Religions have succeeded

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

By the way, could you put VG out of her misery please and confirm that you claim a “god” not just as an abstract idea you’ve conceptualised but as an actual entity of some sort independent of your imagination that you also think you’ve “encountered”.

Thanks. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sorry to interrupt your discourse but for clarity on this point I believe that you should perhaps avail oneself of Vlad's concept and accusations of "god-dodging".

That may throw some light on the matter.

Thanks for your input. That accusation can still apply if Vlad thinks his belief is true, although he accepts he has no objective evidence so can't claim it as fact.   

Given he believes it is true, presumably he thinks that other people can believe it is true too and are dodging their exploration of religion.

Not sure what god-dodging actually means though. Is it dodging looking further into god as a possibility to see if a belief develops, rather than dismissing god out of lack of interest? Or the term may possibly mean something along the lines of people in denial - i.e. who believe god exists but don't want to believe god exists because it would mean accepting a change to their world-view, so they repress the belief/ pretend they don't believe in god?

As I have stated on here before, I don't have any experience of god-dodging. Obviously I don't agree if Vlad is claiming he knows what is going on in someone else's mind or their motivations.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Vlad,

By the way, could you put VG out of her misery please and confirm that you claim a “god” not just as an abstract idea you’ve conceptualised but as an actual entity of some sort independent of your imagination that you also think you’ve “encountered”.

Thanks.

Strange misrepresentation of my views. Which part of what i said are you having trouble with?

I have repeatedly said Vlad thinks his belief in the existence of a non-physical, supernatural entity "god" is true.

He has no objective evidence about this entity so he can't claim it as fact. It is therefore a belief based on faith.

His concept of this entity formed in his brain i.e his brain's interpretations of his subjective experiences and feelings where he believes he felt god's presence in his consciousness (subjective evidence) are based on the narratives already stored in his brain about Christianity, which is based on what he believes / interprets to be authoritative testimony (subjective evidence).

He doesn't have the same connection with narratives about Amazon tree gods, if indeed there are any such narratives stored in his brain for his brain to use to interpret his subjective experiences in relation to anything supernatural.

Apparently, similar to his lack of connection with Amazon tree gods, he has no connection with leprechaun narratives, though his brain may have more information in it on leprechauns than Amazon tree gods.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Thanks for your input. That accusation can still apply if Vlad thinks his belief is true, although he accepts he has no objective evidence so can't claim it as fact.

That doesn’t stop him from doing it though, which is all I’ve been saying (and is why your “corrections” are misplaced).   

Given he believes it is true, presumably he thinks that other people can believe it is true too and are dodging their exploration of religion.

It’s worse than that: he seems to think other people do think it’s true, but choose to “dodge” that “truth” nonetheless. This is a fallacy called begging the question but he keeps trying it no matter how often it’s explained to him.

Not sure what god-dodging actually means though. Is it dodging looking further into god as a possibility to see if a belief develops, rather than dismissing god out of lack of interest? Or the term may possibly mean something along the lines of people in denial - i.e. who believe god exists but don't want to believe god exists because it would mean accepting a change to their world-view, so they repress the belief/ pretend they don't believe in god?

Based on previous exchanges, in Vlad’s head it’s the latter.

As I have stated on here before, I don't have any experience of god-dodging. Obviously I don't agree if Vlad is claiming he knows what is going on in someone else's mind or their motivations.

Good. As for whether Vlad claims an actual god or just a conceptualised one by the way, try this: to encounter something you need (at least) two parties – the encounterer and the encounteree. To conceptualise something on the other hand you need just one party – the conceptualiser.

Vlad claims an encounter.

QED. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Strange misrepresentation of my views. Which part of what i said are you having trouble with?

I have repeatedly said Vlad thinks his belief in the existence of a non-physical, supernatural entity "god" is true.

But he also think he’s “encountered” this supposed “god” rather than just conceptualised it. He thinks this “god” is real in some form outwith just his imagining of it.

Try to remember this. 

He has no objective evidence about this entity so he can't claim it as fact. It is therefore a belief based on faith.

I know, but it doesn’t stop him from making the attempt though.

Try to remember this too.

His concept of this entity formed in his brain i.e his brain's interpretations of his subjective experiences and feelings where he believes he felt god's presence in his consciousness (subjective evidence) are based on the narratives already stored in his brain about Christianity, which is based on what he believes / interprets to be authoritative testimony (subjective evidence).

But he also thinks that “god” isn’t just a “concept of this entity formed in his brain” – he thinks it’s an actual entity of some sort, and what’s more he claims to have met it. 

He doesn't have the same connection with narratives about Amazon tree gods, if indeed there are any such narratives stored in his brain for his brain to use to interpret his subjective experiences in relation to anything supernatural.

True, but irrelevant. He’s not just trying to describe his concept of a god – he’s trying to describe a whole different epistemological category of claim: an actual, “out there”, objectively present god. 

That was your category error.

Apparently, similar to his lack of connection with Amazon tree gods, he has no connection with leprechaun narratives, though his brain may have more information in it on leprechauns than Amazon tree gods.

So?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Because, obviously, “honour” is employed as an abstract noun (“a noun denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete object, e.g. truth, danger, happiness”) whereas “god” is being employed as a proper noun (“a noun that serves as the name for a specific place, person, or thing”).

Because Vlad (and, presumably, most other theists) doesn’t claim “god” as an abstract concept – he’s claims it as a tangible entity of some sort that exists as an objective fact for all of us regardless of his conceptualisation of it. 

That was your category error.

Not from what I've seen. He said he thinks god is non-physical so not getting the impression that he thinks god is tangible or a person. But yes he holds the belief that the supernatural entity 'god' exists but not as something tangible. 

Your understanding is neither here nor there. Both in this thread and consistently elsewhere Vlad has always made clear that he doesn’t just think of “god” as a conceptualised idea like honour or justice; rather he thinks of it as an actual entity that moreover he’s “encountered”. If you don’t believe me about that, ask him.

I know he thinks it's an entity - he believes it is a supernatural, non-physical one for which he has no objective evidence so can't claim it to be fact, and so he has come up with a concept of what he thinks this non-physical god is, which makes it abstract. He said he believes he felt the presence of this non-physical god in his consciousness. If he withdraws that statement and now thinks god is a physical entity or a person, then it's a different matter.

People speak about their subjective belief that they have honour or have lost honour even though they can't really agree on a definition of honour and it is an abstract concept. Their interpretation or concept of honour is based on the ideas pedalled to them when they were younger, which is stored in their brain and which the brain retrieves to interpret their experiences. 
   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Good. As for whether Vlad claims an actual god or just a conceptualised one by the way, try this: to encounter something you need (at least) two parties – the encounterer and the encounteree. To conceptualise something on the other hand you need just one party – the conceptualiser.

Vlad claims an encounter.

QED.

As explained in my previous post, he believes there were 2 parties - one is a non-physical supernatural entity, not a physical entity. He believes he encountered a non-physical god in his consciousness, for which he has no objective evidence, only his subjective experience interpreted by his brain, therefore it's not a claim of fact but a statement of belief. A fact needs objective evidence.

[Sebastian Toe]

You can call it “Vlad’s law of Goddodging” if you wish but when your arguments against God become more fantastical than what you can argue God is then that is very likely Goddodging.

Examples found on this forum include circular hierarchies, composites as necessities, contingency without necessity, suspension of the PSR, unknown unknowns vis a vis God.

Just to clarify.
Anyone who doesn't agree with any of your ideas or philosophy or definitions of what your god is....is god-dodging.....that is, dodging the factual, real Christian God?

Do tell.

[Dicky Underpants]

As explained in my previous post, he believes there were 2 parties - one is a non-physical supernatural entity, not a physical entity. He believes he encountered a non-physical god in his consciousness, for which he has no objective evidence, only his subjective experience interpreted by his brain, therefore it's not a claim of fact but a statement of belief. A fact needs objective evidence.

We know a fact needs objective evidence.
These are the words of bluehillside that you need to pay especial attention to:

VG,

That doesn’t stop him from doing it though, which is all I’ve been saying (and is why your “corrections” are misplaced).   

It’s worse than that: he seems to think other people do think it’s true, but choose to “dodge” that “truth” nonetheless. This is a fallacy called begging the question but he keeps trying it no matter how often it’s explained to him.

And most of us here know that is exactly what Vlad thinks.

[ProfessorDavey]

We know a fact needs objective evidence.
These are the words of bluehillside that you need to pay especially attention to:And most of us here know that is exactly what Vlad thinks.

The clear impression from Vlad's posts are that not only does he think that god's existence is a fact, but also that he has proved it, not just though his own claimed experience (which of course is no evidence of anything beyond subjective experience and inference/interpretation) but also via his appeal to the Necessary Being (which he often capitalises) and the principle of sufficient reason.

We, of course, cannot climb inside Vlad's mind (there is a terrifying thought) but certainly to me his posts seem to me to indicate that he thinks that god's existence is a fact, not merely a belief.

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

Remember that my point was about people being brought up with one religion but become adherents of another religion as adults - and in this case the adult religion is islam.

So I've already indicated that this level of converts (from other religions and from no religion) is about 2.6% of just the muslim population. But the muslim population is, in itself, fairly small in the UK.

So let's assume half of those 100,000 converts are childhood 'other religion' rather than childhood 'no religion', so 50,000. In which case, in terms of the UK population muslim converts from another religion represent just 0.07% of the population, or one in 1,400 of the population. Sounds pretty rare to me - but hey, ho VG's got an anecdote so real data don't matter.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

We know a fact needs objective evidence.
These are the words of bluehillside that you need to pay especial attention to:And most of us here know that is exactly what Vlad thinks.

Regarding what Vlad thinks - I am just going by my interpretation of his reply #1012, which contained the following:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=19250.1000

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.

The above reads like Vlad stating a belief in God and not claiming a supernatural entity as a fact, and Vlad putting forward a philosophical argument for a necessary being to argue for the existence of a supernatural higher power entity "god". He says relating his experience could be taken as testimony (subjective evidence) in the legal sense.

"Could be" doesn't sound like a claim of evidence for a fact.

DU, Your opinion that most of the people on this forum know what Vlad is thinking is not a claim that can be taken seriously as you have provided no evidence for it. But I didn't take it as a claim of fact but merely you stating your opinion.

Some people on this forum seem to have double-standards. DU's statement about what most of us know, and the recent claims about a consensus on consent or the position on consent being clear by PD and BHS are not supported by evidence. I take these claims or statements to be opinion and belief and not a claim of fact, as the posts are related to  interpretation, morality .

Yet when Vlad states his opinions and beliefs about the supernatural, a lot of time seems to be wasted dissecting them as though Vlad is claiming that his beliefs about god is him claiming God's existence is a fact. They don't read that way to me. Vlad may want to clarify, but on the other hand it's more entertaining on here if he doesn't.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The clear impression from Vlad's posts are that not only does he think that god's existence is a fact, but also that he has proved it, not just though his own claimed experience (which of course is no evidence of anything beyond subjective experience and inference/interpretation) but also via his appeal to the Necessary Being (which he often capitalises) and the principle of sufficient reason.

We, of course, cannot climb inside Vlad's mind (there is a terrifying thought) but certainly to me his posts seem to me to indicate that he thinks that god's existence is a fact, not merely a belief.

To me it reads like Vlad is making a philosophical argument. Especially in the context of the technique that both you and BHS employ frequently on here of stating your opinions as though they are facts. If people are making arguments for something in response to someone else stating their opinion as fact, it makes sense to state their own position or belief as emphatically as the person they are disagreeing with.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

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.

Sorry - missed this.

That just seems to be an assumption on your part, which you can make if you want, but not sure how you decided it's a reasonable one.

Why do you expect people to know something more from the experience? I don't think Vlad is relating his experience as one where he received any revelation, he states he doesn't think god is a physical entity - so I'm not expecting him to know something more from his experience.

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?           

It suggests to me that our brains use prior information stored in them to make interpretations of our experiences. Why should it be any different for experiences we think are related to supernatural entities?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Remember that my point was about people being brought up with one religion but become adherents of another religion as adults - and in this case the adult religion is islam.

So I've already indicated that this level of converts (from other religions and from no religion) is about 2.6% of just the muslim population. But the muslim population is, in itself, fairly small in the UK.

So let's assume half of those 100,000 converts are childhood 'other religion' rather than childhood 'no religion', so 50,000. In which case, in terms of the UK population muslim converts from another religion represent just 0.07% of the population, or one in 1,400 of the population. Sounds pretty rare to me - but hey, ho VG's got an anecdote so real data don't matter.

I didn't make the same assumption as you that only half the converts are childhood 'other religion'. I think most would be childhood 'other religion'. Someone who has had experiences of connecting religious experiences with family bonding and ties, would I think be more likely to be receptive to how the practice of Islam is portrayed by many Muslims as being something that is done as part of a community and family and they would probably like the feelings that this practice evokes, which would be an incentive to convert to be part of that religious community.

In my previous response to you, I also linked to the Pew Research that stated that a quarter of Muslims in the US are converts. I think focusing on a Welsh survey of people in Wales and possibly England, doesn't tell you much about people in general.

[ProfessorDavey]

I didn't make the same assumption as you that only half the converts are childhood 'other religion'. I think most would be childhood 'other religion'.

But that would be mere handwaving on your part unless you provide evidence to back that up. There is evidence, from the UK, that 'conversion' to any of the major religions represents a very small proportion of current adherents, and also that when that number is divided between conversion from childhood no-religion and conversion from childhood  different religion, a greater proportion of converts are from no religion. So from Scourfield's extensive study in England & Wales it was estimated that approx. 3% of muslims were childhood no religion, while just 1% were childhood different religion. So I'm actually being generous in using a 50:50 split.

And even were we to assume that all these converts were from another religion (which would be totally unjustified) as a convert to islam from another childhood religion, you'd still represent just 0.14% of the population, or one in 700, which sounds pretty rare to me.

Someone who has had experiences of connecting religious experiences with family bonding and ties, would I think be more likely to be receptive to how the practice of Islam is portrayed by many Muslims as being something that is done as part of a community and family and they would probably like the feelings that this practice evokes, which would be an incentive to convert to be part of that religious community.

True - but surely if this was important then it is much more likely that you would remain in the religion of your childhood. And that is what the data show - that for people brought up within a religious tradition the overwhelming majority either remain in that religion as adults or become non religious as adults. Converting to a different religion as an adult compared to the religion of childhood is very rare, and that's the same regardless of the religion (shifting between different christian denominations excluded as that isn't really a conversion from one religion to another).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just to clarify.
Anyone who doesn't agree with any of your ideas or philosophy or definitions of what your god is....is god-dodging.....that is, dodging the factual, real Christian God?

Do tell.

No anyone who claims that God cannot exist on the grounds that God is too “out there” and then justifies it with a more “out there” theory or theory as “out there” is obviously not wanting God and proposes their theory because it excludes God.

An example would be, the universe just is and there’s the end of it.

Whether they like it or not one or two atheists have unconsciously reinvented A God like entity by suggesting there is something necessary about the universe that isn’t apparent by mere scientific observation.

The surprising element is the strict adherence to philosophical empiricism I find here and physicalism
Which is so taken as read here you won’t find a defence for it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Apparently, similar to his lack of connection with Amazon tree gods, he has no connection with leprechaun narratives, though his brain may have more information in it on leprechauns than Amazon tree gods.

Like you wouldn’t believe after years of BHS expounding on them.

May I say for someone who doesn’t like speculating what’s on others minds you do a really mean psychology.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But that would be mere handwaving on your part unless you provide evidence to back that up. There is evidence, from the UK, that 'conversion' to any of the major religions represents a very small proportion of current adherents, and also that when that number is divided between conversion from childhood no-religion and conversion from childhood  different religion, a greater proportion of converts are from no religion. So from Scourfield's extensive study in England & Wales it was estimated that approx. 3% of muslims were childhood no religion, while just 1% were childhood different religion. So I'm actually being generous in using a 50:50 split.

And even were we to assume that all these converts were from another religion (which would be totally unjustified) as a convert to islam from another childhood religion, you'd still represent just 0.14% of the population, or one in 700, which sounds pretty rare to me.
True - but surely if this was important then it is much more likely that you would remain in the religion of your childhood. And that is what the data show - that for people brought up within a religious tradition the overwhelming majority either remain in that religion as adults or become non religious as adults. Converting to a different religion as an adult compared to the religion of childhood is very rare, and that's the same regardless of the religion (shifting between different christian denominations excluded as that isn't really a conversion from one religion to another).

An aspect that is missing here is the extent to which the child’s so called faith is really the parents faith, a question that could go back generations and that which is actually understood, accepted and believed by the child. The child is of course attached to their parents and shares assent out of solidarity with them.
When out of the parents ambit they are then free to choose. There seems in our society lots of factors then which militate against genuine faith rather than the power and call of the atheist message or do I mean, bus.  Ding Ding hold very tight please.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But that would be mere handwaving on your part unless you provide evidence to back that up. There is evidence, from the UK, that 'conversion' to any of the major religions represents a very small proportion of current adherents, and also that when that number is divided between conversion from childhood no-religion and conversion from childhood  different religion, a greater proportion of converts are from no religion. So from Scourfield's extensive study in England & Wales it was estimated that approx. 3% of muslims were childhood no religion, while just 1% were childhood different religion. So I'm actually being generous in using a 50:50 split.

And even were we to assume that all these converts were from another religion (which would be totally unjustified) as a convert to islam from another childhood religion, you'd still represent just 0.14% of the population, or one in 700, which sounds pretty rare to me.
True - but surely if this was important then it is much more likely that you would remain in the religion of your childhood. And that is what the data show - that for people brought up within a religious tradition the overwhelming majority either remain in that religion as adults or become non religious as adults. Converting to a different religion as an adult compared to the religion of childhood is very rare, and that's the same regardless of the religion (shifting between different christian denominations excluded as that isn't really a conversion from one religion to another).

I haven't seen Scourfield's extensive study in England & Wales - perhaps you could link to it?

My idea of rare is based on some of the available definitions for rare in relation to diseases e.g. 1 in 1500 (US Rare Diseases Act of 2002) or 1 in 2,500 (Japan) or 1 in 2000 (EU)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_disease

And given that Pew says 25% of Muslims in the US are converts, the UK figures do not say anything too meaningful about conversions. I do not have evidence regarding what proportion of the 25% in the US had a different religion in childhood vs no religion. But the US is supposed to be a country with high religiosity (65% in a 2019 Pew Research survey identified as Christians though the overall trend is a decline in Christianity https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/) 

And as Vlad says, the religion the adult believes, interprets and practises may be very different from their childhood interpretations, experiences and beliefs, even if they do not convert to a different religion. Once a theist becomes and adult and thinks about their beliefs, they may come to different interpretations while remaining part of their original religion. 

[ProfessorDavey]

An aspect that is missing here is the extent to which the child’s so called faith is really the parents faith, a question that could go back generations and that which is actually understood, accepted and believed by the child. The child is of course attached to their parents and shares assent out of solidarity with them.

Of course - this is hardly missing. Why on earth do you think that if you go into a church that likely 19 out of 20 worshippers were brought up christian. Same trend if you go into a mosque or synagogue, where 19 out of 20 would have been brought up muslim, jewish etc. That's why I say that religion is learned behaviour.

When out of the parents ambit they are then free to choose. There seems in our society lots of factors then which militate against genuine faith rather than the power and call of the atheist message or do I mean, bus.  Ding Ding hold very tight please.

Whisper it quietly - perhaps it is because the message isn't very compelling Vlad.

And this effect has been going on for years, including when schools (all schools) were required to hold christian worship daily and I doubt atheists would even have been mentioned. Non religious parents don't tend to take their children to extracurricular sessions aimed specifically at inculcating non religion and/or atheism, nor expect them to attend weekly non religion/atheism services. Yet well over 90% of children brought up in a non religious household end up non religious as adults. The fundamental point is that (certainly in the UK), non religion is 'sticky' from generation to generation, religion ... well ... not so much.

[ProfessorDavey]

I haven't seen Scourfield's extensive study in England & Wales - perhaps you could link to it?

Not sure whether you'll be able to get full access - I can because of my academic affiliation but not sure whether this is open access to the public in general. You should be able to see the summary at least.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0038038511419189

My idea of rare is based on some of the available definitions for rare in relation to diseases e.g. 1 in 1500 (US Rare Diseases Act of 2002) or 1 in 2,500 (Japan) or 1 in 2000 (EU)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_disease

Oh, moving goal-posts I see. Just a few posts ago you said rare was less than 1%. Your words:

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

And I don't think that religious conversion is a disease, so using categorisation of diseases isn't really relevant is it VG.

And given that Pew says 25% of Muslims in the US are converts, the UK figures do not say anything too meaningful about conversions. I do not have evidence regarding what proportion of the 25% in the US had a different religion in childhood vs no religion. But the US is supposed to be a country with high religiosity (65% in a 2019 Pew Research survey identified as Christians though the overall trend is a decline in Christianity https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/)

But we are talking about the UK so the US, which is an entirely different society, particularly with respect to religiosity is irrelevant. Are you really arguing that 25% of british muslims are converts VG - if so you'll need to back that up with some pretty compelling evidence as the available research suggests that somewhat less than 5% are converts, and that includes both converts from another religion and from no religion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Not from what I've seen. He said he thinks god is non-physical so not getting the impression that he thinks god is tangible or a person. But yes he holds the belief that the supernatural entity 'god' exists but not as something tangible.

Tangible: "real and not imaginary; able to be shown, touched, or experienced:"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/tangible

Vlad thinks he’s “experienced” a real, non-imaginary god, not just conceptualised it. QED 

I know he thinks it's an entity - he believes it is a supernatural, non-physical one for which he has no objective evidence so can't claim it to be fact,…

Which doesn’t stop him from making that claim nonetheless but ok…

…and so he has come up with a concept of what he thinks this non-physical god is, which makes it abstract.

But he still thinks it exists whether or not he conceptualised it remember? He thinks that, even if he fell under a bus tomorrow (heaven forfend), this “god” would still exist even with no Vlad around to conceptualise it.   

He said he believes he felt the presence of this non-physical god in his consciousness. If he withdraws that statement and now thinks god is a physical entity or a person, then it's a different matter.

No it isn’t. The “physical” is a red herring – it’s enough to think “god” exists (whether as a physical or a non-physical version) independent of his ability to conceptualise it.     

People speak about their subjective belief that they have honour or have lost honour even though they can't really agree on a definition of honour and it is an abstract concept. Their interpretation or concept of honour is based on the ideas pedalled to them when they were younger, which is stored in their brain and which the brain retrieves to interpret their experiences.

It's “peddled” and this doesn’t change anything. Tastes, preferences, responses to objectively real phenomena are all subjective; the phenomena themselves though are objective, and Vlad’s claim is of an objectively real god (that he’s also supposedly “encountered”) that exists whether or not he happens to be around to conceptualise it.   
   

As explained in my previous post, he believes there were 2 parties - one is a non-physical supernatural entity, not a physical entity. He believes he encountered a non-physical god in his consciousness, for which he has no objective evidence, only his subjective experience interpreted by his brain, therefore it's not a claim of fact but a statement of belief. A fact needs objective evidence.

FFS. Yes, but that doesn’t stop him from making it as a claim of fact nonetheless. I’ve explained this to you many time now, yet you keep returning to the same mistake. It’s not that I think he can make it a claim of fact, it’s that HE thinks he thinks he can make it a claim of fact. He may say that he has no “empirical evidence”, but he does think his “experience” is nonetheless “evidence” of some different type that means he really did encounter a god who exists independent of his conceptualising of it. WHY he thinks that’s evidence for this supposed god is anyone’s guess (he won’t or can’t tell us), but nonetheless evidence is what he claims his experience to be, albeit not the material kind.           

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.

The above reads like Vlad stating a belief in God and not claiming a supernatural entity as a fact, and Vlad putting forward a philosophical argument for a necessary being to argue for the existence of a supernatural higher power entity "god". He says relating his experience could be taken as testimony (subjective evidence) in the legal sense.

"Could be" doesn't sound like a claim of evidence for a fact.

DU, Your opinion that most of the people on this forum know what Vlad is thinking is not a claim that can be taken seriously as you have provided no evidence for it. But I didn't take it as a claim of fact but merely you stating your opinion.

Some people on this forum seem to have double-standards. DU's statement about what most of us know, and the recent claims about a consensus on consent or the position on consent being clear by PD and BHS are not supported by evidence. I take these claims or statements to be opinion and belief and not a claim of fact, as the posts are related to  interpretation, morality .

Yet when Vlad states his opinions and beliefs about the supernatural, a lot of time seems to be wasted dissecting them as though Vlad is claiming that his beliefs about god is him claiming God's existence is a fact. They don't read that way to me. Vlad may want to clarify, but on the other hand it's more entertaining on here if he doesn't.

Suggest you try reading his post again: he still thinks there’s a “god” whether or not he, Vlad, happens to have conceptualised it. He thinks “god” and he met too – not just that he conceptualised a meeting. Not sure why you keep indulging in increasingly convoluted post rationalisations to get him off the hook about this, but it isn’t working.   

Sorry - missed this.

That just seems to be an assumption on your part, which you can make if you want, but not sure how you decided it's a reasonable one.

Why do you expect people to know something more from the experience? I don't think Vlad is relating his experience as one where he received any revelation, he states he doesn't think god is a physical entity - so I'm not expecting him to know something more from his experience.

No, it’s just the deduction that when people who think they’ve met a “god” almost invariably tell us the god they met was the exact one they happened to be most enculturated to it raises a pretty big red flag don’t you think?   

It suggests to me that our brains use prior information stored in them to make interpretations of our experiences. Why should it be any different for experiences we think are related to supernatural entities?

Because, obviously, when people “use prior information stored in them to make interpretations of our (ie, their) experiences” then the gods they come up with will always be the ones they happen to have been taught about a priori. Should we therefore take all such claims as reliable evidence of a countless panoply of gods with all their various (and often mutually contradictory) characteristics, or as evidence of confirmation basis at work?

As for the natural/supernatural claims difference, it should be (and is) different because claims of encountering a physical entity of some sort (“I saw a lion in Tesco today” etc) can be validated by reference to intersubjective experience: there’s a commonly accepted understanding of what a lion is. For claims of the supernatural thought, there’s no intersubjective point of reference – any claim of such is as equally (in)valid as any other.

And epistemically that's a category difference – objective v subjective again.       

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No anyone who claims that God cannot exist on the grounds that God is too “out there” and then justifies it with a more “out there” theory or theory as “out there” is obviously not wanting God and proposes their theory because it excludes God.

Another straw man. Has anyone done that?

An example would be, the universe just is and there’s the end of it.

Non sequitur. What do you think that’s an example of?

Whether they like it or not one or two atheists have unconsciously reinvented A God like entity by suggesting there is something necessary about the universe that isn’t apparent by mere scientific observation.

Depends what you mean by “God like” but it’s another straw man in any case – a don’t know is just a don’t know, not “suggesting there is something necessary about the universe that isn’t apparent by mere scientific observation”. If you want to rule that out though as a possibility (without relying on the fallacy of composition) then by all means give it a go.

The surprising element is the strict adherence to philosophical empiricism…

Actual philosophical materialism (not your straw man version of it) is fine…

…and physicalism

Just out of interest, have you ever found someone who argues for physicalism?

Which is so taken as read here you won’t find a defence for it.

Why would anyone want to defend your straw man version of philosophical empiricism?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

An aspect that is missing here is the extent to which the child’s so called faith is really the parents faith, a question that could go back generations and that which is actually understood, accepted and believed by the child. The child is of course attached to their parents and shares assent out of solidarity with them.
When out of the parents ambit they are then free to choose. There seems in our society lots of factors then which militate against genuine faith rather than the power and call of the atheist message or do I mean, bus.  Ding Ding hold very tight please.

You think you “encountered” a god. You also think that this god just happens to be the exact one you were taught about as a youngster.

The Amazonian tribesman does the same thing about the animal spirits he was taught about.

Pretty much everyone (so far as I’m aware) who’s had a transcendent episode that they then ascribe to a god thinks the god involved just happens to be the one to which they’re most enculturated.

These supposed gods have as many characteristics and feature as there people who think they’ve encountered them, and often the features and characteristics of any one such god will contradict the features and characteristics of any other one such.

What then should someone presented with these various claims deduce about whether those claims map reliably to actual gods, or just confirm the claimant's bias toward the most proximate cultural artefact gods?