Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: ippy on June 14, 2016, 04:42:20 PM
-
This lot's from Hansard have a read, interesting.
http://tinyurl.com/hvfxpgr
ippy
Moderator: long URL replaced.
Cheers thank you very much.
-
A very interesting passage of Hansard. What might your point be, ippy? That religion should be done away with? That the recent practice of allowing the Church of England to make its own decisions and appointments independently of Parliament should be encouraged? That the CoE's practice of partnering with those of other faiths and none should be encouraged?
I especially liked the comment from Lord Singh of Wimbledon: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for securing this important debate. As a Sikh, I see religion—I include beliefs such as humanism—as commonsense guidance on how to meet the many challenges of trying to lead a responsible and meaningful life.
Unfortunately, not everyone sees religion in that way. A year ago in a debate in this Chamber, religion was blamed as being “out of step” with society. To me, that is a bit like someone complaining that his sat-nav was not following his directions. The argument for banishing religions to the margins of society would carry some weight if secular society was seen to be leading to a fairer and more contented and peaceful society. But all the evidence is that it is not. Every day in this House, we have Oral Questions on the lines of, “What are the Government doing about this or that concern?” The general response, couched in elegant terms, is, “We are doing a lot more than the previous lot when they were in power”. This is not a criticism of government. The truth is that Governments can, at best, only put legal boundaries around unacceptable behaviour; they cannot make us better people.
I also liked the bit about ACE schools from Lord Warner: There is a network of 30 to 40 private ACE schools in the UK. The curriculum is a fundamentalist Christian one that originated in the United States. It is widely considered to be creationist, homophobic and misogynistic. The teaching materials used in these schools that were presented to us certainly supported this view. Much of the material is in a comic strip format with characters that could only be described as risible if they were not being used to brainwash and indoctrinate young minds. It was very scary that the so-called science teaching was leading to certification that was being used to progress children to further education.
I have had first hand experience of ACE - albeit nigh on 30 years ago. Back then, the description given here would not have been in any way accurate, but I still gave it a wide berth because of its major divergence from educational theory and practice that I grew up with as both a pupil and teacher.
-
The first quote in Hopes post is incorrect. The validity of a religion is based on its premise of its God, not if it is creating a fairer society etc. The sat-nav is back to front because of this.
-
I especially liked the comment from Lord Singh of Wimbledon
As a Sikh, I see religion—I include beliefs such as humanism
Why? Humanism rejects root and branch the greater part of those things that many people regard as defining religion.
as commonsense guidance on how to meet the many challenges of trying to lead a responsible and meaningful life.
Most people, an increasing number of people come to that, see nothing 'commonsense' (one of those fifth-wheel words again - it's there, but it doesn't do any useful work) about adhering to beliefs which are drastically incompatible with everything we have learnt about the universe thus far (methodology supplied on request), least of all with regard to trying to lead a responsible and meaningful life. Most people work that one out by thinking about stuff - about what's important to them, about the way they act with regard to others and how their actions impact upon other people, upon animals, on the environment and the planet as a whole. You can do that within a religious worldview, but goodness only knows why - it adds nothing.
The argument for banishing religions to the margins of society would carry some weight if secular society was seen to be leading to a fairer and more contented and peaceful society. But all the evidence is that it is not.
Sounds like cherry-picking, or a religiously-inspired case of Nelson's eye. For all the sundry and diverse problems in society which I am the first one to admit freely, it takes a deliberate and dedicated negativist not to see that society is fairer, is more contented, is more peaceful. All poverty is relative, but in this country more people live more materially comfortable lives than ever before at any point in history. We take equality very seriously indeed; minority groups who in the past were at best marginalised and at worst actively and explicitly persecuted - women; gay people; the disabled; the elderly; ethnic/religious minorities and so forth - enjoy legal equality/protection. While there's a long way to go before we get to a truly egalitarian society with equality of opportunity for all, we have laws against racism and sexism and ageism in the street and in the workplace. Gay couples can get married. In some cases the progressive measures which have been brought in to ensure equality for some minorities and personal freedom - equal marriage as already referred to; easy access to contraception; availability of abortion - have been actively opposed by many religions and only exist in spite of them and not because of them ... something that Lord Singh seems to have forgotten, given the fact that he is where he is and occupies the position that he does only because of the sort of legal and social changes that I'm referring to. He's living on its capital, and yet appears not to see it. Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.
The truth is that Governments can, at best, only put legal boundaries around unacceptable behaviour; they cannot make us better people.
Religion's record on that one being luminous, no doubt he would have us believe.
-
Why? Humanism rejects root and branch the greater part of those things that many people regard as defining religion.
Most people, an increasing number of people come to that, see nothing 'commonsense' (one of those fifth-wheel words again - it's there, but it doesn't do any useful work) about adhering to beliefs which are drastically incompatible with everything we have learnt about the universe thus far (methodology supplied on request), least of all with regard to trying to lead a responsible and meaningful life. Most people work that one out by thinking about stuff - about what's important to them, about the way they act with regard to others and how their actions impact upon other people, upon animals, on the environment and the planet as a whole. You can do that within a religious worldview, but goodness only knows why - it adds nothing. Sounds like cherry-picking, or a religiously-inspired case of Nelson's eye. For all the sundry and diverse problems in society which I am the first one to admit freely, it takes a deliberate and dedicated negativist not to see that society is fairer, is more contented, is more peaceful. All poverty is relative, but in this country more people live more materially comfortable lives than ever before at any point in history. We take equality very seriously indeed; minority groups who in the past were at best marginalised and at worst actively and explicitly persecuted - women; gay people; the disabled; the elderly; ethnic/religious minorities and so forth - enjoy legal equality/protection. While there's a long way to go before we get to a truly egalitarian society with equality of opportunity for all, we have laws against racism and sexism and ageism in the street and in the workplace. Gay couples can get married. In some cases the progressive measures which have been brought in to ensure equality for some minorities and personal freedom - equal marriage as already referred to; easy access to contraception; availability of abortion - have been actively opposed by many religions and only exist in spite of them and not because of them ... something that Lord Singh seems to have forgotten, given the fact that he is where he is and occupies the position that he does only because of the sort of legal and social changes that I'm referring to. He's living on its capital, and yet appears not to see it. Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.
Religion's record on that one being luminous, no doubt he would have us believe.
Anyone who thinks society is getting fairer is living in cloud cuckoo
land and is focussing on selected improvements.
The Secular humanist exhorts every group to reflect on what they do.........except themselves. That filling reservoir of self righteousness does not bode well.
-
Anyone who thinks society is getting fairer is living in cloud cuckoo land and is focussing on selected improvements.
And of course you're not focusing on selected deteriorations at all in any way whatever, Vlad.
The Secular humanist exhorts every group to reflect on what they do.........except themselves. That filling reservoir of self righteousness does not bode well.
The humanists that I've heard speak and whose writings I've read reflect very deeply and seriously on what they do, the principles they hold and how/why they hold them, but for the full skinny on that, find a humanist and ask them. You must still know a few.
-
And of course you're not focusing on selected deteriorations at all in any way whatever, Vlad.
The humanists that I've heard speak and whose writings I've read reflect very deeply and seriously on what they do, the principles they hold and how/why they hold them, but for the full skinny on that, find a humanist and ask them. You must still know a few.
References?: Can you cite an equivalent of the great writings of religious people about their personal journeys of self realisation and reflection. Ones which don't spend a lot of time on how oppressed they had been by God or other people?
-
References?: Can you cite an equivalent of the great writings of religious people about their personal journeys of self realisation and reflection. Ones which don't spend a lot of time on how oppressed they had been by God or other people?
Philosophers Without Gods edited by Louise Antony would be a good place to start.
-
References?: Can you cite an equivalent of the great writings of religious people about their personal journeys of self realisation and reflection. Ones which don't spend a lot of time on how oppressed they had been by God or other people?
Well for many people their journeys will include unpleasant experiences with religion so discounting that would be dishonest. But there are many, many books out there written by humanists and atheists that fit your criteria that don't make a thing of secularism, humanism or atheism. The difference with religious writing is that it immediately shuts out those who don't believe, whereas a reader who does believe is free to add God into the mix in the writings of those that don't mention a relationship to deity.
-
A very interesting passage of Hansard. What might your point be, ippy? That religion should be done away with? That the recent practice of allowing the Church of England to make its own decisions and appointments independently of Parliament should be encouraged? That the CoE's practice of partnering with those of other faiths and none should be encouraged?
I especially liked the comment from Lord Singh of Wimbledon:
I also liked the bit about ACE schools from Lord Warner: I have had first hand experience of ACE - albeit nigh on 30 years ago. Back then, the description given here would not have been in any way accurate, but I still gave it a wide berth because of its major divergence from educational theory and practice that I grew up with as both a pupil and teacher.
My point was make your own judgment without any of my input, it's an interesting debate.
ippy
-
Philosophers Without Gods edited by Louise Antony would be a good place to start.
Never heard of it....i'll put it on my ''read'' list.
-
Good.
-
Well for many people their journeys will include unpleasant experiences with religion so discounting that would be dishonest. But there are many, many books out there written by humanists and atheists that fit your criteria that don't make a thing of secularism, humanism or atheism. The difference with religious writing is that it immediately shuts out those who don't believe, whereas a reader who does believe is free to add God into the mix in the writings of those that don't mention a relationship to deity.
I'm not discounting that...and since the majority on here are antireligious we already have a diet of the unpleasantness of religion.
But then we already have a diet of the ''pleasantness'' and unself critical reasonableness of secular humanism also.
Religious writing does not shut out those who don't believe as I have experienced. That is just plain nonsense.
The only recent memoirs I've scanned of secular humanists are from Dawkins who self congratulates on what a smart little prodigy he was and a recent interview of Laurence Krauss by Jim Alkalili in which Laurence er self congratulated on what a smart little prodigy he was.
I think there are many reasons why there is no great secular humanist journey of self discovery and that is because it is getting out of oneself, ignoring oneself and depending on one's identity in a larger movement.....in other words it's a hunt for the good old permanent ecstatic state.
Also of course there is no longer a self but society or zeitgeist.......except, getting back to Krauss and Dawkins when it comes to self congratulating one's academic brilliance.
In short good self exists but bad self............'e don't.
I guess the self examination of the mid 20th century existentialists was just bad PR.
-
This lot's from Hansard have a read, interesting.
http://tinyurl.com/hvfxpgr
ippy
Moderator: long URL replaced.
Cheers thank you very much.
Not interesting just boring.... there is still 75 per cent with beliefs. So I am not sure what it is you want to say, Ippy?
-
Not interesting just boring.... there is still 75 per cent with beliefs. So I am not sure what it is you want to say, Ippy?
I'm sure I left this discussion open for anyone to have a read and make whatever they like of it?
What's the problem Sass?
You still haven't tried to supply evidence that this god of yours exists, naturally without that god proves the bible, the bible proves god nonsense.
To prove any of it, it would need you to supply verifiable evidence that this he, she or it thing you refer to as god actually does exist before anything you quote from your bible would have any authority.
You must admit Sass its so very unlikely this god figure/idea of yours does in fact exist, other than in the minds of believers, believers that are unable to substantiate any of it?
I can appreciate how difficult it must be to supply a sensible answer to my requests to you asking for some form of credible evidence that would prove your belief to be anything more than man made magical, mystical superstitious belief.
See if you can prove anything without quoting the bible Sass, tall order I know but try your best.
ippy
-
You still haven't tried to supply evidence that this god of yours exists, naturally without that god proves the bible, the bible proves god nonsense.
To prove any of it, it would need you to supply verifiable evidence that this he, she or it thing you refer to as god actually does exist before anything you quote from your bible would have any authority.
ippy, the problem is that what scientifically provable evidence there is, is generally summarily dismissed by some here; but more importantly, the benchmark for testing most of the evidence is outside of the remit of science. Quite understandably, those who believe that everything is answerable to naturalistic, scientific thinking will dismiss anything beyond that benchmark, but that doesn't mean that that benchmark is the ultimate one.
If you believe that it is, perhaps you can provide evidence to that effect.
You must admit Sass its so very unlikely this god figure/idea of yours does in fact exist, other than in the minds of believers, believers that are unable to substantiate any of it?
Actually, since my and others view of life is that a lot of it exceeds the limitations of the naturalistic scientific method, it is more unlikely that 'this god figure/idea of yours' doesn't in fact exist.
I can appreciate how difficult it must be to supply a sensible answer to my requests to you asking for some form of credible evidence that would prove your belief to be anything more than man made magical, mystical superstitious belief.
If anything, it is hard to understand how someone who has - apparently - lived as broad a life as any of the rest of us can't see that life is greater than the parameters of science.
See if you can prove anything without quoting the bible Sass, tall order I know but try your best.
ippy
Can you prove anything without quoting science, ippy? I've replied because you aren't going to get a reply from Sass for another month or so.
-
Have you got anything to offer other than a predictably feeble attempt to shift the burden of proof?
No, thought not.
-
Quite understandably, those who believe that everything is answerable to naturalistic, scientific thinking will dismiss anything beyond that benchmark, but that doesn't mean that that benchmark is the ultimate one.
Hope, it is a blatant lie to keep claiming that people here are dismissing the notion of god on the basis of requiring some "naturalistic" or "scientific" evidence (in particular, ippy's post mentioned neither).
You have been told endless times that any sound reasoning or objective methodology, that can distinguish your claims about god from just guessing, will do.
Actually, since my and others view of life is that a lot of it exceeds the limitations of the naturalistic scientific method, it is more unlikely that 'this god figure/idea of yours' doesn't in fact exist.
This is a bizarre non sequitur. How the hell do you get from life exceeding the "limitations of the naturalistic scientific method" to your god being likely?
-
Hope, it is a blatant lie to keep claiming that people here are dismissing the notion of god on the basis of requiring some "naturalistic" or "scientific" evidence (in particular, ippy's post mentioned neither).
You have been told endless times that any sound reasoning or objective methodology, that can distinguish your claims about god from just guessing, will do.
This is a bizarre non sequitur. How the hell do you get from life exceeding the "limitations of the naturalistic scientific method" to your god being likely?
I'm afraid that once out of science we are into philosophy and your complaint of a lack of sound reasoning is rendered debate able.
One of the problems with an antitheist author recommended by Shaker to me is not only does he incorrectly pitch religion against science. He pitches religion against philosophy which left ne aghast.
Can you name me something which is objectively and methodically established by philosophy alone?
-
ippy, the problem is that what scientifically provable evidence there is, is generally summarily dismissed by some here; but more importantly, the benchmark for testing most of the evidence is outside of the remit of science. Quite understandably, those who believe that everything is answerable to naturalistic, scientific thinking will dismiss anything beyond that benchmark, but that doesn't mean that that benchmark is the ultimate one.
If you believe that it is, perhaps you can provide evidence to that effect.
Actually, since my and others view of life is that a lot of it exceeds the limitations of the naturalistic scientific method, it is more unlikely that 'this god figure/idea of yours' doesn't in fact exist.
If anything, it is hard to understand how someone who has - apparently - lived as broad a life as any of the rest of us can't see that life is greater than the parameters of science.
Can you prove anything without quoting science, ippy? I've replied because you aren't going to get a reply from Sass for another month or so.
You're truly amazing Hope, is this post of yours all you can come up with? You come up with something rational I'll join you, on the other side so to speak.
Can't see there'll be any changes here anytime soon; I see your health has been an issue just lately, I wish you well and hope you have many good days to look forward to.
Kind regards, ippy
-
I'm afraid that once out of science we are into philosophy and your complaint of a lack of sound reasoning is rendered debate able.
Feel free to produce some...
I mean an actual sound argument, that can distinguish a claim for the existence of some (defined) god, from just guessing.
-
Feel free to produce some...
I mean an actual sound argument, that can distinguish a claim for the existence of some (defined) god, from just guessing.
When you answer this which I put to you earlier:
Can you name me something which is objectively and methodically established by philosophy alone?
-
Vlad,
You claimed my complaint about lack of sound reasoning was debatable. I've invited you to provide some sound reasoning in order to demonstrate your point.
Can you do that or not (as if I need to ask)?
-
Vlad,
You claimed my complaint about lack of sound reasoning was debatable. I've invited you to provide some sound reasoning in order to demonstrate your point.
Can you do that or not (as if I need to ask)?
When you answer this which I put to you earlier:
Can you name me something which is objectively and methodically established by philosophy alone?
-
You claimed my complaint about lack of sound reasoning was debatable. I've invited you to provide some sound reasoning in order to demonstrate your point.
Can you do that or not (as if I need to ask)?
When you answer this which I put to you earlier:
Can you name me something which is objectively and methodically established by philosophy alone?
I'll take that as an (entirely predicable) 'no'.
I'm not going to get drawn into some tangent about philosophy, either you can back up your claim or you can't...
-
Have you got anything to offer other than a predictably feeble attempt to shift the burden of proof?
Shifting the burden of proof? Those who make claims are those who hold that burden. ippy, and several others on both sides of the debate, have made claims of various sorts. Those on the religious side of the debate have tried to provide evidence even though it is often difficult to squash it into the limitations of naturalistic, scientific evidence. Those on your side of the debate have rarely even attempted to give any evidence.
-
Those on the religious side of the debate have tried to provide evidence even though it is often difficult to squash it into the limitations of naturalistic, scientific evidence.
In what way is it difficult when you have yet to offer any evidence at all?
Those on your side of the debate have rarely even attempted to give any evidence.
Evidence of what? Sounds like you are inviting us to commit the negative proof fallacy.
-
In what way is it difficult when you have yet to offer any evidence at all?
Evidence of what? Sounds like you are inviting us to commit the negative proof fallacy.
1) Any positively asserted position carries a burden of proof whether it is a statement of a negative or not.
2)Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Now demonstrate the implied position ''atheism equals reason''.
Also that the universe is God free.
-
1) Any positively asserted position carries a burden of proof whether it is a statement of a negative or not.
Very good, grasshopper, until we get to the 'whether' bit, which looks an attempted switcheroo of said burden in a thinly disguised invite to commit the NPF. Moreover the approach of yours falls flat on its face when someone simply notes that you aren't offering an argument at all.
2) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
A cliche of course, and absence of evidence is exactly that: no evidence, which in the context of this discussion given Hope's claims of having evidence yet to be presented.
Now demonstrate the implied position ''atheism equals reason''.
Also that the universe is God free.
No thanks, since I haven't claimed either of these I'm not obliged to defend them.
-
Those on the religious side of the debate have tried to provide evidence even though it is often difficult to squash it into the limitations of naturalistic, scientific evidence.
Nobody has asked you to squash it into anything - just to offer any hint of objective evidence or sound argument. Your continued statements about science and naturalism are dishonest in the extreme.
Those on your side of the debate have rarely even attempted to give any evidence.
Evidence of what? Unless you (or anybody else) can provide anything that can distinguish claims of a god from just guessing, then the claim that it is nothing more than a guess is fully justified by your inability to do so.
Nobody (that I'm aware of) is claiming that it is a guess that must be wrong (although some specific god claims can be ruled out by logic or evidence).
-
Now demonstrate the implied position ''atheism equals reason''.
Also that the universe is God free.
Back to depleting the world's stock of straw....
-
Shifting the burden of proof? Those who make claims are those who hold that burden. ippy, and several others on both sides of the debate, have made claims of various sorts. Those on the religious side of the debate have tried to provide evidence even though it is often difficult to squash it into the limitations of naturalistic, scientific evidence. Those on your side of the debate have rarely even attempted to give any evidence.
Hope, other than this N P F offering of yours you seem to be a reasonably rationa person, as I'm not offering any theories about anything in particularhow can I prove anything about something or anything I'm not offering and it makes me wonder why you seem to be unable to to understand this?
I don't actually believe that there is no such thing as a god of any kind, it's just I have never seen anything that is any where near credible to even suggest any such thing exists so as far as I am concerned there is no reason to even go looking for one of these fabled god things that, generally religious believing people, keep banging on about.
ippy
-
Hope, other than this N P F offering of yours you seem to be a reasonably rationa person, as I'm not offering any theories about anything in particularhow can I prove anything about something or anything I'm not offering and it makes me wonder why you seem to be unable to to understand this?
I don't actually believe that there is no such thing as a god of any kind, it's just I have never seen anything that is any where near credible to even suggest any such thing exists so as far as I am concerned there is no reason to even go looking for one of these fabled god things that, generally religious believing people, keep banging on about.
ippy
What is your definition of the word credible?
-
What is your definition of the word credible?
Why not Google it Vlad, why do you need me?
ippy
-
Why not Google it Vlad, why do you need me?
ippy
You sometimes use definitions that don't appear in dictionaries, let alone on Google, ippy. Hence VahI's request for the one you are using in this case.
-
Nobody has asked you to squash it into anything - just to offer any hint of objective evidence or sound argument.
Sorry SK, all that has been asked for is evidence that can be verified by a naturalistic, scientific method. We all know that there are aspects of life that are beyond the scientific envelope. Whether they will always be, is open to debate, but then we all have to accept that we often take things on faith, rather than on scientific and naturalistic grounds.
Your continued statements about science and naturalism are dishonest in the extreme.
They reflect what many intelligent and even scientific people argue.
Evidence of what? Unless you (or anybody else) can provide anything that can distinguish claims of a god from just guessing, then the claim that it is nothing more than a guess is fully justified by your inability to do so.
I am aware of that, but then there are plenty of things that society, or members of society takes on the grounds of faith than on fact. The current referendum campaign is a perfect example.
Nobody (that I'm aware of) is claiming that it is a guess that must be wrong (although some specific god claims can be ruled out by logic or evidence).
Yet, there are real-life issues that contradict logic and for which there is no evidence - but still exist/occur. I seem to remember that the BBC website was carrying an article a week or so back on a British cyclist (?) who confounded medical opinion as to her recovery from injury. Logic and evidence seems to have been disproven.
-
Sorry SK, all that has been asked for is evidence that can be verified by a naturalistic, scientific method.
This blatantly untrue. Myself, and several other posters, have asked you repeatedly for any objective evidence or sound argument.
Why are you lying? What do you think it will achieve?
I am aware of that, but then there are plenty of things that society, or members of society takes on the grounds of faith than on fact. The current referendum campaign is a perfect example.
The comparison is ridiculous in the extreme. The 'correct' way to vote is not a matter of objective reality. It depends on your priorities and speculation about possible consequences that cannot be accurately predicted.
You are claiming that your god is an objective truth for everybody - a matter of fact.
Yet, there are real-life issues that contradict logic and for which there is no evidence - but still exist/occur. I seem to remember that the BBC website was carrying an article a week or so back on a British cyclist (?) who confounded medical opinion as to her recovery from injury. Logic and evidence seems to have been disproven.
Another absurdity. We know that we don't understand everything about how humans can recover. An example of an unexpected recovery doesn't disprove evidence (in fact, it is evidence), let alone logic.
It is quite obvious you have no conception of what logic is, as a subject. I suggest educating yourself:-
http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/120/9-logic.htm
-
Sorry SK, all that has been asked for is evidence that can be verified by a naturalistic, scientific method.
Not true - you have frequently been asked for the methodology that supports your evidence claims: to date you have supplied neither.
We all know that there are aspects of life that are beyond the scientific envelope.
Do 'we'? Perhaps you'd care to list some of these, say 5 to start with, and we can explore them further.
Whether they will always be, is open to debate, but then we all have to accept that we often take things on faith, rather than on scientific and naturalistic grounds.
Again, do 'we'? Some examples please, as requested above.
I am aware of that, but then there are plenty of things that society, or members of society takes on the grounds of faith than on fact. The current referendum campaign is a perfect example.
It is a silly and ridiculous example since it involves a subjective assessment of the issues either presented by others or that from personal interests and concerns.
Yet, there are real-life issues that contradict logic and for which there is no evidence - but still exist/occur. I seem to remember that the BBC website was carrying an article a week or so back on a British cyclist (?) who confounded medical opinion as to her recovery from injury. Logic and evidence seems to have been disproven.
No they haven't - you are just excessively credulous.
-
This blatantly untrue. Myself, and several other posters, have asked you repeatedly for any objective evidence or sound argument.
Precisely, objective evidence that can be substantiated by the application of scientific methods. Unfortunately, there are aspects of life which - as I've said before - individuals and society take as read, but which don't have a scientific explanation.
Why are you lying? What do you think it will achieve?
I'm hoping that, by challenging the 'science has all the answers' attitude prevalent here, there will one or two who question their attitude. 'Lying' doesn't come into the equation.
The comparison is ridiculous in the extreme. The 'correct' way to vote is not a matter of objective reality. It depends on your priorities and speculation about possible consequences that cannot be accurately predicted.
Again, I couldn't agree more - but no-one suggests that a Johnson or a Farage, a Cameron or a Cox is not intelligent or sensible. If we are to decide the future of our nation on the basis of "priorities and speculation about possible consequences that cannot be accurately predicted" why shouldn't we live life according to other "priorities and speculation about possible consequences that cannot be accurately predicted"?
You are claiming that your god is an objective truth for everybody - a matter of fact.
No, I'm claiming that my God has provided a means to salvation to all humanity. It is for each individual to choose or reject that means.
Another absurdity. We know that we don't understand everything about how humans can recover. An example of an unexpected recovery doesn't disprove evidence (in fact, it is evidence), let alone logic.
Is this the reason why some scientists and medics seem concerned when their predictions and logic don't work out?
It is quite obvious you have no conception of what logic is, as a subject. I suggest educating yourself:-
http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/120/9-logic.htm
SK, I think I first met that kind of article when I was at school 45-odd years ago. The concept of logic was something that we studied alongside our 'O'- and 'A'-level subjects. The problem is that logic is too complex to be laid down in a simple formulaic way as it is in your link. It also fails to account for illogical but real events and actions that have an impact on real life.
-
Not true - you have frequently been asked for the methodology that supports your evidence claims: to date you have supplied neither.
Actually, I and others have provided such a methodology but, since folk like yourself regard anything that doesn't fit the scientific methodology that you espouse as non-method/non-evidence, of course you don't acknowledge the validity of such material.
That is largely why, in answer to bhs' "Are we done here?" thread, and many other similar threads, I have argued that we are arguing from two so distinctly different starting points that I wouldn't say that 'We're done', because I'm not sure that we've ever started. There has certainly never, in all the debates I've been involved with - both face-to-face and virtually - an argument put forward by someone arguing from your POV that has held water.
Do 'we'? Perhaps you'd care to list some of these, say 5 to start with, and we can explore them further.
OK, we take it for granted that some people will regard something as beautiful, but that others won't. I've heard several 'scientific' explanations for this, but none have been particularly convincing.
Then another is why 2 or more children brought up in the same way and in the same family rarely if ever hold exactly the same belief systems, attitudes and opinions. The nature/nurture' arguement is often rolled out in an attempt to explain this but rarely gives a satisfactory explanation - probably because the issues involved are too complex to reduce to such a process.
I have to go out for a while soon, so I'll leave it at that for now. Neither of these examples have easy answers - if they did, I think I'd have heard or seen them a long time ago. In my opinion, part of the answers come from aspects of human life that go beyond the scientific - that ask the questions about purpose and value.
-
Actually, I and others have provided such a methodology
Where?
When?
Will it be on some other online forum that for some unspecified reason you can't provide a link to?
Was it on this one, but - whoops - it got removed in a purge?
Was the cat sick on it?
What will the excuse be this time?
Neither of these examples have easy answers - if they did, I think I'd have heard or seen them a long time ago.
On past showing, unlikely.
-
Precisely, objective evidence that can be substantiated by the application of scientific methods.
You are lying again. I didn't say that, you added it. Any method that will establish that your claim that your god is real, is anything more than a guess, will do.
If we are to decide the future of our nation on the basis of "priorities and speculation about possible consequences that cannot be accurately predicted" why shouldn't we live life according to other "priorities and speculation about possible consequences that cannot be accurately predicted"?
No reason at all. However, that is not the way to approach matters of objective fact. Either your god is a reality for everyone or it is somehow in the category of "priorities and speculation about possible consequences that cannot be accurately predicted" and therefore not a reality for everybody.
Treating value judgements or uncertain predictions as matters of objective fact or vice versa, is a mistake.
No, I'm claiming that my God has provided a means to salvation to all humanity. It is for each individual to choose or reject that means.
If your god is not an objective truth for everybody and a matter of fact, then this statement makes no sense.
Is this the reason why some scientists and medics seem concerned when their predictions and logic don't work out?
Medics being surprised by a recovery has nothing whatsoever to do with logic. If they are 'concerned', then it is because they know that their knowledge is incomplete.
SK, I think I first met that kind of article when I was at school 45-odd years ago. The concept of logic was something that we studied alongside our 'O'- and 'A'-level subjects. The problem is that logic is too complex to be laid down in a simple formulaic way as it is in your link. It also fails to account for illogical but real events and actions that have an impact on real life.
Either you didn't pay any attention 45 years ago or you've since forgotten everything you learned. Logic is a subject that is useful in certain circumstances - specifically in making a valid argument based on stated premises.
It isn't supposed to cover the subjective or illogical (obviously) - but if your god falls into those categories then it isn't a real, objective entity, that is true for everybody.
-
Actually, I and others have provided such a methodology but, since folk like yourself regard anything that doesn't fit the scientific methodology that you espouse as non-method/non-evidence, of course you don't acknowledge the validity of such material.
No you haven't, so when do we actually get to see this stuff? You tell us what it isn't but not what it is.
That is largely why, in answer to bhs' "Are we done here?" thread, and many other similar threads, I have argued that we are arguing from two so distinctly different starting points that I wouldn't say that 'We're done', because I'm not sure that we've ever started.
Well you certainly haven't - you've yet to define your 'starting point'
There has certainly never, in all the debates I've been involved with - both face-to-face and virtually - an argument put forward by someone arguing from your POV that has held water.
What points of view are you referring to?
OK, we take it for granted that some people will regard something as beautiful, but that others won't. I've heard several 'scientific' explanations for this, but none have been particularly convincing.
What explanations are these and why do you find then unconvincing?
Then another is why 2 or more children brought up in the same way and in the same family rarely if ever hold exactly the same belief systems, attitudes and opinions. The nature/nurture' arguement is often rolled out in an attempt to explain this but rarely gives a satisfactory explanation - probably because the issues involved are too complex to reduce to such a process.
Again this is a highly simplistic critique, so what problems do you have with the science you have encountered to date? If the issues are 'too complex' for naturalistic investigation, which I assume is your implication here, then presumably you can set out these complexities as you see them: this is where the methodology underpinning your views will be informative.
I have to go out for a while soon, so I'll leave it at that for now. Neither of these examples have easy answers - if they did, I think I'd have heard or seen them a long time ago. In my opinion, part of the answers come from aspects of human life that go beyond the scientific - that ask the questions about purpose and value.
Then you'll need to explain on what basis you hold the opinion that these 'aspects of human life' you refer to 'go beyond the scientific' without falling head-first into multiple fallacies.
-
Why not Google it Vlad, why do you need me?
ippy
You seem to not know that credible means believe able.
-
You seem to not know that credible means believe able.
So then, for the sake of argument only, going by some of the stuff you write here on the forum I think it would be credible for me to believe that you're foul mouthed in your every day dealings with others?
ippy
-
So then, for the sake of argument only, going by some of the stuff you write here on the forum I think it would be credible for me to believe that you're foul mouthed in your every day dealings with others?
ippy
How do you mean? ''Hello Mr Postman, got any fucking letters for me''.....or more ''Oi, Twat...... get your trousers on and give me my letters''?
-
Quite ... close to your postman then, Vlad?
-
Quite ... close to your postman then, Vlad?
How can you be close to anyone who wears shorts in winter?
-
How can you be close to anyone who wears shorts in winter?
Winter is coming