material. If you’d drop the unwarranted special pleading you arbitrarily arrogate to your faith claim but deny to mine, you’d see that our claims are epistemically equivalent.

That’s your problem remember?       

Have an utterly nice day.

Have an utterly honest one. Oh, wait though…

[Enki]

Has it occured to you that if one is wanting to use lab conditions, then it is empirical evidence that one is seeking?

Only if granted wishes could be verified under lab conditions. Otherwise they are supernatural and can neither be falsified nor confirmed unless you can produce a methodology to establish one or the other. Ditto with God.

But it does yield humour and a little absurdity....We therefore have our material for someone to misuse via a horses laugh fallacy.

Leprechauns could well lead to humour and absurdity (ditto God), but not necessarily to  the 'horse laugh fallacy'. That would depend on the attitude of the responder.

Jesus is both Human and divine if you could now explain how the divine yields empirical evidence this might help your case here.

That he is/was divine is simply an assertion with nothing more to recommend it than your belief unless you can offer something more convincing. That he was a human who actually existed can be examined by dint of evidence.

Obviously there is evidence for Jesus, recorded witnesses to the resurrection in the epistles based on two empirical statements. He was dead and subsequently he was alive.

I agree, there is some evidence that Jesus actually existed, but the only evidence that he was resurrected is anecdotal, error strewn and comes from strongly biased sources. If one then takes into account the improbability of such an event happening, all you have is assertion.

Now, none of that was done in a lab, but if one accepts it one has evidence for Jesus and evidence for a highly improbable event/miracle/wish give which is lacking in the case of the Leprechaun.

The key word here is 'accepts'. and, for the basic reasons given above, I don't. Hence it seems to me to be very much equivalent to stories surrounding leprechauns.

Also God remains unfalsified because the divine is not subject to empirical analysis. Where as the Leprechaun is and on the strength of absence of the expected empirical evidence I am an aleprechaunist and my grounds and reasons for being a theist are independent of my grounds and reasons for being a leprechaunist.

The existence of any god cannot be falsified. Neither can it be confirmed. Ditto with leprechauns. I really would expect some empirical evidence of God just as I would for leprechauns. If, as you suggest, this isn't possible, then,  alternatively,  give me  reasons to accept your beliefs as true.

Have an utterly nice day.

You too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Only if granted wishes could be verified under lab conditions. Otherwise they are supernatural and can neither be falsified nor confirmed unless you can produce a methodology to establish one or the other. Ditto with God.

Doesn’t it go without saying you are looking for empirical evidence if you are using lab conditions. I wish I was happy forever might not be empirical but say Richard Dawkins asking for an immediate 50% increase in the size of his penis from 1 to 2 inches, is.

Leprechauns could well lead to humour and absurdity (ditto God), but not necessarily to  the 'horse laugh fallacy'. That would depend on the attitude of the responder.

I can see how the idea of tiny Irishmen at the end of rainbows who are never found there can be funny but in what way is God who apparently is simultaneously and for the same people, evil incarnate, funny?

That he is/was divine is simply an assertion with nothing more to recommend it than your belief unless you can offer something more convincing. That he was a human who actually existed can be examined by dint of evidence.

There are the various arguments for God which end up with, Er, God. The arguments for cosmic Godlessness are at best....hazy and end up with Godknowswhat.
We need to remind ourselves that Leprechauns at this stage have had it, Jesus probably existed and The truth of God is at least a matter for philosophy and not empiricism.

I agree, there is some evidence that Jesus actually existed, but the only evidence that he was resurrected is anecdotal, error strewn and comes from strongly biased sources. If one then takes into account the improbability of such an event happening, all you have is assertion.

There is the whiff of the accusation of dishonesty here. That translates into a high probability of you committing the genetic fallacy.

The key word here is 'accepts'. and, for the basic reasons given above, I don't. Hence it seems to me to be very much equivalent to stories surrounding leprechauns.

yes I can see cultural biases and a lack of intellectual investigative depth could lead to that, but that Still leaves an historical Jesus, A group of people who genuinely believed the account, epistolary evidence and God when Leprechauns have finally had it and we are laughing at them.....although from what you have said so far you’d laugh at anything. I see very little equivalence

The existence of any god cannot be falsified. Neither can it be confirmed. Ditto with leprechauns. I really would expect some empirical evidence of God

On what warrant?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi enki,

Leprechauns could well lead to humour and absurdity (ditto God), but not necessarily to  the 'horse laugh fallacy'. That would depend on the attitude of the responder.

Just to note that it mostly depends on the way the argument is constructed. For a reductio ad absurdum to be valid it must show that an argument attempted to justify one fact claim (eg, “god”) works equally well for a different and plainly absurd fact claim of (eg, leprechauns). It’s been around since the Greeks, and this is the form I’ve always used when referencing leprechauns here.

By contrast the “horse laugh fallacy” (actually called the appeal to ridicule) is taking a ludicrous proposition and just claiming it to be equivalent to a serious one as an appeal to emotion. As an example:

Proposition: the law should require the wearing of seatbelts.

Appeal to ridicule: in that case you must think the law should require us to wear nappies and bibs too.     

This is something I’ve never done.

What Vlad does it to pretend that the former is actually the latter, despite being corrected on it countless times. In part I think it’s because he sees the word “absurdum” and thinks that’s enough to get off the hook, and in part it’s because he’s too dishonest to address what these terms actually mean.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I can see how the idea of tiny Irishmen at the end of rainbows who are never found there can be funny but in what way is God who apparently is simultaneously and for the same people, evil incarnate, funny?

FFS. Yet again: when the ARGUMENTS YOU ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM “God” work equally to justify the claim “leprechauns”, then they’re bad arguments.

The seriousness or frivolity you choose to attach to either outcome HAS ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL TO DO WITH THE FORCE OF THIS LOGIC.

Write it down 100 times until it sinks in. Or a 1,000. Or as many as it takes… 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi enki,

Just to note that it mostly depends on the way the argument is constructed. For a reductio ad absurdum to be valid it must show that an argument attempted to justify one fact claim (eg, “god”) works equally well for a different and plainly absurd fact claim of (eg, leprechauns). It’s been around since the Greeks, and this is the form I’ve always used when referencing leprechauns here.

By contrast the “horse laugh fallacy” (actually called the appeal to ridicule) is taking a ludicrous proposition and just claiming it to be equivalent to a serious one as an appeal to emotion. As an example:

Proposition: the law should require the wearing of seatbelts.

Appeal to ridicule: in that case you must think the law should require us to wear nappies and bibs too.     

This is something I’ve never done.

What Vlad does it to pretend that the former is actually the latter, despite being corrected on it countless times. In part I think it’s because he sees the word “absurdum” and thinks that’s enough to get off the hook, and in part it’s because he’s too dishonest to address what these terms actually mean.   

It’s the way you tell em Hillside and the way you tell em is indistinguishable from a horses laugh argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

FFS. Yet again: when the ARGUMENTS YOU ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM “God” work equally to justify the claim “leprechauns”, then they’re bad arguments.

The seriousness or frivolity you choose to attach to either outcome HAS ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL TO DO WITH THE FORCE OF THIS LOGIC.

Write it down 100 times until it sinks in. Or a 1,000. Or as many as it takes…

I’m asking Enki why he finds God ridiculous and here you are giving us the old ‘ He’s not saying God is ridiculous he’s making a reduction absurdum’ What a complete non sequitur, red herring , deflection etc. Bzzzzzzzz Deviation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It’s the way you tell em Hillside and the way you tell em is indistinguishable from a horses laugh argument.

Liar. I have always framed the leprechaun analogy as a reductio ad absurdum.

I’m asking Enki why he finds God ridiculous and here you are giving us the old ‘ He’s not saying God is ridiculous he’s making a reduction absurdum’ What a complete non sequitur, red herring , deflection etc. Bzzzzzzzz Deviation.

Liar. I haven’t said that he’s used the reductio ad absurdum at all. 

Why do you lie all the time? What do you get from it?

I’ve never understood the mindset of the troll, and I suppose I never will.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

PS As you’ve ignored it once more, I’ll try again:

IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry for not replying sooner

Which is not to say that their take is definitively wrong, nor does it speak to whether they have an orthodoxy of their own.

I am not talking about wrongness I am talking about being mainstream.

If Christianity were just faith in Jesus then how come gay people get ostracised -

Gay people get ostracised and worse by people who are not christian. I will admit that mention in scripture has undoubtably led to a position where homosexual acts are viewed as sinful but the church should recognise that it is a community of sinners and thus even if one believes it is a sin one shouldn't be a going about ostricising.  There is as I understand an active Gay christian community. People for whom the christian issue and thegay issue is not a dealbreaker. Unfortunately because we are a much diminished forum, as far as I am aware we have no representatives of that church community. If you are alluding to the american church then i'm afraid the obvious aspect of that wing is about to come under it's own period of judgment for dabbling in politics.

the Christianity is not just faith, Christianity is the expression of that faith in innumerable ways, by all the variations of Christians.

Of course everyone is entitled to ask what christianity is. What is less savoury is what I suspect you of, of treating the whole thing as a kind of mid 20th century social science which never actually consider the opinions of the subjects.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Re: Dawkins

You mean that when people tell him to shut up he doesn't

No, more like when people suggest that when waxing about religion he should demonstrate the same intellectual rigour that he does with his science...

People have called him 'shrill' and 'hateful' and 'superior' because he doesn't conform to their expectation

And no doubt because he has come across like that and given the impression of revelling in it by his knowing winks to his gallery.;

it comes from the same place that sees a critique of religion as an unforgiveable attack on them.

Unforgiveable no, there will be as much rejoicing over him as there would be over any one who repents.

  He gets called 'militant' for having an opinion,

He and his followers seem surprisingly mortified by that description. Can you say why? I recall it being used without comment to describe unions etc. Nobody ever thought even at the worst of times that Vic Feather former TUC boss at a time when unions could bring down UK governments, was going to come to a meeting of government tooled up wearing a beret and a cigar. Ditto Dawkins. Please get a perspective on this

whilst religious proponents need to be both brown and bearing arms to earn that - I'm not sure what Christian terrorists have to do to be called 'militant', it seems to slide off the teflon coating their prayers give them.

Beg pardon.

Claiming that not falling for the myth that theology has something useful to contribute is not an ignorance of religion.  He's well aware of religion, and makes his case for why it has no reliable foundation.

Unfortunately he chose do do so in the form of a pop science book and in terms of religion finds himself well and truly in a fringe grouping, not only amongst the intelligencia but in atheism, whos star shone but very briefly for the decade following 9/11

Oh no, we have people who are famous, that definitely makes it a religion,

Fame certainly can promote religious following but it isn't just that you have celebrities, it's that these celebrities are apostolic, they are messengers of a world transforming word, either a new word, a new way to live or a revival of a fundamental way of seeing things

why didn't you say so.... I now have to choose between the Church of Harris or the Church of Coronation Street.  This sort of false equivalence only becomes laughable

Particularly as you are the one making it.

[Enki]

Doesn’t it go without saying you are looking for empirical evidence if you are using lab conditions. I wish I was happy forever might not be empirical but say Richard Dawkins asking for an immediate 50% increase in the size of his penis from 1 to 2 inches, is.

So? Empirical evidence seems to be one very reasonable way of testing whether leprechauns exist. You asked me what type of evidence I would need and I gave you a variety which included testing granted wishes under lab conditions amongst others. Ditto your God.
(http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17963.0).
If you are unhappy with empirical evidence for establishing whether your God exists then why don't you suggest a different methodology?

I can see how the idea of tiny Irishmen at the end of rainbows who are never found there can be funny but in what way is God who apparently is simultaneously and for the same people, evil incarnate, funny?

I actually said that 'Leprechauns could well lead to humour and absurdity (ditto God)'. Well, let's see shall we, by looking at your Holy Book which is permeated by ideas about God. Now I would like to say that I think the group of books called the Bible is an important work, it is imaginative, historical, mythological, poetic and capable of great wisdom.  However, especially through modern eyes, it can also be rather whimsical, quaint and even silly and absurd.

I find the idea of spitting on people to heal them
or resurrecting a man who died after falling from a height after going to sleep listening to Paul
or being able to tread on serpents and scorpions safely
or curing illnesses by removing handkerchiefs and aprons
or cursing a fig tree simply because it hasn't any figs
 to be downright silly.

I find the idea of
a god who finds it necessary to suggest that soldiers should not defecate in camp
a god who supports the wife of a man in a fight against another, but if she should     grab the opponent's testicles then she should have her hand cut off
a god who wouldn't allow any man with crushed testicles or who had had their penis cut   off to walk in the assembly of God
a god who encourages baking by using human shit although he relents when Ezekial turns   his nose up at this, and allows cow dung instead
a god who suggests that when swearing to something, one must hold the other person's     crotch whilst the vow is made
 to be ludicrous

And I haven't even mentioned the Genesis story or Noah's Flood or the understandable but quaint attempts at science.

No, I stand by my statement that your God, as depicted in the Bible, can lead to humour and absurdity.

There are the various arguments for God which end up with, Er, God. The arguments for cosmic Godlessness are at best....hazy and end up with Godknowswhat.
We need to remind ourselves that Leprechauns at this stage have had it, Jesus probably existed and The truth of God is at least a matter for philosophy and not empiricism.

The idea that arguments for God that end up with God are self fulfilling. Jesus probably did exist, I would agree, but there is no evidence that he was any more than  a charismatic preacher. The truth of God(whatever that may mean) seems to me to lie purely in a person's faith as neither philosophy nor empiricism can confirm his actual existence.

There is the whiff of the accusation of dishonesty here. That translates into a high probability of you committing the genetic fallacy.

which I reject completely, as I have given you meaningful reasons why the claim of resurrection can easily be disputed.

yes I can see cultural biases and a lack of intellectual investigative depth could lead to that, but that Still leaves an historical Jesus, A group of people who genuinely believed the account, epistolary evidence and God when Leprechauns have finally had it and we are laughing at them.....although from what you have said so far you’d laugh at anything. I see very little equivalence

Ignoring your silly ad hominems, and accepting that there probably was an historical Jesus, the equivalence is in the supernatural overtones which permeate both stories of leprechauns and Jesus.

On what warrant?

You really want me to spell out why I would want some emprical evidence for God? There's plenty of it in the Bible, whether it be intervention in human affairs, resurrections after circa three days, virgin births, all sorts of miracles, the efficacy of prayer. So why shouldn't there be similar things today which can be investigated by applying scientific rigour and methods? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

enki,

If you are unhappy with empirical evidence for establishing whether your God exists then why don't you suggest a different methodology?

Good luck with getting an answer to that. That blur you may have caught in the corner of your eye was Vlad heading for the exit as fast as his little legs would carry him.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So? Empirical evidence seems to be one very reasonable way of testing whether leprechauns exist. You asked me what type of evidence I would need and I gave you a variety which included testing granted wishes under lab conditions amongst others. Ditto your God.

It is reasonable way of testing whether leprechauns exist because it is the empirical features of Leprechauns which define them which would form the evidence in question.

Secondly, ''Ditto your God'' was used by you to ditto absurdity and ridiculousness. If you are now saying Empirical characteristics define God I would have to disagree.

Therefore empirical investigation cannot falsify God. Let me repeat that, empirical investigation cannot falsify God.....and that is that

What methodology does verify or falsify is irrellevant to empirical investigation being able or unable to falsify God. So in that respect it matters not what the methodology is , or if I know it or if there even is one. It is all irellevant to the question of falsifiability of God by empirical means. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It is reasonable way of testing whether leprechauns exist because it is the empirical features of Leprechauns which define them which would form the evidence in question.

Nope. It’s a reasonable way of testing whether leprechauns exist only when they choose to exist in material form. Same goes for your claim “god”. The rest of your post collapses accordingly.   

Oh, and yet again:

IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So? Empirical evidence seems to be one very reasonable way of testing whether leprechauns exist. You asked me what type of evidence I would need and I gave you a variety which included testing granted wishes under lab conditions amongst others. Ditto your God.
(http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=17963.0).
If you are unhappy with empirical evidence for establishing whether your God exists then why don't you suggest a different methodology?

I actually said that 'Leprechauns could well lead to humour and absurdity (ditto God)'. Well, let's see shall we, by looking at your Holy Book which is permeated by ideas about God. Now I would like to say that I think the group of books called the Bible is an important work, it is imaginative, historical, mythological, poetic and capable of great wisdom.  However, especially through modern eyes, it can also be rather whimsical, quaint and even silly and absurd.

I find the idea of spitting on people to heal them
or resurrecting a man who died after falling from a height after going to sleep listening to Paul
or being able to tread on serpents and scorpions safely
or curing illnesses by removing handkerchiefs and aprons
or cursing a fig tree simply because it hasn't any figs
 to be downright silly.

I find the idea of
a god who finds it necessary to suggest that soldiers should not defecate in camp
a god who supports the wife of a man in a fight against another, but if she should     grab the opponent's testicles then she should have her hand cut off
a god who wouldn't allow any man with crushed testicles or who had had their penis cut   off to walk in the assembly of God
a god who encourages baking by using human shit although he relents when Ezekial turns   his nose up at this, and allows cow dung instead
a god who suggests that when swearing to something, one must hold the other person's     crotch whilst the vow is made
 to be ludicrous

OK but my first reactions are that these are pretty peripheral.

And I haven't even mentioned the Genesis story or Noah's Flood or the understandable but quaint attempts at science.

As far as I know the Royal Institution wasn't a thing in the days when these were written so whether the term quaint attempts at science is valid and not just a dirty, stinking patronising attitude.....

You really want me to spell out why I would want some emprical evidence for God? There's plenty of it in the Bible, whether it be intervention in human affairs, resurrections after circa three days, virgin births, all sorts of miracles, the efficacy of prayer. So why shouldn't there be similar things today which can be investigated by applying scientific rigour and methods?

But surely evidence of the intervention is evidence of an intervention rather than what intervenes isn't it. My approach is this. Given the issues around induction, what would an atheist make of a resurrection? Does he dismiss it straight off as a fault in his own faculties?, An offence against his philosophical scientism, naturalism, empiricism? If he does accept it has happened, what does he attribute it to? Aliens? Time travellers? Random event? You see even though he has evidence of the event or the phenomena, it doesn't falsify aliens, or randomness, or God.......so we are back to empirical means not being able to falsify God ....and your unreasonableness in expecting empirical evidence for God.

[ippy]

There is no verifiable evidence for philosophical empiricism, naturalism and physicalism.

Wriggling again Vlad?

You believe without verifiable evidence like so many Vlad, just admit to yourself you've no evidence even if you don't feel you can let on about it.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wriggling again Vlad?

You believe without verifiable evidence

And so do you Ipso Ha Ha that was easy.

[Enki]

It is reasonable way of testing whether leprechauns exist because it is the empirical features of Leprechauns which define them which would form the evidence in question.

Secondly, ''Ditto your God'' was used by you to ditto absurdity and ridiculousness. If you are now saying Empirical characteristics define God I would have to disagree.

Therefore empirical investigation cannot falsify God. Let me repeat that, empirical investigation cannot falsify God.....and that is that

What methodology does verify or falsify is irrellevant to empirical investigation being able or unable to falsify God. So in that respect it matters not what the methodology is , or if I know it or if there even is one. It is all irellevant to the question of falsifiability of God by empirical means.

What's wrong with you? I have already said that:

The existence of any god cannot be falsified. Neither can it be confirmed. Ditto with leprechauns. I really would expect some empirical evidence of God just as I would for leprechauns. If, as you suggest, this isn't possible, then,  alternatively,  give me  reasons to accept your beliefs as true.

To repeat, If we had plenty of this sort of evidence then maybe I'd start to believe that a particular god exists or existed. Ditto for leprechauns.