Religions have succeeded

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

You were the one focused on words like "tangible" and experience" as though there was some kind of point to be made that hadn't already been agreed on (see my reply #1056 that Vlad's belief is that god is a separate party from him).

Not sure how you got from “used once” (correctly as it turned out) to “focused on”, but ok.

Yes we are in agreement that theists believe their god exists even if the theist no longer exists. And I am not comparing god to preferences for coffee, as coffee clearly does exist as fact, because there is objective evidence for it.

Good – glad you’ve changed ground on that from your previous false analogy.

I agree a theist believes that the phenomenon (that people refer to when they say 'god') exists whether or not there's someone to conceptualise it.

But the god we're dealing with in our discussion of Vlad's god is the human conceptualised version and this human concept of god ceases to exist when the human who conceptualises that god is no longer there.

No we’re not. Vlad doesn’t just think he’s conceptualised a god and that’s that the end it – he thinks too that his conceptualisation maps accurately to and is evidence for an objectively real god. His personal conception may die with him but, according to him, the real, objective, actually there god he thinks he’s conceptualised doesn’t. The concept and the real deal are, to his way of thinking, the same thing.   

The Christian version of god that Vlad's brain has constructed to make sense of his belief and his experience where he felt a non-physical god was present in his consciousness is based on the information about the Christian religion that was already stored in his brain - this Vlad's brain conceptualised god he believes in dies with him.

You’re getting closer – now you just need to be clear that “his experience where he felt a non-physical god was present” does not imply that there actually was something “present” other than the workings of his own imagination.

Some other out there phenomenon, necessary entity, first cause of the universe, higher power that transcends human understanding and limits etc etc may exist but I am not seeing where Vlad is claiming this as fact rather than arguing for it philosophically, nor do I see where he is claiming that Vlad's brain conceptualised god he believes in is fact.

Then you’ve not been looking. He’s claimed over and over again that his “experience” was evidence of an “encounter” with an actual, factual, objectively existing god possessed of these various attributes. Now you know as well as I do that what's he's describing look just like bog standard, common-or-garden confirmation bias, but that's his thesis nonetheless. 

If you don’t believe me about that you can ask him yourself. 

Again, I'm not going to waste my time responding point by point to your assertions about what you think Vlad or I are saying. The point I am making repeatedly  is that from what I have seen on this thread, Vlad expresses a belief in the existence of a god that he believes exists separate from him, and will exist after he is dead, which is to be expected, given he is a theist. He said pretty early on in this thread that his posts regarding the Christian version in response to points made to him was from a position of belief. I have not seen him expect you to become convinced of  god's existence, based on his belief.

He does much more than that though – he asserts his experience to be evidence of an encounter with a god that’s thereby just as much a fact for the rest of us as it is for him. 

I've seen him try to use philosophy to argue for the existence of a necessary entity on other threads, and I've seen him mischaracterise other people's challenges to his necessary entity claim - he seemed to think they were making claims themselves rather than just pointing out that he had not proved his claim.

OK…

I have seen him use his personal experience and the philosophy to explain why he believes in god (his version of god based on his claim of a necessary entity e.g. that god is immortal, invisible, creative and sovereign). I haven't seen him characterise his personal experience or his arguments for a necessary entity as some kind of incontrovertible reason for god to be fact or for the Christian god to be fact. He seems clear that he is stating his belief.

See above. That is what he does, and when pressed about it he tries some very poor post hoc rationalisations to justify the attempt.

My interpretation of what I have read is that his subjective experience is offered as evidence of what he thinks was present - he thinks a god that is a separate entity from him was present in his consciousness.

But he also thinks that entity that was “present” for him is therefore every bit as real an entity for everyone else too, albeit that it hasn’t chosen to make itself present to the rest of us.

That’s the point.

By the way, BHS, just to clarify, are you saying consciousness is "tangible" because we can experience it?

That’s what the word tangible means, yes.

Vlad has said "I am aware that things which cannot be falsified are generally termed beliefs" and has offered his experience as a foundation of his belief.

Vlad said in the post I quoted earlier "if you will not accept my experience" as opposed to saying that his experience must be accepted and makes god a fact. Even if you did accept his experience, which he offers as subjective evidence for his concept of god, nowhere on this thread am I getting the impression that Vlad is expecting your acceptance of his evidence will make his concept of god a fact.

That’s not all he’s said though – see above.

I have also repeatedly corrected you on referring to lions or tea or coffee. We are discussing abstract concepts that our brains have created that we treat as if they exist separate from us and will exist after we die e.g. terms such as 'honour' or 'goodness' or 'morally right' i.e. undefined or individually defined labels i.e. not collectively agreed upon labels, which we attach to some sensations or feelings we experience, which are based on input peddled to us when we were young, We are not discussing objects for which we have objective evidence of their existence such as lions or tea or coffee.

Very funny. How are you still not getting this? “I prefer lions to tigers” is an epistemic statement that’s a subjective claim about a personal preference that doesn’t map to outside phenomena; “lions are real” on the other hand is a different category of epistemic statement that’s a claim of a fact that precisely maps to a “true for everyone”, objective phenomenon.

Vlad’s mistake is to treat the former as if it’s the latter for the purpose of a bad argument; your mistake is to treat the former as if it’s the latter for the purpose of a bad analogy.       

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

My cultural influences cover a broad Spectrum.

99% of the time I shop at Tesco; once I went to Budgens though. Thus my grocery shopping influences "cover a wide spectrum" right?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

VG,

Not sure how you got from “used once” (correctly as it turned out) to “focused on”, but ok.

Good – glad you’ve changed ground on that from your previous false analogy.

No we’re not. Vlad doesn’t just think he’s conceptualised a god and that’s that the end it – he thinks too that his conceptualisation maps accurately to and is evidence for an objectively real god. His personal conception may die with him but, according to him, the real, objective, actually there god he thinks he’s conceptualised doesn’t. The concept and the real deal are, to his way of thinking, the same thing.   

You’re getting closer – now you just need to be clear that “his experience where he felt a non-physical god was present” does not imply that there actually was something “present” other than the workings of his own imagination.

Then you’ve not been looking. He’s claimed over and over again that his “experience” was evidence of an “encounter” with an actual, factual, objectively existing god possessed of these various attributes. Now you know as well as I do that what's he's describing look just like bog standard, common-or-garden confirmation bias, but that's his thesis nonetheless. 

If you don’t believe me about that you can ask him yourself. 

He does much more than that though – he asserts his experience to be evidence of an encounter with a god that’s thereby just as much a fact for the rest of us as it is for him. 

OK…

See above. That is what he does, and when pressed about it he tries some very poor post hoc rationalisations to justify the attempt.

But he also thinks that entity that was “present” for him is therefore every bit as real an entity for everyone else too, albeit that it hasn’t chosen to make itself present to the rest of us.

That’s the point.

That’s what the word tangible means, yes.

That’s not all he’s said though – see above.

Very funny. How are you still not getting this? “I prefer lions to tigers” is an epistemic statement that’s a subjective claim about a personal preference that doesn’t map to outside phenomena; “lions are real” on the other hand is a different category of epistemic statement that’s a claim of a fact that precisely maps to a “true for everyone”, objective phenomenon.

Vlad’s mistake is to treat the former as if it’s the latter for the purpose of a bad argument; your mistake is to treat the former as if it’s the latter for the purpose of a bad analogy.       

That reminds me Hillside. How far on are you in your defence of and evidence for philosophical empiricism?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

By the way - you may have noticed Violent Gabriella rather gallantly but nonetheless hopelessly trying herself in knots trying to gild the lily of your reasoning. Could you perhaps put her out of her misery and confirm please that you do indeed think your "experience" was evidence of an encounter with an actual, non-imaginary god who's also therefore every bit as real for the rest of us too if only we could see it?

Thanks.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That reminds me Hillside. How far on are you in your defence of and evidence for philosophical empiricism?

Actual philosophical empiricism is simple enough to "defend". If as I suspect you actually mean your personal straw man version of that term though, then any defending of it would be a job for you I'd have thought.   

[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.

so you are putting your awareness forward as evidence of philosophical empiricism.

[Dicky Underpants]

You cannot have it both ways that Christianity was derived from a Jewish religious background and a pagan religious childhood or a Grecian philosophical childhood.
In other words your argument has become so broad as to be meaningless.

Well, it would be difficult to argue that a plausible historical Jesus was inculcated with all of these from childhood. Nonetheless, all three influences can be seen in the New Testament. Dominic Crossan (perhaps the minority view) has argued for the Greek philosophical influence, presenting the Cynic Sage Jesus. A lot of this argument seems to derive from sundry aphorisms found in the NT which have a Cynic philosophical ring to them, and the fact that he lived near Sepphoris.
The more prevalent view, and this is easily discerned in the NT, is the very Jewish Jesus, with a very Jewish childhood, who later said "Not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away" (Subscribers to this view are Geza Vermes, E.P. Sanders, and to a large extent Albert Schweitzer himself).
I wouldn't say that there's much evidence of a pagan religious childhood present in the gospels: however, if Jesus did indeed institute the Eucharist, with its echoes of pagan blood sacrifice, then that must be taken into consideration. Of course, all that could have derived from St Paul, who though obviously brought up as a Jew did his best to do away with most of the Jewish law, and turned his attention to dying and resurrecting pagan gods, of whom he obviously thought his Jesus was the one true example.
Somehow, out of this mishmash Christianity emerged. But indeed, I don't think you can have a real Jesus who was equally influenced from childhood by all traditions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Actual philosophical empiricism is simple enough to "defend".

Go on then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Go on then.

Tell you what - you tell me which version of philosophical empiricism you're referring to (actual vs your straw man) and we can proceed accordingly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

By the way - you may have noticed Violent Gabriella rather gallantly but nonetheless hopelessly trying herself in knots trying to gild the lily of your reasoning. Could you perhaps put her out of her misery and confirm please that you do indeed think your "experience" was evidence of an encounter with an actual, non-imaginary god who's also therefore every bit as real for the rest of us too if only we could see it?

Thanks.   

There is no empirical evidence for God Hillside and there is none for philosophical empiricism.
I have stated I am aware of the former and you are apparently aware of the reality of the latter.
Philosophical empiricism demands empirical evidence of everything including itself. Go ahead then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There is no empirical evidence for God Hillside…

So far, so good… though that doesn’t get you off the hook of claiming to have some kind of different, magical evidence that you want to keep secret instead remember? So, do you or do you not still think your “experience” that you ascribe to an "encounter" was therefore evidence for an objectively real god being “present”? 

A simple yes or no would clear that up.

…and there is none for philosophical empiricism.

And then straight off the rails. Evidence for philosophical empiricism is all around you, just so long as you don’t try to Frankenstein’s monster it into your straw man, absolutist version.

I have stated I am aware of the former and you are apparently aware of the reality of the latter.

Former and latter what?

Philosophical empiricism demands empirical evidence of everything including itself. Go ahead then.

No it doesn’t – that’s just your personal straw man version again remember? Confine yourself to what it actually means though and you’ll be fine.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

Not sure how you got from “used once” (correctly as it turned out) to “focused on”, but ok.

Good – glad you’ve changed ground on that from your previous false analogy.

My analogy was not about preferences for coffee so I haven't changed it.

No we’re not. Vlad doesn’t just think he’s conceptualised a god and that’s that the end it – he thinks too that his conceptualisation maps accurately to and is evidence for an objectively real god. His personal conception may die with him but, according to him, the real, objective, actually there god he thinks he’s conceptualised doesn’t. The concept and the real deal are, to his way of thinking, the same thing.

Of course he believes that his conceptualisation maps accurately. A theist isn't going to believe that it doesn't. He doesn't claim it as fact though. That's your error in understanding the difference between belief and fact.

You’re getting closer – now you just need to be clear that “his experience where he felt a non-physical god was present” does not imply that there actually was something “present” other than the workings of his own imagination.

No I don't need to be clear on that. It's possible that he is correct and there was something present so I can't rule it out. 

Then you’ve not been looking. He’s claimed over and over again that his “experience” was evidence of an “encounter” with an actual, factual, objectively existing god possessed of these various attributes.

Yes - it's evidence in the form of testimony.

Now you know as well as I do that what's he's describing look just like bog standard, common-or-garden confirmation bias, but that's his thesis nonetheless. 

It looks like it could be confirmation bias, or it could be his brain accurately interpreted an experience. 

He does much more than that though – he asserts his experience to be evidence of an encounter with a god that’s thereby just as much a fact for the rest of us as it is for him. 

Not a fact - you're getting your terminology mixed up, despite me correcting you on this repeatedly. He thinks god is objectively real as a belief, not a fact.

OK…

See above. That is what he does, and when pressed about it he tries some very poor post hoc rationalisations to justify the attempt.

But he also thinks that entity that was “present” for him is therefore every bit as real an entity for everyone else too, albeit that it hasn’t chosen to make itself present to the rest of us.

That’s the point.

Yes of course he does as do most theists - not as fact but as a belief.

That’s what the word tangible means, yes.

Incorrect. You can't touch consciousness and it's antonym in the dictionary is defined as:
noun: something that exists but that cannot be touched, exactly described, or given an exact value:

She has that intangible quality which you might call charisma.
intangible assets such as goodwill

adj: influencing you but not able to be seen or physically felt

used about a feeling or quality that does not exist in a physical way, or that is difficult to describe:

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

Something that is intangible is abstract or is hard to define or measure.
 incapable of being perceived by touch; impalpable
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/intangible

Very funny. How are you still not getting this? “I prefer lions to tigers” is an epistemic statement that’s a subjective claim about a personal preference that doesn’t map to outside phenomena; “lions are real” on the other hand is a different category of epistemic statement that’s a claim of a fact that precisely maps to a “true for everyone”, objective phenomenon.

Vlad’s mistake is to treat the former as if it’s the latter for the purpose of a bad argument; your mistake is to treat the former as if it’s the latter for the purpose of a bad analogy.       

Looks like I still need to keep correcting you as you're still not getting it. My analogy was mainly with abstract concepts - intangibles. As you don't know what the word "tangible" means that explains your confusion.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Vlad,

By the way - you may have noticed Violent Gabriella rather gallantly but nonetheless hopelessly trying herself in knots trying to gild the lily of your reasoning. Could you perhaps put her out of her misery and confirm please that you do indeed think your "experience" was evidence of an encounter with an actual, non-imaginary god who's also therefore every bit as real for the rest of us too if only we could see it?

Thanks.   

Your concern for my well-being, while touching, is misplaced. I suggest you focus on alleviating your own frustrations as I'm actually enjoying correcting you so I'm not feeling any misery. Perhaps you're projecting again.

[Dicky Underpants]

Your concern for my well-being, while touching, is misplaced. I suggest you focus on alleviating your own frustrations as I'm actually enjoying correcting you so I'm not feeling any misery. Perhaps you're projecting again.

Your telepathic insight into Vlad's brain is truly remarkable. Why not just let him answer directly?
BTW, most of us old hands here have got some idea about how almost universally he has applied his concept of 'God-dodging' to non-believers. I can't say your observations have clarified anything. We wait with bated breath for Vlad himself, before he takes another obfuscating swerve into the murk of methodological or philosophical empiricism.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Your telepathic insight into Vlad's brain is truly remarkable. Why not just let him answer directly?
BTW, most of us old hands here have got some idea about how almost universally he has applied his concept of 'God-dodging' to non-believers. I can't say your observations have clarified anything. We wait with bated breath for Vlad himself, before he takes another obfuscating swerve into the murk of methodological or philosophical empiricism.

Sure, I am not preventing Vlad from answering directly - that's up to him. He can chip in anytime and he may well disagree with my thoughts. My posts are from a theist perspective where I am stating my interpretation of what I think Vlad has said i.e. his belief that there really is a god rather than stating god as fact, given the lack of objective evidence.

I am also just correcting BHS on his perception of my misery - I am not feeling any. Maybe BHS is and he is projecting.

Regarding god-dodging - I don't use the term. That may be Vlad's description of what he was doing before his conversion and he is projecting onto others. My view, having been an atheist, is that I can't dodge something I don't believe in, anymore than when I am walking down the street in a straight line I am dodging ghosts while simultaneously not believing ghosts are there. Maybe he means it as not entertaining the idea of a god. But that's no different to experiencing goose bumps in the dark when walking through a cemetery and not entertaining the idea that it's ghosts. Why would you if you don't believe in them?

[Sebastian Toe]

Regarding god-dodging - I don't use the term. That may be Vlad's description of what he was doing before his conversion and he is projecting onto others. My view, having been an atheist, is that I can't dodge something I don't believe in, anymore than when I am walking down the street in a straight line I am dodging ghosts while simultaneously not believing ghosts are there. Maybe he means it as not entertaining the idea of a god. But that's no different to experiencing goose bumps in the dark when walking through a cemetery and not entertaining the idea that it's ghosts. Why would you if you don't believe in them?

That concurs with most people's view on this board I believe, yet god-dodging accusations still appear from one lone source!

[ProfessorDavey]

Regarding god-dodging - I don't use the term. That may be Vlad's description of what he was doing before his conversion and he is projecting onto others. My view, having been an atheist, is that I can't dodge something I don't believe in, anymore than when I am walking down the street in a straight line I am dodging ghosts while simultaneously not believing ghosts are there.

I'd agree with that but Vlad clearly seems to think that people who don't believe in something are constantly dodging the thing they don't believe in.

Interestingly Vlad also claims to have been an atheist, so he really should know better - but then his idol seems to be CS Lewis, who also claimed to be an atheist, but also stated that when he was an atheist he was 'angry at god for not existing' - that kind of comment is kind of the equivalent of you dodging ghosts you don't believe in as you walk down the road. And the kind of comment that no atheist would come out with as it makes no sense to be angry with something that doesn't exist.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes, there are several things that Vlad says on here that I can't quite fathom, which is fine as I don't come on here to meet like-minded people - clearly as I seem to be the only Muslim on here.

The point I was discussing with BHS about Vlad's beliefs was the difference between an intangible, supernatural, not clearly defined 'god'  that some theists believe exists (Vlad, me), and the god that each theist's brain fleshes out the detail of i.e. conceptualises as an abstract according to past info in the theist's brain. I use the word concept or entity to indicate the non-physical as well as that the perception/ interpretation of god is in our brains.

Of course, in contrast, there are probably theists who think god is an actual physical entity as a fact, but that's not my interpretation of Vlad's concept of god, since he said it is non-physical and was present in his consciousness.

Presumably Vlad thinks god could be present in our consciousnesses as well, but not sure - and not sure if this partly ties in with his belief about people who are god-dodging. Or if for him, god-dodging is not entertaining the idea of a god when discussing it.

I just tried to believe there was a ghost in the room while typing this, but my brain is low-key sniggering at me in a good-humoured way. That's similar to how I felt as an atheist trying to believe in god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Tell you what - you tell me which version of philosophical empiricism you're referring to (actual vs your straw man) and we can proceed accordingly.

No, you've said there is evidence for philosophical materialism.
Produce it. This attempt to shift the burden of proving your claim or saying we are surrounded by evidence doesn't wash. Produce it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That concurs with most people's view on this board I believe, yet god-dodging accusations still appear from one lone source!

Famous self confessed Goddodgers include Saint Augustine and John Bunyan.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd agree with that but Vlad clearly seems to think that people who don't believe in something are constantly dodging the thing they don't believe in.

Not everyone and not just something. Broadly speaking declaring there are no reasons to believe there is such thing as God is wrong and where someone has worked that out yet persists in it one must suspect that where that appears with other evasions one is a evading God The word Goddodger is a rebuke to those quite happy to use the word Godbother and the like. I have given Vlad's Law of Goddodging that where the solution to eliminate God is as outlandish or more outlandish than er, God( circular heirarchies) then that is probably a God dodge. Another instance would be suggesting the universe was simulated and then swear blind that the creator of the universe has no resemblance to God.

Interestingly Vlad also claims to have been an atheist, so he really should know better - but then his idol seems to be CS Lewis, who also claimed to be an atheist, but also stated that when he was an atheist he was 'angry at god for not existing' - that kind of comment is kind of the equivalent of you dodging ghosts you don't believe in as you walk down the road. And the kind of comment that no atheist would come out with as it makes no sense to be angry with something that doesn't exist.

I shall have to reread the context and perhaps you should read the context
However there is evidence of anger at God on this board and from Fry also.IMHO

Also Davey, Am I looking at a No true atheist scotsman fallacy here?

[Sebastian Toe]

Famous self confessed Goddodgers include Saint Augustine and John Bunyan.

Self confessed, not accusers!

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

My analogy was not about preferences for coffee so I haven't changed it.

Analogies are never about their objects – “A good man is as hard to find as a needle in a haystack” for example isn’t about needles. An analogy works by comparing an epistemically equivalent feature of different objects for the purpose of one such illuminating a characteristic of the other. This only works though when the epistemic feature is equivalent – thus for example “preferring Sunak to Truss is like preferring typhus to cholera” is fine.

An analogy necessarily fails however when the feature to be compared isn’t epistemically equivalent. That’s why your attempt at an analogy between a preference for something and its existence at all (ie, regardless of your feeling about it if it did exist) fell apart.         

Of course he believes that his conceptualisation maps accurately. A theist isn't going to believe that it doesn't. He doesn't claim it as fact though. That's your error in understanding the difference between belief and fact.

Wrong again. He thinks his explanatory narrative of having encountered a god is itself evidence for a real, non-imaginary god. I’ve asked him to confirm this for you, but as he rarely if ever answers questions you’ll just have to rely on his countless prior comments to this effect.     

No I don't need to be clear on that. It's possible that he is correct and there was something present so I can't rule it out.

Wrong again. Your poor comprehension is letting you down here – what I said was “you just need to be clear that “his experience where he felt a non-physical god was present” does not imply that there actually was something “present” other than the workings of his own imagination”. You were asked to accept that his assertion “does not imply” something, not to rule out the possibility of a "presence" being involved nonetheless.   

Yes - it's evidence in the form of testimony.

Wrong again. It’s evidence just of making the claim, not of the claim itself being true.     

It looks like it could be confirmation bias, or it could be his brain accurately interpreted an experience.

That’s a non-point: I said – “looks just like bog standard, common-or-garden confirmation bias”. The man who believes in dragons and then tells you an invisible one chased him down street could be right about that, but it still looks "just like" confirmation bias nonetheless right?
 

Not a fact - you're getting your terminology mixed up, despite me correcting you on this repeatedly. He thinks god is objectively real as a belief, not a fact.

Wrong again. He thinks not only that “god is real” is a fact for all of us, but also that his belief that he “encountered” it is evidence for that. The only one getting the terminology wrong here is you. 

Yes of course he does as do most theists - not as fact but as a belief.

Wrong again. He (not I) thinks it’s a fact no matter that we both know that his “evidence” for that claim of believing he “encountered” it isn’t evidence for that at all.

Try to understand this – it’s getting wearisome correcting you your repeated mistake about this. 

Incorrect. You can't touch consciousness and it's antonym in the dictionary is defined as:
noun: something that exists but that cannot be touched, exactly described, or given an exact value:

She has that intangible quality which you might call charisma.
intangible assets such as goodwill

adj: influencing you but not able to be seen or physically felt

used about a feeling or quality that does not exist in a physical way, or that is difficult to describe:

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

Something that is intangible is abstract or is hard to define or measure.
 incapable of being perceived by touch; impalpable

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/intangible

Wrong again. Something tangible just has to have had the property of being “experienced” (or believed to be experienced). The definition does not concern itself with whether the belief of an experience had as its object a material or a non-material claim:

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

We need tangible evidence if we're going to take legal action.

Othertangible benefits include an increase in salary and shorter working hours.”

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

Looks like I still need to keep correcting you as you're still not getting it. My analogy was mainly with abstract concepts - intangibles. As you don't know what the word "tangible" means that explains your confusion.

Wrong again. Your (false) analogy was between a statement of preferring one thing over another (with no concern at all for whether or not that thing actually exists), and a statement about whether or not something exists in the first place (with no concern at all for a preference about it if if does).

In short, your “analogy” was a category error. 

Sorry you crashed and burned so spectacularly here, but you didn’t give me much choice I’m afraid.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, you've said there is evidence for philosophical materialism.
Produce it. This attempt to shift the burden of proving your claim or saying we are surrounded by evidence doesn't wash. Produce it.

Oh no no no no no. We’ve been here before haven’t we – several times in fact. I set it all out for you, then you decide that the explanation fails because it doesn’t address your personal, straw man definition of the term “philosophical materialism”. Tell me which version you want to attempt though: if the it’s the correct one I’ll address it (again), and if it’s your straw man version and you’re only here to play pigeon chess again I’ll leave you to it.

Fair enough?   

Oh, while I know you won’t answer question why not at least answer the following one to save VG trying to bat for you and falling over in the attempt?

“By the way - you may have noticed Violent Gabriella rather gallantly but nonetheless hopelessly trying herself in knots trying to gild the lily of your reasoning. Could you perhaps put her out of her misery and confirm please that you do indeed think your "experience" was evidence of an encounter with an actual, non-imaginary god who's also therefore every bit as real for the rest of us too if only we could see it?”

Why so coy?

[ProfessorDavey]

However there is evidence of anger at God on this board and from Fry also.IMHO

I've seen no evidence at anger at god from atheists on this board - for the precise reason that it makes no sense to be angry at something that you don't think exists.

What I have seen is hypotheticals - that if god existed as described in the bible then we should be angry, that if god existed as described in the bible then we should consider that god not to be good but to be monstrous etc etc. But that is entirely different to actually being angry with god.

On Fry, well you'll need to provide a quote or link for context - but if memory serves I think Fry has also made the same hypothetical argument.