Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[Gonnagle]

Doesn't help with the fact that what people believe in and call "God" is fundamentally different. It's easiest to see with the extremes but it extends to what is mainstream in many religions, denominations, cults, and sects. There aren't many people here, let alone theists, but in other online discussions the differences are very visible and stark. There are Christians who think all Muslims will go to hell, there are Jehovah's Witnesses who think you can't be a believer if you accept evolution. Hell, there's somebody on another forum who thinks he is God incarnate and that the world began with his birth and will end and start all over again when he dies. There are people who are seriously anti-trinity and somebody else who thinks Mary, 'the Holy Mother', is a part of it. I can find you people who think that actual physical objects should be worshipped as gods, I could go on, and all of this is just my own personal experience...

Dear Stranger,

Well reading your post I would ask, what is mainstream, it is certainly not mainstream that all Christian think Muslims are going to hell or vicky verky, I personally think Islam is a beautiful religion, from my reading it is based mostly on the word "Charity" in fact this is their Holy month, a time to reflect, how lucky they are and that others are not so fortunate, and if you read my favourite part of the New Testament Corinthians book 1 Chapter 13 KJV, it is the word "Charity" not love that is used.

Jehovah witnesses not mainstream, Westboro not mainstream, but then theists it is like herding cats, but with all the big religions one overarching sense, I call it God, Muslims call it Allah, Hindu's call it Brahmin, Buddhists call it Nirvana, Tao call it the way, the path.

A sense that there is more to us than just evolved monkey/ape brains, and as the theory of evolution grows I think it will prove just that.

To end, if you would like to read more, this thing I call a sense, a feeling, a gut instinct, Karen Armstrong, but it comes with a Gonnagle warning, may fry the most ardent of atheist minds.

Karen Armstrong, the author and former nun, is a renowned scholar and writer on religion, known for her works exploring the history of religions and the search for meaning in the world. She is best known for her books like "A History of God" and "Through the Narrow Gate".
Here's a more detailed look at her life and work:
Early Life and Faith:
Karen Armstrong was born in 1944 and became a nun in the Catholic Church, but later left the order and distanced herself from organized religion for a period.
Academic and Writing Career:
After leaving the convent, she pursued a career in television and writing, eventually becoming a prominent scholar and author on religious topics.
Key Works:
Through the Narrow Gate (1982): A memoir of her experiences as a nun.
A History of God (1993): A widely acclaimed book exploring the evolution of monotheistic religions.
The Case for God (2009): Argues that religion is a practical discipline that teaches us to discover new capacities of the mind and heart.
Focus on Compassion and Interfaith Dialogue:
Armstrong has become a leading voice in promoting compassion and interfaith dialogue, advocating for a world where people of different faiths can live together peacefully.
Awards and Recognition:
She was named an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in 2015.


A Case for God is brilliant.

Goodnight and may your God, no God be with you.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And BTW atheism doesn't do cults, foaming at the mouth or otherwise. Even Dawkins (why are theists so obsessed with him, I've literally never seen an atheist as convinced he's some atheist icon in the way theists seem to think he is!?) said that organising atheists is like herding cats.

I recall the Austin atheists saying that the reason the Church appeared more charitable than atheists that was because the Church had 2000 years start on them.
That cuts more than one way since it's not just the good things that appear. Expect atheist cults.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I recall the Austin atheists...

So anyway, back to your mis-statement or misrepresentation of the CR in Reply 471. What's your plan – your standard "never apologise, never explain" play book or will you surprise us all by conceding that your statement "...PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it and to say that you do is a fallacy..." isn't true at all?  

[Stranger]

Well reading your post I would ask, what is mainstream, it is certainly not mainstream that all Christian think Muslims are going to hell or vicky verky...

Maybe you're forgetting about the US, especially the evangelicals? I could't find much on hell but here's some stats on what US Christians think about who goes to heaven.


[Source]

So 50% of evangelicals and 31% of all Christians in the US think you have to believe in their version of Christianity.

...I personally think Islam is a beautiful religion, from my reading it is based mostly on the word "Charity" in fact this is their Holy month, a time to reflect, how lucky they are and that others are not so fortunate, and if you read my favourite part of the New Testament Corinthians book 1 Chapter 13 KJV, it is the word "Charity" not love that is used.

And we all know the KJV is the original. 

More seriously, you can't deny that there is the Taliban and so-called 'Islamic State' who would "accept God". Probably most Muslims don't think they're right, but they nevertheless exist.

Jehovah witnesses not mainstream....

But there's quite a lot of them and they do "accept God".

...but with all the big religions one overarching sense, I call it God, Muslims call it Allah, Hindu's call it Brahmin, Buddhists call it Nirvana, Tao call it the way, the path.

But all these different ideas contradict each other. There's no getting around that. The belief that there is only one god-thingy behind it all—that at least most people have got seriously wrong—is just another god-thingy, and one that appears to have serious communication problems.

A sense that there is more to us than just evolved monkey/ape brains, and as the theory of evolution grows I think it will prove just that.

Ah, good old blind faith.

To end, if you would like to read more, this thing I call a sense, a feeling, a gut instinct...

The thing is people have a 'gut instinct' about all sorts of superstitions, not only versions of God. Astrology, the paranormal, spirits, ghosts, aliens visiting the earth, magic, homeopathy, crystal healing, the list is endless. We're naturally superstitious. We see agency and purpose where there is none. It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view.

...Karen Armstrong, but it comes with a Gonnagle warning, may fry the most ardent of atheist minds.

Does she have any objective reason (solid objective evidence and/or sound reasoning) to take the idea of God at all seriously? If so, do share. If not, why would I care what she has to say about God or religion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So anyway, back to your mis-statement or misrepresentation of the CR in Reply 471. What's your plan – your standard "never apologise, never explain" play book or will you surprise us all by conceding that your statement "...PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it and to say that you do is a fallacy..." isn't true at all? 

No, the Courtiers reply is an ill conceived thing which has been subject to revision and reinterpretation to try to make it serviceable the story has the boy knowing nothing of what the crooked taylors are talking about and merely says what he sees, the absence of any clothes.
Given this question mark over what it is Myers is trying to say and the fact it is only an alleged fallacy I decine to correct myself. Should it even be called the Courtiers reply?
Does it actually derive from an existent fallacy and Myers stiffed himself and you by trying to be too clever with it.

Again, the boy who shoots that the King is naked has NO knowledge of what the Tailors are talking about.He doesn't need it, and that is the take away.

[Dicky Underpants]

Does she have any objective reason (solid objective evidence and/or sound reasoning) to take the idea of God at all seriously? If so, do share. If not, why would I care what she has to say about God or religion?

Karen Armstrong makes fascinating reading, I'll grant Gonners that. I've read just about everything she's written (including the TWO extremely different versions of her autobiography). I started reading her when I still had a few "theistic" leanings. However, she was unable to prevent my moving in the other direction, where I remain - an ignostic atheist.

[jeremyp]

Again, the boy who [shouts] that the King is naked has NO knowledge of what the Tailors are talking about.He doesn't need it, and that is the take away.

Likewise, the person who says there is no evidence for your god doesn't know what the theologists are talking about. He doesn't need it and that is the take away.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, the Courtiers reply is an ill conceived thing which has been subject to revision and reinterpretation to try to make it serviceable the story has the boy knowing nothing of what the crooked taylors are talking about and merely says what he sees, the absence of any clothes.

True or not (and it isn’t), you’re just evading again. Do you now understand why your statement in Reply 471 "...PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it and to say that you do is a fallacy..." wasn't true at all? 
 

Given this question mark over what it is Myers is trying to say and the fact it is only an alleged fallacy I decine to correct myself. Should it even be called the Courtiers reply?
Does it actually derive from an existent fallacy and Myers stiffed himself and you by trying to be too clever with it.

There's no “question mark”. You said: "...PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it and to say that you do is a fallacy...". This isn’t true. Why won’t you correct it therefore? 

Again, the boy who shoots that the King is naked has NO knowledge of what the Tailors are talking about.He doesn't need it, and that is the take away.

No, the “take away” is that the boy had sufficient knowledge to know that the emperor was naked without needing to know too about tailoring (note spelling) details. “Sufficient knowledge” however is not the same as no knowledge (“you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it”) that you either mis-stated or lied about in Reply 471. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Likewise, the person who says there is no evidence for your god doesn't know what the theologists are talking about. He doesn't need it and that is the take away.

Glad someone agrees with me that that is what it’s all about.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Glad someone agrees with me that that is what it’s all about.

But the boy did have sufficient knowledge rather than no knowledge as you wrongly asserted, and that's the actual "take away".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

But the boy did have sufficient knowledge rather than no knowledge as you wrongly asserted, and that's the actual "take away".

Oh, really Hillside and what was the boys sufficient knowledge?

He had evidence of the absence of clothes and evidence of nakedness. A luxury you can only dream of.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

But the boy did have sufficient knowledge rather than no knowledge as you wrongly asserted, and that's the actual "take away".

So there is your takeaway and then there's Jeremy's take away. Hmmmmmm what a decision.

[Stranger]

Oh, really Hillside and what was the boys sufficient knowledge?

He had evidence of the absence of clothes and evidence of nakedness. A luxury you can only dream of.

So there is your takeaway and then there's Jeremy's take away. Hmmmmmm what a decision.

You really do struggle with the simplest of concepts, don't you?

Seeing the emperor is naked ⟺ Seeing there is no evidence or reasoning for a God.
The courtiers going on about the tailoring ⟺ Theologians going on about the characteristics of God.

So you were wrong and both Jeremy and Blue are right.

It's not rocket surgery.   

[ProfessorDavey]

You really do struggle with the simplest of concepts, don't you?

Seeing the emperor is naked ⟺ Seeing there is no evidence or reasoning for a God.
The courtiers going on about the tailoring ⟺ Theologians going on about the characteristics of God.

So you were wrong and both Jeremy and Blue are right.

It's not rocket surgery.   

Hardly a difficult concept, but Vlad does seem to struggle, doesn't he. Although I'd actually change your comparisons a touch:

Seeing there is no evidence that the emperor is wearing clothes ⟺ Seeing there is no evidence or reasoning for a God.
The courtiers going on about the tailoring of the clothes he is wearing ⟺ Theologians going on about the characteristics of God.

[jeremyp]

Glad someone agrees with me that that is what it’s all about.

No, I'd say you've come round to agreeing with me, if indeed you haven't just written down something that you think says one thing but really says another.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh, really Hillside and what was the boys sufficient knowledge?

That the Emperor was naked, but without needing to know about tailoring styles.

He had evidence of the absence of clothes and evidence of nakedness. A luxury you can only dream of.

So, having evidence, your claim in Reply 471 that "...PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it and to say that you do is a fallacy..." is bollocks then right?

Thought so, but thanks for confirming. Now all you have to do is to correct it.

So there is your takeaway and then there's Jeremy's take away. Hmmmmmm what a decision.

The ”take away” being the opposite of your assertion in Reply 471 then. Told you so.

So about that correction that you’re about to post…?

[Gonnagle]

I'm guessing that Gonzo will see this as the rich tapestry of humanity trying to interpret something beyond them. Gonzo sees the fact that they are trying to interpret something as meaning something exists.

Dear Sane,

Got it in one ( Innn onne done in the voice of Jim Bowen ) Rich tapestry of humanity, a beautiful Tartan and the bits Stranger mention, the fray edges, cut and thrown in the bin, but I much prefer Gods divine plan, Atheism, all part of Gods Holy Divine Plan, well done lads you are all on your way to gaining those celestial wings❤️👍

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Thread,

Evidence, they all cry where's yer Evidence, they must have missed old Strangers nice wee graph, and old JP called me arrogant🙈🙉🙊 but then we are all deluded the whole World is deluded, mad I tell you, all mad, I'm a little teapot

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Evidence, they all cry where's yer Evidence, they must have missed old Strangers nice wee graph...

We want evidence of God, not evidence that lots of people believe in lots of totally different things that they call 'God'. That's one step worse than an ad populum fallacy.   

It's fascinating what posts you decide to address directly, what you avoid and how you choose to 'answer'. It looks like you have a belief that literally nothing can touch. If no contrary evidence could possibly change your mind, then your belief is irrational. Give me evidence of a God and I'll become a theist. What would change your mind?

[Gonnagle]

Karen Armstrong makes fascinating reading, I'll grant Gonners that. I've read just about everything she's written (including the TWO extremely different versions of her autobiography). I started reading her when I still had a few "theistic" leanings. However, she was unable to prevent my moving in the other direction, where I remain - an ignostic atheist.

Dear Dicky,

Well for me ( me ) that reads as a very honest post but for me it opened my eyes further to the, not humanity Sane, but the rich tapestry of Religion, her book The Great Transformation was brilliant, the beginning of our religious traditions, Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, Jeremiah, fantastic read.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

We want evidence of God, not evidence that lots of people believe in lots of totally different things that they call 'God'. That's one step worse than an ad populum fallacy.   

It's fascinating what posts you decide to address directly, what you avoid and how you choose to 'answer'. It looks like you have a belief that literally nothing can touch. If no contrary evidence could possibly change your mind, then your belief is irrational. Give me evidence of a God and I'll become a theist. What would change your mind?

Same question back at you.

[Stranger]

Same question back at you.

Try reading what I said.

[Nearly Sane]

Try reading what I said.

i did. Maybe you didn't. What would change your mind about a god existing?

[Gonnagle]

We want evidence of God, not evidence that lots of people believe in lots of totally different things that they call 'God'. That's one step worse than an ad populum fallacy.   

It's fascinating what posts you decide to address directly, what you avoid and how you choose to 'answer'. It looks like you have a belief that literally nothing can touch. If no contrary evidence could possibly change your mind, then your belief is irrational. Give me evidence of a God and I'll become a theist. What would change your mind?

Dear Stranger,

Its fascinating or I am fascinating but I thought my post addressed everyone on here, never mind, what would change my mind, good question, evidence concrete evidence of the God I believe in does not exist, and please, please be very careful, the God I believe in, not the God you think I believe in.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

Sorry, I am a Gentleman, old Sanes post first please.

Gonnagle.