IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTI

[ProfessorDavey]

My parents didn't. I think you are wrong also to conflate my bit of biography about myself as was originally intended with any statistical analysis. Are you actually providing the citations and references for all this stuff anyway?

Nope what you accuse me of is exactly what you are doing Vlad.

If you say that you went to Sunday School and your parents weren't religious - fine, who am I to know differently. And that is perfectly consistent with my comment that 'you will always be able to find exceptions but the clear conclusion is that overwhelmingly the kids who went to Sunday School in the 60s and 70s had parents who attended church'. Note my emphasis - you are, I imagine, one of those exceptions.

However you are using you own anecdotal evidence relating to you individually to try to support an assertion that it was commonplace in the 60s and 70s for non religious parents to send their kids to Sunday School - I don't think that is true and that assertion cannot be sustained by the evidence of proportions of adults attending church and children attending Sunday School back then unless you make the bizarre claim that it was the children of non religious families packing out Sunday Schools while religious parents shunned Sunday School for their kids.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Method, and methodology, are commonly used terms, Vlad: I have a method for cooking boiled eggs for breakfast, and I feel sure if you felt similarly inclined when it comes to breakfast tomorrow morning I'd guess that the method you'll use will be broadly similar to mine, and if not we could consider the differences - have a think on that example and see if you can extrapolate from it to other things.

Alternatively, if you find the term 'method' confusing, have you considered using a dictionary?

I know how to boil an egg. I have boiled a few in my time.
I have found love but what can I say about a method. If it were that simple, oh I can boil an egg, everybody would find love wouldn’t they Gordon. If there were a method like one for boiling eggs everybody would find love.

That is what i’m Talking about Gordon. You see, beyond science and boiling an egg which is a scientific method in any case is there a describeable method or are there things that we experience, that you experience, that are real....see what happens if you were to tell them that your love /admiration of them wasn’t real...which are ineffable?

Finally I’d be most grateful if you didn’t start with ‘Don’t be stupid since it is water muddying, begging the question,  horses laugh type fallacious stuff. If you are going to call me stupid or silly establish it by using a method. Thank you.

[Nearly Sane]

I know how to boil an egg. I have boiled a few in my time.
I have found love but what can I say about a method. If it were that simple, oh I can boil an egg, everybody would find love wouldn’t they Gordon. If there were a method like one for boiling eggs everybody would find love.

That is what i’m Talking about Gordon. You see, beyond science and boiling an egg which is a scientific method in any case is there a describeable method or are there things that we experience, that you experience, that are real....see what happens if you were to tell them that your love /admiration of them wasn’t real...which are ineffable?

Finally I’d be most grateful if you didn’t start with ‘Don’t be stupid since it is water muddying, begging the question,  horses laugh type fallacious stuff. If you are going to call me stupid or silly establish it by using a method. Thank you.

Nice poetry, shame about the sense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I know how to boil an egg. I have boiled a few in my time.

Having first bothered to establish first that there’s such a thing a an egg that can be boiled…

I have found love but what can I say about a method. If it were that simple, oh I can boil an egg, everybody would find love wouldn’t they Gordon. If there were a method like one for boiling eggs everybody would find love.

Who cares? Eggs are demonstrably exist as objects, love demonstrably exists as a phenomenon. How you would boil eggs or find love is neither here nor there as both are already shown to exist. If you’re trying to claim an analogy here with “god” though then it’s a hopeless one because your problem remains your failure to demonstrate first that there is a god to be found.   

That is what i’m Talking about Gordon.

Why when it’s so plainly idiotic?

You see, beyond science and boiling an egg which is a scientific method in any case is there a describeable method or are there things that we experience, that you experience, that are real....see what happens if you were to tell them that your love /admiration of them wasn’t real...which are ineffable?

Gibberish.

Finally I’d be most grateful if you didn’t start with ‘Don’t be stupid since it is water muddying, begging the question,  horses laugh type fallacious stuff. If you are going to call me stupid or silly establish it by using a method. Thank you.

When your efforts here are always stupid, fallacious or dishonest (see above) what’s the problem with pointing that out when it happens?

Yet again: if you want to assert there to be something you call “god”, then will you finally explain why anyone should take that claim more seriously than my assertion “leprechauns”. Why is his so difficult for you to do? Let me help you with that: it’s because they’re epistemically equivalent: both are unqualified assertions with no means of verification at all.

Deal with it. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Having first bothered to establish first that there’s such a thing a an egg that can be boiled…

Who cares? Eggs are demonstrably exist as objects, love demonstrably exists as a phenomenon. How you would boil eggs or find love is neither here nor there as both are already shown to exist. If you’re trying to claim an analogy here with “god” though then it’s a hopeless one because your problem remains your failure to demonstrate first that there is a god to be found.   

Why when it’s so plainly idiotic?

Gibberish.

When your efforts here are always stupid, fallacious or dishonest (see above) what’s the problem with pointing that out when it happens?

Yet again: if you want to assert there to be something you call “god”, then will you finally explain why anyone should take that claim more seriously than my assertion “leprechauns”. Why is his so difficult for you to do? Let me help you with that: it’s because they’re epistemically equivalent: both are unqualified assertions with no means of verification at all.

Deal with it.

iIf anyone was to make the category error/category fuck between boiled eggs and love. It had to be you.
Until you find love you cannot really know if it exists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

iIf anyone was to make the category error/category fuck between boiled eggs and love. It had to be you.

Why you insist on soiling yourself on a public forum by parading your desperate ignorance of category error no matter how many times you’re corrected on it beats me entirely. I guess as category error and analogy are cousins and you’ve never understood how analogies work either though (see your unremitting obtuseness or dishonesty re the god/leprechauns analogy) it’s a problem of an unironic mind meeting non-literal ideas.

Needless to say boiling an egg and falling on love are for this purpose in the SAME category. That category is, “processes that lead to outcomes that demonstrably exist”. Your car crash in reasoning here is to equate something you can provide no good reason to think exists at all “god” all with outcomes that demonstrably do exist (boiled eggs/being on love). The process of how you arrive either of the latter is entirely irrelevant for this purpose.       

Until you find love you cannot really know if it exists.

Did you actually mean to type that Hallmark cards dimwittedness? How about before you first fell in love – did all those films and plays about love not impinge on you at all, did you never observe your parents or other couples in love? How about love for a pet for example?

How far would you like to extend this idiocy before, road runner-like, you finally notice you ran off the edge of the cliff some time ago? How about Beijing? Ever been there? Let’s say that the answer is “no” – well then, presumably according to your “logic” you can’t know that Beijing really exist either right? How about murder? Ever murdered someone (I’m excluding here by the way the violence you regularly visit upon the English language). No? Well then, presumably you can’t know that murder “really exists” either can you?

Give your head a wobble will you, if only to salvage the few tatters of self-respect that remain.         

[Gordon]

I know how to boil an egg. I have boiled a few in my time.

Good to know, so we both agree that eggs exist in the universe and, moreover, we both know how to boil them.

I have found love but what can I say about a method. If it were that simple, oh I can boil an egg, everybody would find love wouldn’t they Gordon. If there were a method like one for boiling eggs everybody would find love.

So we both agree that people exist in the universe, and we both agree that it can be shown that there are strong emotional processes that happen in our brains in relation to certain other people: we can observe the interactions between them and conclude that there are indeed these strong emotional bonds going on (be they spouses, partners, family members, children or friends).

So real life can involve both boiled eggs and love, and we can tell the difference between the two because we have methods of enquiry that can distinguish them from each other (and, of course, from anything else).

That is what i’m Talking about Gordon. You see, beyond science and boiling an egg which is a scientific method in any case is there a describeable method or are there things that we experience, that you experience, that are real....see what happens if you were to tell them that your love /admiration of them wasn’t real...which are ineffable?

I see your random sentence generator has been repaired.

Finally I’d be most grateful if you didn’t start with ‘Don’t be stupid since it is water muddying, begging the question,  horses laugh type fallacious stuff. If you are going to call me stupid or silly establish it by using a method. Thank you.

Why would I need a method for that when you already manage quite well all by yourself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good to know, so we both agree that eggs exist in the universe and, moreover, we both know how to boil them.

So we both agree that people exist in the universe, and we both agree that it can be shown that there are strong emotional processes that happen in our brains in relation to certain other people: we can observe the interactions between them and conclude that there are indeed these strong emotional bonds going on (be they spouses, partners, family members, children or friends).

So real life can involve both boiled eggs and love, and we can tell the difference between the two because we have methods of enquiry that can distinguish them from each other (and, of course, from anything else).

We observe the interactions too between people who say they have found love and realise it isn’t but have displayed the same interactions as those who would say otherwise.

What method therefore was used by these subjects to find love in each case?

Why would I need a method for that when you already manage quite well all by yourself.

WUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't agree with PD's idea of people claiming to be atheist. I was an atheist and then I wasn't.

I never meant to imply everyone went through a phase of thinking they are something (theist/atheist) that in reality they aren't, although I suspect it is quite common. And it cuts both ways - I'm a case in point.

I was brought up in a largely non religious household, although wider family were religious and church-goers. However growing up in the late 60s and 70s there was a pretty constant default mood music in society and schools etc that god existed and that that god was the christian one. So that was all around. I paid very little attention as a child but in my late teens and through university I really wanted to believe in god, certainly thought I did believe in god, but it wasn't true. I've always talked about coming to realise that I was atheist, not becoming an atheist. There was a clear and specific point in my life that I came to realise and recognise that I did not believe in god and at that point it was also clear to me that I never believed in god regardless of my earlier attempts to do so, and perhaps claim that I did.

I was always atheist even in the period when I thought I wasn't, I was perhaps just atheist in denial.

And you see this the other way too. Perhaps one of the most famous people who claimed to briefly be atheist prior to conversion to christianity is CS Lewis. Yet he claims that during his 'atheist' period he was angry with god for not existing. No atheist thinks like that because you cannot be angry with something that doesn't exist. To be angry with god confirms that CS Lewis really did believe in god at that time even though he may have been repressing that belief.

[Gordon]

We observe the interactions too between people who say they have found love and realise it isn’t but have displayed the same interactions as those who would say otherwise.

Not quite sure what you mean here, given your somewhat mangled description, but these seem like two different states your are describing: one being what appears to be 'love' while the other looks like 'love' but isn't really 'love' at all and, presumably, this realisation you also speak of implies a method to distinguish between these two states.

What method therefore was used by these subjects to find love in each case?

No idea: it is your example though, and not mine, so perhaps you can advise on what this difference might be and how it is recognised - or to put it another way, what method distinguishes between 'love' and 'looks like love but isn't really'?

WUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!

Nope - just fair comment on my part.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not quite sure what you mean here, given your somewhat mangled description, but these seem like two different states your are describing: one being what appears to be 'love' while the other looks like 'love' but isn't really 'love' at all and, presumably, this realisation you also speak of implies a method to distinguish between these two states.

No idea: it is your example though, and not mine, so perhaps you can advise on what this difference might be and how it is recognised - or to put it another way, what method distinguishes between 'love' and 'looks like love but isn't really'?

Nope - just fair comment on my part.

And what is the method?
At the moment you are admitting to being ignorant about methods and yet see no jrony in demanding methods from me.

If finding love is a real thing, then you are saying You don't know the method and therefore have no warrant to demand methods.


He shoots he scores leaving another atheist crying into his Horlicks, defeat, sticking to him like shit on a slipper.

[Stranger]

And what is the method?
At the moment you are admitting to being ignorant about methods and yet see no jrony in demanding methods from me.

If finding love is a real thing, then you are saying You don't know the method and therefore have no warrant to demand methods.


He shoots he scores leaving another atheist crying into his Horlicks, defeat, sticking to him like shit on a slipper.

I really never seen somebody squirm and contort themselves quite so much to avoid a very obvious and simple request. No matter how much total shite you talk about other people and methods, it's still entirely up to you to justify your claims. You are free to try to do so in whatever way you see fit, regardless of anybody else's ideas about methods, which are actually completely irrelevant.

[Gordon]

And what is the method?
At the moment you are admitting to being ignorant about methods and yet see no jrony in demanding methods from me.

It is your example, Vlad: the burden of proof requirement seems to confuse you.

If finding love is a real thing, then you are saying You don't know the method and therefore have no warrant to demand methods.

Again, the 'love' example is yours, Vlad, and not mine: maybe you should be more careful when suggesting examples without also considering what reasonable questions might be asked of you in relation to what you advance by way of examples.

He shoots he scores leaving another atheist crying into his Horlicks, defeat, sticking to him like shit on a slipper.

So you have - except that what you've actually scored is a sequence of own goals, Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is your example, Vlad: the burden of proof requirement seems to confuse you.

Again, the 'love' example is yours, Vlad, and not mine: maybe you should be more careful when suggesting examples without also considering what reasonable questions might be asked of you in relation to what you advance by way of examples.

So you have - except that what you've actually scored is a sequence of own goals, Vlad.

Gordon....You are saying that finding love is an observable thing.
Ok what is the method for finding love.
Don't know?Won't provide one? Don't demand methods from me.

[Stranger]

Gordon....You are saying that finding love is an observable thing.
Ok what is the method for finding love.
Don't know?Won't provide one? Don't demand methods from me.

Still squirming I see, Vlad. You can try to justify your claims in any way you want to - regardless of how anybody else defines 'method'. We can then see if it makes any sense (for example, would apply just as 'well' to leprechauns).

How about giving up the obvious distraction tactic and trying?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The lying idiocy is strong with this one, even for you.

And what is the method?
At the moment you are admitting to being ignorant about methods and yet see no jrony in demanding methods from me.

Of course we’re ignorant of the possible method to validate your assertions “god”, “supernatural” etc. Why? Because they’re only your effing assertions is why!

If finding love is a real thing, then you are saying You don't know the method and therefore have no warrant to demand methods.

Bollocks. “Love” is a ‘real thing” inasmuch as it’s an observable phenomenon, identifiable using various methods. Whether people “find” it, realise it or generally have no conscious control over falling into it at all has absolutely sweet FA to do with that.     

He shoots he scores leaving another atheist crying into his Horlicks, defeat, sticking to him like shit on a slipper.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess

Yet again: Leprechauns are real. It’s your job to give me a method to investigate and validate that claim. You can’t do that. Therefore leprechauns are real.

He shoots he scores leaving another a-leprechaunist crying into his Horlicks, defeat, sticking to him like shit on a slipper.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still squirming I see, Vlad. You can try to justify your claims in any way you want to - regardless of how anybody else defines 'method'. We can then see if it makes any sense (for example, would apply just as 'well' to leprechauns).

How about giving up the obvious distraction tactic and trying?

Notice. I will now no longer being taking part on this forum since 2 of my posts  disappeared with no explanation and one has seemingly vanished mysteriously in the aforementioned context of unexplained censorship.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

PS I corrected you recently (and yet again) on your failure to grasp the meaning of category error. I see that, as ever, you've just moved on to some other misunderstanding or lie.

Why do you never own the mistakes you make?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Notice. I will now no longer being taking part on this forum since 2 of my posts  disappeared with no explanation and one has seemingly vanished mysteriously in the aforementioned context of unexplained censorship.

To be fair, you've never actually "taken part" in the sense of engaging honestly with what's said have you though. 

[Gordon]

Gordon....You are saying that finding love is an observable thing.

Indeed: I observed that you said that you were such a case yourself, in that you said you had found love.
 

Ok what is the method for finding love.

Not sure: I'd imagine that meeting the right person might be involved, but it is your example so perhaps you should advance the approach you favour and we can take it from there.

Don't know?Won't provide one? Don't demand methods from me.

Why not? After all it is your example, and I not you've haven't addressed the scenario that you set out yourself set: that there was 'love' and there was 'what looked like love but wasn't', and you have explained how to tell the difference despite being asked.

[Stranger]

Notice. I will now no longer being taking part on this forum since 2 of my posts  disappeared with no explanation and one has seemingly vanished mysteriously in the aforementioned context of unexplained censorship.

Firstly, why did you write this as an answer to my post? Secondly, are you sure you didn't press the wrong button yourself?

[jeremyp]

Until you find love you cannot really know if it exists.

Nobody is claiming that love has any kind of existence outside of human mind and bodies. The difference between experiencing love and experiencing God is only that you claim there is an entity independent of you that is causing the God experience.

The only way for the love/God analogy to work properly is if there are people claiming that love is caused by some independent entity, but there aren't and Cupid has been understood to be a metaphor for millennia.

[Sebastian Toe]

Notice. I will now no longer being taking part on this forum

.....indefinitely?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

.....indefinitely?

Nah - couple of weeks usually. 

[Gordon]

Notice. I will now no longer being taking part on this forum since 2 of my posts  disappeared with no explanation and one has seemingly vanished mysteriously in the aforementioned context of unexplained censorship.

Moderator:

Perhaps you should contact one of us with the details, Vlad.

While we do remove certain posts none have been removed from this thread so I'm not sure why you've raised this here, as part of this discussion, and not by PM.