Religions have succeeded

[Outrider]

Broadly speaking declaring there are no reasons to believe there is such thing as God is wrong...

It's probably short-hand for 'I have seen no good reasons presented to accept the claim that there is one or more gods...' Not everyone speaks like they're in a formal debate at all times.

...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

I can't imagine a scenario where someone accepts the notion of 'god', but then goes around denying it.

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.

Your subjective argument from incredulity...

Another instance would be suggesting the universe was simulated and then swear blind that the creator of the universe has no resemblance to God.

That we might exist in a simulated universe in no way suggests that the 'real' universe in which the simulation is running is any more likely to have a god (not) in it.

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

I think you confuse anger at god with anger at the proponents of god and religion, anger at the implications of the arguments and accusations cast our way at times.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's probably short-hand for 'I have seen no good reasons presented to accept the claim that there is one or more gods...' Not everyone speaks like they're in a formal debate at all times.

I think the arguments of reason were ignored in the adoption of empirical evidence and scientism I think those who followed the horsemen of the non apocalypse and angry atheism not only see theism as wrong but dangerous. The upshot is an incorrect understanding of rationalism which sounds good but is effectively dismissed by empiricism, physicalism etc..

I can't imagine a scenario where someone accepts the notion of 'god', but then goes around denying it.

I can not only imagine it but knew someone who knew they believed they had encountered God, repudiated and supressed God to preserve his pride and eventually surrendered.
 

That we might exist in a simulated universe in no way suggests that the 'real' universe in which the simulation is running is any more likely to have a god (not) in it.

And this is where your repudiation of reason, philosophy and subsequent
lack of practice has let you down, for if the universe existed as a simulation the simulator is completely sovereign as far as we are concerned, it would have an intelligence and will. It wouldn't necessarily be governed by our laws of nature. These are precisely the arguments used by William Lane Craig I think it's up to people who believe that the creator of this unit  to show that God does not have the properties are divine rather than atheistic.

I think you confuse anger at god with anger at the proponents of god and religion, anger at the implications of the arguments and  accusations cast our way at times.

The implications are those that reasoned argument throw up and so the thing that must make you guys angry are mainly the possibility of Gods existence and One's possible moral position in relation to God's judgment. Those two cannot but fail to have implications for the Ego.

I'm afraid, as I told Hillside he is aware only of empirical evidence and theists are aware of God so you are defending your Commitment and faith in a natural universe and nothing greater.

In terms of morality you guys are all over the place because you have to turn subjective morality, which should in reason exclude the notion of Judgment into rational judgement and yet you have already judged against the morality of theism. Now that's a conundrum I'd like to see an adequate solution to

[ProfessorDavey]

... and theists are aware of God ...

No, theists are aware of something that they perceive as god, that they belief to be god, that they have faith is god. They cannot be sure that what they are aware of actually is god for the simple reason that they do not know that god exists (as they have no credible evidence), they merely believe that god exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No theists are aware of something that they perceive as god, that they belief to be god, that they have faith is god. They cannot be sure that what they are aware of actually is god for the simple reason that they do not know that god exists (as they have no credible evidence), they merely believe that god exists.

And philosophical empiricists only accept what they empirically detect in other words a circular argument Their faith is that they maybe reasonably be making a logical fallacy but that hopefully they are still right in there faith in empirical evidence. All the time ignoring that there is not a single bit of empirical evidence that supports their position.

[ProfessorDavey]

And philosophical empiricists only accept what they empirically detect in other words a circular argument Their faith is that they maybe reasonably be making a logical fallacy but that hopefully they are still right in there faith in empirical evidence. All the time ignoring that there is not a single bit of empirical evidence that supports their position.

So does that equate to you accepting that you do not know that god exists, but merely believe that he/she/it does?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So does that equate to you accepting that you do not know that god exists, but merely believe that he/she/it does?

So does that equate to you accepting that you do not know that god exists, but merely believe that he/she/it does?

God is as real to me as I am. I have no material evidence for that though.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think the arguments of reason were ignored in the adoption of empirical evidence…

No, they were rebutted rather than ignored. 

…and scientism…

Straw man. No-one here argues for scientism. It would save time if you stopped pretending otherwise.

I think those who followed the horsemen of the non apocalypse and angry atheism not only see theism as wrong but dangerous.

It certainly can be, yes.

The upshot is an incorrect understanding of rationalism which sounds good but is effectively dismissed by empiricism, physicalism etc..

Gibberish.

I can not only imagine it but knew someone who knew they believed they had encountered God, repudiated and supressed God to preserve his pride and eventually surrendered.

But no-one here has done any such thing, so your charge here of “goddodging” still fails. 
 

And this is where your repudiation of reason, philosophy and subsequent lack of practice has let you down,…

Why on earth do you think he’s repudiated reason etc when he does precisely the opposite of that?

…for if the universe existed as a simulation the simulator is completely sovereign as far as we are concerned, it would have an intelligence and will.

First, a multiverse doesn’t imply a simulator, and second even if it did you have no basis at all to justify the claims you just made about its supposed characteristics. 

It wouldn't necessarily be governed by our laws of nature. These are precisely the arguments used by William Lane Craig I think it's up to people who believe that the creator of this unit  to show that God does not have the properties are divine rather than atheistic.

Further gibberish. What are you trying to say here?

The implications are those that reasoned argument throw up and so the thing that must make you guys angry are mainly the possibility of Gods existence and One's possible moral position in relation to God's judgment. Those two cannot but fail to have implications for the Ego.

Alphabet soup? A bad hand as Scrabble? There seem to be some words there, but not assembled in a comprehensible form. Does this stuff even make sense to you before you eructate it here?

The only “implications” are that the reasons theists attempt to justify their beliefs and consequent actions are wrong That’s it. Nothing less, nothing more.

I'm afraid, as I told Hillside he is aware only of empirical evidence…

Yep. What other sort do you propose?

…and theists are aware of God…

Fallacy of reification. What makes you think they’re “aware of god” rather than just overreaching with an unsupportable explanatory narrative they find persuasive?

…so you are defending your Commitment and faith in a natural universe and nothing greater.

Your premise just failed, so so did that “so” (leavind aside for now the car crash of a sentiment that followed).

In terms of morality you guys are all over the place because you have to turn subjective morality…

What other sort would you propose?

…which should exclude the notion of Judgment…

Why? People are judged morally all the time with no claim to objective moral rules necessary.

…and yet you have already judged against the morality of theism.

No, people “judge” that various theistic claims of the morally good are morally bad. Just as people judge that claims of aesthetically good are aesthetically bad. So what?   

Now that's a conundrum I'd like to see an adequate solution to

There is no conundrum  - just your various straw men, incomprehensions, unsupportable assertions and no sequiturs: same ol’ same ol’.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And philosophical empiricists only accept what they empirically detect in other words a circular argument

That’s not a circular argument. “Claim X can’t be verified empirically, therefore claim X is false” (which is essentially the straw man version of philosophical empiricism you rely on) might be, but as that’s not what it actually means at all your objection fails. 

Their faith…

What “faith”?

…is that they maybe reasonably be making a logical fallacy but that hopefully they are still right in there faith in empirical evidence.

Flat wrong again. There is no logical fallacy here (which is somewhat ironic a you’re the king of the logical fallacy, but ok).

All the time ignoring that there is not a single bit of empirical evidence that supports their position.

There’s overwhelming empirical evidence to support “their position”, but none to support your straw man version of it.

So what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That’s not a circular argument. “Claim X can’t be verified empirically, therefore claim X is false” (which is essentially the straw man version of philosophical empiricism you rely on) might be, but as that’s not what it actually means at all your objection fails. 

What “faith”?

Flat wrong again. There is no logical fallacy here (which is somewhat ironic a you’re the king of the logical fallacy, but ok).

There’s overwhelming empirical evidence to support “their position”, but none to support your straw man version of it.

So what?

I'm afraid you haven't specified what philosophical materialism(cowardice) is or provided the empirical evidence it needs(failure).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, they were rebutted rather than ignored.

There is no rebuttal Hillside only if you take those which attempt to eliminate the PSR by appealing to the PSR

Straw man. No-one here argues for scientism. It would save time if you stopped pretending otherwise.

You do with all your so called rebuttals that say science might provide all the answers around the nature and existence of the universe

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm afraid you haven't specified what philosophical materialism(cowardice) is or provided the empirical evidence it needs(failure).

Yes I have, many times. As you’re the one asking questions about it again though it’s your job to tell us what you mean by it. Try to remember that on previous occasions you’ve relied on a personal, straw man version of it as a claim of absolutes (just as a pigeon pushes the chess pieces over, craps on the board and flies off to claim his “victory”) so you’ll find no appetite here for a repeat performance.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There is no rebuttal Hillside only if you take those which attempt to eliminate the PSR by appealing to the PSR

Of course there is. Actually you do the job for me in any case the moment you rely on magic to get you off the hook.
 

You do with all your so called rebuttals that say science might provide all the answers around the nature and existence of the universe

“Science might” isn’t scientism; “science will” is scientism.

Try to stop lying about this

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,



No, people “judge” that various theistic claims of the morally good are morally bad. Just as people judge that claims of aesthetically good are aesthetically bad. So what?   

Well done Hillside, the consumate turdpolish agreeing with me by repeating what I am saying while making it look as you are disagreeing with me.

People don't judge but they do ''judge'' con pal

You must really hate humanity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Of course there is. Actually you do the job for me in any case the moment you rely on magic to get you off the hook.

And you are relying on piss taking con...
People dont judge, they ''judge'' indeed.
 

“Science might” isn’t scientism; “science will” is scientism.

Try to stop lying about this

Scientism is putting science into situations and contexts where it cannot operate hence science cannot determine whether the universe is infinitely old or popped out of nothing..

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes I have, many times. As you’re the one asking questions about it again though it’s your job to tell us what you mean by it. Try to remember that on previous occasions you’ve relied on a personal, straw man version of it as a claim of absolutes (just as a pigeon pushes the chess pieces over, craps on the board and flies off to claim his “victory”) so you’ll find no appetite here for a repeat performance.   

You don't have the cojones to say what philosophical empiricism is.
Then you declare it's easy to demonstrate evidence for it and then you don't provide the evidence. Now this might make an atheist moist but it makes you look a bit iffy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well done Hillside, the consumate turdpolish agreeing with me by repeating what I am saying while making it look as you are disagreeing with me.

People don't judge but they do ''judge'' con pal

You must really hate humanity.

Your desperation is showing now. The point of course is that it’s quite possible to judge something without making claims to absolute standards.

Try to remember this (or at least try to stop lying about it). 

And you are relying on piss taking con...
People dont judge, they ''judge'' indeed.

Wrong again – see above.
 

Scientism is putting science into situations and contexts where it cannot operate hence science cannot determine whether the universe is infinitely old or popped out of nothing..

No it isn’t. Scientism is the claim that “science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.”

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#:~:text=Scientism%20is%20the%20opinion%20that,about%20the%20world%20and%20reality.)

That may indeed be true, but it’s not claim that’s verifiable so it’s not a claim that anyone here makes. It is though a straw man version of the position against you that you deploy whenever you can.
 

You don't have the cojones to say what philosophical empiricism is.

Then you declare it's easy to demonstrate evidence for it and then you don't provide the evidence. Now this might make an atheist moist but it makes you look a bit iffy.

Lying still isn’t helping you here. If you want to discuss philosophical empiricism that’s fine, but you need to explain first which version of it you want to discuss: the actual one, or your straw man version of it.

Speaking of missing cojones – what’s stopping you? 

[Sebastian Toe]

God is as real to me as I am.

If your god is not real to me , am I god-doging because of that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Your desperation is showing now. The point of course is that it’s quite possible to judge something without making claims to absolute standards.

Try to remember this (or at least try to stop lying about it). 

Wrong again – see above.
 
No it isn’t. Scientism is the claim that “science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.”

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#:~:text=Scientism%20is%20the%20opinion%20that,about%20the%20world%20and%20reality.)

That may indeed be true, but it’s not claim that’s verifiable so it’s not a claim that anyone here makes. It is though a straw man version of the position against you that you deploy whenever you can.
 
Lying still isn’t helping you here. If you want to discuss philosophical empiricism that’s fine, but you need to explain first which version of it you want to discuss: the actual one, or your straw man version of it.

Speaking of missing cojones – what’s stopping you?

No desperation Pal just a gentle reminder subjective morality should mean your opinion should never count by equating moral bad with aesthetic bad you've done your old trick of elimination. This time eliminating morality while keeping the handle an extra reason why your public moral pontification isn't reasonably valid if you follow your logic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If your god is not real to me , am I god-doging because of that?

I don't know . Are you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Your desperation is showing now. The point of course is that it’s quite possible to judge something without making claims to absolute standards.

Try to remember this (or at least try to stop lying about it). 

Wrong again – see above.
 
No it isn’t. Scientism is the claim that “science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.”

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism#:~:text=Scientism%20is%20the%20opinion%20that,about%20the%20world%20and%20reality.)

That may indeed be true, but it’s not claim that’s verifiable so it’s not a claim that anyone here makes. It is though a straw man version of the position against you that you deploy whenever you can.
 
Lying still isn’t helping you here. If you want to discuss philosophical empiricism that’s fine, but you need to explain first which version of it you want to discuss: the actual one, or your straw man version of it.

Speaking of missing cojones – what’s stopping you?

My definition is on another thread. What is stopping you from agreeing with it or rationally disputing it apart from mind gaming?

[Sebastian Toe]

I don't know . Are you?

Well, I believe that I am asking the god-doging expert on this board. If you don't know then nobody will.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

"In philosophy, empiricism is an epistemological theory that holds that knowledge or justification comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] It is one of several views within epistemology, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasizes the central role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, rather than innate ideas or traditions.[2] However, empiricists may argue that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sensory experiences"

Can you see any claims to absolutes there? I can't.

Using the definition you (finally) posted, I therefore conclude that the philosophical theory “people who jump put of windows will likely hit the deck shortly thereafter” can best be justified by jumping out of the window and examining the resulting evidence, the conclusion thereby being knowledge primarily derived from the emphasis placed on the evidence produced by the application of methodological empiricism. 

Note that none of this implies for one moment that it’s impossible for someone to jump out of the window and to find themselves floating gently to the ground instead. There are no claims of the absolute here, no matter how much your straw man version would have it otherwise.     

Mind that door doesn’t hot you on your way out…   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, I believe that I am asking the god-doging expert on this board. If you don't know then nobody will.

That's a horses laugh argument. Only you know if you are dodging God I can speculate using Vlad's laws but that's it but I will certainly let you know if I receive conviction of it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's a horses laugh argument. Only you know if you are dodging God I can speculate using Vlad's laws but that's it but I will certainly let you know if I receive conviction of it.

No it isn’t. “Ha ha ha ha ha ha ho ho ho ho ho ho he he he he he he he” is a horse’s laugh argument (Reply 1087).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

"In philosophy, empiricism is an epistemological theory that holds that knowledge or justification comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] It is one of several views within epistemology, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasizes the central role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, rather than innate ideas or traditions.[2] However, empiricists may argue that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sensory experiences"

Can you see any claims to absolutes there? I can't.

Well the first part seems quite absolute.

"In philosophy, empiricism is an epistemological theory that holds that knowledge or justification comes only

Also if primarily suggests that all knowledge comes to us first through empirical evidence then that is pretty absolute too.

Of course if Primary means mainly instead you have no objection to my belief being knowledge and your position over the last few days has been showboating and Grandstanding.

The evidence is that your position is Only rather than primary and primary rather than mainly.

So basically when you are caught red handed commiting philosophical empiricism you are saying ''Nothing to do with me Guv'nor''.

And on that bombshell I shall retire as you have given my arse a sore head.