Religions have succeeded

[Sriram]

Light might not be able to be converted to electrical impulses by his eyes to his brain, but understanding what someone means by "light" won't just be based on someone else's words alone. Those explanations are backed up by data and instruments to record the data to form theories about light's properties that can be used to make predictions that can be tested. People who aren't blind can see the data and evidence. That isn't to say that everyone will see the same thing. As this article on the perceived colour of a dress explains, perception is inherently idiosyncratic - hence the dress might look white and gold to some people and black and blue to others. https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2617976

In contrast your interpretations of patterns detected by your sub-conscious can only be experienced by you. There is no method of gathering data on what the patterns are evidence for or any predictions that can be tested.

You are not getting the point VG. 

Its not about an intellectual understanding of light and its properties....although even that has to be taken on faith by the blind person because he can never experience it directly. 

i am talking about the experience of light. 

If the person chooses to believe others ...fine. If not, he can choose to remain skeptical....and there is no way he can be provided convincing proof of light.....even though it is falling on his skin every moment.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

None of it. 

That’s a non sequitur. The fact that Vlad doesn’t have “objective testable evidence” (or any evidence at all for that matter) for his god does not imply that he doesn’t think his god is objectively real nonetheless – that is, he thinks that his “inner experience” (albeit justified with some very bad arguments) is a reliable guide to objective truths for all of us, only some of us haven’t had his good fortune of “encountering” it.

If you don’t believe me, ask him yourself.   

Another non sequitur. He thinks he “encountered” an objectively real, ie non-imaginary god – that god would therefore have had to have made itself available by some means for that to be the case – ie, “turned up”.     

And that’s the non sequitur hat trick! That’s not what I said. What I said was that when anyone having an “experience” turns only to knowledge they are already enculturated to for their causal explanations for it there’s no reason to take those explanations seriously.       

Why are you doing this? Try to focus here: he DOESN’T (to my knowledge) claim to have objectively testable evidence; he DOES though claim his god to be an objective fact for all of us nonetheless.   

Sometimes you post something so dim witted (as here) that I seriously wonder whether you’re just trolling. VLAD THINK HIS SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE THAT HE ASCRIBES TO “GOD” IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS THEREFORE A GOD.   

It doesn’t matter for this purpose that he jumps straight from the subjective to the objective with no logic (or very poor logic) or evidence to bridge the gap – the salient fact is that he does it nonetheless.

FFS. Try to focus here: the point that was made to him was that he (like all theists) explains his “experience” solely by reference to the information he has already about a “god”. He doesn’t though suddenly reach for information about, say, an Amazonian tribe’s animal spirit god or one of the gods of ancient Rome for his explanation. All these claims of god(s) are also claims of objective fact – there really is the Christian god; there really is an animal spirit god; there really is Neptune etc. They are claims about the objects of beliefs. They are claims of objectively true entities.   

What you did though was to flag the effect of environment on subjective responses (tastes and preferences) to objectively true phenomena (tea, music etc). The statement “I prefer coffee to tea” is a claim of the subjective, but it’s not a claim about the objective fact of tea or coffee.

And that was your category error.           

I'm not going to respond to your individual points as my response to all of them is fairly simple. You (and possibly Vlad though I haven't seen evidence to decide) are mixing up terminology. "Objective fact" is used for something for which there is objective, testable evidence to support the fact.

Vlad has stated that he has no such objective evidence, therefore whatever he thinks God is, it can't be objective fact. Anymore than a person can say it is a fact that they have honour. God and honour are subjective abstract concepts, which people can lay claim to but can't evidence objectively. Anything for which there is no objective evidence, but which people claim to be true, are beliefs. Until the substance or object of their belief can be verified as objective fact, it remains a belief.

I am not sure why you are focusing on tea and coffee, which are not similar to morals or honour  or God. My analogy to the inputs peddled to us when we are young was in relation to the narrative/ aesthetics e.g. the religious narrative or the moral narrative or music or taste, not to the existence of a supernatural entity. If you experience something, your brain will make sense of it based on its prior inputs and experiences. 

[Sriram]

Sriram,

But you still have the problem of establishing that this faith in "some form of hidden intelligence that is working behind the scenes in our lives and in the entire environment" also has some basis in fact.

Its about perception. If a person has the vision and insight he can see that it is a fact. Others (like the blind person) have to remain in doubt. Nothing can be done about it.

But once a person is convinced about the presence of the hidden intelligence, it can never go away. He will keep 'sensing' its presence every time.

And it has nothing to do with imagery or deities or religious concepts. These are additional. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Ok - the information I'm pulling up about the numbers of converts to islam in the UK (this will be from both other religions and non religious backgrounds) is approx. 100,000. Given that the muslim population of England and Wales (and assuming all these converts are in England and Wales!) then that means 2.6% of current muslims in the UK (or England and Wales!) are converts - in other words not brought up muslim. So in the same ball park as other religions and I think 2.6% comfortable fits my terminology of rare.

So from looking it up it in the Economist a 2013 article seems to estimate 100,000 Muslim converts in Britain, with 5,200 converting to Islam every year. So not my idea of rare, which would be somewhere less than 1%.

The Economist article links to a Pew Research estimate that a quarter of the Muslims in the US are converts. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2007/07/21/converts-to-islam/   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Sorry, but what exist – the “various christian ideas about the gods Plural” part or the “demons” part?

If the former, no doubt; if the latter though, you would justify that remarkable claim how? 

Epistemically, yes…

But alas not philosophically.

No necessarily – some religions have pantheons of gods functioning harmoniously.

But the point is some atheists have them all competing as their rebuttal for Pascals wager. Loads of them in fact. It sounds like you want your cake and eat it here

(Yet another)  Second, the fact of claims about a multiplicity of possible gods is not the reason atheists in general don’t believe in any of them

It is commonly used as a rebuttal for Pascal's wager so I believe once again you are wrong here.

In terms of Pascal's wager then they are not equal or equivalent. Pantheons might contain the necessary entity but either one of them or none of them are necessary.

Monotheisms only contain one, The necessary entity. For me a contingent god is philosophically unsatisfying and should be for you also because there is nothing ultimate about them.

Since the rebuttal of Pascals wager has been er, rebutted I predict a lot of what was gospel in New Atheism will also degrade over time and scrutiny.   

[Aruntraveller]

Its about perception. If a person has the vision and insight he can see that it is a fact. Others (like the blind person) have to remain in doubt. Nothing can be done about it.

But once a person is convinced about the presence of the hidden intelligence, it can never go away. He will keep 'sensing' its presence every time.

And it has nothing to do with imagery or deities or religious concepts. These are additional.

Perception - sensing - presence - hidden - insight.

I'll build my argument on shifting sands. Not very stable, but very easy to avoid any unwanted scrutiny.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Just out of interest, have you ever known someone who changed to a religion about which they didn’t already have an internal library of information? Has any Christian or Muslim you know of woken up one day converted to the Inca gods (or vice versa) for example, and better yet woken up suddenly possessed of lots of information about them too?   

Do you know anyone who suddenly woke possessed with lots of information about something that they have never had any prior exposure to? No, didn't think so. Why would a religious narrative be any different?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Its about perception. If a person has the vision and insight he can see that it is a fact. Others (like the blind person) have to remain in doubt. Nothing can be done about it.

A fact is something for which there is objective testable evidence. So he can claim it is fact but he is not going to get very far in establishing it as fact rather than belief as he has no proof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am not sure why you are focusing on tea and coffee, which are not similar to morals or honour  or God. My analogy to the inputs peddled to us when we are young was in relation to the narrative/ aesthetics e.g. the religious narrative or the moral narrative or music or taste, not to the existence of a supernatural entity. If you experience something, your brain will make sense of it based on its prior inputs and experiences.

His focus smacks loudly of horses laugh argument. He is trying to trivialise the point of his opposition.

[Maeght]

Its about perception. If a person has the vision and insight he can see that it is a fact. Others (like the blind person) have to remain in doubt. Nothing can be done about it.

But once a person is convinced about the presence of the hidden intelligence, it can never go away. He will keep 'sensing' its presence every time.

And it has nothing to do with imagery or deities or religious concepts. These are additional.

No, they can believe it is a fact but that doesn't mean it is.

[ProfessorDavey]

So from looking it up it in the Economist a 2013 article seems to estimate 100,000 Muslim converts in Britain, with 5,200 converting to Islam every year.

Thanks for confirming that I appear to be correct in my estimation that somewhere around 2.6% of muslims in were not brought up muslims - i.e. converts. In my book that is rare. But remember that this number ins't just those brought up in another religion and who then convert to islam.

So not my idea of rare, which would be somewhere less than 1%.

But you are comparing apples and pears. I said that a person becoming an adherent to one religion having been brought up in another religion was rare - nor in that context did I mention any specific religion, but reflected on the fact that you are one of those rare people.

But back to Islam - that 2.6% figure, which we presumably now both agree on isn't just those brought up in a different religion and become muslims as adults. Nope is also includes those brought up non religious and who become muslims as adults. My claim of 'rare' was about those brought up in one religion and becoming another religion as an adult. This will be a sub-set of the 2.6%, so certainly lower that this. How low I'm not sure, but looking at christianity as a benchmark (and the overall conversion rates to christianity and islam appear similar) a greater proportion of the overall conversion numbers are for non-religion to religion, not from one religion to another religion.

But the overall point remains - in my book somewhere between 0 and 2.6% is rare and more importantly your anecdotes about knowing a bunch of people in this 0-2.6% range tells us absolutely nothing about the real figures.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You are not getting the point VG.

Its not about an intellectual understanding of light and its properties....

This is the same cheat that Vlad tries when he complains of “mere intellectual consent” or some such. If you think something can’t be verified “intellectually” then you still have the problem of verifying it by some other means. Try to remember this.   

…although even that has to be taken on faith by the blind person because he can never experience it directly.

i am talking about the experience of light.

If the person chooses to believe others ...fine. If not, he can choose to remain skeptical....and there is no way he can be provided convincing proof of light.....even though it is falling on his skin every moment

Again with the false analogy? Why not “the leprechauns I believe to be real have to be taken on faith by people without the perception to discern them as I do”? Your cheat here is to take for your analogy a phenomenon that’s justified (light) and to pretend it’s equivalent to one that isn’t (“patterns”). For an analogy to be valid you’d have to compare two non-justified claims (eg, patterns and leprechauns).

Again, try to remember this.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

VLAD THINK HIS SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE THAT HE ASCRIBES TO “GOD” IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS THEREFORE A GOD.   

Sorry Hillside I missed this....and there my regret for any disservice I've done to you has to end.

I have stated on this board that I have no empirical evidence for God since the necessary being is empirically undetectable, I believe I have said that God doesn't fit into a physicalist definition as he is not physical.
I believe that my relating my experience is probably acceptable evidence in the legal sense e.g. in the event that somebody declared in a legal setting that God did not exist and therefore a minister or priest was guilty of fraud or misappropriation.
Let us not forget that you have had God guilty of homophobia, assault etc on an ''if God existed'' basis. In fact agnostic atheism is based on the possibility of God existing and no, I don't believe like you do that anything is possible.

If you do not accept my experience then there is always the argument for God from contingency, the philosophical argument.

Your brand of atheism may not have much time for this and indeed philosophy full stop and I think that is because many of your own world view and arguments do not withstand philosophical scrutiny.

As I say if there is an experiment that demonstrates God it must involve yourself since a scientific observer is an 'outsider' or does her best to be.

If you will only accept empirical or physical evidence then you are a physicalist or empiricist whether you 'identify' as such or not. The demand for 'any' evidence from such a one is not productive or actually meant at all. IMHO.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

I'm not going to respond to your individual points as my response to all of them is fairly simple.

That’s probably wise.

You (and possibly Vlad though I haven't seen evidence to decide) are mixing up terminology. "Objective fact" is used for something for which there is objective, testable evidence to support the fact.

You’re straw manning me again, and I haven’t mixed up anything. I keep saying the same thing, but I’m also not the one who elides subjective ‘experience” (of a supposed “encounter” in Vlad’s case) into a claim of objective fact (“therefore god”).     

Vlad has stated that he has no such objective evidence, therefore whatever he thinks God is, it can't be objective fact.

Gee, you think?

Anymore than a person can say it is a fact that they have honour.

Actually that’s not quite right. If you define “honour” as behaving in certain ways (helping little old ladies across the road etc) and the claimant consistently does that, then “I have honour” is demonstrably true.

God and honour are subjective abstract concepts, which people can lay claim to but can't evidence objectively. Anything for which there is no objective evidence, but which people claim to be true, are beliefs. Until the substance or object of their belief can be verified as objective fact, it remains a belief.

I hear it gets dark at night time too. Leaving aside the honour point (see above) you’re just mirroring back to me the same point I’ve aways made to theists who claim as objective fact the god they “experience” subjectively but cannot show to be therefore objectively real.   

I am not sure why you are focusing on tea and coffee, which are not similar to morals…

Yes they are. Preferring one hot beverage over another is a matter of taste – ie, aesthetics. So is morality (technically a branch of aesthetics).

Here’s a song I like. You might too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu5dEXZ7DOY

…or honour  or God.

Leaving honour to one side (see above), yes “god” is inasmuch as taste and preference for a god is a statement of the subjective (just like taste and preference for coffee or tea is a statement of the subjective) even though those who make it typically overreach into a claim of objective fact even though they can't justify that (for the reasons you keep repeating to me as if I didn’t know them already).   

My analogy to the inputs peddled to us when we are young was in relation to the narrative/ aesthetics e.g. the religious narrative or the moral narrative or music or taste, not to the existence of a supernatural entity. If you experience something, your brain will make sense of it based on its prior inputs and experiences.

Yes, but the conversation with Vlad was precisely about “inputs peddled to us when we are young” to justify claims he wants us to treat as objective, factual etc. That was your category error – telling me that we’re all influenced by our environment for the aesthetic choices we make is fine, but it doesn’t address Vlad’s (and others’) problem that they reach for environmental influences to define causes they want us to treat as objective fact.

If someone says, “I prefer coffee over tea because I grew up in a coffee drinking household” no-one much will care. When someone else though says, “I had an experience, and it’s objectively the case therefore that it was caused by the only god my upbringing gave me information about” then it raises suspicions about the veracity of the claim (because of the co-incidence it requires).     

I’m sorry, but I don’t know how else to explain this. Environmental influence on aesthetic preference is one thing; environmental influence on claims of objective fact for the rest of us too is quite another – they’re different epistemological categories of claim.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Do you know anyone who suddenly woke possessed with lots of information about something that they have never had any prior exposure to? No, didn't think so. Why would a religious narrative be any different?

Because, obviously, we might reasonably expect people who think they’ve “encountered” a “god” who’s “converted” them to know something more from the experience than only what they happened to have been enculturated to before the event. Vlad thinks he encountered a god an lo and behold it just happens to be the exact same god he was taught about at Sunday school; the Amazonian tribesman thinks he encountered a god, and lo and behold it just happens to be the exact same animal spirit his elders told him about etc.

This suggests strongly to me that gods are cultural artefacts, not objectively real entities we happen to come across. Doesn’t it suggest that to you too?           

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But alas not philosophically.

What philosophy would that be?

But the point is some atheists have them all competing as their rebuttal for Pascals wager. Loads of them in fact.

Picking the wrong god (who would then be pissed off with you) is a secondary objection to Pascal’s wager, and not a particularly serious one. The main rebuttals are stronger than that.

It sounds like you want your cake and eat it here

What else would I do with cake?

It is commonly used as a rebuttal for Pascal's wager so I believe once again you are wrong here.

No it isn’t – see above.

In terms of Pascal's wager then they are not equal or equivalent. Pantheons might contain the necessary entity but either one of them or none of them are necessary.

Why are you still going on about Pascal’s wager?

Monotheisms only contain one, The necessary entity.

Only that’s monotheisms plural – each of which has its own god. How does that help you?

For me a contingent god is philosophically unsatisfying and should be for you also because there is nothing ultimate about them.

For me any god is “philosophically unsatisfying” because there’s bugger all philosophy worthy of the name to support the claim.

Since the rebuttal of Pascals wager has been er, rebutted I predict a lot of what was gospel in New Atheism will also degrade over time and scrutiny.

You’ve collapsed into gibberish again. What are you trying to say?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry Hillside I missed this....and there my regret for any disservice I've done to you has to end.

Well, let’s see shall we?...

I have stated on this board that I have no empirical evidence for God since the necessary being is empirically undetectable, I believe I have said that God doesn't fit into a physicalist definition as he is not physical.

Yes you have. That’s why I made no reference to empirical evidence – just to "evidence" (“VLAD THINK HIS SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE THAT HE ASCRIBES TO “GOD” IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS THEREFORE A GOD”), which is a fair description of what you do I think

I believe that my relating my experience is probably acceptable evidence…

See, I told you it was a fair description…

…in the legal sense…

Not even close. If I turned up at a court of law and claimed to have met a supernatural anything I’d be laughed out of the place.

…e.g. in the event that somebody declared in a legal setting that God did not exist and therefore a minister or priest was guilty of fraud or misappropriation.

What? You do know that courts are as aware of the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy as I am right?

Let us not forget that you have had God guilty of homophobia, assault etc on an ''if God existed'' basis. In fact agnostic atheism is based on the possibility of God existing and no, I don't believe like you do that anything is possible.

You seem not to understand what “agnostic” means here, but in any case by all means don’t forget it as various biblical claims about “god” do describe a genocidal monster. 

If you do not accept my experience…

I do accept that you had an “experience” of some sort (why wouldn’t I?). You’ve given me no cogent reason though to think that it wasn’t entirely self-generated rather than an encounter from a universe-creating deity. 

…then there is always the argument for God from contingency, the philosophical argument.

Which has been dismantled and rebutted here many times.

Your brand of atheism may not have much time for this and indeed philosophy full stop and I think that is because many of your own world view and arguments do not withstand philosophical scrutiny.

I don’t have a “brand” of atheism, and it’s because there’s no cogent philosophical support for theism that I have no reason to accept it.     

As I say if there is an experiment that demonstrates God it must involve yourself since a scientific observer is an 'outsider' or does her best to be.

Nope, no idea. Is there a thought in there somewhere that struggling to escape?

If you will only accept empirical or physical evidence then you are a physicalist or empiricist whether you 'identify' as such or not. The demand for 'any' evidence from such a one is not productive or actually meant at all. IMHO.

Oh dear. I will accept evidence, and at this point the only type of evidence I’m aware of is the empirical type. If you think there’s a different type of evidence though, then the burden of proof is with you tell us what it is, to explain how it can be tested and verified, to show that it’s epistemically distinguishable from just guessing etc. This is the point at which you always run away, but the issue doesn’t go away despite that.

Can I now assume that your “regret for any disservice I've done to you” will hereafter continue unabated as it should?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 

Which has been dismantled and rebutted here many times.

No it hasn't. The closest a big hitter atheist has come is Sean Carroll and the best he has come up with is that he is taking time to try to disprove the Principle of Sufficient Reason

That's the organ grinder.......The monkeys' best has been to try to disprove the PSR....... by using the PSR.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Only that’s monotheisms plural – each of which has its own god. How does that help you?
   

There is recognition though, that God is the necessary being. You are trying to eek many Gods out of one when what is really going on is disagreement on what this God is like.

You are reifying and deifying people's views on God.And you are still left with rejecting God because of a choice.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I will accept evidence, and at this point the only type of evidence I’m aware of is the empirical type.

And I have said I don't have any. I think that's an open and shut case which puts VG in the right and you, as per usual, with your arse in a sling.

You also said I'd get laughed out of court claiming the supernatural Would that be before being asked to swear on the bible or after?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear. I will accept evidence, and at this point the only type of evidence I’m aware of is the empirical type.

Why do you think what YOU ARE AWARE of is the standard?

If you think there’s a different type of evidence though, then the burden of proof is with you tell us what it is,

The status quo here though is Philosophical Empiricism which itself needs empirical proof to explain how it can be tested and verified, to show that it’s epistemically distinguishable from just guessing etc. This is the point at which you always run away, but the issue doesn’t go away despite that........The status quo position is therefore self negating.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No it hasn't. The closest a big hitter atheist has come is Sean Carroll and the best he has come up with is that he is taking time to try to disprove the Principle of Sufficient Reason

That's the organ grinder.......The monkeys' best has been to try to disprove the PSR....... by using the PSR.

Yes it has. When you relocate unanswered questions about “the universe” (Did it begin? When did it begin? How did it begin? etc) to a “god” that's magic you abandon any pretence at philosophical support.

There is recognition though, that God is the necessary being. You are trying to eek many Gods out of one when what is really going on is disagreement on what this God is like.

No, it’s assertion rather than a recognition and in any case there’s no agreement on which (if any) of multiple gods they’re talking about. 

You are reifying and deifying people's views on God.And you are still left with rejecting God because of a choice.

You’ve lapsed into gibberish again. What are you trying to say here?
 

And I have said I don't have any. I think that's an open and shut case which puts VG in the right and you, as per usual, with your arse in a sling.

You’re playing pigeon chess now*. If you don’t have any empirical evidence and you don’t have any other kind of evidence either, THEN YOU DON’T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE.

Try to understand this. 

You also said I'd get laughed out of court claiming the supernatural Would that be before being asked to swear on the bible or after?

?

NURSE!

Why do you think what YOU ARE AWARE of is the standard?

It’s the standard for me. If you have some other kind of evidence that I’m not aware of you're welcome to bring it to my attention, but you never can or will though will you. 

Funny that.

The status quo here though is Philosophical Empiricism which itself needs empirical proof to explain how it can be tested and verified, to show that it’s epistemically distinguishable from just guessing etc. This is the point at which you always run away, but the issue doesn’t go away despite that........The status quo position is therefore self negating.

You’ve had this utter bollocks detonated countless times before your eyes. Why on earth are you returning to exactly the same mistake yet again?

• ""Pigeon chess" or "like playing chess with a pigeon"[note 1] is a figure of speech originating from a comment made in March 2005 on Amazon by Scott D. Weitzenhoffer[2] regarding Eugenie Scott's book Evolution vs. Creationism: An introduction:

“Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”

As such "debating techniques" are not limited to creationists, the phrase has entered the general Internet lexicon,[3] together with the source quotation, which is sometimes cited as an anonymous "Internet law". The reference to creationists is usually replaced with whatever group the user is arguing with."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

That’s probably wise.

You’re straw manning me again, and I haven’t mixed up anything. I keep saying the same thing, but I’m also not the one who elides subjective ‘experience” (of a supposed “encounter” in Vlad’s case) into a claim of objective fact (“therefore god”).     

Gee, you think?

Actually that’s not quite right. If you define “honour” as behaving in certain ways (helping little old ladies across the road etc) and the claimant consistently does that, then “I have honour” is demonstrably true.

Honour is defined as behaving in certain ways - in the dictionary it is defined as "knowing and doing what is morally right"; and given 'morally right ' is defined as in accord with principles which are considered right or honest or acceptable - you can see we're just going round in circles as what is morally right will depend on who you speak to, hence we end up with people disowning their relatives or getting into conflict because they think it is necessary for their honour. It's all based on subjective inner feelings but people still use the term because they believe it is real.

I hear it gets dark at night time too. Leaving aside the honour point (see above) you’re just mirroring back to me the same point I’ve aways made to theists who claim as objective fact the god they “experience” subjectively but cannot show to be therefore objectively real.

I'm not interested in your history with theists - we're discussing the post Vlad made on this thread where he said he felt God's presence in his consciousness. He did not make a claim that he had objective evidence of this so it was a statement of belief not a claim of fact.     

Yes they are. Preferring one hot beverage over another is a matter of taste – ie, aesthetics. So is morality (technically a branch of aesthetics).

Here’s a song I like. You might too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu5dEXZ7DOY

Leaving honour to one side (see above), yes “god” is inasmuch as taste and preference for a god is a statement of the subjective (just like taste and preference for coffee or tea is a statement of the subjective) even though those who make it typically overreach into a claim of objective fact even though they can't justify that (for the reasons you keep repeating to me as if I didn’t know them already)

Yes, but the conversation with Vlad was precisely about “inputs peddled to us when we are young” to justify claims he wants us to treat as objective, factual etc. That was your category error – telling me that we’re all influenced by our environment for the aesthetic choices we make is fine, but it doesn’t address Vlad’s (and others’) problem that they reach for environmental influences to define causes they want us to treat as objective fact.

If someone says, “I prefer coffee over tea because I grew up in a coffee drinking household” no-one much will care. When someone else though says, “I had an experience, and it’s objectively the case therefore that it was caused by the only god my upbringing gave me information about” then it raises suspicions about the veracity of the claim (because of the co-incidence it requires).     

I’m sorry, but I don’t know how else to explain this. Environmental influence on aesthetic preference is one thing; environmental influence on claims of objective fact for the rest of us too is quite another – they’re different epistemological categories of claim.   

You haven't demonstrated that Vlad has made a claim of objective fact. He stated a belief - there's a difference. The dictionary defines 'belief' as an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: Which bit of this are you finding so hard to understand?

[Alan Burns]

Oh dear. I will accept evidence, and at this point the only type of evidence I’m aware of is the empirical type. If you think there’s a different type of evidence though, then the burden of proof is with you tell us what it is, to explain how it can be tested and verified, to show that it’s epistemically distinguishable from just guessing etc. This is the point at which you always run away, but the issue doesn’t go away despite that.

The evidence you continue to ignore is "you"
You are far more than a continuum of a material universe entirely governed by physically defined reactions

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Honour is defined as behaving in certain ways - in the dictionary it is defined as "knowing and doing what is morally right"; and given 'morally right ' is defined as in accord with principles which are considered right or honest or acceptable - you can see we're just going round in circles as what is morally right will depend on who you speak to, hence we end up with people disowning their relatives or getting into conflict because they think it is necessary for their honour. It's all based on subjective inner feelings but people still use the term because they believe it is real.

I notice you ignore the salient rebuttals to focus instead on a sidebar issue, but ok. Yes, what’s “morally right” is a moral question and morality is subjective. The point I was making though is that when moral standards are broadly agreed (stealing bad; helping little old ladies across the road good etc) then the extent to which someone acts accordingly is verifiable.   

I'm not interested in your history with theists - we're discussing the post Vlad made on this thread where he said he felt God's presence in his consciousness. He did not make a claim that he had objective evidence of this so it was a statement of belief not a claim of fact.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously though?

I KNOW IT WAS A STATEMENT OF BELIEF. REALLY I DO. I ALWAYS HAVE. STATEMENTS OF BELIEF ARE ALL HE HAS. THE POINT HERE THOUGH IS THAT HE (NOT I) THINKS HIS STATEMENT OF BELIEF IS ALSO A STATEMENT OF FACT.

Surely you must be able understand this now mustn’t you? Mustn’t you?

Dear god but you struggle…       

You haven't demonstrated that Vlad has made a claim of objective fact. He stated a belief - there's a difference. The dictionary defines 'belief' as an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: Which bit of this are you finding so hard to understand?

For fuck’s sake VG give your head a wobble will you? HE HASN’T MADE A STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVE FACT, BUT HE HAS MADE A CLAIM OF OBJECTIVE FACT NONETHELESS. TO VLAD’S MIND “GOD” IS OBJECTIVELY REAL, NOT JUST A PRODUCT OF HIS IMAGINATION. HE CAN’T JUSTIFY THAT CLAIM, BUT THAT DOESN’T STOP HIM MAKING IT NONETHELESS.

I really don’t know how to make this any clearer for you so will you PLEASE stop returning to the same mistake over and over again like a moth banging its head against a window. Please.