Atheism ends today

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. I don't give a flying fuck about your pseudo philosophy drivel.

well let's take a look at the philosophical expertise of the person calling it pseudo philosophy drivel shall we.....ah yes he has conflated philosophical empiricism with methodological empiricism.

Empiricism works. Look at the sum of human knowledge about the World. It all comes from empirical methods. None of it coes from your metaphysical wankery.

Brobat shithouse cleaner works Jeremy and i'm sure it has many undiscovered uses but, like methodological empiricism, it is not fit for everything......as opposed to philosophical empiricism which is fit for fuck all.
And another thing. I have never said methodological empiricism doesn't work, or that i'm against it, or it's use or benefits so please, stop giving the impression I am.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What, like death, as the evangelicals who thought prayer would protect them from the virus might have said ... as they died.

Death can be great and it can be futile like the evangelicals who forgot that sometimes God answers prayer in the negative.
And let's face it Davey, a lot of irreligious british people found some way of thinking and acting they thought gave them protection against the virus either by covid denial or anti vaccination. Not to mention the swedish sense of exceptionalism that led to deaths in that most irreligious of nations.

[ProfessorDavey]

Death can be great and it can be futile ...

And how exactly would you know Vlad?

Have you been dead and can tell us what it is like? Perhaps you've been able to chat to dead people who can tell you whether being dead is great or futile. Hmm, didn't think so.

[ProfessorDavey]

And let's face it Davey, a lot of irreligious british people found some way of thinking and acting they thought gave them protection against the virus either by covid denial or anti vaccination. Not to mention the swedish sense of exceptionalism that led to deaths in that most irreligious of nations.

Vlad - we were discussing prayer. I doubt very much that the irreligious people in Britain, or the Swedish government were basing their approach to the virus on being protected by prayer.

But on a broader point - sure there are people who refuse to accept the objective evidence about the virus, obtained via empirical methods (whether due to religion or otherwise) but that hardly strengthens an argument that objective evidence, obtained via empirical methods fails. Quite the reverse.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad - we were discussing prayer.

And I did point out that anybody who forgot God can answer prayer in the negative has the wrong end of the stick. The take away here is that we are all prone to that in someway or another. As I believe I said on another thread, I watched closely the recent spoiling of the churches witness by white american evangelicals over Trump and Covid. Expecting prayer to be answered automatically in the way some were expecting is akin to shamanism or worse, in some churches it looked as though the pastor was ordering God to do this that and the other That is not how prayer works, but that mythical modus operandii is so fixed in the public imagination that Jeremy P can point to it, tick the box for failure and somehow it disproves God's existence. The thing is that ''asking'' prayers should come sometime after one starts after one comes, through prayer into what is known as the presence of God. That was one of the first things I was told after informing the local minister of my encounter with Christ.

But on a broader point - sure there are people who refuse to accept the objective evidence about the virus, obtained via empirical methods (whether due to religion or otherwise) but that hardly strengthens an argument that objective evidence, obtained via empirical methods fails. Quite the reverse.

I never made that argument and it is appalling of you to misrepresent me in such a way.

[ProfessorDavey]

I never made that argument and it is appalling of you to misrepresent me in such a way.

The starting point of the discussion was associated with Jeremy P's view (and your rejection of this) that empirical methods provide the best way to deal with the virus. It is therefore completely reasonable to point out to you that when you claim that irreligious people also sometimes reject evidence-based approaches to deal with the virus that they are rejecting an empirical approach.

My comment was completely appropriate to the discussion.

[jeremyp]

well let's take a look at the philosophical expertise of the person calling it pseudo philosophy drivel shall we.....ah yes he has conflated philosophical empiricism with methodological empiricism.

These distinctions you make are merely made to distract from the fact that empiricism works.

Brobat shithouse cleaner works

Yes, but I guarantee that just praying won't get your toilet clean. Empiricism wins again.

And another thing. I have never said methodological empiricism doesn't work, or that i'm against it, or it's use or benefits so please, stop giving the impression I am.

You just need to lose the word "methodological" and you'll be fine.

You've lost. Your god has been shown not to exist but Christians' own ill conceived prayer experiment.

[jeremyp]

And I did point out that anybody who forgot God can answer prayer in the negative has the wrong end of the stick. The take away here is that we are all prone to that in someway or another. As I believe I said on another thread, I watched closely the recent spoiling of the churches witness by white american evangelicals over Trump and Covid. Expecting prayer to be answered automatically in the way some were expecting is akin to shamanism or worse, in some churches it looked as though the pastor was ordering God to do this that and the other That is not how prayer works, but that mythical modus operandii is so fixed in the public imagination that Jeremy P can point to it, tick the box for failure and somehow it disproves God's existence. The thing is that ''asking'' prayers should come sometime after one starts after one comes, through prayer into what is known as the presence of God. That was one of the first things I was told after informing the local minister of my encounter with Christ.  I never made that argument and it is appalling of you to misrepresent me in such a way.

All this is saying that the results of praying to your good are indistinguishable from the results of praying to an imaginary god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All this is saying that the results of praying to your good are indistinguishable from the results of praying to an imaginary god.

Only if you insist on clinging to the myth that prayer would make God do something as if He were some kind of dispenser machine. You are reading your conclusion in therefore just like you managed to read in opposition to methological empiricism on my part.

[jeremyp]

Only if you insist on clinging to the myth that prayer would make God do something

I certainly agree it's a myth that prayer makes whatever god you pray to do anything. That's proven by Christians praying to their god to end atheism and atheism not ending.

as if He were some kind of dispenser machine.

If you ask a friend to do something and they comply with your request, does that make them a dispenser machine? Do all Christians who ask their god to do something view him as a dispenser machine?

You're just making excuses for the fact that praying to your god is indistinguishable from praying to a god that doesn't exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I certainly agree it's a myth that prayer makes whatever god you pray to do anything. That's proven by Christians praying to their god to end atheism and atheism not ending.
If you ask a friend to do something and they comply with your request, does that make them a dispenser machine? Do all Christians who ask their god to do something view him as a dispenser machine?

You're just making excuses for the fact that praying to your god is indistinguishable from praying to a god that doesn't exist.

You are doing it again. When I say you cannot make God do anything that doesn't then Guarantee that a prayer asking for something necessarily gets the answer no or God perversely does the opposite. The crux of prayer is as I have said to get into what I believe the young people would call 'a space' or 'God's space'.........one could do this in a club or pub although many prefer to be private. In prayer one is open to God....as I think CS Lewis said Prayer doesn't change God it changes us to be more in tune with Him.

Are you arguing therefore that God never answers a prayer in the affirmative or what?

[jeremyp]

You are doing it again.

Forcing you to confront an uncomfortable truth, yes.

When I say you cannot make God do anything that doesn't then Guarantee that a prayer asking for something necessarily gets the answer no or God perversely does the opposite.

In other words, what happens in response to your prayer is indistinguishable from your god not existing.

The crux of prayer is as I have said to get into what I believe the young people would call 'a space' or 'God's space'.........one could do this in a club or pub although many prefer to be private.

That would be fair enough if it were all the Christians claim for the power of prayer. Of course, it doesn't require your god to actually exist.

Are you arguing therefore that God never answers a prayer in the affirmative or what?

I don't think God ever answers a prayer because I don't think God exists. What I'm saying though, is that the response you get from God in answer to prayer is the same as the response you get from praying to something that doesn't really exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Forcing you to confront an uncomfortable truth, yes.

You can't even confront the unconfortable truth that methodological empiricism provides zero empirical support for philosophical empiricism.

In other words, what happens in response to your prayer is indistinguishable from your god not existing.

That's not my experience at all but then I haven't redefined prayer to try to shoe horn prayer into empiricist definitions. When I pray I am closer to God(God of Course maintains the same close distance) silly ideas such as asking for millions of pounds or an immediate end to atheism are dispelled and I start bringing others to mind before myself.

I don't think God ever answers a prayer because I don't think God exists.

You failed to add your latest bit to that Jeremy so that should be ''I don't think God answers prayer because he doesn't exist because he doesn't answer prayer because he doesn't exist.''
I think you have prayer wrong Jeremy because you have redefined it to fit empirical goals hence the implicit assumption of prayer isn't prayer unless it is asking for something that can be empirically measured. You are thus trying to game the result.

[ProfessorDavey]

Are you arguing therefore that God never answers a prayer in the affirmative or what?

Given that I do not believe that god exists then of course I do not think that god ever answers any prayers. Any perceived response to prayer is either simply random chance or is a psychological effect akin to the placebo or nocebo effect.

[jeremyp]

You can't even confront the unconfortable truth that methodological empiricism provides zero empirical support for philosophical empiricism.

But nobody cares whether it does or not, except you. If something cannot be detected empirically, it doesn't matter whether that means it really exists or just that we can work under the assumption that it doesn't exist because it can't affect us in any way.

That's not my experience at all but then I haven't redefined prayer to try to shoe horn prayer into empiricist definitions.

I haven't redefined prayer. You're the one who seems to be doing that so that you can pretend it works when it doesn't.

When I pray I am closer to God

How do you know?

silly ideas such as asking for millions of pounds or an immediate end to atheism are dispelled

Many of your fellow Christians don't think the idea of asking God to end atheism is silly. Every week in CodE services, there is a section called "the prayers of intercession". Look up what "intercede" means.

You failed to add your latest bit to that Jeremy so that should be ''I don't think God answers prayer because he doesn't exist because he doesn't answer prayer because he doesn't exist.''

But it would be a lie. I don't think prayer works because I don't believe God exists. My reason for nt believing in God is that there is no evidence of his/her/its existence. For me, the fact that prayer doesn't work is just an unsurprising consequence of the fact that the god you pray to is make believe. For you it's a different matter though: you believe God exists and you believe he answers prayer. Well here he is not answering prayer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But nobody cares whether it does or not, except you.

Argumentum ad populum. It is obvious that you don't care because you trumped up a phony charge of being anti methodological empiricism. I see no apology for that.

If you want evidence for philosophies or beliefs other than your own you need to be sure that the philosophy you are demanding it from has evidence for it......Yours doesn't, but in the case of yours that undercuts the logic of your argument.

Now you have been corrected on prayer also I see no point in continuing with you until you have put at least one area of our debate straight.

[jeremyp]

Argumentum ad populum. It is obvious that you don't care because you trumped up a phony charge of being anti methodological empiricism. I see no apology for that.

Why should I apologise for your phoney cod philosophy?

If you want evidence for philosophies or beliefs other than your own you need to be sure that the philosophy you are demanding it from has evidence for it......Yours doesn't, but in the case of yours that undercuts the logic of your argument.

Empiricism has evidence in its favour. It works. You don't need anything else.

Now you have been corrected on prayer

You moving the goal posts isn't correction, it's dissembling. It's quite obvious that Christians pray to God that he might change things. For you to pretend otherwise is a lie.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why should I apologise for your phoney cod philosophy?

Empiricism has evidence in its favour. It works. You don't need anything else.
You moving the goal posts isn't correction, it's dissembling. It's quite obvious that Christians pray to God that he might change things. For you to pretend otherwise is a lie.

Methodological empiricism appears in science. Again I am not against science or methodological empiricism andit continues to be most wrong of you to give the impression that I am.
Philosophical empiricism also includes arguments against religion and stands often as an argument against even though it cannot finally and logical stand as an argument itself. In terms of change let me quote CS Lewis again who said that prayer does not change God, it changes me.
I remember a discussion with two atheist friends both with degrees in mathematics although one did not think he deserved the title mathematician preferring the title maths student. Anyway putting oneself into a religious context like a charismatic meeting or seance came up. One of the friends said he would not put himself into a religious context and his friend looked at him and ventured that was because he would be scared of a manifestation rather than any principled atheist stance.

People shy from prayer, I move because they are afraid they actually might meet God or be changed by God. (I cannot recommend seance or ouija since change is for the worse there.)

As a Coda to all that when I last saw them one was globetrotting and the other friend had become a Catholic.

[ProfessorDavey]

... and the other friend had become a Catholic.

Become a catholic or returned to being a catholic Vlad? In other words was that person brought up a catholic?

I ask, as although not unheard of, people having been brought up in a non religious household almost never become religious as adults. Religious adults were almost always brought up to be religious. The reverse isn't true, with countless atheists and non religious adults having been brought up to be religious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Become a catholic or returned to being a catholic Vlad? In other words was that person brought up a catholic?

Well Davey, you seem to have steered yourself into a ''No true scotsman''fallacy only instead of scotsman, atheist. I don't know all I know he was an atheist mathematician in his late twenties. I always assumed he was the same as I was prior to conversion i.e. a not too bothered agnostic until adulthood. He was a big fan of Bertrand's and even looked a lot like him so he may have had an ''uncle'' who was famously atheist.

I ask, as although not unheard of, people having been brought up in a non religious household almost never become religious as adults. Religious adults were almost always brought up to be religious. The reverse isn't true, with countless atheists and non religious adults having been brought up to be religious.

I should imagine that most people in this country are second or third generation apatheist for whom neither religion nor your brand of forum contributing Godfree-ism holds any interest. What is ''important'' is people have their own position rather than a cultural one. Religious converts and atheists who find the apatheist position isn't really ''them''.

Countless atheists.........Did you mean to say that or is a literary flourish creeping into your posts?

[Sebastian Toe]

Countless atheists.........Did you mean to say that or is a literary flourish creeping into your posts?

...maybe he just, literally, can't count them?
 

[ProfessorDavey]

Well Davey, you seem to have steered yourself into a ''No true scotsman''fallacy only instead of scotsman, atheist.

Nope Vlad - I never asked you whether he was really an atheist, I asked you whether he was brought up as a catholic. A completely different question.

[ProfessorDavey]

Countless atheists.........Did you mean to say that or is a literary flourish creeping into your posts?

A turn of phrase, of course, Vlad.

But in a way true also. Not least because the numbers are so large, but also there is a painting the Forth bridge element. So as you are counting day by day there will be more people brought up as religious who decide that religion means nothing to them and settle into being non religious, plus others who might go that one step further and recognise that they don't believe that god exists at all. So you have a constantly moving number.

Of course the reverse isn't really the case, as the numbers of people brought up in a non religious household who suddenly decide, as adults, to become religious is, well, negligible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope Vlad - I never asked you whether he was really an atheist, I asked you whether he was brought up as a catholic. A completely different question.

Then we have to ask why you asked the question and what is the hypothesis behind your question?

[Sebastian Toe]

Then we have to ask why you asked the question and what is the hypothesis behind your question?

Is it ok to ask why you asked that question and what is the hypothesis behind it?