Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on December 02, 2020, 07:20:27 PM
-
It's been like recieving the commandments on the mount, mount olympus and mounting the kerb all at once since Bluehillside posted several of these:
IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?
So lets get into it.
1: I have no complaint. It is what it is.
2: I confess to not knowing what it is you are after. How do you paint a masterpiece?
3: How do you investigate claims of a Non Material God?.....First of all, empirical methods cannot establish God and that is it as far as that is concerned. How do we investigate God? First of all we should know that we have to take a hokey cokey approach. When we are waxing scientific we take our whole self out but when investigating God we have to put our whole self in rather than Putting your whole self out then your whole self out again is sticking with science, I would have thought,
4:As you are always telling us about not knowing the providence of the universe and other stuff that it is noble to say ''we don't know''. what then would be your reaction then to I don't know how to answer your question vis a vis methodology.
What is the methodology for establishing any philosophy. How can you establish your presuppositional acts of cosmic Godlessness for instance. How did the universe come about? You don't know and not knowing is a noble thing according to you.
Your question is literally conflation of two points writ large, geddit?
1: Empiricism cannot investigate God 2. What can?
Augustine realised that he was actually putting his whole self out when it came to investigating God out of fear of putting his whole self in. ''Make me a christian, but not yet'' was the way he summed himself up not that he also didn't talk about his life of God Dodging.
However with you I have the sneaking suspicion of scientism.....that you really do believe that some how some strange how science will disprove God
-
Vlad,
It's been like recieving the commandments on the mount, mount olympus and mounting the kerb all at once since Bluehillside posted several of these:
IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?
So lets get into it.
1: I have no complaint. It is what it is.
2: I confess to not knowing what it is you are after. How do you paint a masterpiece?
3: How do you investigate claims of a Non Material God?.....First of all, empirical methods cannot establish God and that is it as far as that is concerned. How do we investigate God? First of all we should know that we have to take a hokey cokey approach. When we are waxing scientific we take our whole self out but when investigating God we have to put our whole self in rather than Putting your whole self out then your whole self out again is sticking with science, I would have thought,
4:As you are always telling us about not knowing the providence of the universe and other stuff that it is noble to say ''we don't know''. what then would be your reaction then to I don't know how to answer your question vis a vis methodology.
What is the methodology for establishing any philosophy. How can you establish your presuppositional acts of cosmic Godlessness for instance. How did the universe come about? You don't know and not knowing is a noble thing according to you.
Your question is literally conflation of two points writ large, geddit?
1: Empiricism cannot investigate God 2. What can?
Augustine realised that he was actually putting his whole self out when it came to investigating God out of fear of putting his whole self in. ''Make me a christian, but not yet'' was the way he summed himself up not that he also didn't talk about his life of God Dodging.
However with you I have the sneaking suspicion of scientism.....that you really do believe that some how some strange how science will disprove God
Wouldn’t it have been simpler and more honest just to have said, “actually, I can offer no method at all to investigate and verify my claim “god””?
-
Another load of go nowhere tripe Vlad.
All you need to do is supply a good enough reason, (viable evidence), for believing this invisible friend that lives in your imagination really exists.
ippy.
-
Vlad,
Wouldn’t it have been simpler and more honest just to have said, “actually, I can offer no method at all to investigate and verify my claim “god””?
No I think i'll stick to I don't know what it is you are after, thank you.
-
Vlad,
No I think i'll stick to I don't know what it is you are after, thank you.
Aw, but we both know that’s not true now don’t we. You make various claims of fact (“god” etc). Then you tell us that these claims cannot be investigated or verified with naturalistic methods and tools (though I don’t know why you think that to be the case at least when your various belief objects supposedly magicked themselves into material form to perform their various naturalistic deeds).
Then when asked what methods or tools we should use instead to investigate your claims of fact you collapse into a dog’s dinner of fallacies, evasions, misrepresentations etc so as to avoid answering a perfectly simple – and reasonable - question.
Now here’s the problem with that: not only do you have no good reason for anyone else to take your claims and assertions seriously (and certainly no more seriously than my claims about leprechauns), you also have no means to justify your opinions to yourself. I know it won’t, but that at least should trouble you. It really should.
-
It's been like recieving the commandments on the mount, mount olympus and mounting the kerb all at once since Bluehillside posted several of these:
IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?
So lets get into it.
1: I have no complaint. It is what it is.
2: I confess to not knowing what it is you are after. How do you paint a masterpiece?
3: How do you investigate claims of a Non Material God?.....First of all, empirical methods cannot establish God and that is it as far as that is concerned. How do we investigate God? First of all we should know that we have to take a hokey cokey approach. When we are waxing scientific we take our whole self out but when investigating God we have to put our whole self in rather than Putting your whole self out then your whole self out again is sticking with science, I would have thought,
4:As you are always telling us about not knowing the providence of the universe and other stuff that it is noble to say ''we don't know''. what then would be your reaction then to I don't know how to answer your question vis a vis methodology.
What is the methodology for establishing any philosophy. How can you establish your presuppositional acts of cosmic Godlessness for instance. How did the universe come about? You don't know and not knowing is a noble thing according to you.
Your question is literally conflation of two points writ large, geddit?
1: Empiricism cannot investigate God 2. What can?
I don't think it's a conflation, necessarily - not all of the respondents necessarily agree with you that empiricism cannot investigate God, for instance.
For me, if something exists then it's feasibly within the realms of scientific enquiry - maybe not current science, obviously, but the concept of examination of phenomena and extrapolation from that observation a working hypothesis of mechanisms which can then be tested. The only way something could be somehow 'beyond' science is if it were to not exhibit any observable phenomena, at which point you have to ask in what way is that different from something that doesn't exist?
Augustine realised that he was actually putting his whole self out when it came to investigating God out of fear of putting his whole self in. ''Make me a christian, but not yet'' was the way he summed himself up not that he also didn't talk about his life of God Dodging.
However with you I have the sneaking suspicion of scientism.....that you really do believe that some how some strange how science will disprove God.
Actually, it's the opposite; I don't think science can 'disprove' very much, but implicitly if God is real science should be able to prove that it is.
All of which isn't the point of the question that's being asked. If the claim made is that science isn't the system to use to investigate gods, the question is what method do we use instead; various offers of revelation, faith etc have been put forward, but they all lack the robustness of scientific enquiry, they can't be validated or relied upon.
So what's being asked for is a system of enquiry - not a mere acceptance, not 'it is what it is', these are people who won't take an extraordinary claim at face value in part because the world is full of extraordinary claims and we need a system to judge between them.
O.
-
I don't think it's a conflation, necessarily - not all of the respondents necessarily agree with you that empiricism cannot investigate God, for instance.
Then it is surely up to them to devise an empirical experiment for that purpose.
We know that understanding using the scientific method is relatively easy (is it in fact a skill?) and we know that describing what we are after with regards to non scientific method is difficult other wise Bluehillside for example would have been able to list the absolute requirements for something to be be described a method and hasn't yet and therefore without him doing that it is hard for me to respond.
For me, if something exists then it's feasibly within the realms of scientific enquiry
That is, i'm afraid a very definition of philosophical empiricism - maybe not current science,
Scientism?
Putting it in the nicest way possible this all sounds like you are saying something can only exist if there is a method, and not just any method but science. That seems to have things arse about face to me.
Actually, it's the opposite; I don't think science can 'disprove' very much, but implicitly if God is real science should be able to prove that it is.
All of which isn't the point of the question that's being asked. If the claim made is that science isn't the system to use to investigate gods, the question is what method do we use instead; various offers of revelation, faith etc have been put forward, but they all lack the robustness of scientific enquiry, they can't be validated or relied upon.
So what's being asked for is a system of enquiry - not a mere acceptance, not 'it is what it is', these are people who won't take an extraordinary claim at face value in part because the world is full of extraordinary claims and we need a system to judge between them.
O.
I believe that in my life I have had to respond to God having being overtaken in all regards by his presence( something more than just an idea...from which it is possible to be distracted from or extracate yourself from) How I respond is down to me.
Also, you are all people.....What method did you all use to fall in love?
-
It's been like recieving the commandments on the mount, mount olympus and mounting the kerb all at once since Bluehillside posted several of these:
IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?
So lets get into it.
1: I have no complaint. It is what it is.
2: I confess to not knowing what it is you are after. How do you paint a masterpiece?
3: How do you investigate claims of a Non Material God?.....First of all, empirical methods cannot establish God and that is it as far as that is concerned. How do we investigate God? First of all we should know that we have to take a hokey cokey approach. When we are waxing scientific we take our whole self out but when investigating God we have to put our whole self in rather than Putting your whole self out then your whole self out again is sticking with science, I would have thought,
4:As you are always telling us about not knowing the providence of the universe and other stuff that it is noble to say ''we don't know''. what then would be your reaction then to I don't know how to answer your question vis a vis methodology.
What is the methodology for establishing any philosophy. How can you establish your presuppositional acts of cosmic Godlessness for instance. How did the universe come about? You don't know and not knowing is a noble thing according to you.
Your question is literally conflation of two points writ large, geddit?
1: Empiricism cannot investigate God 2. What can?
Augustine realised that he was actually putting his whole self out when it came to investigating God out of fear of putting his whole self in. ''Make me a christian, but not yet'' was the way he summed himself up not that he also didn't talk about his life of God Dodging.
However with you I have the sneaking suspicion of scientism.....that you really do believe that some how some strange how science will disprove God
It's quite simple Vlad. You say "I have experienced God". We say "how can a neutral bystander verify that your experience is not your imagination (or your lie)?"
That's all there is to it once you cut away all the big words that you seem so keen on.
-
It's quite simple Vlad. You say "I have experienced God". We say "how can a neutral bystander verify that your experience is not your imagination (or your lie)?"
Yes but that just adds to mystery of how one/you? concludes/acts as if it is imagination or a lie.
-
So what's being asked for is a system of enquiry
Let's start then with something common to all of us. What is the system of enquiry for falling in love?
Isn't knowing the intellectual elements of religion where you guys bail out anyway?
e.g. Dawkins and his I have to know as much about leprachology as I do about theology.
-
Yes but that just adds to mystery of how one/you? concludes/acts as if it is imagination or a lie.
There's no mystery. You provide no evidence. Indeed you are unbelievably evasive about it, so we assume there is none and we therefore do not need to believe God exists.
-
There's no mystery. You provide no evidence. Indeed you are unbelievably evasive about it, so we assume there is none and we therefore do not need to believe God exists.
Then if this is the attitude of this so called ''neutral bystander'' then he must be a philosophical naturalist, empiricist or the like. He isn't neutral.
-
Vlad,
Then it is surely up to them to devise an empirical experiment for that purpose.
We know that understanding using the scientific method is relatively easy (is it in fact a skill?) and we know that describing what we are after with regards to non scientific method is difficult other wise Bluehillside for example would have been able to list the absolute requirements for something to be be described a method and hasn't yet and therefore without him doing that it is hard for me to respond.
Utter bollocks. I believe there to be leprechauns. I also believe them to be able to flit at will to and fro between material and non-material states. I know these things to be objectively true because that’s my “faith”. It’s therefore your job to “…list the absolute requirements for something to be be described a method…” to investigate and verify my beliefs.
Can you see a problem with that?
“God” is your claim – if you want that claim to be taken seriously, it’s therefore your job to propose a method to investigate and verify it.
I believe that in my life I have had to respond to God having being overtaken in all regards by his presence( something more than just an idea...from which it is possible to be distracted from or extracate yourself from) How I respond is down to me.
No, it precisely is “just an idea” until and unless you can finally come up with a sound reason to think it to be otherwise. So far though, all we have is your deafening silence on that (plus some crude shifting of the burden of proof).
Also, you are all people.....What method did you all use to fall in love?
And the straw man to finish. No-one argues for a “method to fall in love”. What’s actually argue for is a rational explanation for what the process of falling in love is. To a significant extent we can do that already, and where we can’t there’s no good reason to think that the various neurological processes involved will be forever beyond the scope of science for a full explanation.
Your desperation is showing here.
-
Vlad,
.
And the straw man to finish. No-one argues for a “method to fall in love”.Why not?, I'm doing it now. Are you agreeing that enquiries after method aren't always appropriate or is it that you think there is only one method in fact?What’s actually argue for is a rational explanation for what the process of falling in love is.
and how would that help us find love? To a significant extent we can do that already, and where we can’t there’s no good reason to think that the various neurological processes involved will be forever beyond the scope of science for a full explanation.
I see we don't want to find love we merely want to understand it and have a working theory of it. And we want that also concerning God. Well there is the Dicky Dawkins way of ruling out any intellectual effort right from the get go for starters......how is that going?
Regarding neuroscience though that seemed to work for Sam Harris, ''Hi I'm Sam, I'm a neuroscientist. Is this a Gun in my pocket or am I just pleased to see you? All those acolytes.
I suppose what I am saying is that intellectual interest can be the start of a road that leads to God. As a New Atheist though your are not allowed that.
-
Vlad,
Why not?, I'm doing it now. Are you agreeing that enquiries after method aren't always appropriate or is it that you think there is only one method in fact?
What are you even trying to say here? You claim as a fact something you call “god”. You think this claim should be taken more seriously than, say, my claim “leprechauns”. Fine – just tell us why then. What method of enquiry do you propose such that the epistemological value of the former can be distinguished from that of the latter?
Why is this so difficult for you even to grasp, let alone to do?
and how would that help us find love?
Love is an observable phenomenon; “god” isn’t. We don’t have to just assume that love exists to discuss how to find it; we do have to just assume that “god” exists to discuss how to find “him”.
Short answer: your analogy is a bust.
I see we don't want to find love we merely want to understand it and have a working theory of it. And we want that also concerning God. Well there is the Dicky Dawkins way of ruling out any intellectual effort right from the get go for starters......how is that going?
See above – you’re trying a false equivalence between love and “god”. That analogy is a crock. Try again.
Regarding neuroscience though that seemed to work for Sam Harris, ''Hi I'm Sam, I'm a neuroscientist. Is this a Gun in my pocket or am I just pleased to see you? All those acolytes.
I suppose what I am saying is that intellectual interest can be the start of a road that leads to God. As a New Atheist though your are not allowed that.
Then what you’re saying is more bollocks. If you think there’s such a thing as “god” then – finally – tell us why that claim should be taken more seriously than my claim “leprechauns”. Rather than keep evading, misrepresenting, trying false analogies etc, why not just say either “because….X” or, “OK, I have nothing to offer about that – it’s just assertions all the way down”?
-
Vlad,
What are you even trying to say here? You claim as a fact something you call “god”. You think this claim should be taken more seriously than, say, my claim “leprechauns”. Fine – just tell us why then. What method of enquiry do you propose such that the epistemological value of the former can be distinguished from that of the latter?
Why is this so difficult for you even to grasp, let alone to do?
Love is an observable phenomenon; “god” isn’t. We don’t have to just assume that love exists to discuss how to find it; we do have to just assume that “god” exists to discuss how to find “him”.
Short answer: your analogy is a bust.
See above – you’re trying a false equivalence between love and “god”. That analogy is a crock. Try again.
Then what you’re saying is more bollocks. If you think there’s such a thing as “god” then – finally – tell us why that claim should be taken more seriously than my claim “leprechauns”. Rather than keep evading, misrepresenting, trying false analogies etc, why not just say either “because….X” or, “OK, I have nothing to offer about that – it’s just assertions all the way down”?
Love is an observable phenomenon? Oh dear...... Hillside on the verge of making another term redundant. Do you mean sex is an observable phenomenon?, physical contact is observed?, I'm not interested in your voyeuristic ''I prefer to watch approach'' Hillsides.
Given that things which should be observable and God is busted analogy......Do you thus feel sorry for the demise of the God-Leprechaun schtick?(Time of death 18.45)
-
Vlad,
Love is an observable phenomenon? Oh dear...... Hillside on the verge of making another term redundant. Do you mean sex is an observable phenomenon?, physical contact is observed?, I'm not interested in your voyeuristic ''I prefer to watch approach'' Hillsides.
Given that things which should be observable and God is busted analogy......Do you thus feel sorry for the demise of the God-Leprechaun schtick?(Time of death 18.45)
This is your standard tactic when you run out of road – pigeon chess:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pigeon%20chess
Love, hate, grief, anger, whatever are responses to stimuli that people observably experience. To a significant extent we can understand the neurochemistry involved by using MRI scanners to map the parts of the brain that “light up”, analysing hormone samples etc. “God” on the other hand (and leprechauns too) are claims about the objective existence of things, not about our responses to them. You've made a basic category error.
Oh, and if you want to assert a god who’s material when he feels like it then he should precisely be observable when he is, and for that matter arguments for his presence in those times should be reason and logic apt too. As for his supposed non-material sojourns, still you have all your work ahead of you to propose a method to investigate that claim. Same goes for leprechauns by the way.
Epic fail Vladdo, epic fail…
-
Vlad,
This is your standard tactic when you run out of road – pigeon chess:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pigeon%20chess
Love, hate, grief, anger, whatever are responses to stimuli that people observably experience. To a significant extent we can understand the neurochemistry involved by using MRI scanners to map the parts of the brain that “light up”, analysing hormone samples etc. “God” on the other hand (and leprechauns too) are claims about the objective existence of things, not about our responses to them. You've made a basic category error.
Oh, and if you want to assert a god who’s material when he feels like it then he should precisely be observable when he is, and for that matter arguments for his presence in those times should be reason and logic apt too. As for his supposed non-material sojourns, still you have all your work ahead of you to propose a method to investigate that claim. Same goes for leprechauns by the way.
Epic fail Vladdo, epic fail… . It's
I'm sorry Hillside you've run down the curtain on your own analogy. So as you now say the observable compared with the non observable is bad analogy.
That wraps it up for the God Leprechaun analogy. Although there is suspicion that it disappeared up it's own arsehole and asphyxiated after a struggle.It certainly smells that way. If you want a list of observable features of Leprechauns Enki has produced one but we all know what they are. My condolences on your loss.
-
Vlad,
I'm sorry Hillside you've run down the curtain on your own analogy.
Using a false analogy (god/love) does not falsify a sound one (god/leprechauns).
So as you now say the observable compared with the non observable is bad analogy.
And nor does lying about what I actually say. A god that’s material some of the time and not material at other times should be observable during the former. So should leprechauns that are material some of the time and not material at other times. For this purpose, the two claims of fact are analogous.
That wraps it up for the God Leprechaun analogy.
Only if you think lying can wrap something up. When you don’t do that though, the analogy is fine – unlike the attempted god/love analogy, which collapses as soon as it’s examined for the reasons I gave you and you’ve just ignored.
Although there is suspicion that it disappeared up it's own arsehole and asphyxiated after a struggle.It certainly smells that way. If you want a list of observable features of Leprechauns Enki has produced one but we all know what they are. My condolences on your loss.
And presumably someone could provide a list of observable features of a supposed god when in material form too. So now your false analogy effort has been defenestrated and the original one remains, when are you going to get around to proposing a method to investigate your claim “god”? Or do you intend to keep running away from that question as you do all others too?
-
That wraps it up for the God Leprechaun analogy.
Since you've never shown any hint that you even understand it, it seems unlikely you'd be able to tell if it was ever wrapped up....
-
NS,
Since you've never shown any hint that you even understand it, it seems unlikely you'd be able to tell if it was ever wrapped up....
To be fair he’s never shown any understanding of (or has always been disingenuous about) what the term “analogy” means at all, so there’s precious little chance he’d have something sensible to say about its use in a particular instance.
-
Notices
It is with regret that we announce the Passing of
The God-Leprechaun Analogy (known as Dave)
The service (Humanist) will be held at The Muswell Hill
Crematorium.
No Flowers Please just Donations to
The Richard Dawkins Foundation
-
Catch that Pigeon,
Notices
It is with regret that we announce the Passing of
The God-Leprechaun Analogy (known as Dave)
The service (Humanist) will be held at The Muswell Hill
Crematorium.
No Flowers Please just Donations to
The Richard Dawkins Foundation
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess
-
Then if this is the attitude of this so called ''neutral bystander''
No, it's the attitude of somebody who doesn't believe religionists' bullshit.
then he must be a philosophical naturalist, empiricist or the like. He isn't neutral.
Whatever.
It's quite simple. I don't believe you and you have given me no reason to believe you.
-
Vlad,
This is your standard tactic when you run out of road – pigeon chess:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pigeon%20chess
Love, hate, grief, anger, whatever are responses to stimuli that people observably experience. To a significant extent we can understand the neurochemistry involved by using MRI scanners to map the parts of the brain that “light up”, analysing hormone samples etc. “God” on the other hand (and leprechauns too) are claims about the objective existence of things, not about our responses to them. You've made a basic category error.
Oh, and if you want to assert a god who’s material when he feels like it then he should precisely be observable when he is, and for that matter arguments for his presence in those times should be reason and logic apt too. As for his supposed non-material sojourns, still you have all your work ahead of you to propose a method to investigate that claim. Same goes for leprechauns by the way.
Epic fail Vladdo, epic fail…
BHS - I am not sure what you meant when you said love is an observable phenomenon or a response to stimuli as there are so many often contradictory definitions of love. Some people claim to love people they abuse or love people who abuse them so in that instance is there universally agreed criteria that can decide whether what you are observing is love or wishful thinking? Yes you can possibly observe changes in brain structure or function, hormone levels, chemistry but since people are self-reporting feelings of love how would you come up with a method of distinguishing real love from wishful thinking?
Some people will think indulgence of children is a sign of love while some psychologists see it potentially as a form of child abuse. Again, I would think in those situations love is hard to define and therefore observe. That we can observe the person who claims to feel love or observe the object of their love is not really helping us know conclusively if they are in fact feeling love or deluding themselves or mistakenly labelling their feelings and emotions as love.
Many religious people claim to feel something they have defined as spiritual interaction with a higher power or knowledge of god. There is no agreed upon definition of spiritual experiences and certainly no method to investigate whether the experience is a spiritual interaction with anything or wishful thinking. That is possibly the comparison Vlad was making between love and religious experiences where claims are made that god is unknowable. People may have changes in brain function during spiritual experiences, as do many people who meditate, but that is all anyone can observe and as people are self-reporting, no conclusions can be reached as to who or what the person mentally interacted with. https://psychcentral.com/blog/how-meditation-changes-the-brain/
If we observed your brain during your interactions with leprechauns it is possible that we would see similar brain functions to the brain of a person having a religious experience. But I have no idea if such studies have been done?
-
Hello Gabriella,
BHS - I am not sure what you meant when you said love is an observable phenomenon or a response to stimuli as there are so many often contradictory definitions of love. Some people claim to love people they abuse or love people who abuse them so in that instance is there universally agreed criteria that can decide whether what you are observing is love or wishful thinking? Yes you can possibly observe changes in brain structure or function, hormone levels, chemistry but since people are self-reporting feelings of love how would you come up with a method of distinguishing real love from wishful thinking?
Some people will think indulgence of children is a sign of love while some psychologists see it potentially as a form of child abuse. Again, I would think in those situations love is hard to define and therefore observe. That we can observe the person who claims to feel love or observe the object of their love is not really helping us know conclusively if they are in fact feeling love or deluding themselves or mistakenly labelling their feelings and emotions as love.
Many religious people claim to feel something they have defined as spiritual interaction with a higher power or knowledge of god. There is no agreed upon definition of spiritual experiences and certainly no method to investigate whether the experience is a spiritual interaction with anything or wishful thinking. That is possibly the comparison Vlad was making between love and religious experiences where claims are made that god is unknowable. People may have changes in brain function during spiritual experiences, as do many people who meditate, but that is all anyone can observe and as people are self-reporting, no conclusions can be reached as to who or what the person mentally interacted with. https://psychcentral.com/blog/how-meditation-changes-the-brain/
If we observed your brain during your interactions with leprechauns it is possible that we would see similar brain functions to the brain of a person having a religious experience. But I have no idea if such studies have been done?
I‘m afraid I don’t know what point you’re making, but in any case it’s probably something you should take up with Vlad. He’s the one who introduced it as a (albeit false) analogy for “god”. It’s an old trick – you take something that observably happens (people experience love – and hate, and grief, and anger, and….) but that’s difficult to explain fully in neurological terms, and then slip “god” in through the back door as if that was an epistemically equivalent proposition. Apart from being wrong on it own terms (it conflates and observable phenomenon with an unqualified speculation) it also produces the problem that the same switcheroo would allow in leprechauns, tap dancing moomintrolls and anything else that takes your fancy: “Love is hard to explain. So are pixies. Therefore pixies”.
As for similar brain functions whether the object that causes them is real or imagined, fairly obviously yes I’d have thought. Think of the horror film trope where lots of scary stuff has happened, then a cupboard door creaks open and the “monster” falls out only it turns out to be a mop. The comely young actress screams with just as much genuine terror before the reveal as she would have done it if had been the monster after all. In short, there’s no necessary causal path from “I’m in a relationship with god” to there actually being a god at all. That’s Vlad’s problem (one of many): all he has is a belief about that, but no means to justify it.
-
Hello Gabriella,
I‘m afraid I don’t know what point you’re making, but in any case it’s probably something you should take up with Vlad. He’s the who introduced it as a (albeit false) analogy for “god”. It’s an old trick – you take something that observably happens (people experience love – and hate, and grief, and anger, and….) but that’s difficult to explain fully in neurological terms, and then slip “god” in through the back door as if that was an epistemically equivalent proposition. Apart from being wrong on it own terms (it conflates and observable phenomenon with an unqualified speculation) it also produces the problem that the same switcheroo would allow in leprechauns, tap dancing moomintrolls and anything else that takes your fancy: “Love is hard to explain. So are pixies. Therefore pixies”.
As for similar brain functions whether the object that causes them is real or imagined, fairly obviously yes I’d have thought. Think of the horror film trope where lots of scary stuff has happened, then a cupboard door creaks open and the “monster” falls out only it turns out to be a mop. The comely young actress screams with just as much genuine terror before the reveal as she would have done it if had been the monster after all. In short, there’s no necessary causal path from “I’m in a relationship with god” to there actually being a god at all. That’s Vlad’s problem (one of many): all he has is a belief about that, but no means to justify it.
Hi BHS - yes I would agree with you that you can't go from having a feeling or belief to demonstrating to yourself or someone else that the subject of your feeling is real. Faith in gods is belief without demonstrable evidence - especially as the subject matter - the supernatural - can only be defined very loosely if naturalistic terms cannot be applied. It would be simpler if there was clear, demonstrable evidence that could not have any other explanation than god. But clearly not having that evidence isn't going to eradicate faith for many people and not having the objective evidence is actually part of the attraction - not just for gods but for many other idealistic concepts..... or even Trump conspiracy theories about rigged elections unfortunately.
If we cannot employ naturalistic methods to demonstrate concepts, descriptions of ideas such as the supernatural are expressed and defined in many different ways by different people, much like "fairness, justice, equality, power, civilised values". There is no way of demonstrating justice to someone else - you just have to hope they agree with you that they experience justice.
One particular definition of a concept is privileged for a period of time, until its privilege is overthrown by an alternative definition. People influence and define public policy and laws that affect all of us based on their particular definition of such concepts even if we don't agree with their particular definition. So given we have a place in society for such undefined concepts, gods is just another idea to add to the list, if the idea gains traction or has public support.
Whether gods can be demonstrated to exist or not - and given we lack a method to objectively prove existence for things that cannot be measured or detected using the tools of science - atheism seems a perfectly reasonable approach until you feel a personal conviction to the contrary, which may never happen. I find many personal convictions that other people hold on many different topics unfathomable.
I think atheists and theists have an increasingly easier time figuring out a way to co-exist in society today, much like the majority of theists of different persuasions or people with different political affiliations co-exist. It's only extremists that cause problems for the rest of us. The number of traditional Labour voters who voted Tory in the last election, or the number of Republican voters who voted for Biden https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/11/02/mccain-why-republican-votes-biden-column/6113484002/ even if all their other votes for the Senate and House of Representatives were for Republican candidates shows that people increasingly make pragmatic choices rather than hold blind allegiance to a single party or religious denomination. I think the less blind allegiance to a cause or idea, the better.
-
you take something that observably happens (people experience love – and hate, and grief, and anger, and….) but that’s difficult to explain fully in neurological terms, and then slip “god” in through the back door as if that was an epistemically equivalent proposition.
Actually, I think emotions like love and hate and anger are quite good analogies to God. Love and anger are very real to me but they are jut psychological and physiological responses to certain stimuli. They are contained entirely within me. There are no love particles mediated my interactions with certain other people. There's no anger field that gets distorted when I feel rage. Likewise, Vlad's experience of God is very real to him, but it is entirely contained within his own mind.
-
Gabriella,
Hi BHS - yes I would agree with you that you can't go from having a feeling or belief to demonstrating to yourself or someone else that the subject of your feeling is real. Faith in gods is belief without demonstrable evidence - especially as the subject matter - the supernatural - can only be defined very loosely if naturalistic terms cannot be applied. It would be simpler if there was clear, demonstrable evidence that could not have any other explanation than god. But clearly not having that evidence isn't going to eradicate faith for many people and not having the objective evidence is actually part of the attraction - not just for gods but for many other idealistic concepts..... or even Trump conspiracy theories about rigged elections unfortunately.
If we cannot employ naturalistic methods to demonstrate concepts, descriptions of ideas such as the supernatural are expressed and defined in many different ways by different people, much like "fairness, justice, equality, power, civilised values". There is no way of demonstrating justice to someone else - you just have to hope they agree with you that they experience justice.
One particular definition of a concept is privileged for a period of time, until its privilege is overthrown by an alternative definition. People influence and define public policy and laws that affect all of us based on their particular definition of such concepts even if we don't agree with their particular definition. So given we have a place in society for such undefined concepts, gods is just another idea to add to the list, if the idea gains traction or has public support.
Whether gods can be demonstrated to exist or not - and given we lack a method to objectively prove existence for things that cannot be measured or detected using the tools of science - atheism seems a perfectly reasonable approach until you feel a personal conviction to the contrary, which may never happen. I find many personal convictions that other people hold on many different topics unfathomable.
I think atheists and theists have an increasingly easier time figuring out a way to co-exist in society today, much like the majority of theists of different persuasions or people with different political affiliations co-exist. It's only extremists that cause problems for the rest of us. The number of traditional Labour voters who voted Tory in the last election, or the number of Republican voters who voted for Biden https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/11/02/mccain-why-republican-votes-biden-column/6113484002/ even if all their other votes for the Senate and House of Representatives were for Republican candidates shows that people increasingly make pragmatic choices rather than hold blind allegiance to a single party or religious denomination. I think the less blind allegiance to a cause or idea, the better.
I think there’s still a basic point of difference here: we can “employ naturalistic methods to demonstrate concepts” such a justice, or for that matter morality in general. That’s not to say that there’ are objective rights and wrongs about the conclusions of these things, but the concepts themselves at least are coherently explicable. By contrast though, what would “supernatural” mean even conceptually (apart from “other than natural”)? It seems to me to be so unmoored from anything coherent as to be just white noise. This is the a priori issue for atheism – you can’t actually get past igtheism (“I have no idea what you mean by “god”, and nor have you”). As a practical matter we talk about theism/atheism as if the coherent meanings issue had been resolved, but it actually hasn’t.
Short version: a “god” about which nothing meaningful can be said is indistinguishable from no god at all.
-
Hi Jeremy,
Actually, I think emotions like love and hate and anger are quite good analogies to God. Love and anger are very real to me but they are jut psychological and physiological responses to certain stimuli. They are contained entirely within me. There are no love particles mediated my interactions with certain other people. There's no anger field that gets distorted when I feel rage. Likewise, Vlad's experience of God is very real to him, but it is entirely contained within his own mind.
Not sure I agree – there’s a category difference between our feelings or responses (love, hate etc) to something, and the “something” itself we’re having these feelings about (whether that something is real or not).
Either way though, so far as I can tell Vlad isn’t attempting an equivalence between his internal emotional responses like love and hate and “god”. Rather he thinks “god” (but only the god he happens to be most proximate to) is an “out there”, objective fact of the existence of something, not just a feeling or response to it. That he thinks he has a “relationship” with it is a second order issue.
Moreover the cheat he’s trying (“love is hard to explain, so is god – therefore god”) doesn’t even get its trousers off as an argument.
-
Gabriella,
I think there’s still a basic point of difference here: we can “employ naturalistic methods to demonstrate concepts” such a justice, or for that matter morality in general. That’s not to say that there’ are objective rights and wrongs about the conclusions of these things, but the concepts themselves at least are coherently explicable. By contrast though, what would “supernatural” mean even conceptually (apart from “other than natural”)? It seems to me to be so unmoored from anything coherent as to be just white noise. This is the a priori issue for atheism – you can’t actually get past igtheism (“I have no idea what you mean by “god”, and nor have you”). As a practical matter we talk about theism/atheism as if the coherent meanings issue had been resolved, but it actually hasn’t.
Short version: a “god” about which nothing meaningful can be said is indistinguishable from no god at all.
BHS
You will have to give me an example of demonstrating justice. For example, a recent case of a 7 year old girl who had her throat slit in the park by a lady suffering from a psychotic episode because she was refusing to take her oral meds, was deemed to not have been preventable. It was considered justice that such patients could not be compelled against their will to receive injected meds from medical staff even though the risk of non-compliance with oral meds was highlighted to the medical staff by the lady's relatives and the lady had displayed worryingly aggressive tendencies during psychotic episodes. Similarly not indefinitely locking up people engaged in supporting terrorist propaganda and activities, who are indoctrinated into a belief that terrorism is justified, is currently considered justice even though the police say they do not have the resources to monitor all these people and prevent a terrorist act. Justice keeps changing over time depending on political will and circumstances.
In each of these cases I am not sure how you would employ naturalistic methods to demonstrate the concept of justice or a coherent explanation of the concept. It seems to be a series of feelings, and the outcome is based on which of those competing feelings gains primacy.
In terms of gods and white noise. Supernatural is just one aspect of a god and yes it means not natural. The rest of the descriptive words used to explain the concept is words like "eternal" ie no beginning, no end, and "Creator" ie where there was nothing naturalistic something naturalistic appeared, "unique" ie there aren't lots of them or anything comparable in the natural world etc etc. In Islam for example the concept has 99 attributes or names that are impossible to demonstrate eg. merciful, just, beneficent, the greatest, the pure etc etc. In other religions the concept is similarly fleshed out. These words clearly mean something to the people who use them.
-
Hi Jeremy,
Not sure I agree – there’s a category difference between our feelings or responses (love, hate etc) to something, and the “something” itself we’re having these feelings about (whether that something is real or not).
Either way though, so far as I can tell Vlad isn’t attempting an equivalence between his internal emotional responses like love and hate and “god”. Rather he thinks “god” (but only the god he happens to be most proximate to) is an “out there”, objective fact of the existence of something, not just a feeling or response to it. That he thinks he has a “relationship” with it is a second order issue.
Moreover the cheat he’s trying (“love is hard to explain, so is god – therefore god”) doesn’t even get its trousers off as an argument.
Yes I would agree that not being able to explain love is not an argument for the existence of gods.
-
Yes I would agree that not being able to explain love is not an argument for the existence of gods.
I never said it did.
What I want from Hillside as you do is to show us the method for finding love love as you have asked him to show you the method of finding Justice.
Of course that would just be icing on the cake of Hillside debunking his own God. Leprechaun analogy.
-
Of course that would just be icing on the cake of Hillside debunking his own God. Leprechaun analogy.
Trumpeting an imaginary victory really does make you look rather dimwitted. If you had any grasp of the analogy, perhaps you wouldn't be so keen on embarrassing yourself like this...
-
Trumpeting an imaginary victory really does make you look rather dimwitted. If you had any grasp of the analogy, perhaps you wouldn't be so keen on embarrassing yourself like this...
I grieve for your loss. Denial is part of the process.
-
I grieve for your loss. Denial is part of the process.
I tried... ::)
-
I never said it did.
What I want from Hillside as you do is to show us the method for finding love love as you have asked him to show you the method of finding Justice.
Of course that would just be icing on the cake of Hillside debunking his own God. Leprechaun analogy.
I actually don't see a problem with the God Leprechaun analogy if both ideas claim to be undetectable or examinable by science and rely on faith or belief. How is an a-Leprechaunist or atheist supposed to know that either Leprechauns or gods exist? Anymore than I know if Jesus the god exists or you know if Allah the god exists. You can't demonstrate Jesus's godly existence to me any more than I can demonstrate Allah's godly existence to you.
-
I actually don't see a problem with the God Leprechaun analogy if both ideas claim to be undetectable or examinable by science and rely on faith or belief. How is an a-Leprechaunist or atheist supposed to know that either Leprechauns or gods exist? Anymore than I know if Jesus the god exists or you know if Allah the god exists. You can't demonstrate Jesus's godly existence to me any more than I can demonstrate Allah's godly existence to you.
They don't since the leprechaun is an extremely smalll irishman, who wears green clothes , smokes a pipe, they congregate near pots of Gold at the end of rainbows. I have put the properties which are material and therefore are detectable or examinable by science.
This is probably why you can be an a-leprechaunist and a theist although I would never say because you cannot detect God by science that means he definitely does exist. As you know belief cannot effectively be based on that.
-
They don't since the leprechaun is an extremely smalll irishman, who wears green clothes , smokes a pipe, they congregate near pots of Gold at the end of rainbows. I have put the properties which are material and therefore are detectable or examinable by science.
Whoosh!
-
They don't since the leprechaun is an extremely smalll irishman, who wears green clothes , smokes a pipe, they congregate near pots of Gold at the end of rainbows. I have put the properties which are material and therefore are detectable or examinable by science.
This is probably why you can be an a-leprechaunist and a theist although I would never say because you cannot detect God by science that means he definitely does exist. As you know belief cannot effectively be based on that.
If BHS is referring to spiritual or supernatural entities then presumably leprechauns are not really material - I thought that was the point of the analogy? Someone can claim they saw/ conversed/ interacted with a leprechaun but are unable to provide any evidence of its existence.
And if a pot of gold mysteriously appeared, the gold may be material but there is no way of demonstrating that the source of the gold was a leprechaun, God or there was some naturalistic explanation. In the absence of evidence some people may believe that it was a leprechaun, others that it was God, but it would not be surprising if other people do not find either a convincing proposition due to lack of evidence.
-
Morning Gabriella,
You will have to give me an example of demonstrating justice. For example, a recent case of a 7 year old girl who had her throat slit in the park by a lady suffering from a psychotic episode because she was refusing to take her oral meds, was deemed to not have been preventable. It was considered justice that such patients could not be compelled against their will to receive injected meds from medical staff even though the risk of non-compliance with oral meds was highlighted to the medical staff by the lady's relatives and the lady had displayed worryingly aggressive tendencies during psychotic episodes. Similarly not indefinitely locking up people engaged in supporting terrorist propaganda and activities, who are indoctrinated into a belief that terrorism is justified, is currently considered justice even though the police say they do not have the resources to monitor all these people and prevent a terrorist act. Justice keeps changing over time depending on political will and circumstances.
In each of these cases I am not sure how you would employ naturalistic methods to demonstrate the concept of justice or a coherent explanation of the concept. It seems to be a series of feelings, and the outcome is based on which of those competing feelings gains primacy.
You’re asking me to defend pretty much the antithesis of what I said. What I said was that, conceptually, the term “justice” is coherent. I also said though that that’s not to say that its specific outcomes can be said objectively to be just or not just as if there were universal laws about such things. The same is true of morality generally, of aesthetics, of any other human-made or derived judgements. It is in other words a workable concept. Now compare that with “god(s)” – what would that term even mean any sort of coherent sense, especially when theists place these gods outside of the material (whatever that would mean too)?
In terms of gods and white noise. Supernatural is just one aspect of a god and yes it means not natural. The rest of the descriptive words used to explain the concept is words like "eternal" ie no beginning, no end, and "Creator" ie where there was nothing naturalistic something naturalistic appeared, "unique" ie there aren't lots of them or anything comparable in the natural world etc etc. In Islam for example the concept has 99 attributes or names that are impossible to demonstrate eg. merciful, just, beneficent, the greatest, the pure etc etc. In other religions the concept is similarly fleshed out. These words clearly mean something to the people who use them.
Yes, but attaching labels like “eternal” to white noise doesn’t make it less white noise. It’s like saying uh77hj90u0[9uj00- is eternal, a creator etc. It doesn’t change the initial incoherence problem.
-
Hi Gabriella,
If BHS is referring to spiritual or supernatural entities then presumably leprechauns are not really material - I thought that was the point of the analogy? Someone can claim they saw/ conversed/ interacted with a leprechaun but are unable to provide any evidence of its existence.
And if a pot of gold mysteriously appeared, the gold may be material but there is no way of demonstrating that the source of the gold was a leprechaun, God or there was some naturalistic explanation. In the absence of evidence some people may believe that it was a leprechaun, others that it was God, but it would not be surprising if other people do not find either a convincing proposition due to lack of evidence.
Pretty much. Actually leprechauns are both material and non-material, able to flit at will between the two states. I know this to be true because that’s my “faith”. When in material form they do indeed wear green etc, just as when in material form (over 60 times if scripture is to be believed) Vlad’s god has various identifiable physical characteristics too – as a burning bush, as an angel etc. Thus the two claims are analogous.
Vlad knows this because it’s been explained to him many times, but for his own purposes he misrepresents the claim “leprechauns” so as to try to put clear water between it and his claim “god”. That’s all he has though – dishonesty.
-
Vlad,
They don't since the leprechaun is an extremely smalll irishman, who wears green clothes , smokes a pipe, they congregate near pots of Gold at the end of rainbows. I have put the properties which are material and therefore are detectable or examinable by science.
When in material form your god was a burning bush, a pillar of light, a whisper, an angel etc. "I have put the properties which are material and therefore are detectable or examinable by science."
This is probably why you can be an a-leprechaunist and a theist although I would never say because you cannot detect God by science that means he definitely does exist.
Nor does anyone else.
As you know belief cannot effectively be based on that.
But it should be based on something that's coherent to justify it don’t you think? You know, the part you always fail to provide.
-
Morning Gabriella,
You’re asking me to defend pretty much the antithesis of what I said. What I said was that, conceptually, the term “justice” is coherent. I also said though that that’s not to say that its specific outcomes can be said objectively to be just or not just as if there were universal laws about such things. The same is true of morality generally, of aesthetics, of any other human-made or derived judgements. It is in other words a workable concept. Now compare that with “god(s)” – what would that term even mean any sort of coherent sense, especially when theists place these gods outside of the material (whatever that would mean too)?
Yes, but attaching labels like “eternal” to white noise doesn’t make it less white noise. It’s like saying uh77hj90u0[9uj00- is eternal, a creator etc. It doesn’t change the initial incoherence problem.
Hi BHS - we seem to be focusing on different terms. I would agree that God could just as easily be called uh77hj90u0[9uj00 or a leprechaun as it's the description of the concept that matters to people - if a leprechaun is described with the attributes of gods such as not bound by natural laws, eternal, creator etc, then I am happy to interchange god for leprechaun or uh77hj90u0[9uj00.
The word "justice" needs other words to try to explain it such as "fair" and "reasonable" to describe it. No one can actually demonstrate what "fair" or "reasonable" means. They are ideas that mean different things to different people and there is no evidence that could be tested using the natural laws of science to demonstrate that something is objectively just or fair or reasonable though we might be able to detect specific electrical activity in the brain as we think about the words - I think we both agree on that point? If the concept of justice as something fair and reasonable has coherence than I would argue that the descriptions for god have coherence.
For example, Allah is the Arabic word for god whereby it has no masculine or feminine gender or plural and cannot be converted to masculine or feminine by adding a suffix. Arab Christians use the term Allah as well as Muslims. If similar attributes for Allah could be said of the concept "leprechaun" or " uh77hj90u0[9uj00" the terms could be interchangeable. I have heard a few Muslims making this point that if Brahma or Shiva or Jesus encompassed the same attributes as Allah - then what's in a name and they would say they accept Brahma is interchangeable with Allah.
Some people will say the consequences of a terrorist attack make it just to lock people up indefinitely based on their beliefs. Other people will say the occasional terrorist attack is the price we have to pay for a just society where people cannot be locked up indefinitely for what they might do in the future. The person could go through a de-radicalisation programme to counter his beliefs that violence against civilians can be justified, but there is no guarantee that he will take on the values promoted by the programme, and he could tell you what you wanted to hear when assessed, but still subscribe to terrorist beliefs or those beliefs could resurface later. So not seeing the problem with comparing the coherence of the word "just" to the word "supernatural".
-
Hi Gabriella,
Hi BHS - we seem to be focusing on different terms. I would agree that God could just as easily be called uh77hj90u0[9uj00 or a leprechaun as it's the description of the concept that matters to people - if a leprechaun is described with the attributes of gods such as not bound by natural laws, eternal, creator etc, then I am happy to interchange god for leprechaun or uh77hj90u0[9uj00.
The word "justice" needs other words to try to explain it such as "fair" and "reasonable" to describe it. No one can actually demonstrate what "fair" or "reasonable" means. They are ideas that mean different things to different people and there is no evidence that could be tested using the natural laws of science to demonstrate that something is objectively just or fair or reasonable though we might be able to detect specific electrical activity in the brain as we think about the words - I think we both agree on that point? If the concept of justice as something fair and reasonable has coherence than I would argue that the descriptions for god have coherence.
For example, Allah is the Arabic word for god whereby it has no masculine or feminine gender or plural and cannot be converted to masculine or feminine by adding a suffix. Arab Christians use the term Allah as well as Muslims. If similar attributes for Allah could be said of the concept "leprechaun" or " uh77hj90u0[9uj00" the terms could be interchangeable. I have heard a few Muslims making this point that if Brahma or Shiva or Jesus encompassed the same attributes as Allah - then what's in a name and they would say they accept Brahma is interchangeable with Allah.
Some people will say the consequences of a terrorist attack make it just to lock people up indefinitely based on their beliefs. Other people will say the occasional terrorist attack is the price we have to pay for a just society where people cannot be locked up indefinitely for what they might do in the future. The person could go through a de-radicalisation programme to counter his beliefs that violence against civilians can be justified, but there is no guarantee that he will take on the values promoted by the programme, and he could tell you what you wanted to hear when assessed, but still subscribe to terrorist beliefs or those beliefs could resurface later. So not seeing the problem with comparing the coherence of the word "just" to the word "supernatural".
I think you’re trying a false analogy here. “Justice” conceptually at least is coherent – you might for example describe it as something like, “the process by which individuals or societies attempt to reach conclusions and to obtain practical measures that satisfy various principles or fairness and equality” or some such. Fine – that’s a useful and workable definition. What those conclusions and measures ought to be is another matter, but the concept itself is a comprehensible and cogent one.
Now consider the term “god” – it’s white noise, a blank canvas. You can populate it with any meanings and characteristics you like – after all, they’re all faith claims so any one claim is epistemically equivalent to any other. One man’s vengeful god is another man’s merciful god; one man’s prayer-answering interventionist god is another man’s arms’ folded indifferent god etc. That’s the problem – a god about whom anything can be said as a faith claim is also a god about whom nothing can be said as a fact, even conceptually.
-
Hi Gabriella,
I think you’re trying a false analogy here. “Justice” conceptually at least is coherent – you might for example describe it as something like, “the process by which individuals or societies attempt to reach conclusions and to obtain practical measures that satisfy various principles or fairness and equality” or some such. Fine – that’s a useful and workable definition. What those conclusions and measures ought to be is another matter, but the concept itself is a comprehensible and cogent one.
Now consider the term “god” – it’s white noise, a blank canvas. You can populate it with any meanings and characteristics you like – after all, they’re all faith claims so any one claim is epistemically equivalent to any other. One man’s vengeful god is another man’s merciful god; one man’s prayer-answering interventionist god is another man’s arms’ folded indifferent god etc. That’s the problem – a god about whom anything can be said as a faith claim is also a god about whom nothing can be said as a fact, even conceptually.
It's only white noise and a blank canvas if you can't get past not having to know about theology as prescribed by Dawkins and Myers in moment of loss of intellectual rigour. It does get worse I'm afraid since this approach is indistinguishable from Goddodging.
-
Vlad,
It's only white noise and a blank canvas if you can't get past not having to know about theology as prescribed by Dakins and Myers in moment of loss of intellectual rigour. It does get worse I'm afraid since this approach is indistinguishable from Goddodging.
Its theologies (plural), of which there are as many as you can shake a stick at. That’s the problem – and whenever I’ve asked you how someone should distinguish your theological beliefs from any other person’s different theological beliefs you’ve always run away remember?
-
Vlad,
Its theologies (plural), of which there are as many as you can shake a stick at. That’s the problem – and whenever I’ve asked you how someone should distinguish your theological beliefs from any other person’s different theological beliefs you’ve always run away remember?
Theism divides into monism and dualism. The other way of dividing theology is into
Monotheism or various pantheons. It seems that theism has fewer general categories than you can shake your.......not so much a stick......more of a Twig, at.
-
Hi Gabriella,
I think you’re trying a false analogy here. “Justice” conceptually at least is coherent – you might for example describe it as something like, “the process by which individuals or societies attempt to reach conclusions and to obtain practical measures that satisfy various principles or fairness and equality” or some such. Fine – that’s a useful and workable definition. What those conclusions and measures ought to be is another matter, but the concept itself is a comprehensible and cogent one.
Now consider the term “god” – it’s white noise, a blank canvas. You can populate it with any meanings and characteristics you like – after all, they’re all faith claims so any one claim is epistemically equivalent to any other. One man’s vengeful god is another man’s merciful god; one man’s prayer-answering interventionist god is another man’s arms’ folded indifferent god etc. That’s the problem – a god about whom anything can be said as a faith claim is also a god about whom nothing can be said as a fact, even conceptually.
BHS - I agree and disagree. Where I agree is in the claim that god "exists" if that term can only be used for things science can detect or explain then that word should not be used to describe supernatural gods. Another word should be used.
Where I disagree is I think the only words used in your definition of justice that add to the coherence of that word are "fairness" and "equality" but then those terms need to have coherence. Is "fairness" some form of punishment and deterrence or is "fairness" the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few so lock people up to protect the many, or is fairness that depriving someone of their liberty is so extreme that you can only do it once they have done something extreme rather than simply because you think there is a risk of them committing mass murder but you don't have the resources to monitor them 24/7 to prevent mass murder? Fairness and equality are ideas - and if there are no agreed upon definitions of what is fair, would you say these ideas could be verified by the laws of physics, chemistry, biology or maths?
Similarly, you could populate "god" how you want because "god" is not coherent until people can explain what they mean by the term and then you can examine the ideas that describe their god. I think most people agree that the god they believe in is supernatural ie not part of the natural world whereby it would be bound by natural laws. But yes, you are right, after the supernatural part, the descriptions could diverge and a god that punishes could be seen as just by some people and seen as vengeful by others.
-
Vlad,
Theism divides into monism and dualism. The other way of dividing theology is into
Monotheism or various pantheons. It seems that theism has fewer general categories than you can shake your.......not so much a stick......more of a Twig, at.
Oh dear. Try here to get you started on the labyrinthine taxonomy of Christian denominations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination#:~:text=Christianity%20can%20be%20taxonomically%20divided,widely%20diverging%20beliefs%20and%20practices.
“A Christian denomination is a distinct religious body within Christianity that comprises all church congregations of the same kind, identifiable by traits such as a name, peculiar history, organization, leadership, theological doctrine, worship style and sometimes a founder. It is a secular and neutral term, generally used to denote any established Christian church.”
So here we have multiple “theological doctrines”, and that’s just within Christianity. Now add all the other religious faiths there are (and, presumably, have been). What deep knowledge of any of their countless theologies do you think would enable you to conclude that any one of them is more likely to be correct than any other?
That’s the car crash reasoning you keep trying: theologies just document their various faith claims, but tell you nothing about why they’re (supposedly) true – let alone any more true than the competing theologies. That’s also why you keep going wrong with the Courtier’s Reply.
Oh, and speaking of car crashes have I missed your withdrawal of your repeated fuck up re the leprechauns/god analogy?
-
Vlad,
Oh dear. Try here to get you started on the labyrinthine taxonomy of Christian denominations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination#:~:text=Christianity%20can%20be%20taxonomically%20divided,widely%20diverging%20beliefs%20and%20practices.
“A Christian denomination is a distinct religious body within Christianity that comprises all church congregations of the same kind, identifiable by traits such as a name, peculiar history, organization, leadership, theological doctrine, worship style and sometimes a founder. It is a secular and neutral term, generally used to denote any established Christian church.”
So here we have multiple “theological doctrines”, and that’s just within Christianity. Now add all the other religious faiths there are (and, presumably, have been). What deep knowledge of any of their countless theologies do you think would enable you to conclude that any one of them is more likely to be correct than any other?
That’s the car crash reasoning you keep trying: theologies just document their various faith claims, but tell you nothing about why they’re (supposedly) true – let alone any more true than the competing theologies. That’s also why you keep going wrong with the Courtier’s Reply.
Oh, and speaking of car crashes have I missed your withdrawal of your repeated fuck up re the leprechauns/god analogy?
In terms of the God Leprechaun analogy, Hillside the pastoral advise is not, I repeat not, to get involved in necromancy or trying to raise the dead.
I fail to see why yet again you have failed to include philosophical empiricism, philosophical philosophical physicalism, naturalism, Cosmic godlessness has and scientism as faith claims.
Theology is the discussion of what God is like based on his circumstances and ours. I believe that is what we are doing on this board.
-
In terms of the God Leprechaun analogy, Hillside the pastoral advise is not, I repeat not, to get involved in necromancy or trying to raise the dead.
I fail to see why yet again you have failed to include philosophical empiricism, philosophical philosophical physicalism, naturalism, Cosmic godlessness has and scientism as faith claims.
You're so out of your depth here, it's comical. Yet again, for the hard-of-thinking: nobody is proposing any of these philosophical -isms you're so obsessed with, and you still don't understand the leprechaun analogy...
-
Vlad,
In terms of the God Leprechaun analogy, Hillside the pastoral advise is not, I repeat not, to get involved in necromancy or trying to raise the dead.
So was that a “yes I have withdrawn my fuck up about this” or not?
I fail to see why yet again you have failed to include philosophical empiricism, philosophical philosophical physicalism, naturalism, Cosmic godlessness has and scientism as faith claims.
Why do you fail to see it, what with it having been explained to you so clearly and so often?
Yet again: some of these positions are not absolutist so don’t require faith; and no-one here argues for the ones that are absolutist and so would require faith if they did.
Just write it down so you can look it up the next time you forget it (or want to lie about it) again.
Theology is the discussion of what God is like based on his circumstances and ours. I believe that is what we are doing on this board.
“His circumstances” is overreaching – you’d have to establish a “Him” before you could get to “His” supposed characteristics, and in any case you’ve just avoided the actual point that no amount of studying theological faith claims (any faith claims from any theology) tells you anything at all about whether they’re also true.
Oh, and in that case leprechaunology is the discussion of “what leprechauns are like based on their circumstances and ours too". So?
-
Vlad,
So was that a “yes I have withdrawn my fuck up about this” or not?
Why do you fail to see it, what with it having been explained to you so clearly and so often?
Yet again: some of these positions are not absolutist so don’t require faith; and no-one here argues for the ones that are absolutist and so would require faith if they did.
Just write it down so you can look it up the next time you forget it (or want to lie about it) again.
“His circumstances” is overreaching – you’d have to establish a “Him” before you could get to “His” supposed characteristics, and in any case you’ve just avoided the actual point that no amount of studying theological faith claims (any faith claims from any theology) tells you anything at all about whether they’re also true.
Oh, and in that case leprechaunology is the discussion of “what leprechauns are like based on their circumstances and ours” too. So?
I have nothing to withdraw. It was your analogy and your own debunking of it. You see Hillside it was no good me trying to persuade you. You had to come to the realisation yourself.
It's always been a crock. ..OTHERS WERE JUST TOO POLITE TO BREAK IT TO YOU.
-
I think what happens on these boards is that those of us who want to, discuss the attributes of gods and discuss the ideas that different forms of theism are based on. We also discuss the impact and influence of different beliefs on culture, even if we hold the view that until they can be detected/ measured we have not established that gods exist independently of our thoughts and only have a faith conviction that there is a supernatural creator entity (or different versions of one depending on who you talk to).
Some people's input into these discussions are that at some point in the future science may come up with a way to detect/ measure gods - a bit like the Spectre Detector in Ghostbusters - but until gods become detectable they are irrelevant. And even if gods became detectable that would not induce respect or worship based on the attributes theists have put forward on these boards.
And some people think it so unlikely that science will do this, that they believe gods do not exist.
-
Vlad,
I have nothing to withdraw.
Yes you have.
It was your analogy and your own debunking of it.
Your lying about it is not my debunking of it.
You see Hillside it was no good me trying to persuade you.
You can't persuade someone by lying about what they've said.
You had to come to the realisation yourself.
It's your job to come to the "realisation", not mine. Your first step is to stop lying about what the analogy actually entails.
It's always been a crock.
No it hasn't.
..OTHERS WERE JUST TOO POLITE TO BREAK IT TO YOU.
No, "others" were sufficiently more intelligent or more honest than you to have identified your mistake/lies.
Why do you just lie about everything? What do you get from it?
-
Vlad,
So was that a “yes I have withdrawn my fuck up about this” or not?
Why do you fail to see it, what with it having been explained to you so clearly and so often?
Yet again: some of these positions are not absolutist so don’t require faith; and no-one here argues for the ones that are absolutist and so would require faith if they did.
They are absolutist. Whether anyone has 100 per cent faith in them might be in question but such a statement as you are making here could refer to religious faith.
Certainly a lot of people are committed to act as if there is no god although how they pull that stunt from a God is just white noise stance I know not. How acting like God doesn't exist explains your behaviour here.
-
Bring out your dead( analogies)
Bring out your dead( analogies)
-
Bring out your dead( analogies)
Bring out your dead( analogies)
Beats me why you are so determined to make such a fool of yourself. You've never shown the first hint of any understanding of the analogy, so you wouldn't have the any clue if it were dead or not (it isn't).
When and if you show the slightest glimmer of understanding, your comments on it might be taken seriously, until then....
-
Gabriella,
I think what happens on these boards is that those of us who want to, discuss the attributes of gods…
Actually their (various) beliefs about the attributes of (supposed) gods, but ok…
…and discuss the ideas that different forms of theism are based on.
Not so much here – they tend to discuss the theological claims (“god thinks X”, “god does Y” etc) without bothering with the foundational, pre-theological arguments to demonstrate god(s) as a fact in the first place.
We also discuss the impact and influence of different beliefs on culture, even if we hold the view that until they can be detected/ measured we have not established that gods exist independently of our thoughts and only have a faith conviction that there is a supernatural creator entity (or different versions of one depending on who you talk to).
That’s a non sequitur – you can discuss the effect of religious beliefs regardless of (non)detectability their central claims – but I agree that it’s a legitimate topic for discussion. To large extent, it’s what RE is in secular schools these days.
Some people's input into these discussions are that at some point in the future science may come up with a way to detect/ measure gods - a bit like the Spectre Detector in Ghostbusters - but until gods become detectable they are irrelevant. And even if gods became detectable that would not induce respect or worship based on the attributes theists have put forward on these boards.
Not many I think. The standard trope is: "Science is naturalistic. (My) god is non-naturalistic. Therefore science isn’t apt for investigating my claim “god”.” Which is fair enough so far as it goes, but in answer to the rejoinder, “OK, so what method should we use instead then?” there’s always a deafening silence. (See Vlad’s endless disappearing act at this point for example.)
And some people think it so unlikely that science will do this, that they believe gods do not exist.
That’s backwards I think. It’s not so much “science can’t detect gods, therefore I don’t believe in gods” as, “people who believe in gods are unable to provide any sound reasons to justify their beliefs, therefore I don’t accept them”.
-
Vlad,
They are absolutist. Whether anyone has 100 per cent faith in them might be in question but such a statement as you are making here could refer to religious faith.
Wrong again. Where you screwed up was to include naturalism, which has two forms:
“Methodological naturalism, naturalism that holds that science is to be done without reference to supernatural causes; also refers to a methodological assumption in the philosophy of religion that observable events are fully explainable by natural causes without reference to the supernatural.
Metaphysical naturalism, a form of naturalism that holds that the cosmos consists only of objects studied by the natural sciences, and does not include any immaterial or intentional realities.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism
It’s your standard lie: you lump together non-absolutist positions (that people like me subscribe to) with absolutist ones (that no-one here subscribes to), then claim that people who don’t accept your assertion “god” are as much practitioners of faith as you are. First, it’s not true (see methodological naturalism above), and second “OK, I’m guessing but so are you” is an avoidance of justifying your claims, not vindication of them. It’s just whataboutery, albeit whatboutery based on one of your various lies.
Certainly a lot of people are committed to act as if there is no god…
Yes, it’s called atheism.
…although how they pull that stunt from a God is just white noise stance I know not.
Another lie. You know it because I just explained it. A fact claim about which literally anything can be said because all faith claims are epistemically equivalent is ipso facto white noise.
How acting like God doesn't exist explains your behaviour here.
My behaviour here with you consists almost entirely of calling you out on your unremitting lying. If you just stopped lying I wouldn’t do it. So why don’t you just stop lying?
-
Gabriella,
Actually their (various) beliefs about the attributes of (supposed) gods, but ok…
Not so much here – they tend to discuss the theological claims (“god thinks X”, “god does Y” etc) without bothering with the foundational, pre-theological arguments to demonstrate god(s) as a fact in the first place.
That’s a non sequitur – you can discuss the effect of religious beliefs regardless of (non)detectability their central claims – but I agree that it’s a legitimate topic for discussion. To large extent, it’s what RE is in secular schools these days.
Yes I agree, I did not have a full stop between my 1st 2 sentences previously so attributes of gods and ideas about theism and the influence of beliefs all had the qualification of"even if we hold the view that until they can be detected/ measured we have not established that gods exist independently of our thoughts and only have a faith conviction that there is a supernatural creator entity". Then it seemed too long a sentence so I stuck in a full stop and made it 2 sentences but that also separated the qualification that we don't know if gods exist.
Not many I think. The standard trope is: "Science is naturalistic. (My) god is non-naturalistic. Therefore science isn’t apt for investigating my claim “god”.” Which is fair enough so far as it goes, but in answer to the rejoinder, “OK, so what method should we use instead then?” there’s always a deafening silence. (See Vlad’s endless disappearing act at this point for example.)
Here I was actually referring to atheists, not theists. So I was referring to people who do not see a reason to justify belief.
That’s backwards I think. It’s not so much “science can’t detect gods, therefore I don’t believe in gods” as, “people who believe in gods are unable to provide any sound reasons to justify their beliefs, therefore I don’t accept them”.
No, here I was referring to people who make the positive claim that gods do not exist.
-
Gabriella,
Actually their (various) beliefs about the attributes of (supposed) gods, but ok…
Not so much here – they tend to discuss the theological claims (“god thinks X”, “god does Y” etc) without bothering with the foundational, pre-theological arguments to demonstrate god(s) as a fact in the first place.
That’s a non sequitur – you can discuss the effect of religious beliefs regardless of (non)detectability their central claims – but I agree that it’s a legitimate topic for discussion. To large extent, it’s what RE is in secular schools these days.
Not many I think. The standard trope is: "Science is naturalistic. (My) god is non-naturalistic. Therefore science isn’t apt for investigating my claim “god”.” Which is fair enough so far as it goes, but in answer to the rejoinder, “OK, so what method should we use instead then?” there’s always a deafening silence. (See Vlad’s endless disappearing act at this point for example.)
That’s backwards I think. It’s not so much “science can’t detect gods, therefore I don’t believe in gods” as, “people who believe in gods are unable to provide any sound reasons to justify their beliefs, therefore I don’t accept them”.
The deafening silence is you not defining what you mean by the 'word' method, presumably because it is another redundant word meaning the same as science. When you define it as being something other than science the suspicion of you trying to be smart and tricky not to mention rhetorical can be put to one side..
-
Vlad,
The deafening silence is you not defining what you mean by the 'word' method, presumably because it is another redundant word meaning the same as science. When you define it as being something other than science the suspicion of you trying to be smart and tricky not to mention rhetorical can be put to one side.
Stop lying. If you want to justify your claim "god" then it's your job to provide a method to do that. If you think science and naturalistic methods in general aren't apt for the purpose then propose something else instead. It's no more my job to do that for you than it's your job to devise a method to investigate my claims about leprechauns.
Until you finally manage to do that, all we have is your unqualified assertion "god". Worse, that's all you have to justify your claim to yourself too.
-
Vlad,
Stop lying. If you want to justify your claim "god" then it's your job to provide a method to do that. If you think science and naturalistic methods in general aren't apt for the purpose then propose something else instead. It's no more my job to do that for you than it's your job to devise a method to investigate my claims about leprechauns.
Until you finally manage to do that, all we have is your unqualified assertion "god". Worse, that's all you have to justify your claim to yourself too.
Naturalistic methods what are they and how are they different from science?
You see you are totally fucked when asked to describe a method other than science.
Happily though, you now ,accidentally I'm sure, introduced us to methodological methods.....like what Hillside?
It's perfectly reasonable in discussion to ask for definition of terms .Answer these enquiries or leave the forum, live in the woods and eat grass.
-
You see you are totally fucked when asked to describe a method other than science.
Good grief Vlad, how many more times do you need this simple, simple concept explained? It's up to you to provide a method to distinguish your god claims from just guessing. That is, if you want anybody else to think that you're not just guessing and that anybody else's guess (leprechauns, for example) aren't just as good as yours. It's not up to other people to help you support your claims.
Jeez, it's like trying to teach a cat to do calculus...
-
Good grief Vlad, how many more times do you need this simple, simple concept explained? It's up to you to provide a method to distinguish your god claims from just guessing. That is, if you want anybody else to think that you're not just guessing and that anybody else's guess (leprechauns, for example) aren't just as good as yours. It's not up to other people to help you support your claims.
Jeez, it's like trying to teach a cat to do calculus...
Define what you mean by method then. Go on it's not unreasonable particularly when it's you and Hillside in the picture.
If you don't have a clue what you mean by method you've got no right to be fucking about on this forum.
It sounds like you savants need a steer. What is the method for making a guess? Since the pair of you haven't defined that yet but what I can glean from what you've said about guessing it is a bit suspect.
I'm not asking you for a method why are you suggesting I am? Is it because that other.......p....p....person is suggesting it?
-
Vlad,
Stop lying. If you want to justify your claim "god" then it's your job to provide a method to do that. If you think science and naturalistic methods in general aren't apt for the purpose then propose something else instead. It's no more my job to do that for you than it's your job to devise a method to investigate my claims about leprechauns.
I haven't asked you to do that. All i've asked you for is you to do is demonstrate what you mean by method.
-
I think what happens on these boards is that those of us who want to, discuss the attributes of gods and discuss the ideas that different forms of theism are based on. We also discuss the impact and influence of different beliefs on culture, even if we hold the view that until they can be detected/ measured we have not established that gods exist independently of our thoughts and only have a faith conviction that there is a supernatural creator entity (or different versions of one depending on who you talk to).
Some people's input into these discussions are that at some point in the future science may come up with a way to detect/ measure gods - a bit like the Spectre Detector in Ghostbusters - but until gods become detectable they are irrelevant. And even if gods became detectable that would not induce respect or worship based on the attributes theists have put forward on these boards.
And some people think it so unlikely that science will do this, that they believe gods do not exist.
A fine overview that I feel I shall often refer back to.
-
Define what you mean by method then. Go on it's not unreasonable particularly when it's you and Hillside in the picture.
FFS Vlad, why are you finding this so hard? It isn't rocket science. If you want to convince people that your god is more than just a guess and that any other guess is just as good (leprechauns), and you don't think the methods of science and logic are up to the job, then it's up to you to provide such a method and tell us why you think it's valid and applicable.
Other people are under no obligation to help you, this is a hole you've dug yourself into.
-
I think what happens on these boards is that those of us who want to, discuss the attributes of gods and discuss the ideas that different forms of theism are based on. We also discuss the impact and influence of different beliefs on culture, even if we hold the view that until they can be detected/ measured we have not established that gods exist independently of our thoughts and only have a faith conviction that there is a supernatural creator entity (or different versions of one depending on who you talk to).
Some people's input into these discussions are that at some point in the future science may come up with a way to detect/ measure gods - a bit like the Spectre Detector in Ghostbusters - but until gods become detectable they are irrelevant. And even if gods became detectable that would not induce respect or worship based on the attributes theists have put forward on these boards.
And some people think it so unlikely that science will do this, that they believe gods do not exist.
I think that you have missed out those of us who don't think that science is even relevant here because we think the notion of 'God' (of whatever flavour) is inherently incoherent and/or contradictory so that there is nothing for any external process, such as the methods of science, to engage with in the first place - so that theism is exclusively a faith-based belief.
-
Vlad,
Naturalistic methods what are they and how are they different from science?
You see you are totally fucked when asked to describe a method other than science.
Happily though, you now ,accidentally I'm sure, introduced us to methodological methods.....like what Hillside?
It's perfectly reasonable in discussion to ask for definition of terms .Answer these enquiries or leave the forum, live in the woods and eat grass.
The only fuck up here continues to be yours. You assert the claim “god”. You tell us that this claim cannot be investigated by naturalistic means. Fine.Then you tell us what method we should use to distinguish your claim from just guessing.
Why is this difficult for you to comprehend?
Define what you mean by method then. Go on it's not unreasonable particularly when it's you and Hillside in the picture.
A method in this case is some means to distinguish your claim “god” from just guessing. As it’s your claim (and by the way as you haven’t bothered to define “supernatural” either) then it’s your job to pick a method to do the job.
If you don't have a clue what you mean by method you've got no right to be fucking about on this forum.
See above.
It sounds like you savants need a steer. What is the method for making a guess? Since the pair of you haven't defined that yet but what I can glean from what you've said about guessing it is a bit suspect.
Guessing is asserting something to be true when you have no means to justify that claim. Either you have a method to justify your belief “god” but you want to keep it a secret, or you have no such method. Either way, from anyone else’s perspective there’s no reason to think you’re not just guessing.
I'm not asking you for a method why are you suggesting I am? Is it because that other.......p....p....person is suggesting it?
You shouldn’t be asking us for anything. It’s your claim, so it’s your job to explain how it should be investigated. What’s stopping you?
I haven't asked you to do that. All i've asked you for is you to do is demonstrate what you mean by method.
What I mean by “a method” remains a process to justify your claim that “god” is a fact and not just a guess. It’s the same thing you would demand from me if I insisted your treat my claim “leprechauns” as a fact too.
This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp, even for you.
-
I think that you have missed out those of us who don't think that science is even relevant here because we think the notion of 'God' (of whatever flavour) is inherently incoherent and/or contradictory so that there is nothing for any external process, such as the methods of science, to engage with in the first place - so that theism is exclusively a faith-based belief.
Where is the incoherence/ inconsistency?
-
FFS Vlad, why are you finding this so hard? It isn't rocket science. If you want to convince people that your god is more than just a guess and that any other guess is just as good (leprechauns), and you don't think the methods of science and logic are up to the job, then it's up to you to provide such a method and tell us why you think it's valid and applicable.
Other people are under no obligation to help you, this is a hole you've dug yourself into.
I think whether people find a particular interpretation of an abstract proposition convincing would depend on the individual. Abstract concepts such as goodness or justice or gods cannot be objectively detected or demonstrated and BHS and I will have to agree to disagree that these concepts have more coherence than concepts of gods. So far I find BHS's arguments unconvincing. Maybe if we could define justice, fairness, equality in any kind of objective way or even agreed upon way rather than trying to define them using more abstract concepts, or if we could detect their presence using science, or if those concepts were made up of matter that can be measured, I would find BHS's argument on there being a difference in coherence between gods and goodness convincing, but as that is not the case I don't see the difference between those concepts and gods.
That is not to say that BHS can't find gods more incoherent than goodness but I don't see that as something that can be demonstrated as objective fact. Yes I understand that with gods some people are theorising some kind of duality with an alternative space and time (or no time) that is undetectable, but to me that duality/ alternative dimension/ universe - whatever you want to call it - is just another abstract concept.
Obviously in order to understand a particular concept the brain has to comprehend the words and reason and interpret them with reference to knowledge of the material world. But science is somewhat irrelevant in this area, as Gordon said. I think where scenarios are offered that transcend science and the material world, that is part of the attractions for some people because the idea that you are not limited by science but are in the world of abstract concepts such as good and bad, thoughts and intentions, justice and purpose and a spiritual accountability (if you believe in a concept of souls) where worth is measured by good and bad deeds and intentions rather than your material body or assets can be appealing.
Deciding between abstract concepts such as right and wrong (as opposed to legal and illegal) could also be described as based on a guess or choices could be justified by argumentum ad populam or argumentum ad consequentiam. Decisions are based on feelings and the reasoning out of potential consequences, which from my experience is similar to decisions about religious affiliations. In which case I do a lot of guessing in my life and see no reason why guessing about gods is any more problematic for me than all the other guesses I make. I encourage my children to guess and adopt faith positions because it is normal behaviour for loving parents to pass on as advice any guesses, behaviour and thoughts and abstract concepts they feel have been beneficial to them.
I would say that where theist guesses are convincing to others whereby they join a particular faith, it would be based on the others feeling something (curiosity/ affinity/ fear) when reading a particular religious text, or feeling something when in a particular religious building or listening to a particular sermon or in discussions with groups of theists or participating in specific group or solo rituals such as prayer. If "guess" covers that then fair enough. It therefore makes sense for theists to keep offering others opportunities to try guessing for themselves and see if their response and interpretation to the experience has beneficial consequences for them - regardless of whether the response is theism or atheism.
-
Vlad,
The only fuck up here continues to be yours. You assert the claim “god”. You tell us that this claim cannot be investigated by naturalistic means. Fine.Then you tell us what method we should use to distinguish your claim from just guessing.
Why is this difficult for you to comprehend?
A method in this case is some means to distinguish your claim “god” from just guessing. As it’s your claim (and by the way as you haven’t bothered to define “supernatural” either) then it’s your job to pick a method to do the job.
See above.
Guessing is asserting something to be true when you have no means to justify that claim. Either you have a method to justify your belief “god” but you want to keep it a secret, or you have no such method. Either way, from anyone else’s perspective there’s no reason to think you’re not just guessing.
You shouldn’t be asking us for anything. It’s your claim, so it’s your job to explain how it should be investigated. What’s stopping you?
What I mean by “a method” remains a process to justify your claim that “god” is a fact and not just a guess. It’s the same thing you would demand from me if I insisted your treat my claim “leprechauns” as a fact too.
This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp, even for you.
No not quite there yet. What is the method for arriving at a guess?
Asking for definitions is normal in debate and frankly yours are still too vague hence me asking you to exemplify by outlining the method for arriving at a guess.
Either put up or shut up.
Guessing isn’t asserting something to be true. It is making a guess. Guesses are frequently justified.
-
I think that you have missed out those of us who don't think that science is even relevant here because we think the notion of 'God' (of whatever flavour) is inherently incoherent and/or contradictory so that there is nothing for any external process, such as the methods of science, to engage with in the first place - so that theism is exclusively a faith-based belief.
Very true - yes some/ many people find the concept of gods incoherent and therefore have no method to engage with the concept.
-
Gabriella,
I think whether people find a particular interpretation of an abstract proposition convincing would depend on the individual. Abstract concepts such as goodness or justice or gods cannot be objectively detected or demonstrated and BHS and I will have to agree to disagree that these concepts have more coherence than concepts of gods. So far I find BHS's arguments unconvincing. Maybe if we could define justice, fairness, equality in any kind of objective way or even agreed upon way rather than trying to define them using more abstract concepts, or if we could detect their presence using science, or if those concepts were made up of matter that can be measured, I would find BHS's argument on there being a difference in coherence between gods and goodness convincing, but as that is not the case I don't see the difference between those concepts and gods.
That is not to say that BHS can't find gods more incoherent than goodness but I don't see that as something that can be demonstrated as objective fact. Yes I understand that with gods some people are theorising some kind of duality with an alternative space and time (or no time) that is undetectable, but to me that duality/ alternative dimension/ universe - whatever you want to call it - is just another abstract concept.
Obviously in order to understand a particular concept the brain has to comprehend the words and reason and interpret them with reference to knowledge of the material world. But science is somewhat irrelevant in this area, as Gordon said. I think where scenarios are offered that transcend science and the material world, that is part of the attractions for some people because the idea that you are not limited by science but are in the world of abstract concepts such as good and bad, thoughts and intentions, justice and purpose and a spiritual accountability (if you believe in a concept of souls) where worth is measured by good and bad deeds and intentions rather than your material body or assets can be appealing.
Deciding between abstract concepts such as right and wrong (as opposed to legal and illegal) could also be described as based on a guess or choices could be justified by argumentum ad populam or argumentum ad consequentiam. Decisions are based on feelings and the reasoning out of potential consequences, which from my experience is similar to decisions about religious affiliations. In which case I do a lot of guessing in my life and see no reason why guessing about gods is any more problematic for me than all the other guesses I make. I encourage my children to guess and adopt faith positions because it is normal behaviour for loving parents to pass on as advice any guesses, behaviour and thoughts and abstract concepts they feel have been beneficial to them.
I would say that where theist guesses are convincing to others whereby they join a particular faith, it would be based on the others feeling something (curiosity/ affinity/ fear) when reading a particular religious text, or feeling something when in a particular religious building or listening to a particular sermon or in discussions with groups of theists or participating in specific group or solo rituals such as prayer. If "guess" covers that then fair enough. It therefore makes sense for theists to keep offering others opportunities to try guessing for themselves and see if their response and interpretation to the experience has beneficial consequences for them - regardless of whether the response is theism or atheism.
You’re still not getting it. At a conceptual level terms like “justice” are coherent, cogent, unambiguous, agreed. While there can be endless discussion and debate about what just or unjust outcome would be, the basic concept – ie, the process by which individuals or societies attempt to reach conclusions and to obtain practical measures that satisfy various principles or fairness and equality – is robust enough to be useful.
Now consider “god(s)” – even conceptually a god that is asserted to exist as an article of faith is a god about which literally anything can be said. “God is kind”, “God is cruel”, “God is a set of bagpipes”, it doesn’t matter. That is, “god” even as a concept is incoherent, non-cogent, ambiguous, not agreed. It has no workable use because it dissolves into nothingness as soon as you try to examine it.
That’s the Grand Canyon-sized difference between them.
-
Vlad,
No not quite there yet.
Don’t worry – you’ll get there eventually. Or perhaps not?
What is the method for arriving at a guess?
Irrelevant.
Asking for definitions is normal in debate and frankly yours are still too vague hence me asking you to exemplify by outlining the method for arriving at a guess.
Bit rich from someone who asserts “god”, “supernatural” etc with no definitions at all, but in any case you’ve had your definition – it's a method to distinguish a claim of fact from just guessing.
Either put up or shut up.
Presumably you’re talking to yourself here?
Guessing isn’t asserting something to be true.
When there’s no means to justify the claim, yes it is.
It is making a guess.
Yes, the guess that something is true.
Guesses are frequently justified.
Infrequently, not frequently – a stopped clock is right twice a day, but not for the rest of the time. In any case, if you can’t justify the claim then a guess is still a guess whether or not it happens to be correct just as a matter of dumb luck. That’s true for your god and for my leprechauns alike.
Look as we all know it anyway, why not just say it: “I Vlad can no more propose a means to justify my claim of fact “god” than you blue can propose a means to justify your claim of fact “leprechauns””.
There – that didn’t hurt did it.
-
Vlad,
Don’t worry – you’ll get there eventually. Or perhaps not?
Irrelevant.
Bit rich from someone who asserts “god”, “supernatural” etc with no definitions at all, but in any case you’ve had your definition – it's a method to distinguish a claim of fact from just guessing.
Presumably you’re talking to yourself here?
When there’s no means to justify the claim, yes it is.
Yes, the guess that something is true.
Infrequently, not frequently – a stopped clock is right twice a day, but not for the rest of the time. In any case, if you can’t justify the claim then a guess is still a guess whether or not it happens to be correct just as a matter of dumb luck. That’s true for your god and for my leprechauns alike.
Look as we all know it anyway, why not just say it: “I Vlad can no more propose a means to justify my claim of fact “god” than you blue can propose a means to justify your claim of fact “leprechauns””.
There – that didn’t hurt did it.
The method for establishing anything is irrelevant for a guy insisting on me having a method for something. What strange wankery is this?
-
Vlad,
The method for establishing anything is irrelevant for a guy insisting on me having a method for something. What strange wankery is this?
Dishonest gibberish. You claim "god" to be a fact. Do you expect:
1. People to just accept this unqualified assertion at face value (in which case you must afford the same treatment to my claim "leprechauns"); or
2. People to insist you justify the claim with some means of verification before they accept it?
If 2, what do you want the means to be?
-
Invitation
You are invited to a party jointly celebrating TWO Hillside fuck ups
The suggestion that you can assert God is supernatural and have failed to have given a definition of God at the same time.
Making the equation “God and guess”.
Either there isn’t a methodology for a guess in which case not everything has a methodology, or there is. In which case. Since you are equating God with a guess God has a methodology for his establishment.
RSVP
Raffle Proceeds go to the steeple restoration at St BERTRAND’S.
-
Vlad,
You can’t assert God is supernatural and have failed to have given a definition of God at the same time.
You’re very confused (or very dishonest): “God” and ‘supernatural” are your assertions, not mine remember? Your failure to define either is thus your problem, not mine.
Let’s not fanny about the bush any longer.
You have made the equation “God and guess”.
Yes. Absent any means so far to verify the claim, how else could it be described?
Either there isn’t a methodology for a guess in which case not everything has a methodology, or there is. In which case. Since you are equating God with a guess God has a methodology for his establishment.
Was there even a thought of any kind in your head when you typed that car crash of a sentence? Guessing is what you have when you make claims of fact without a means to justify them. Call that a “methodology” if you like but it doesn’t change anything.
So basically your argument here is done.
Yes, and you lost. Actually, to be fair you never turned up in the first place but the effect is the same.
So to conclude: you assert “god” to be a fact, but can propose no method to justify that belief.
Thought so. Thanks for the guess though. Here’s mine: leprechauns.
-
Then it is surely up to them to devise an empirical experiment for that purpose.
Hence the challenge.
We know that understanding using the scientific method is relatively easy (is it in fact a skill?)
You say that, yet so many seem to fail so readily.
and we know that describing what we are after with regards to non scientific method is difficult other wise Bluehillside for example would have been able to list the absolute requirements for something to be be described a method and hasn't yet and therefore without him doing that it is hard for me to respond.
Scientific definitions aren't necessarily easy to come up with, but they're easy to justify once they're there because the mechanism of science is well understood. Blue doesn't have any obligation to come up with another definition or a system to justify it because it's not his claim. It shouldn't be hard for you, you're making the claim 'god', so you just explain what basis you make that judgement upon: it's as easy science, apparently.
That is, i'm afraid a very definition of philosophical empiricism - Scientism?
Then explain why it's wrong - giving it a name and then dismissing it doesn't work as an argument. What do you think actually exists that doesn't have measurable phenomena? In what way can something without measurable phenomena actually be said to exist?
Putting it in the nicest way possible this all sounds like you are saying something can only exist if there is a method, and not just any method but science. That seems to have things arse about face to me.
I thought this science was supposed to be easy? It's not even really a skill... allegedly.
It's not that it can only exist if there's a method, it's that if it exists we have a method for investigating it. You are suggesting something that only can that method not currently detect, but which you are also suggesting is possibly beyond the capacity of that method to investigate, yet you have no alternative method for investigating. There may be other methods, I'm just not currently aware of them.
I believe that in my life I have had to respond to God having being overtaken in all regards by his presence( something more than just an idea...from which it is possible to be distracted from or extracate yourself from) How I respond is down to me.
It is. How I respond is up to me, and I respond by asking how is your subjective experience definitively different from, say, a delusion or a dream?
Also, you are all people.....What method did you all use to fall in love?
Can't speak for everyone, but I didn't go out with a method. I was me in public places, and someone with the exact right/wrong combination of personality traits to find that suitably comforting and engaging whilst being equally comforting and engaging to me happened to be in the same place at the same time.
O.
-
Can't speak for everyone, but I didn't go out with a method. I was me in public places, and someone with the exact right/wrong combination of personality traits to find that suitably comforting and engaging whilst being equally comforting and engaging to me happened to be in the same place at the same time.
O.
So you put yourself out their into an environment where it was more likely to occur.
-
Gabriella,
You’re still not getting it. At a conceptual level terms like “justice” are coherent, cogent, unambiguous, agreed. While there can be endless discussion and debate about what just or unjust outcome would be, the basic concept – ie, the process by which individuals or societies attempt to reach conclusions and to obtain practical measures that satisfy various principles or fairness and equality – is robust enough to be useful.
Now consider “god(s)” – even conceptually a god that is asserted to exist as an article of faith is a god about which literally anything can be said. “God is kind”, “God is cruel”, “God is a set of bagpipes”, it doesn’t matter. That is, “god” even as a concept is incoherent, non-cogent, ambiguous, not agreed. It has no workable use because it dissolves into nothingness as soon as you try to examine it.
That’s the Grand Canyon-sized difference between them.
Sounds like you're special pleading to me. I get you don't find the concept of god coherent and that it's your perspective that the word dissolves into nothingness when you examine it. It does not dissolve into nothingness when others examine it therefore it is a useful term once people explain what they mean by it.
You're just repeating yourself. I disagree that justice is any more of a cogent, unambiguous or agreed concept than god. To try to give the word "justice" some meaning you try to describe it using words such as "fairness" and "equality" - again equally meaningless without explanation. Honour is another meaningless word until someone explains what it means to them based on their convictions. There are lots of similar examples of abstract concepts that anything could be said about. Your arguments about the incoherence of god as opposed to examples of other abstract concepts remain unconvincing to me, though I get that you and a few other people on this board think it is incoherent.
That people have the freedom to say what they like about the word "god" does not make the term meaningless. As with a lot of abstract concepts, how words are actually used seem more relevant to a discussion on the meaning of abstract concepts than how words potentially could be used because of freedom of thought.
-
Gabriella,
Sounds like you're special pleading to me. I get you don't find the concept of god coherent and that it's your perspective that the word dissolves into nothingness when you examine it. It does not dissolve into nothingness when others examine it therefore it is a useful term once people explain what they mean by it. Honour is meaningless until someone explains what it means to them based on their convictions. There are lots of similar examples of abstract concepts that anything could be said about. Your arguments about the incoherence of god as opposed to examples of other abstract concepts remain unconvincing to me, though I get that you and a few other people on this board think it is incoherent.
That people have the freedom to say what they like about the word "god" does not make the term meaningless. As with a lot of abstract concepts, how words are actually used seem more relevant to a discussion on the meaning of abstract concepts than how words potentially could be used because of freedom of thought.
No special pleading at all. It’s not that I find “god” incoherent – it’s that is incoherent, necessarily so. Why? Because anyone can describe it in any way they like and be equally “right” even when the descriptions contradict each other. You can’t though do that with term like “justice” etc.
It’s a simple enough difference I’d have thought: the meanings of some terms are agreed as concepts and are thereby workably useful (justice, cow, table, whatever) and some terms “mean” only whatever the any individual using them says they mean (eg “god”) as articles of personal faith.
Put it this way: you can say that eg justice means, “the process by which individuals or societies attempt to reach conclusions and to obtain practical measures that satisfy various principles or fairness and equality”. You can’t though say that it means “hating everyone”, “banana” or whatever else takes your fancy. Now compare that with “god” when you can say it means literally anything you like because that’s your “faith”.
Can you see the qualitative epistemic difference between the two?
-
Gabriella,
No special pleading at all. It’s not that I find “god” incoherent – it’s that is incoherent, necessarily so. Why? Because anyone can describe it in any way they like and be equally “right” even when the descriptions contradict each other. You can’t though do that with term like “justice” etc.
It’s a simple enough difference I’d have thought: the meanings of some terms are agreed as concepts and are thereby workably useful (justice, cow, table, whatever) and some terms “mean” only whatever the any individual using them says they mean (eg “god”) as articles of personal faith.
Put it this way: you can say that eg justice means, “the process by which individuals or societies attempt to reach conclusions and to obtain practical measures that satisfy various principles or fairness and equality”. You can’t though say that it means “hating everyone”, “banana” or whatever else takes your fancy. Now compare that with “god” when you can say it means literally anything you like because that’s your “faith”.
Can you see the qualitative epistemic difference between the two?
No because there is nothing stopping people describing "justice" as banana any more than anything prevents the meaning of god from being banana. Since there is no way to detect or measure justice....what is it you think that prevents anyone from saying it means "hating everyone" or "banana"?
-
Gabriella,
No because there is nothing stopping people describing "justice" as banana any more than anything prevents the meaning of god from being banana.
Why are you not getting this? No-one’s saying the people aren’t free to say that by “justice” they mean “banana”. If we accept the latter as legitimate usage too though, then the term becomes meaningless, incoherent – it has no functional use in dialogue. Now compare that with “god”. Any meaning anyone attaches to that term is as legitimate as any other – they’re all faith claims after all, so they're epistemically indistinguishable from each other.
It’s like Fred saying, “by “justice I mean applying principles of equality”, Susan saying “by “justice” I mean banana”, Fred saying “by justice I mean Beethoven’s Fifth” etc ad infinitum and them all being equally “right”. Can you see the problem with that?
Since there is no way to detect or measure justice....what is it you think that prevents anyone from saying it means "hating everyone" or "banana"?
You’ve elided the meaning conceptually with its practical application – I’ve made clear several times that the concept is fine because everyone knows what they mean by it and it’s the same meaning. Whether, say, the outcome of a court case actually is “just” is a different matter entirely. Same with morality. Same with aesthetics. Same with any human-made or derived set of judgements.
-
Gabriella,
Why are you not getting this? No-one’s saying the people aren’t free to say that by “justice” they mean “banana”. If we accept the latter as legitimate usage too though, then the term becomes meaningless, incoherent – it has no functional use in dialogue. Now compare that with “god”. Any meaning anyone attaches to that term is as legitimate as any other – they’re all faith claims after all, so they're epistemically indistinguishable from each other.
It’s like Fred saying, “by “justice I mean applying principles of equality”, Susan saying “by “justice” I mean banana”, Fred saying “by justice I mean Beethoven’s Fifth” etc ad infinitum and them all being equally “right”. Can you see the problem with that?
You’ve elided the meaning conceptually with its practical application – I’ve made clear several times that the concept is fine because everyone knows what they mean by it and it’s the same meaning. Whether, say, the outcome of a court case actually is “just” is a different matter entirely. Same with morality. Same with aesthetics. Same with any human-made or derived set of judgements.
The bit I am not getting is the meaning of justice is based on what is in common usage. The meaning of god is also based on what is in common usage. How are we arbitrating between all the different possible meanings of the word justice other than through common acceptable usage of the term? How are we arbitrating between all the different possible meanings of the word god other than through common acceptable usage of the term? Not seeing a difference between the 2.
-
So you put yourself out their into an environment where it was more likely to occur.
Yes, but not with that intention - I wasn't looking for someone when I went where I met my wife, that happened in addition to my intended activity.
O.
-
Gabriella,
The bit I am not getting is the meaning of justice is based on what is in common usage. The meaning of god is also based on what is in common usage. How are we arbitrating between all the different possible meanings of the word justice other than through common acceptable usage of the term? How are we arbitrating between all the different possible meanings of the word god other than through common acceptable usage of the term? Not seeing a difference between the 2.
It's simple: terms like “justice”, “cow”, “liberty” etc have generally accepted and codified senses such that they can be used in meaningful dialogue. If someone tried a conversation about justice but then said, “oh by way, when I say “justice “ I mean “ukulele”” the conversation would be impossible. It gets worse: imagine that six or 60 people wanted to have a conversation about justice, but each of them had a different meaning for that term. How should we “arbitrate” this? Simple, just look it up in one (or several) dictionaries and agree to have the dialogue accordingly. Now dictionaries of course merely describe rather than determine meanings and moreover meanings often change over time as new senses are adopted and removed. Nonetheless, there’s a practical way to resolve the issue of personal meanings so most terms can work usefully by consensus.
Now consider the term “god”. Our six or 60 people can each have different senses for that term and none of them are wrong (in effect, "justice" can also mean "ukulele", or anything else). There can be no arbitration when all claims of fact are also claims of faith. Any one claim is as in/valid as any other, no matter how different or contradictory. That’s why we have the no true Scotsman fallacy.
How this actually plays out in practice by the way is as a sort of implicit assumption – that the definition part of “god” has been arrived at when it actually hasn’t. It’s a sort of unspoken contract: “OK, your claim “god” has collapsed immediately because there’s no way to know what it means but let’s both pretend and carry on as if that wasn’t the case”. The only real response to theism is ignosticism – “I have no idea what you’re talking about, and neither have you” – but think of the fun we’d miss if every conversation here just stopped at that point.
-
Gabriella,
It's simple: terms like “justice”, “cow”, “liberty” etc have generally accepted and codified senses such that they can be used in meaningful dialogue. If someone tried a conversation about justice but then said, “oh by way, when I say “justice “ I mean “ukulele”” the conversation would be impossible. It gets worse: imagine that six or 60 people wanted to have a conversation about justice, but each of them had an entirely different meaning for that term. How should we “arbitrate” this? Simple, just look it up in one (or several) dictionaries and agree to have the dialogue accordingly. Now dictionaries of course merely describe rather than determine meanings and moreover meanings often change over time as new senses are adopted and removed. Nonetheless, there’s a practical way to resolve the issue of personal meanings so most terms can work usefully by consensus.
Now consider the term “god”. Your six or sixty people can each have different senses for that term and none of them are wrong (in effect, "justice" can also mean "ukulele", or anything else at all). There can be no arbitration when all claims of fact are also claims of faith. Any one claim is as in/valid as any other, no matter how different or contradictory. That’s why we have the no true Scotsman fallacy.
How this actually plays out in practice by the way is as a sort of implicit assumption – that the definition part of “god” has been arrived at when it really hasn’t. It’s a sort of unspoken contract: “OK, your claim “god” has collapsed immediately because there’s no way to know what it means but let’s both pretend and carry on as if that wasn’t the case”. The only real response to theism is ignosticism – “I have no idea what you’re talking about, and neither have you” – but think of the fun we’d miss if every conversation here just stopped at that point.
You're just repeating your assertions. You have not been able to demonstrate that what you assert about gods cannot apply to justice. If god can mean ukulele so can justice. If justice can't mean ukulele neither can god. You haven't shown a mechanism that prevents that meaning in the case of justice but allows it in the case of god.
As an example, what does the statue of justice with her eyes blindfolded mean? If justice is blind can it be said to achieve fairness? That definition is meaningless unless you can define fairness. What does fairness mean? The word can have as many meanings as the word god. Off the top of my head does it mean treating people exactly the same regardless of their background or circumstances? Is it treating people differently by taking into account their history and background - their family life, upbringing, education? Is it treating people differently by taking into account their current circumstances, mental health, physical disability? Is it affirmative action? How do you decided fairness when different protected characteristics intersect?
How this actually plays out in practice by the way is as a sort of implicit assumption – that the definition part of “fair” has been arrived at when it really hasn’t. It’s a sort of unspoken contract: “OK, your claim “fair” has collapsed immediately because there’s no way to know what it means but let’s both pretend and carry on as if that wasn’t the case”. The only real response is – “I have no idea what you’re talking about, and neither have you” – but think of the fun we’d miss if every conversation here just stopped at that point.
-
Yes, but not with that intention - I wasn't looking for someone when I went where I met my wife, that happened in addition to my intended activity.
O.
What I am trying to find out is, Does everything have a methodology and is it reasonable to ask for a methodology for absolutely everything. So here we are discussing a methodology for finding love.
So far, in this quest, we are only at the point where you have met your wife. Most people meet several other people. But they don’t find love with all of them. This reply therefore does not tell us anything so far about any methodology for finding love. Indeed you suggest it was an accidental by product of another goal. And that isn’t a method at all.
We are still far away from concluding that requesting a method for finding God is at all reasonable.
What is certain is that empirical methods do not appear to rule in or rule out God. Where the “therefore God does not exist” come in I don't know other than some circular argument.
-
What I am trying to find out is, Does everything have a methodology and is it reasonable to ask for a methodology for absolutely everything. So here we are discussing a methodology for finding love.
Except that 'finding love' isn't the same - you aren't trying to establish if other people exist, you're trying to find one of them that's compatible. That's like skipping the bit where you establish if there are gods and getting straight to deciding if you're going to be a Roman Catholic or a Shi'a Muslim.
O.
-
What I am trying to find out is, Does everything have a methodology and is it reasonable to ask for a methodology for absolutely everything.
A methodology only applies where the method can be shown to be suited to what is being claimed and/or studied: for example, there are methods associated with chemical analysis that allow chemists to determine what the tablets were that were found in Fred's hand luggage when he went through customs, even if he claims they were just vitamins.
Moreover those methods have been developed incrementally from the earliest preceding theories and observations to get to a point where the conclusions are reliable and can be replicated via the method(s) that have been developed, and of course as knowledge is gained then previous knowledge is revised, or even shown to be wrong, and new methods, refinements to existing methods and new technology emerges: the so-called 'scientific method' is the obvious example.
We are still far away from concluding that requesting a method for finding God is at all reasonable.
What is certain is that empirical methods do not appear to rule in or rule out God. Where the “therefore God does not exist” come in I don't know other than some circular argument.
Since, so far as I can see, 'God' isn't a scientific or empirical claim so I can't see a basis to even consider that there would be a suitable scientific or empirical method of investigating claims of 'God'. But that is your problem, the burden of proof being yours, and I suspect you are falling into the trap of thinking that when somebody says to you, by way of a challenge, "what alternative method would you use, Vlad, if you think science is inadequate", of just throwing the problem back at them to suggest one.
Have you considered that your claim 'God' isn't an empirical or scientific one, and nor is it a claim that is amenable to any known methodology that is comparable to the robustness of science because 'God' is solely a faith-based belief? That is my view, since I think the notion of 'God' is so incoherent and/or contradictory to the extent that there is nothing upon which a methodology could be developed - and faith alone does not require one anyway.
-
What I am trying to find out is, Does everything have a methodology and is it reasonable to ask for a methodology for absolutely everything. So here we are discussing a methodology for finding love.
So far, in this quest, we are only at the point where you have met your wife. Most people meet several other people. But they don’t find love with all of them. This reply therefore does not tell us anything so far about any methodology for finding love. Indeed you suggest it was an accidental by product of another goal. And that isn’t a method at all.
We are still far away from concluding that requesting a method for finding God is at all reasonable.
What is certain is that empirical methods do not appear to rule in or rule out God. Where the “therefore God does not exist” come in I don't know other than some circular argument.
Most of the atheists on this board as far as I can tell do not make the positive claim that God does not exist. From the dictionary it seems the word "exist" is used in the English language only to refer to what can be objectively and repeatedly measured / detected by the tools of science because it is made up of matter / atoms / energy that could conceivably be tested/ detected. Theists on here are claiming that God cannot be detected by the tools of science, so based on the dictionary definition I am not sure how theists can make the positive claim that gods "exist". We just get caught up in the technicalities of justifying a claim we can't justify because there is no methodology to justify "exist" when it comes to gods.
I personally would therefore limit myself to putting forward my concept or opinion on what God is and why I follow Islam based on my subjective values, ethics, morals, beliefs all of which are based on emotional responses to a combination of reasoning, thoughts, personality, perceptions and experiences. I would also list the benefits I have experienced and if people find that resonates with them, they too may decide to look into Islam further, try it out at some point in the future if they are presented with the opportunity or they may not.
You could argue that theists can't know that in the future there will never be a technological development that could detect the substance of God, whatever that may be. But even if a new substance could be detected there is no method to link it to the various definitions of gods that theists believe in. How do you bridge that gap between the substance itself and the abstract concepts? It would be like trying to detect fairness, as an substance that exists, and then trying to link it to all the different definitions of "fair".
And for some people the claims of theists about gods are so contradictory and illogical that from a logic basis it would be impossible to devise a method to test illogical concepts.
So to sum up atheists on here usually say no theist has provided any reason for them to take the claim of gods seriously rather than making the positive claim that god does not exist. And if theists assert that gods exist, there is no requirement to take that assertion seriously as there is no method to test whether gods exist.
Regarding the contradictory nature of the claims theists make about gods - it would be a bit like a Muslim pointing a gun at Christians and saying God loves you and His message to humanity is that it is ok to kill you if you are so ungrateful as to not love Him back by obeying his laws and by converting to Islam. It's kind of contradictory with the definition of love that is in common usage so you don't take the Muslim or his contradictory claims seriously - you probably think the Muslim is a bit psychotic. So I think that the atheists on this board have the same problem with the claims that Christian theists put forward on these boards - there are too many internal contradictions about god's attributes in the stories to take it seriously.
I have probably missed a bit. But that sums up my understanding of the key parts of the atheist position.
-
Except that 'finding love' isn't the same - you aren't trying to establish if other people exist, you're trying to find one of them that's compatible. That's like skipping the bit where you establish if there are gods and getting straight to deciding if you're going to be a Roman Catholic or a Shi'a Muslim.
O.
I’m trying to find out if there is a methodology for finding love at the moment. If there isn’t one then I wonder if it is then reasonable to expect a method for finding God. If it turns out that
Finding love has a method then I may have a steer on EXPLAINING the method for finding God and it gives Hillside and company more justification in expecting a method from me.
At the moment there are two camps fmpov. Those asking for a non scientific method but not willing to define what they mean and those like yourself who are prepared to discuss it.
Concerning love, so far you have only reached how you found another human being not how you found love with or in that human being. So we haven’t reached love here at all let alone found the method for finding love.
Here’s a question. Can you find love without knowing or using a method?
-
A methodology only applies where the method can be shown to be suited to what is being claimed and/or studied: for example, there are methods associated with chemical analysis that allow chemists to determine what the tablets were that were found in Fred's hand luggage when he went through customs, even if he claims they were just vitamins.
Moreover those methods have been developed incrementally from the earliest preceding theories and observations to get to a point where the conclusions are reliable and can be replicated via the method(s) that have been developed, and of course as knowledge is gained then previous knowledge is revised, or even shown to be wrong, and new methods, refinements to existing methods and new technology emerges: the so-called 'scientific method' is the obvious example.
Since, so far as I can see, 'God' isn't a scientific or empirical claim so I can't see a basis to even consider that there would be a suitable scientific or empirical method of investigating claims of 'God'. But that is your problem, the burden of proof being yours, and I suspect you are falling into the trap of thinking that when somebody says to you, by way of a challenge, "what alternative method would you use, Vlad, if you think science is inadequate", of just throwing the problem back at them to suggest one.
Have you considered that your claim 'God' isn't an empirical or scientific one, and nor is it a claim that is amenable to any known methodology that is comparable to the robustness of science because 'God' is solely a faith-based belief? That is my view, since I think the notion of 'God' is so incoherent and/or contradictory to the extent that there is nothing upon which a methodology could be developed - and faith alone does not require one anyway.
Well thank you for being so charitable towards me. There are just one or two issues with your post.
1: Is asking for a non scientific methodology even sensible.
2: I am not throwing it back at them. I am just asking them to define terms. What do they think they mean by a non scientific methodology? What are they expecting? Hell I don’t Even know what a non scientific natural method is or applies to if it’s not the same as science. Of course I can and am proceeding to see if there is an alternative method including whether there has to be one on the principle that it isn’t any method that gives rise to existence.
-
I’m trying to find out if there is a methodology for finding love at the moment. If there isn’t one then I wonder if it is then reasonable to expect a method for finding God.
You're making a false equivalence here between an emotion and whatever the hell you might classify a god as. One is a pattern of behaviour, the other is purportedly a complex non-physical intelligence of some sort - that there is a defined method for, say, finding the temperature of a body of liquid tells us nothing about whether there might be a method to 'find' love, and equally neither of those will give you anything reliable about whether there is a 'method' to find a god.
Not only that, but your suggestion is that love is a single, unique thing and not, say, something different for everyone - even if I had a 'method' for finding love, it's possibly not even viable to extrapolate that to other people finding love, let alone trying to co-opt it to try to justify the claim of gods.
O.
-
1: Is asking for a non scientific methodology even sensible.
2: I am not throwing it back at them. I am just asking them to define terms. What do they think they mean by a non scientific methodology? What are they expecting? Hell I don’t Even know what a non scientific natural method is or applies to if it’s not the same as science. Of course I can and am proceeding to see if there is an alternative method including whether there has to be one on the principle that it isn’t any method that gives rise to existence.
I can't believe you're still struggling so much. These are your problems, not anybody else's. You claim your god is an objective reality (true for everybody), I say, how do you know, it just looks like a blind guess (no better than leprechauns), and you say.......what exactly?
It's your job to tell us why your proposal should be taken seriously, i.e. why it is better than (how we might distinguish it from) a blind guess.
-
I can't believe you're still struggling so much. These are your problems, not anybody else's. You claim your god is an objective reality (true for everybody), I say, how do you know, it just looks like a blind guess (no better than leprechauns), and you say.......what exactly?
It's your job to tell us why your proposal should be taken seriously, i.e. why it is better than (how we might distinguish it from) a blind guess.
If you are ok with asking potentially stupid questions that’s fine by me.
I haven’t said that I don’t have burden of proof here have I, I’m working on it.
If you don’t want to define terms that is i’m Afraid your problem.
If you want to be siwwy sickle bubbas and not define your terms I can always find other sources of more worthwhile and intelligent help e.g a cooperative amoeba.
-
If you are ok with asking potentially stupid questions that’s fine by me.
If you want to carry on with your transparent evasion, that's fine by me.
If you don’t want to define terms that is i’m Afraid your problem.
It's still entirely your job to tell us why your proposal is better than a guess. I haven't specified (and have no intention of doing so) how you go about that, because it's entirely up to you.
-
Well thank you for being so charitable towards me. There are just one or two issues with your post.
1: Is asking for a non scientific methodology even sensible.
It is a reasonable question that can be asked of anyone who claims that 'x' exists independently of their personal convictions. Whether 'x' is suited to a non-scientific methodology is for the person making the claim to conclude, and if they can't conclude that there is suitably specific methodology available then perhaps they need to reconsider how they formulate their claim.
2: I am not throwing it back at them. I am just asking them to define terms. What do they think they mean by a non scientific methodology?
I suspect that they don't know, and where it is recognised that the scientific method can't apply to supernatural claims that involve the likes of 'God' empirically existing they are simply asking those who support that claim what alternative methods they would use as an alternative to science that would show that 'God' does indeed exist.
What are they expecting? Hell I don’t Even know what a non scientific natural method is or applies to if it’s not the same as science. Of course I can and am proceeding to see if there is an alternative method including whether there has to be one on the principle that it isn’t any method that gives rise to existence.
Then maybe you should back away from 'God' existing as being an empirical claim that is true for everyone and, instead, present your belief as being solely a personal faith-based position for which no methodology is required.
-
If you want to carry on with your transparent evasion, that's fine by me.
It's still entirely your job to tell us why your proposal is better than a guess. I haven't specified (and have no intention of doing so) how you go about that, because it's entirely up to you.
Again, Does one need a method for coming up with a guess ?
Again, What do you mean by a guess. I say this because the little we can glean from the Hillside teams use of the word guess is suspect.
-
Again, Does one need a method for coming up with a guess ?
Again, What do you mean by a guess. I say this because the little we can glean from the Hillside teams use of the word guess is suspect.
All irrelevant. It's entirely your job to make your case, in whatever way you see fit. If you don't know what the word 'guess' means, then find a dictionary site.
-
Gabriella,
You're just repeating your assertions. You have not been able to demonstrate that what you assert about gods cannot apply to justice….
You’re better than that (or at least you ought to be). I’ve given you explanations, not assertions – that is, I’ve told you why “justice” etc are in a different category to “god(s)”.
Once again: “justice”, “table” etc have meanings agreed by consensus independent of the personal “faith” beliefs of anyone who wants to use these terms. “God(s)” on the other hand means whatever the person attempting the term wants it to mean. There’s a categorically epistemological difference between the two. (And again by the way you’ve conflated what “just”, “fair” etc would mean in practice with the concepts “justice”, “fairness” etc.)
You can engage with the argument or not as you wish, but the rest of your post falls away accordingly.
-
Again, Does one need a method for coming up with a guess ?
Again, What do you mean by a guess. I say this because the little we can glean from the Hillside teams use of the word guess is suspect.
Presumably he means this when he describes it as a guess. From the dictionary:
estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct.
to give an answer to a particular question when you do not have all the facts and so cannot be certain if you are correct
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/guess
b. To assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient information.
3. To suppose; think: I guess he was wrong.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/guess
-
It is a reasonable question that can be asked of anyone who claims that 'x' exists independently of their personal convictions.
because...........?
Whether 'x' is suited to a non-scientific methodology
Like what? What is a non scientific methodology is for the person making the claim to conclude, and if they can't conclude that there is suitably specific methodology available then perhaps they need to reconsider how they formulate their claim.
Sounds fair but I’m not sure if I know what you mean.
I suspect that they don't know, and where it is recognised that the scientific method can't apply to supernatural claims that involve the likes of 'God' empirically existing they are simply asking those who support that claim what alternative methods they would use as an alternative to science that would show that 'God' does indeed exist.
Then maybe you should back away from 'God' existing as being an empirical claim that is true for everyone and, instead, present your belief as being solely a personal faith-based position for which no methodology is required.
I am not claiming God as an empirical anything. I don’t think the explanation for the universe to be subject to empirical means.
-
Gabriella,
You’re better than that (or at least you ought to be). I’ve given you explanations, not assertions – that is, I’ve told you why “justice” etc are in a different category to “god(s)”.
Once again: “justice”, “table” etc have meanings agreed by consensus independent of the personal “faith” beliefs of anyone who wants to use these terms. “God(s)” on the other hand means whatever the person attempting the term wants it to mean. There’s a categorically epistemological difference between the two. (And again by the way you’ve conflated what “just”, “fair” etc would mean in practice with the concepts “justice”, “fairness” etc.)
You can engage with the argument or not as you wish, but the rest of your post falls away accordingly.
No, you 've asserted why you think justice and gods are different categories based on special pleading. And I've explained why justice and gods both have meanings based on common usage, because that's how it works in real life. You still have not found a way to demonstrate the mechanism that allows gods to mean ukulele but justice to not mean ukulele.
Evasion noted.
-
Vlad,
Again, Does one need a method for coming up with a guess ?
Again, What do you mean by a guess. I say this because the little we can glean from the Hillside teams use of the word guess is suspect.
Yet again, a guess is a claim of fact without a means to justify it. Whether you call that a "methodology" is irrelevant.
Oh, and the other dishonest stunt you're trying is conflating a known phenomenon (love) with a speculation ("god"). How we fall in love is not analogous with your failure to demonstrate that the potential object of that love exists in the first place. Not that you care, but that's called the fallacy of begging the question.
-
All irrelevant. It's entirely your job to make your case, in whatever way you see fit. If you don't know what the word 'guess' means, then find a dictionary site.
I can do that. But it isn’t going to affect how suspect your use of the word is, is it?
-
Gabriella,
No, you 've asserted why you think justice and gods are different categories based on special pleading. And I've explained why justice and gods both have meanings based on common usage, because that's how it works in real life. You still have not found a way to demonstrate the mechanism that allows gods to mean ukulele but justice to not mean ukulele.
Evasion noted.
As you seem to be unable to distinguish between a "what" statement (assertion) and a "why" statement (explanation) I'm not sure I can help you further. If you cannot distinguish between words that can be used either correctly or incorrectly (eg "justice") and words for which there are no correct or incorrect meanings (eg "god") the argument will remain lost on you, so any evasion there may be is yours.
-
You're making a false equivalence here between an emotion and whatever the hell you might classify a god as. One is a pattern of behaviour, the other is purportedly a complex non-physical intelligence of some sort - that there is a defined method for, say, finding the temperature of a body of liquid tells us nothing about whether there might be a method to 'find' love, and equally neither of those will give you anything reliable about whether there is a 'method' to find a god.
Not only that, but your suggestion is that love is a single, unique thing and not, say, something different for everyone - even if I had a 'method' for finding love, it's possibly not even viable to extrapolate that to other people finding love, let alone trying to co-opt it to try to justify the claim of gods.
O.
“Whatever ‘in love’ means,” as Prince Charles famously responded to the reporter who said to Charles and Diana on their engagement “You both look very much in love.”
ie whether you are in love or not is open to your own interpretation - no one can establish it as fact.
-
Vlad,
Yet again, a guess is a claim of fact without a means to justify it. Whether you call that a "methodology" is irrelevant.
Oh, and the other dishonest stunt you're trying is conflating a known phenomenon (love) with a speculation ("god"). How we fall in love is not analogous with your failure to demonstrate that the potential object of that love exists on the first place. Not that you care, but that's called the fallacy of begging the question.
Finding if there is or isn’t a method for finding, love, justice, guess is vitally important to the question of whether your demand for a method for anything and everything is more valid than a demand thatI Etsy ettyperkowpting. Does everything even need a method. Can I find love and not realise, be able to relate even though I don’t know the method? If so then not everything needs understanding of a method and as we all know. Knowing a method doesn’t bring something into existence.
-
Gabriella,
As you seem to be unable to distinguish between a "what" statement (assertion) and a "why" statement (explanation) I'm not sure I can help you further. If you cannot distinguish between words that can be used either correctly or incorrectly (eg "justice") and words for which there are no correct or incorrect meanings (eg "god") the argument will remain lost on you, so any evasion there may be is yours.
The meanings of both justice and gods are based on common usage. It's your assertion that gods means something other than what is derived from common usage e.g. ukulele or any other word you want to suggest. You have asserted a distinction.
Your claim, it's up to you to demonstrate it if you want it taken seriously. Just repeating your assertion over and over again isn't working.
-
because...........?
They are making a claim that 'x' exists, so asking by what methods they know this to be the case is a reasonable question - since if there is such a method then the claim can be substantiated independently of the views of the claimant.
Like what? What is a non scientific methodology
No idea: I'm not making a non-scientific/non-empirical claim, so a method suited to non-scientific/non-empirical claims isn't an issue I need address. Ask someone who is making non-scientific/non-empirical claims what method(s) they suggest would be effective.
Sounds fair but I’m not sure if I know what you mean.I am not claiming God as an empirical anything. I don’t think the explanation for the universe to be subject to empirical means.
Then you needn't concern yourself with method(s) since you'd have adopted a faith-based position - all you need do is avoid straying into arguments where you make, or imply, that 'God' is an empirical phenomenon since if you do you can be expected to be asked to show by what method(s) you've established this.
-
Vlad,
Yet again, a guess is a claim of fact without a means to justify it. Whether you call that a "methodology" is irrelevant.
Oh, and the other dishonest stunt you're trying is conflating a known phenomenon (love) with a speculation ("god"). How we fall in love is not analogous with your failure to demonstrate that the potential object of that love exists in the first place. Not that you care, but that's called the fallacy of begging the question.
I’m not conflating them I want to know if there is a method for finding love. If there isn’t then that means that not everything has a method and it is unreasonable to expect a method for everything and anything. If there is a method but it can’t be expressed too well then it is unreasonable to expect the full monty for everything and anything. So you are wrong.
-
No idea: I'm not making a non-scientific/non-empirical claim, so a method suited to non-scientific/non-empirical claims isn't an issue I need address.
Yes it is because you are the one expecting something and yet by your own admission have no clue what it could be.
-
Yes it is because you are the one expecting something and yet by your own admission have no clue what it could be.
That is because the burden of proof is yours: if you have a method that is suited to non-scientific/non-empirical claims then I have no idea what this might involve but I await, with bated-breath, your clarification of the details.
Once you have produced the goods then we can all critique what you are proposing.
-
That is because the burden of proof is yours: if you have a method that is suited to non-scientific/non-empirical claims then I have no idea what this might involve but I await, with bated-breath, your clarification of the details.
Once you have produced the goods then we can all critique what you are proposing.
That’s a bit too optimitistic from somebody who admits he has no idea about what it is he has asked me to do. I don’t even know what it is i’m Supposed to be looking for although I’m doing better than ‘No idea’. This whole situation has an eery familiarity to it. Gordon, were you ever a really senior manager in a public service at any time?
-
Vlad,
I’m not conflating them I want to know if there is a method for finding love.
Why? It has no relevance to justifying your claim “god”, so it’s irrelevant.
If there isn’t then that means that not everything has a method and it is unreasonable to expect a method for everything and anything.
Fuck me but you struggle. Whether there’s a method to explain a known response to something (eg love) has no relevance whatever to demonstrating a speculation about a something existing at all (eg “god”). What you’re being asked for is some method to establish first that your claim of fact “god” is a fact at all. How you’d fall in love with it, have a relationship with it etc once it’s been demonstrated is a second order matter.
Do you remember your various car crash efforts to discount the leprechauns analogy? Here’s another example of why it works: "“not everything has a method and it is unreasonable to expect a method for everything and anything”, therefore leprechauns."
Can you see anything wrong with that?
If there is a method but it can’t be expressed too well then it is unreasonable to expect the full monty for everything and anything. So you are wrong.
No, you are. You can’t just deflect to issues with explaining the working of a process (like falling in love) when the question is actually about the objective existence of something in the first place.
You’re desperately confused here.
-
Yes it is because you are the one expecting something and yet by your own admission have no clue what it could be.
I think it's more a case of they won't take a claim of god existing seriously because no method has been offered to verify the claim. If you offer an alternative method then they can examine it. If you don't offer an alternative method then that's fine too as it means there is no reason to take seriously the claim of god existing.
In the case of love, no one who thinks they are experiencing love needs to prove empirically to someone else that love exists or is the correct description for what they are feeling. People just take your word for it because "love" means different things to different people and because no one really cares whether you think you are in love or not as it's none of their business.
There is a common usage meaning but there are so many variations of meaning - some people claim they fell in love instantly or multiple times and other people claim that falling in love happens over time once you really get to know someone and anything else should be called infatuation and not love.
-
Gabriella,
The meanings of both justice and gods are based on common usage. It's your assertion that gods means something other than what is derived from common usage e.g. ukulele or any other word you want to suggest. You have asserted a distinction.
Your claim, it's up to you to demonstrate it if you want it taken seriously. Just repeating your assertion over and over again isn't working.
All I can suggest is that you try reading what I’ve actually said until it sinks in. If it does, engage with it; if it doesn’t, don’t.
This is the simplest I can put it: we can arbitrate the meaning of terms like “justice” because everyone’s opinion about that is NOT equally valid; we cannot arbitrate the meaning of terms like “god” because everyone’s opinion about that IS equally valid. QED
-
Vlad,
[
Why? It has no relevance to justifying your claim “god”, so it’s irrelevant.
Fuck me but you struggle. Whether there’s a method to explain a known response to something (eg love) has no relevance whatever to demonstrating a speculation about a something existing at all (eg “god”). What you’re being asked for is some method to establish first that your claim of fact “god” is a fact at all. How you’d fall in love with it, have a relationship with it etc once it’s been demonstrated is a second order matter.
Do you remember your various car crash efforts to discount the leprechauns analogy? Here’s another example of why it works: "“not everything has a method and it is unreasonable to expect a method for everything and anything”, therefore leprechauns."
Can you see anything wrong with that?
No, you are. You can’t just deflect to issues with explaining the working of a process (like falling in love) when the question is actually about the objective existence of something in the first place.
You’re desperately confused here.
The God leprechaun analogy is bad because analogising what is observable with what is not is bad analogy. And how do we know that what is observable shouldn’t be analogised with what is not? Why according to that Grand old son of Dixie sippin’ his mint julep among the cotton field of Essex, ah refer to none other than Mr B Lou Hillside said as much.
-
I think it's more a case of they won't take a claim of god existing seriously because no method has been offered to verify the claim. If you offer an alternative method then they can examine it. If you don't offer an alternative method then that's fine too as it means there is no reason to take seriously the claim of god existing.
I get all that I just want them to give me some idea of what an alternative method means to them since they are going to be judging its merits. If as one chappy has admitted he hasn’t an idea, then how are they possibly competent. It’s rather like Henry the Eighth and his court sending me of to find a Kangaroo. They don’t know what one is and neither do I.
He
-
Gabriella,
All I can suggest is that you try reading what I’ve actually said until it sinks in. If it does, engage with it; if it doesn’t, don’t.
This is the simplest I can put it: we can arbitrate the meaning of terms like “justice” because everyone’s opinion about that is NOT equally valid; we cannot arbitrate the meaning of terms like “god” because everyone’s opinion about that IS equally valid. QED
And all I can suggest is that if you want your claim to be taken seriously, you demonstrate in what way everyone's opinion about the meaning of the word justice is not equally valid; and demonstrate in what way everyone's opinion about the meaning of the word god is equally valid.
For example, some evidence that someone has claimed god means ukulele or some other meaning of your choice and in what way it has been accepted as valid that would not happen if someone claimed a meaning for the word justice.
-
Vlad,
The God leprechaun analogy is bad because analogising what is observable with what is not is bad analogy. And how do we know that what is observable shouldn’t be analogised with what is not? Why according to that Grand old son of Dixie sippin’ his mint julep among the cotton field of Essex, ah refer to none other than Mr B Lou Hillside said as much.
Why are you flat out categorically lying about this again when I’ve explained to you over and over why it’s wrong? Can you simply not process a simple explanation? Can you not read? Are you so lost in pathological dishonesty that you just have no option but to lie? What?
Yet again: your belief “god” entails an entity that’s supernatural, but that has also manifested from time-to-time in person – as a burning bush, as a pilar of light, as a whisper, as an angel, as his own son FFS.
My belief is that “leprechauns” are also supernatural entities, but that also have manifested from time-to-time in person – as small green Irishmen etc.
Thus these two faith beliefs are ANALOGOUS. Moreover, if you think leprechauns must have been detectable when in material form, THEN YOUR GOD MUST HAVE BEEN TOO.
Now stop fucking lying about this will you.
-
Vlad,
Why are you flat out categorically lying about this again when I’ve explained to you over and over why it’s wrong? Can you simply not process a simple explanation? Can you not read? Are you so lost in pathological dishonesty that you just have no option but to lie? What?
Yet again: your belief “god” entails an entity that’s supernatural, but that has also manifested from time-to-time in person – as a burning bush, as a pilar of light, as a whisper, as an angel, as his own son FFS.
My belief is that “leprechauns” are also supernatural entities, but that also have manifested from time-to-time in person – as small green Irishmen etc.
Which unfortunately makes them observeable.
-
Gabriella,
And all I can suggest is that if you want your claim to be taken seriously, you demonstrate in what way everyone's opinion about the meaning of the word justice is not equally valid; and demonstrate in what way everyone's opinion about the meaning of the word god is equally valid.
For example, some evidence that someone has claimed god means ukulele or some other meaning of your choice and in what way it has been accepted as valid that would not happen if someone claimed a meaning for the word justice.
Ah well – I tried.
I suggest you ask, say, a Fred Phelps what he thinks “god” means. Then ask a Justin Welby what he thinks it means. Now tell me who’s right and who’s wrong (and why) given that both are faith claims.
Now ask what two different people think “justice”, “table” etc mean and I’ll tell you which one’s right and which wrong, and why.
QED
-
Vlad,
Which unfortunately makes them observeable.
BOTH of them, yes. That's why they're analogous.
-
I get all that I just want them to give me some idea of what an alternative method means to them since they are going to be judging its merits. If as one chappy has admitted he hasn’t an idea, then how are they possibly competent. It’s rather like Henry the Eighth and his court sending me of to find a Kangaroo. They don’t know what one is and neither do I.
He
If no alternative method can be suggested by you or them then the only available method currently for establishing existence objectively is science. And they are happy with using that as the basis of establishing existence until some other method is presented for examination.
Anything that can't be established by science is in the don't know category. In this category it doesn't matter to people whether someone else believes in gods existing or feels love as neither beliefs nor feelings of love can be defined or established empirically. It's probably like knowing that someone's favourite colour is blue - it doesn't really affect you too much if their favourite colour is blue or red or if Fred believes himself to be in love or if Fred believes gods exist.
However, believing oneself in love and belief in gods seem to provide some benefits for some/many regardless of the disagreements over meanings. So that may explain why the words have entered into common usage and we act as if we understand what they mean and have discussions about them.
-
That’s a bit too optimitistic from somebody who admits he has no idea about what it is he has asked me to do. I don’t even know what it is i’m Supposed to be looking for although I’m doing better than ‘No idea’.
As I've said, for me 'God' is supernatural claim that is incoherent, illogical and involves contradictions and I've no idea what method(s) might be suited to incoherent, illogical and contradictory claims - you need to ask someone who claims 'God' exists in an empirical sense, such as yourself, but so far all you've done is evade and attempt to shift the burden of proof.
This whole situation has an eery familiarity to it. Gordon, were you ever a really senior manager in a public service at any time?
Indeed I was, but what has that to do with methods to investigate supernatural claims that are incoherent, illogical and contradictory?
-
Vlad,
BOTH of them, yes. That's why they're analogous.
Sure and begorrah, God was incarnated as Jesus for terty tree years during which time he was boat man and God. Rafferty oh flaherty is just a wee Irishman who it is said can make hisself invisible.
Now when you look at Jesus what is it yer empirically seeing?Is the second person of the Trinity or the man?
Now take Allah and compare rafferty O flaherty. The observable and the non observable.
Look at Jesus, you have the observable man and the unobservable Divine.
Look at raffert O Flanerty. If you are seeing him, give your GP a call.
-
As I've said, for me 'God' is supernatural claim that is incoherent, illogical and involves contradictions
And those are?
-
Vlad,
Sure and begorrah, God was incarnated as Jesus for terty tree years during which time he was boat man and God. Rafferty oh flaherty is just a wee Irishman who it is said can make hisself invisible.
Now when you look at Jesus what is it yer empirically seeing?Is the second person of the Trinity or the man?
Now take Allah and compare rafferty O flaherty. The observable and the non observable.
Look at Jesus, you have the observable man and the unobservable Divine.
Look at raffert O Flanerty. If you are seeing him, give your GP a call.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
God = immaterial but material when he wants to be, during which he should be detectable.
Leprechauns = immaterial but material when they want to be, during which they should be detectable.
That’s called an ANALOGY.
-
Gabriella,
Ah well – I tried.
I suggest you ask, say, a Fred Phelps what he thinks “god” means. Then ask a Justin Welby what he thinks it means. Now tell me who’s right and who’s wrong (and why) given that both are faith claims.
Now ask what two different people think “justice”, “table” etc mean and I’ll tell you which one’s right and which wrong, and why.
QED
Ah well - I tried too,
Regarding the word justice - ok see below for a couple of opinions on the meaning of the word justice from Welby and from Terry Pratchett. Feel free to give me your opinion on who is right and who is wrong - not that your 3rd opinion means anything more than the other 2.
I think you used the word "fair" when you were trying to explain the meaning of justice, but were unable to explain what "fair" means. So that leaves me where exactly?
Regarding Fred Phelps and Justin Welby meanings of the word "God", Phelps is dead so I can't ask him but having looked up some of his statements and activities on the internet, he seems to see God as some sort of supreme power that judges humans. This is based on some of the placards he and his supporters were carrying when they were given permission by local law enforcement to picket peacefully 1000 feet from a church holding a soldier's funeral.
‘You’re Going to Hell’, ‘God Hates Fags’, ‘God Hates You’, ‘God Hates the USA’
Welby has also said "In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is recorded as giving one of the greatest challenges possible to his disciples just before his arrest and crucifixion when he describes the judgment of God at the end of time.
In that passage he explicitly says that judgment is linked to justice, namely, in the way in which we treat those who are most vulnerable and weakest."
https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/speaking-and-writing/speeches/archbishop-canterburys-remarks-launch-ippr-economic-justice
Seems like I can understand what Welby and Phelps mean when they use the word God, there are similarities in their usage.
Welby said justice meant the way in which we treat those who are most vulnerable and weakest. Terry Pratchett says in this conversation between Death and Susan (Death's words are in capitals for those not familiar with Pratchett):
All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
-
And those are?
Examples from comments made in this wee forum.
God existed before time, and is somehow outside the physical universe.
God was killed but didn't stay dead, walked on water etc.
God loves everyone but children still die of bone cancer.
Anyway, are you going to outline a method of investigation that is an alternative to science - or not?
-
Vlad,
What the fuck is wrong with you?
God = immaterial but material when he wants to be, during which he should be detectable.
Leprechauns = immaterial but material when they want to be, during which they should be detectable.
That’s called an ANALOGY.
The divine is never empirical. When Jesus walked All saw the man, some detected the divine.
Leprechauns, well, they should be observable at the end of rainbows in Ireland. They remain unverified.
-
Vlad,
The divine is never empirical. When Jesus walked All saw the man, some detected the divine.
Leprechauns, well, they should be observable at the end of rainbows in Ireland. They remain unverified.
“The divine” would be “empirical” when it decided to be a burning bush, a pilar of light etc. How else would someone have detected that such material phenomena had occurred?
You know, just like my non-material leprechauns were when they chose to be material.
The appearances of both “remain unverified”.
-
Ah well - I tried too,
Regarding the word justice - ok see below for a couple of opinions on the meaning of the word justice from Welby and from Terry Pratchett. Feel free to give me your opinion on who is right and who is wrong - not that your 3rd opinion means anything more than the other 2.
I think you used the word "fair" when you were trying to explain the meaning of justice, but were unable to explain what "fair" means. So that leaves me where exactly?
Regarding Fred Phelps and Justin Welby meanings of the word "God", Phelps is dead so I can't ask him but having looked up some of his statements and activities on the internet, he seems to see God as some sort of supreme power that judges humans. This is based on some of the placards he and his supporters were carrying when they were given permission by local law enforcement to picket peacefully 1000 feet from a church holding a soldier's funeral.
‘You’re Going to Hell’, ‘God Hates Fags’, ‘God Hates You’, ‘God Hates the USA’
Welby has also said "In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is recorded as giving one of the greatest challenges possible to his disciples just before his arrest and crucifixion when he describes the judgment of God at the end of time.
In that passage he explicitly says that judgment is linked to justice, namely, in the way in which we treat those who are most vulnerable and weakest."
https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/speaking-and-writing/speeches/archbishop-canterburys-remarks-launch-ippr-economic-justice
Seems like I can understand what Welby and Phelps mean when they use the word God, there are similarities in their usage.
Welby said justice meant the way in which we treat those who are most vulnerable and weakest. Terry Pratchett says in this conversation between Death and Susan (Death's words are in capitals for those not familiar with Pratchett):
All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
I may have missed it but have you been asked for a method for finding God yet?
-
Vlad,
“The divine” would be “empirical” when it decided to be a burning bush, a pilar of light etc. How else would someone have detected that such material phenomena had occurred?
You know, just like my non-material leprechauns were when they chose to be material.
The appearances of both “remain unverified”.
John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the father, has made him known.
-
Vlad,
I may have missed it but have you been asked for a method for finding God yet?
No she hasn’t, and nor have you.
What you’ve actually been asked for is your method to show first that that there's a “god” to be found. You know, the question you keep running away from.
Be nice if you stopped lying about that.
-
Vlad,
John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the father, has made him known.
If you believe scripture to be true, yes they have - frequently so. "He' manifested in various forms apparently - as a a burning bush, as a pillar of light etc - just as leprechauns have manifested in various material forms too. As someone who claims to be a Christian, you should know this already.
-
Vlad,
No she hasn’t, and nor have you.
What you’ve actually been asked for is your method to show first that that there's a “god” to be found. You know, the question you keep running away from.
OK have you asked her to provide a method to first show there’s a God?
Surely God has to exist before we show that he, Er,exists. In which case I can’t see how finding God can be irrelevant for what you want to achieve.
Whatever the method of showing or finding God The God Leprechaun Analogy, whether you’ve bet the house on it isn’t a Good place to start. Even atheists would tell you that. The trouble is in terms of intellectual atheists this forum is. A bit light on them.
-
Vlad,
If you believe scripture to be true, yes they have - frequently so. "He' manifested in various forms apparently - as a a burning bush, as a pillar of light etc - just as leprechauns have manifested in various material forms too. As someone who claims to be a Christian, you should know this already.
Really how have Leprechauns manifested as things other than Leprechauns. What material form other than the form of a Leprechaun do they have?
Let’s face it Hillside you haven’t got Leprechauns in your life at all. You are a bogus Leprechanist. A prosperity leprechaunist. Your muttering of vaguely sounding Irish words is just snake oil. You are destined for the pit of banshees.
-
Vlad,
OK have you asked her to provide a method to first show there’s a God?
Gabriella isn’t the one asserting “god” as a fact while offering no means to justify that claim – you are remember?
Surely God has to exist before we show that he, Er,exists. In which case I can’t see how finding God can be irrelevant for what you want to achieve.
Even for you that’s epically stupid. You’re being asked to propose a method to justify your assertion of fact “god”. If you can’t do that (and it seems you can’t) there’s no reason to take that claim any more seriously than my claim of fact “leprechauns”.
Whatever the method of showing or finding God The God Leprechaun Analogy, whether you’ve bet the house on it isn’t a Good place to start. Even atheists would tell you that. The trouble is in terms of intellectual atheists this forum is. A bit light on them.
More pigeon chess? Oh well. You’ve been told many times why you’re wrong about that. If you lack the wit or the honesty to address that, that’s just another of your problems.
-
Vlad,
Your stupidity/dishonesty is out of control now…
Really how have Leprechauns manifested as things other than Leprechauns. What material form other than the form of a Leprechaun do they have?
So now you’re shifting ground from “god wasn’t material” to ‘god was material in more ways than leprechauns were”. Either way though, it’s irrelevant. The number of different forms your god and my leprechauns have chosen to appear in when not being non-material has no significance at all to the analogy.
Let’s face it Hillside you haven’t got Leprechauns in your life at all. You are a bogus Leprechanist. A prosperity leprechaunist. Your muttering of vaguely sounding Irish words is just snake oil. You are destined for the pit of banshees.
Could you have more clearly demonstrated your dimwitted, dishonest and incoherent failure to grasp the point of the analogy? I find it hard to see how.
-
Vlad,
Gabriella isn’t the one asserting “god” as a fact while offering no means to justify that claim – you are remember?
Even for you that’s epically stupid. You’re being asked to propose a method to justify your assertion of fact “god”. If you can’t do that (and it seems you can’t) there’s no reason to take that claim any more seriously than my claim of fact “leprechauns”.
More pigeon chess? Oh well. You’ve been told many times why you’re wrong about that. If you lack the wit or the honesty to address that, that’s just another of your problems.
Gabriella is a Moslem. I’m afraid I find it rather strange that you haven’t asked her the same questions. Rather strange? No, really odd. I’m sure as a Moslem she thinks God exists.
The big question mark is your different reaction to Gabriella’s confession and mine.
Your claim about Leprechauns isn’t a serious proposition because you aren’t a serious proposition.
A died in the wool scientistical physicalist who is so disciplined so dogmatic that not only has he cut out any alternative thinking he can skilfully cut alternatives out of. The conversation. Not clever enough not to be tempted to answer on behalf of others though. Greatly skilled habit if i’m Correct you have been prepared to practice your turdpolishing skills at large.
Still your patently different attitude toward two world faiths is probably an interesting avenue to stick around for.
-
Vlad,
Gabriella is a Moslem. I’m afraid I find it rather strange that you haven’t asked her the same questions. Rather strange? No, really odd. I’m sure as a Moslem she thinks God exists.
Irrelevant, but in any case Gabriella does not assert her god to be an objective fact for everyone. You do.
The big question mark is your different reaction to Gabriella’s confession and mine.
No it isn’t.
Your claim about Leprechauns isn’t a serious proposition because you aren’t a serious proposition.
It’s the analogy that’s the serious proposition, not the leprechauns. Even you should be able to grasp this by now.
A died in the wool scientistical physicalist who is so disciplined so dogmatic that not only has he cut out any alternative thinking he can skilfully cut alternatives out of.
You're spitting the dummy now. Perhaps they could. Have you ever met or engaged with one such to find out? I haven’t, so it has no relevance here.
The conversation. Not clever enough not to be tempted to answer on behalf of others though. Greatly skilled habit if i’m Correct you have been prepared to practice your turdpolishing skills at large.
Have you dropped a bag of Scrabble letters and decided to copy and paste here? This is just incomprehensible.
Still your patently different attitude toward two world faiths is probably an interesting avenue to stick around for.
And the straw man to finish. There is no “patently different attitude toward two world faiths”. If Gabriella made the same kinds of claims of fact that you do, she’d receive the same questions and challenges.
Your desperation now you’ve run out of road is showing. You were asked whether you had some means to justify your assertion of fact “god”, either to yourself to anyone else. We now know that you haven’t, so there’s no reason to take the claim seriously. It’s ok – we all knew that anyway. All that your endless lying, evading, distracting and general twisting in the wind here has done is to confirm it.
I’ll leave you to your private grief now.
-
Gabriella is a Moslem. I’m afraid I find it rather strange that you haven’t asked her the same questions. Rather strange? No, really odd. I’m sure as a Moslem she thinks God exists.
No sorry - as I explained my opinion was that if the word "exist" is used in the English language to mean "is an objective fact", then I can't claim God exists because God has not been proved as objective fact. I can claim the concept of God exists as we all talk about it. I can also claim a belief in God, a faith-based belief i.e. one that is believed in the absence of objective evidence.
It doesn't matter to me if other people believe it too because I can understand if they don't in the absence of objective evidence, having been an atheist myself almost 30 years ago. Were you ever an atheist Vlad or have you always believed in God?
From reading the Quran translation and listening to some online talks and reading some essays on the Islamic perspective it does not seem to be a requirement for Muslims to assert that God exists in the material sense of the word. The Quran says there is nothing like Allah so I would think that finding an empirical method to establish existence would be impossible. Nor could anyone demonstrate the attribute of being eternal using an empirical method as science relies on linear time and increasing entropy over time. But there are Muslims who would assert existence without being able to provide evidence of existence.
The big question mark is your different reaction to Gabriella’s confession and mine.
Other than the swearing possibly, I think the reaction would be the same if I kept saying God exists as objective fact.
ETA: The word fact means something that is known to be true. The "knowers" in this definition are human and the usual convention is that if they have not come up with a method that others can understand, use and repeat to establish the truth of something to others, a lot of people will not accept it as a fact. Some people might but we shouldn't be surprised if many don't as there are lots of things that people assert that I don't accept as fact unless it can be demonstrated. And you can establish something as true and then new information might be discovered that would change what was previously accepted as true.
Hence the question being asked about a method to establish a claim of fact, which would not be required for a belief. You may well not be making a claim of fact but just stating your belief when you talk about God in which case this conversation was not necessary but has been enjoyable.
-
No sorry - as I explained my opinion was that if the word "exist" is used in the English language to mean "is an objective fact", then I can't claim God exists because God has not been proved as objective fact. I can claim the concept of God exists as we all talk about it. I can also claim a belief in God, a faith-based belief i.e. one that is believed in the absence of objective evidence.
It doesn't matter to me if other people believe it too because I can understand if they don't in the absence of objective evidence, having been an atheist myself almost 30 years ago. Were you ever an atheist Vlad or have you always believed in God?
From reading the Quran translation and listening to some online talks and reading some essays on the Islamic perspective it does not seem to be a requirement for Muslims to assert that God exists in the material sense of the word. The Quran says there is nothing like Allah so I would think that finding an empirical method to establish existence would be impossible. Nor could anyone demonstrate the attribute of being eternal using an empirical method as science relies on linear time and increasing entropy over time. But there are Muslims who would assert existence without being able to provide evidence of existence.
Other than the swearing possibly, I think the reaction would be the same if I kept saying God exists as objective fact.
To be honest I don’t know what you mean by objective fact. Hillside as i’ve Said is well versed in steering the context of a conversation by putting terms in.
I don’t think God is penetrable by empirical science I have made that much clear. I do not believe that God is true for me and no one else. Neither do I believe God is delusion.
I would like to see what Hillside makes of what you are saying in this post. I think you gave him a bit of an offering though by refuting God as objective fact. A phrase I have never used about anything
-
To be honest I don’t know what you mean by objective fact. Hillside as i’ve Said is well versed in steering the context of a conversation by putting terms in.
I don’t think God is penetrable by empirical science I have made that much clear. I do not believe that God is true for me and no one else. Neither do I believe God is delusion.
I would like to see what Hillside makes of what you are saying in this post. I think you gave him a bit of an offering though by refuting God as objective fact. A phrase I have never used about anything
I tend to dissect BHS's responses to try and understand what he means by what he says and if I disagree I'll argue it out with him. We usually fail to agree but in the process we might find one or two bits of common ground and I certainly gain a better understanding of what he is getting at even if I disagree. And sometimes something he says will alter my view and I might agree with him. I don't have a problem with changing my mind - having been an atheist and then a theist it involved changing my mind.
Regarding true for everyone, it's the difference between a belief and a fact. I edited my response to add something at the end about what I think is the way we establish facts as opposed to beliefs or assertions or concepts. What I said was:
ETA: The word fact means something that is known to be true. The "knowers" in this definition are human and the usual convention is that if they have not come up with a method that others can understand, use and repeat to establish the truth of something to others, a lot of people will not accept it as a fact. Some people might but we shouldn't be surprised if many don't as there are lots of things that people assert that I don't accept as fact unless it can be demonstrated. And you can establish something as true and then new information might be discovered that would change what was previously accepted as true.
Hence the question being asked about a method to establish a claim of fact, which would not be required for a belief. You may well not be making a claim of fact but just stating your belief when you talk about God in which case this conversation was not necessary but has been enjoyable.
-
Gabriella,
I thought you might find this interesting:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ignosticism
I'm an ignostic - ie, I take the view that questions about the existence or non-existence of "god" are meaningless because there's no way to define the term consistently. That's not to say though that that the arguments about this non-defined "something" can't be discussed readily - when for example someone says "god is real because..." and the "because" turns out to be logically false, it's legitimate to discuss that. To that extent I'm an atheist too - there are no sound reasons that I'm aware of to justify the claim "god", whatever each theist may happen to mean by that.
-
Vlad,
To be honest I don’t know what you mean by objective fact. Hillside as i’ve Said is well versed in steering the context of a conversation by putting terms in.
I don’t think God is penetrable by empirical science I have made that much clear. I do not believe that God is true for me and no one else. Neither do I believe God is delusion.
I would like to see what Hillside makes of what you are saying in this post. I think you gave him a bit of an offering though by refuting God as objective fact. A phrase I have never used about anything
No Hillside isn’t, but in any case defining a fact (the “objective” is redundant here) is actually a more nuanced business than you might think. Nonetheless, rather than have me explain it to you why don’t you work it out for yourself? You for example think that, say, “the capital of France is Paris” is a fact, “the speed of light is 186k miles per second” is a fact etc but you do not think the object of my claim “leprechauns” is a fact.
Why is that? That’s right – it’s because there are methods to justify the former beliefs, but no methods to justify the latter. And that’s the problem with “I do not believe that God is true for me and no one else”. It’s epistemically equivalent to the statement “I do not believe that leprechauns are true for me and no one else” because there’s no way to justify either belief.
-
Regarding true for everyone, it's the difference between a belief and a fact.
I'm not sure that is correct.
Just because something isn't 'true for everyone' doesn't make it just a belief. Rather it may be a 'subjective truth' that could even be a verifiable fact, but one that only applies to an individual, not to everyone.
So an example - do you like bananas. I don't think it is just a belief if I claim to like bananas. However it is also not a 'true for everyone' thing as there are others who do not like bananas. And it is possible to demonstrate objectively that like or dislike of bananas - so you may be able to demonstrate altered brain activity associated with pleasure in people who like bananas when they eat them which you do not detect in people who dislike bananas.
So it is a subjective truth - 'true for me', and possibly even objectively verifiably 'true for me', without being either 'true for everyone' nor a belief.
And on belief - rather than this being a true for me like or opinion, it tends to be considered as a subjective opinion without evidence of something that is claimed to be an objective truth - in other words 'true for everyone'.
-
I tend to dissect BHS's responses to try and understand what he means by what he says and if I disagree I'll argue it out with him. We usually fail to agree but in the process we might find one or two bits of common ground and I certainly gain a better understanding of what he is getting at even if I disagree. And sometimes something he says will alter my view and I might agree with him. I don't have a problem with changing my mind - having been an atheist and then a theist it involved changing my mind.
Regarding true for everyone, it's the difference between a belief and a fact. I edited my response to add something at the end about what I think is the way we establish facts as opposed to beliefs or assertions or concepts. What I said was:
ETA: The word fact means something that is known to be true. The "knowers" in this definition are human and the usual convention is that if they have not come up with a method that others can understand, use and repeat to establish the truth of something to others, a lot of people will not accept it as a fact. Some people might but we shouldn't be surprised if many don't as there are lots of things that people assert that I don't accept as fact unless it can be demonstrated. And you can establish something as true and then new information might be discovered that would change what was previously accepted as true.
Hence the question being asked about a method to establish a claim of fact, which would not be required for a belief. You may well not be making a claim of fact but just stating your belief when you talk about God in which case this conversation was not necessary but has been enjoyable.
Mulling these things over I still think you might be being a tad over generous at allowing atheists a bit of domination in terms of ontology and what can exist. The ontology is naturalistic and empiricist why, because we are mostly 21st century white British secular people.
Empiricist and naturalistic ontology is based on a circular argument.
On the other hand there is much that is right with your approach and attitude which I realise makes part of mine wr-werr-wero-wro-wro-o-o doomed to inefficiency of exchange.
-
Mulling these things over I still think you might be being a tad over generous at allowing atheists a bit of domination in terms of ontology and what can exist. The ontology is naturalistic and empiricist why, because we are mostly 21st century white British secular people.
Complete non-sense - whether something exists is completely outside of the notion of humans, let alone 21st century white British secular people. Where humans come in is that we have developed methods to demonstrate that something exists, but that isn't the same as the concept of existence. And we have some great examples - so our methods in astrophysics can demonstrate the existence of far off stars - however we know that the distance traveled to us to allow those methods to work means that we are looking at stars as they existed potentially long before those methods were developed or even human existence. So their existence pre-dates humans (and indeed they may no longer exist - team will tell), so the notion that existence is somehow a human construct, let alone a 21st century white British secular people construct.
However that isn't the case for religion and religious belief, which is most definitely a construct of humans and in the case of christianity very much a construct of a small subset of humans with particularly characteristics of origin and, largely gender.
-
Gabriella,
I thought you might find this interesting:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ignosticism
I'm an ignostic - ie, I take the view that questions about the existence or non-existence of "god" are meaningless because there's no way to define the term consistently. That's not to say though that that the arguments about this non-defined "something" can't be discussed readily - when for example someone says "god is real because..." and the "because" turns out to be logically false, it's legitimate to discuss that. To that extent I'm an atheist too - there are no sound reasons that I'm aware of to justify the claim "god", whatever each theist may happen to mean by that.
What other terms are you ignostic about?
What is your view on Leprechauns?
-
Vlad,
Mulling these things over I still think you might be being a tad over generous at allowing atheists a bit of domination in terms of ontology and what can exist.
Atheism doesn’t involve what can exist. This has been explained you many, many times. Why do you still get it wrong therefore? Atheism is just the conclusion that there are no good reasons on the table to think that god(s) do exist. It says nothing about whether or not they can or could.
Now write that down until it finally sinks in.
The ontology is naturalistic and empiricist why, because we are mostly 21st century white British secular people.
No, it’s because it’s the only method we have so far to investigate and to validate truth claims. Your utter failure to provide a different method to investigate your truth claim “god” just reinforces that.
Empiricist and natualistic ontology is based on a circular argument.
Utter bollocks for reasons that have also been explained to you countless times. Why on earth have you returned to your previous car crash in reasoning?
On the other hand there is much that is right with your approach and attitude which I realise makes part of mine wr-werr-wero-wro-wro-o-o doomed to inefficiency of exchange.
Gabriella is much brighter and more nuanced than you are. You’re in no position to patronise her.
-
Vlad,
What other terms are you ignostic about?
What is your view on Leprechauns?
Why are you still trying avoidance tactics?
-
Gabriella,
I thought you might find this interesting:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ignosticism
I'm an ignostic - ie, I take the view that questions about the existence or non-existence of "god" are meaningless because there's no way to define the term consistently. That's not to say though that that the arguments about this non-defined "something" can't be discussed readily - when for example someone says "god is real because..." and the "because" turns out to be logically false, it's legitimate to discuss that. To that extent I'm an atheist too - there are no sound reasons that I'm aware of to justify the claim "god", whatever each theist may happen to mean by that.
Ok thanks. To establish existence, yes for the reasons I gave as well, I can understand that theological position. I don't think it is possible to establish existence of gods eg. gods are not defined in a way that is testable - eg. eternal, supernatural, all-powerful etc all don't lend themselves to evidence or testing, unless someone comes up with a method to test such terms. My impression on here is that we have plenty to debate about the different beliefs and preferences people hold - whether it's about gods or other concepts that can't be clearly defined.
-
I'm not sure that is correct.
Just because something isn't 'true for everyone' doesn't make it just a belief. Rather it may be a 'subjective truth' that could even be a verifiable fact, but one that only applies to an individual, not to everyone.
So an example - do you like bananas. I don't think it is just a belief if I claim to like bananas. However it is also not a 'true for everyone' thing as there are others who do not like bananas. And it is possible to demonstrate objectively that like or dislike of bananas - so you may be able to demonstrate altered brain activity associated with pleasure in people who like bananas when they eat them which you do not detect in people who dislike bananas.
So it is a subjective truth - 'true for me', and possibly even objectively verifiably 'true for me', without being either 'true for everyone' nor a belief.
And on belief - rather than this being a true for me like or opinion, it tends to be considered as a subjective opinion without evidence of something that is claimed to be an objective truth - in other words 'true for everyone'.
Yes true. It could be a belief or a personal preference.
Religions seem to have a lot to do with personal preferences - different religious views and practices even within one single religion appeal to different people and they can probably explain why they found a particular thing appealing or not appealing and there might be a common theme between their religious preferences and their other non-religious philosophical preferences or even dietary preferences.
-
Mulling these things over I still think you might be being a tad over generous at allowing atheists a bit of domination in terms of ontology and what can exist. The ontology is naturalistic and empiricist why, because we are mostly 21st century white British secular people.
Empiricist and naturalistic ontology is based on a circular argument.
On the other hand there is much that is right with your approach and attitude which I realise makes part of mine wr-werr-wero-wro-wro-o-o doomed to inefficiency of exchange.
Haha :) - I am sure there are some wise, infinitely patient people who instantly always know the best approach in any given situation but I haven't met them yet and clearly from the arguments i have on here and IRL, that's definitely not me.
I think the point is that atheists see no reason to believe God exists because there is no method to test for it, and evidence that has been offered is testimonial and the atheists have not found it convincing.
People feel the same way about many other things, not just gods, ie. they don't feel evidence for X existing is convincing, so they do not believe that the X exists. I think that about many things too - if I don't find the evidence or testimony for its existence convincing.
And there are many things I don't even bother discussing because it does not seem to be testable or even interest me.
We discuss the merits of different beliefs on here, even if we can't establish that the subject of those beliefs exist.
I don't understand your comment about British, white, secular 21st century - maybe you can clarify? We haven't come across a method now or from the past that we can use to show existence of gods and many other things as fact so not sure how British, white, secular etc is relevant?
-
Gabriella is much brighter and more nuanced than you are. You’re in no position to patronise her.
Thanks.... I think. I had to sit down with shock when I read that earlier on my phone :D I didn't feel patronised but I can see why you read it that way.
-
Gabriella,
Ok thanks. To establish existence, yes for the reasons I gave as well, I can understand that theological position. I don't think it is possible to establish existence of gods eg. gods are not defined in a way that is testable - eg. eternal, supernatural, all-powerful etc all don't lend themselves to evidence or testing, unless someone comes up with a method to test such terms. My impression on here is that we have plenty to debate about the different beliefs and preferences people hold - whether it's about gods or other concepts that can't be clearly defined.
Yes, but the problem is much bigger than the non-testability of these supposed characteristics – it’s that there’s no agreement on "god" having them at all. Some think “He” has all of them, some think He has some of the them, some think He has none of them. Yet others think there to be god(s), but with different characteristics entirely. And here’s the thing: none of them are demonstrably wrong, even when the claimed characteristics contradict each other. That’s what happens when you rely on a personal faith beliefs for your definition of “god”: one person’s faith definition is no more or less valid than any other person’s faith definition.
In short, that’s the definition problem right there: “I believe in God”. “OK, what do you mean by “God”? “I mean X”.
“I believe in God”. “OK, what do you mean by “God”? “I mean Y”.
“I believe in God”. “OK, what do you mean by “God”? “I mean Z”.
How then would a dialogue about what “god” (supposedly) is take place when there’s no consensus even on the basic definition?
-
Yes true. It could be a belief or a personal preference.
Indeed, although in some cases this goes beyond a personal preference, which implies a choice. I think there are subjective truths (true for me) that are inherent in individuals and not a preference or choice. I guess with my food analogy you can stretch is a bit - so there may be some people who love peanuts (and you may be able to demonstrate that in terms of neurological pleasure when eating them), yet another person may be allergic and demonstrate a completely different but equally objectively measurable reaction. In this case we've gone beyond a choice of preference for peanuts but something much more intrinsically determined and can be objectively demonstrated. So a subjective 'true for me' that can be objectively demonstrated.
Religions seem to have a lot to do with personal preferences - different religious views and practices even within one single religion appeal to different people and they can probably explain why they found a particular thing appealing or not appealing and there might be a common theme between their religious preferences and their other non-religious philosophical preferences or even dietary preferences.
I'd argue that specific religiosity is inherently learned behaviour, even if there may be an inherent human tendency towards non-specific religiosity, linked to our evolutionarily-driven curiosity and social behaviours. Virtually all people who have a particularly religiosity were brought up in that way - very few genuine change from one religion to another and very few people brought up in a non-religious manner become religious. And I think the reason is that, as adults, the claims of religions seems implausible if we come to them cold - the only way in which we can suspend that implausibility is if we've been taught from being a child that the implausible is, in fact, true. And even then many people simply see through that implausibility as adults.
That is somewhat different to food preferences (or music etc), as although we might be brought up to like particular kinds of food or music I don't think that makes us find other types of food or music intrinsically unpalatable, although they may be an acquired taste. And a further point is that we can comfortably like bangla music or Caribbean cooking without being expected to 'buy into' a particular world view and inherent behaviours. Religion isn't like that.
-
I don't understand your comment about British, white, secular 21st century - maybe you can clarify? We haven't come across a method now or from the past that we can use to show existence of gods and many other things as fact so not sure how British, white, secular etc is relevant?
That's right.
And throughout history people have decided that they don't believe in the prevailing gods purported to exist at the time and created new ones to believe in. And some people have taken that a step further by concluding that none of the prevailing gods purported to exist at the time actually exist but choose not to create or believe in a new one (those people being atheist).
So the reality is that it is gods that tend to be clearly identified by place, time and species - being associated with one species (humans) living on a single planet (the earth) at a particular time (variable, but none of the purported gods we are aware of now have been considered to exist for more than the blink of an eye in the context of the cosmic timeframe).
-
Hi Prof,
…I guess with my food analogy you can stretch is a bit - so there may be some people who love peanuts (and you may be able to demonstrate that in terms of neurological pleasure when eating them), yet another person may be allergic and demonstrate a completely different but equally objectively measurable reaction. In this case we've gone beyond a choice of preference for peanuts but something much more intrinsically determined and can be objectively demonstrated. So a subjective 'true for me' that can be objectively demonstrated...
Just to expand on that a little bit, isn’t the point here that “likeability” isn’t an inherent property of peanuts (or of anything else), but rather it’s a description how of how some people respond to eating them. You can’t take a peanut apart and then point to the atoms that are the “likeable” ones. Same with morality and aesthetics and other human-made or derived value judgements too by the way – no act, painting etc is inherently “good” or “bad”; rather these are description we attach to them and made in response to them.
-
Indeed, although in some cases this goes beyond a personal preference, which implies a choice. I think there are subjective truths (true for me) that are inherent in individuals and not a preference or choice. I guess with my food analogy you can stretch is a bit - so there may be some people who love peanuts (and you may be able to demonstrate that in terms of neurological pleasure when eating them), yet another person may be allergic and demonstrate a completely different but equally objectively measurable reaction. In this case we've gone beyond a choice of preference for peanuts but something much more intrinsically determined and can be objectively demonstrated. So a subjective 'true for me' that can be objectively demonstrated.
I'd argue that specific religiosity is inherently learned behaviour, even if there may be an inherent human tendency towards non-specific religiosity, linked to our evolutionarily-driven curiosity and social behaviours. Virtually all people who have a particularly religiosity were brought up in that way - very few genuine change from one religion to another and very few people brought up in a non-religious manner become religious. And I think the reason is that, as adults, the claims of religions seems implausible if we come to them cold - the only way in which we can suspend that implausibility is if we've been taught from being a child that the implausible is, in fact, true. And even then many people simply see through that implausibility as adults.
That is somewhat different to food preferences (or music etc), as although we might be brought up to like particular kinds of food or music I don't think that makes us find other types of food or music intrinsically unpalatable, although they may be an acquired taste. And a further point is that we can comfortably like bangla music or Caribbean cooking without being expected to 'buy into' a particular world view and inherent behaviours. Religion isn't like that.
As adults? This generation from boomers on must be the most neotenised bunch of people there has ever been. Haven’t you noticed that this forum ticks over on the law of the playground.
As adults indeed.
-
Haha :) - I am sure there are some wise, infinitely patient people who instantly always know the best approach in any given situation but I haven't met them yet and clearly from the arguments i have on here and IRL, that's definitely not me.
I think the point is that atheists see no reason to believe God exists because there is no method to test for it, and evidence that has been offered is testimonial and the atheists have not found it convincing.
People feel the same way about many other things, not just gods, ie. they don't feel evidence for X existing is convincing, so they do not believe that the X exists. I think that about many things too - if I don't find the evidence or testimony for its existence convincing.
And there are many things I don't even bother discussing because it does not seem to be testable or even interest me.
We discuss the merits of different beliefs on here, even if we can't establish that the subject of those beliefs exist.
I don't understand your comment about British, white, secular 21st century - maybe you can clarify? We haven't come across a method now or from the past that we can use to show existence of gods and many other things as fact so not sure how British, white, secular etc is relevant?
I’m still unable to figure out though if atheists ask for a method in a rhetorical way namely in the quiet belief that there is no other method than science, hence talk of tests.
Or that they are being 100% genuine and are seeking a way of finding God or cosmic Godlessness or other/ attaining conviction of his existence or otherwise. If you are conceding that existence is testable by scientific means only; then if they don’t believe in the existence of God then it must be on an empirical/ naturalistic basis.
And on that basis I question the ontological starting point of atheists.
I don’t merely lack a belief in Leprechauns. I have a reason for not believing and it isn’t because i’m Not being given good reasons.
-
I’m still unable to figure out though if atheists ask for a method in a rhetorical way namely in the quiet belief that there is no other method than science, hence talk of tests.
Or that they are being 100% genuine and are seeking a way of finding God/ attaining conviction of his existence. If you are conceding that existence is testable by scientific means only then if they don’t believe in the existence of God then it must be on an empirical/ naturalistic basis.
And on that basis I question the ontological starting point of atheists.
Still desperately avoiding addressing the point. The motivation and any 'starting point' is totally irrelevant to the logic of the situation. Either you have some reason or method that can distinguish your god claims from blind guesses, wishful thinking, or whatever, or you don't.
It should be simple enough even for you...
-
Still desperately avoiding addressing the point. The motivation and any 'starting point' is totally irrelevant to the logic of the situation. Either you have some reason or method that can distinguish your god claims from blind guesses, wishful thinking, or whatever, or you don't.
It should be simple enough even for you...
I thought logic in any matter started from premises.
-
I thought logic in any matter started from premises.
The premiss for the question to you is the philosophical burden of proof.
What are yours and where is the argument that gets us to your god-claim being any better than a random guess?
-
Still desperately avoiding addressing the point. The motivation and any 'starting point' is totally irrelevant to the logic of the situation. Either you have some reason or method that can distinguish your god claims from blind guesses, wishful thinking, or whatever, or you don't.
It should be simple enough even for you...
Woo ah, I think you guys have forgotten how voluntary participation on an Internet forum. I don’t have to respond in the time it takes to rattle off a sound bite in the fashion of yourself nor jump to attention to satisfy someone who is/or was a big noise elsewhere and that is how they are used to being treated.
That said I have plenty of reasons to get it down to either a prime explanation for the universe or the universe popped out of nothing.
I suppose it all comes down to what you mean by the words reason and method.
What do you mean by them.
-
I’m still unable to figure out though if atheists ask for a method in a rhetorical way namely in the quiet belief that there is no other method than science, hence talk of tests.
Those of us who regard claims of 'God' as being incoherent, illogical and contradictory may well think that there are no methods specific to supernatural claims, and not without cause since we've asked theists posting here often enough but with no result: but still we ask because there is always the possibility that we might be wrong and that one of you guys might one day post a game-changer of a methodology that can be shown to be suitable for verifying supernatural claims.
Or that they are being 100% genuine and are seeking a way of finding God or cosmic Godlessness or other/ attaining conviction of his existence or otherwise.
Nope - remember the main reason I keep asking you for a method to verify 'God' claims is because I see no good reason to take your claim of 'God' seriously: and why would I bother "seeking a way of finding" something that I regard as being incoherent, illogical and contradictory?
If you are conceding that existence is testable by scientific means only; then if they don’t believe in the existence of God then it must be on an empirical/ naturalistic basis.
As ever you're missing the point: so I'll say again, if I regard claims of 'God' as being incoherent, illogical and contradictory then I'm not ever reaching for an empirical or naturalistic basis to reject the existence of 'God' since all I need do is reject the arguments for 'God' made by theists because, and I'll say it again, I regard them as being incoherent, illogical and contradictory.
And on that basis I question the ontological starting point of atheists.
Then you'd be wrong, again.
I don’t merely lack a belief in Leprechauns. I have a reason for not believing and it isn’t because i’m Not being given good reasons.
Then do tell what this specific reason is.
-
Woo ah, I think you guys have forgotten how voluntary participation on an Internet forum. I don’t have to respond in the time it takes to rattle off a sound bite in the fashion of yourself nor jump to attention to satisfy someone who is/or was a big noise elsewhere and that is how they are used to being treated.
You don't have to say anything at all but if you make claims, then you can expect to be asked to justify them. If you don't want to, that's fine too but you can't then expect to be taken seriously.
That said I have plenty of reasons to get it down to either a prime explanation for the universe or the universe popped out of nothing.
We've covered this multiple times and you've never actually produced an argument that leads from the unknown to your god-concept. You also keep on ignoring most of the alternative hypotheses that you've been given other than "popped out of nothing".
I suppose it all comes down to what you mean by the words reason and method.
What do you mean by them.
Yet again, I'm not going to do your job. It's up to you to make a proposal and then we can see if it stands up to logic and reasoning.
-
Gabriella,
Yes, but the problem is much bigger than the non-testability of these supposed characteristics – it’s that there’s no agreement on "god" having them at all. Some think “He” has all of them, some think He has some of the them, some think He has none of them. Yet others think there to be god(s), but with different characteristics entirely. And here’s the thing: none of them are demonstrably wrong, even when the claimed characteristics contradict each other. That’s what happens when you rely on a personal faith beliefs for your definition of “god”: one person’s faith definition is no more or less valid than any other person’s faith definition.
In short, that’s the definition problem right there: “I believe in God”. “OK, what do you mean by “God”? “I mean X”.
“I believe in God”. “OK, what do you mean by “God”? “I mean Y”.
“I believe in God”. “OK, what do you mean by “God”? “I mean Z”.
How then would a dialogue about what “god” (supposedly) is take place when there’s no consensus even on the basic definition?
BHS - this is where you and I disagree. You seem to think that personal faith beliefs in gods are in a different category from other beliefs in abstract concepts that people can't agree definitions on, and I disagree. And I explained my thinking in relation to Welby's view on "justice" and Pratchett's view on "justice". Defining words like justice using another abstract concept like fairness is not really defining anything. What is fairness? How do you define it in order to establish that it has been achieved?
Hence my view that fairness seems to be based on a feeling of rightness, which is different for each individual who views an issue, and which is no different to the feeling of rightness a theist has in relation to the god they believe in. Some theists may tell you their definition of god is an eternal supernatural entity that is the source of the creation of the universe and judges the actions of humans. Other theists may have a less grandiose concept. I see no problem with dealing with each individual's definitions of "god" or "fairness" or "justice" as I find them.
-
Those of us who regard claims of 'God' as being incoherent, illogical and contradictory may well think that there are no methods specific to supernatural claims, and not without cause since we've asked theists posting here often enough but with no result: but still we ask because there is always the possibility that we might be wrong and that one of you guys might one day post a game-changer of a methodology that can be shown to be suitable for verifying supernatural claims.
Nope - remember the main reason I keep asking you for a method to verify 'God' claims is because I see no good reason to take your claim of 'God' seriously: and why would I bother "seeking a way of finding" something that I regard as being incoherent, illogical and contradictory?
As ever you're missing the point: so I'll say again, if I regard claims of 'God' as being incoherent, illogical and contradictory then I'm not ever reaching for an empirical or naturalistic basis to reject the existence of 'God' since all I need do is reject the arguments for 'God' made by theists because, and I'll say it again, I regard them as being incoherent, illogical and contradictory.
Then you'd be wrong, again.
Then do tell what this specific reason is.
And I will say thisI do not regard claims of God being incoherent, illogical and contradictory and find it rich coming from people whose Cosmic Godlessness is based on not knowing the explanation of the universe but knowing it wasn’t God combined with a noble ignorance which can’t be accepted by you in anyone who opposes you.
-
Indeed, although in some cases this goes beyond a personal preference, which implies a choice. I think there are subjective truths (true for me) that are inherent in individuals and not a preference or choice. I guess with my food analogy you can stretch is a bit - so there may be some people who love peanuts (and you may be able to demonstrate that in terms of neurological pleasure when eating them), yet another person may be allergic and demonstrate a completely different but equally objectively measurable reaction. In this case we've gone beyond a choice of preference for peanuts but something much more intrinsically determined and can be objectively demonstrated. So a subjective 'true for me' that can be objectively demonstrated.
I'd argue that specific religiosity is inherently learned behaviour, even if there may be an inherent human tendency towards non-specific religiosity, linked to our evolutionarily-driven curiosity and social behaviours. Virtually all people who have a particularly religiosity were brought up in that way - very few genuine change from one religion to another and very few people brought up in a non-religious manner become religious. And I think the reason is that, as adults, the claims of religions seems implausible if we come to them cold - the only way in which we can suspend that implausibility is if we've been taught from being a child that the implausible is, in fact, true. And even then many people simply see through that implausibility as adults.
That is somewhat different to food preferences (or music etc), as although we might be brought up to like particular kinds of food or music I don't think that makes us find other types of food or music intrinsically unpalatable, although they may be an acquired taste. And a further point is that we can comfortably like bangla music or Caribbean cooking without being expected to 'buy into' a particular world view and inherent behaviours. Religion isn't like that.
I would agree that people's choice of religion, politics, cultural values as well as their practices of these things are usually heavily influenced by their upbringing. For example I do charity work but have no interest in the status of holding an official position in a charity unless it helps me complete a task for the charity quicker than I would if I was not holding an official position - this is because this was the exact same approach my parents took to charity work. I have no problem with my parents' attitude to charity work and share the same view. I don't see a problem with following the beliefs and practices of your parents unless the behaviour is causing significant harm to the person or others. Harm is of course hard to define. Lots of beliefs and practices that could be said to cause harm are tolerated by society until the harm becomes too significant to tolerate.
In the case of religion I must be one of the exceptions - my parents aren't particularly religious though they forced me to go to the Hindu temple with them once a week when I was a child so that I would not lose my culture and heritage. When I became a teen I found the notion of gods implausible and religion seemed stupid so I told them I was an atheist and therefore refused to go to the temple. They left the country when I was 18, and a few years later I started believing in god and became a Muslim about a year after that.
-
As adults? This generation from boomers on must be the most neotenised bunch of people there has ever been. Haven’t you noticed that this forum ticks over on the law of the playground.
As adults indeed.
Yes Vlad - as adults - you know the term used to describe people over the age of 18.
And why did I use that term - well because it links to the academic research on the topic which shows that nigh on 100% of adults who are religious were brought up as religious (i.e. learned behaviour). However the same isn't true for non religious people, sure nigh on 100% of people not brought up in a religious household will be non religious as adults, but at least 50% of children brought up in a religious household become non religious as adults, demonstrating that non-religiosity cannot be considered learned behaviour in the manner that religiosity can.
But hey why let good old facts and research stop you from having a typical Vlad tantrum.
-
You don't have to say anything at all but if you make claims, then you can expect to be asked to justify them. If you don't want to, that's fine too but you can't then expect to be taken seriously.
We've covered this multiple times and you've never actually produced an argument that leads from the unknown to your god-concept. You also keep on ignoring most of the alternative hypotheses that you've been given other than "popped out of nothing".
Yet again, I'm not going to do your job. It's up to you to make a proposal and then we can see if it stands up to logic and reasoning.
I don’t reject them as hypotheses. I Think they are unfalsifiable. What I tend to reject is a natural explanation for nature and even then I have not dismissed a necessary universe but ask in what way it is it necessary? I never reject a testable hypothesis.
-
Yes Vlad - as adults - you know the term used to describe people over the age of 18.
And why did I use that term - well because it links to the academic research on the topic which shows that nigh on 100% of adults who are religious were brought up as religious (i.e. learned behaviour). However the same isn't true for non religious people, sure nigh on 100% of people not brought up in a religious household will be non religious as adults, but at least 50% of children brought up in a religious household become non religious as adults, demonstrating that non-religiosity cannot be considered learned behaviour in the manner that religiosity can.
But hey why let good old facts and research stop you from having a typical Vlad tantrum.
Unfortunately Dave we have discussed this and I think we disagreed on what the definition of a religious upbringing was.
Anyway sounds like you are building up to a massive argumentum add populum.
-
Yes Vlad - as adults - you know the term used to describe people over the age of 18.
And why did I use that term - well because it links to the academic research on the topic which shows that nigh on 100% of adults who are religious were brought up as religious (i.e. learned behaviour). However the same isn't true for non religious people, sure nigh on 100% of people not brought up in a religious household will be non religious as adults, but at least 50% of children brought up in a religious household become non religious as adults, demonstrating that non-religiosity cannot be considered learned behaviour in the manner that religiosity can.
But hey why let good old facts and research stop you from having a typical Vlad tantrum.
Would you say this kind of study applies to say the early Christians where nigh on 100% of them weren’t brought up as Christians?
-
I don’t reject them as hypotheses. I Think they are unfalsifiable. What I tend to reject is a natural explanation for nature and even then I have not dismissed a necessary universe but ask in what way it is it necessary? I never reject a testable hypothesis.
Firstly, why do you persist with the references to the universe "popping out of nothing"? Secondly, you still haven't produced an argument that gets us from the unknown to your notion of god, so none of the discussion of cosmology constitutes a reason to accept your god as anything better than a random guess.
-
I would agree that people's choice of religion, politics, cultural values as well as their practices of these things are usually heavily influenced by their upbringing. For example I do charity work but have no interest in the status of holding an official position in a charity unless it helps me complete a task for the charity quicker than I would if I was not holding an official position - this is because this was the exact same approach my parents took to charity work. I have no problem with my parents' attitude to charity work and share the same view. I don't see a problem with following the beliefs and practices of your parents unless the behaviour is causing significant harm to the person or others. Harm is of course hard to define. Lots of beliefs and practices that could be said to cause harm are tolerated by society until the harm becomes too significant to tolerate.
I think many of us follow the exemplars we see as we grow up. Not least because it often defines the boundaries of what we think we can (or should) do and what we cannot (or should not do). And that is why positive mentoring roles are so important, particularly for kids brought up in less advantaged backgrounds who all too often feel that certain things are not attainable for 'people like them'.
So sure we should choose to follow our parents approach if we wish, but the key point here is that it must be a choice. We should feel just as free not to follow our parents' approach if that isn't aligned with our own personal development and aspirations. And as parents we should nature that ability to make those choices and have them respected. That doesn't mean that, as parents, we might not challenge our children (particularly when relatively young) on those choices, but ultimately our children are not us, and we are not our parents.
-
Firstly, why do you persist with the references to the universe "popping out of nothing"? Secondly, you still haven't produced an argument that gets us from the unknown to your notion of god, so none of the discussion of cosmology constitutes a reason to accept your god as anything better than a random guess.
I have no clue what you are saying here. At the risk of you coming out with your usual spatial temporal wibbliwoblium shit why is it wrong to introduce or consider the idea of popping out of nothing........after all Hume did and he seems to be a poster boy around here.
-
And I will say thisI do not regard claims of God being incoherent, illogical and contradictory and find it rich coming from people whose Cosmic Godlessness is based on not knowing the explanation of the universe but knowing it wasn’t God combined with a noble ignorance which can’t be accepted by you in anyone who opposes you.
Do you ever read what people tell you and/or take time to think about what they've said?
Again - I'm not saying that 'God' isn't the explanation for "the universe": I saying that there are no good reasons to think that it is.
I have no problem is agreeing that I am ignorant as regards an explanation for the universe, partly because I'm not even sure that the presumption that there is such an explanation is a valid presumption.
-
Poor Vlad I suppose one should feel sorry for him really.
-
I’m still unable to figure out though if atheists ask for a method in a rhetorical way namely in the quiet belief that there is no other method than science, hence talk of tests.
Or that they are being 100% genuine and are seeking a way of finding God or cosmic Godlessness or other/ attaining conviction of his existence or otherwise. If you are conceding that existence is testable by scientific means only; then if they don’t believe in the existence of God then it must be on an empirical/ naturalistic basis.
And on that basis I question the ontological starting point of atheists.
I don’t merely lack a belief in Leprechauns. I have a reason for not believing and it isn’t because i’m Not being given good reasons.
When I was an atheist at school I got enjoyment in pointing out to the theists at school why their beliefs were illogical / contradictory etc. It wasn't personal. I felt the same way about Islam when I first started engaging with Muslim theology at university and became good enough friends with Muslims to question their beliefs.
So it makes sense that people are interested in challenging ideas put forward on a debate forum.
I remember we had to wear white lab coats for physics, chemistry and biology lessons and everyone used to scribble the names of their favourite boy bands or draw little hearts or personalise their lab coats in some way - this had been allowed for years. I wrote on the back of mine with a thick black permanent marker in big Gothic script "God did not create Man, Man created God". Sometimes I would walk through school with my lab coat on in between my science lessons for the day. To be fair other people did that too, if they couldn't be bothered to go to the lockers in between lessons. But maybe I was trying to be provocative or maybe I really wanted to express my views to others. Within a month the headmistress said no one in the school was allowed to write on their lab coats. I had to buy a brand new lab coat as washing it did not remove the writing.
-
I have no clue what you are saying here. At the risk of you coming out with your usual spatial temporal wibbliwoblium shit why is it wrong to introduce or consider the idea of popping out of nothing........after all Hume did and he seems to be a poster boy around here.
I assume by "spatial temporal wibbliwoblium shit" you mean Einstein's theory of general relativity? Regardless, "popping out of nothing" very loosely, just about describes just one of many hypotheses, so to characterise it as the alternative to the supernatural (as you often seem to do) is a misrepresentation. Hume knew nothing of modern cosmology, so I've no idea what you think he has to do with it.
All of which is just more distraction from the fact that none of these descussions have led to you presenting an argument for your god that can distinguish it from a random guess.
-
Vlad,
I’m still unable to figure out though if atheists ask for a method in a rhetorical way namely in the quiet belief that there is no other method than science, hence talk of tests.
There’s no such thing as “atheists” in the sense you’re attempting that we all think the same way, but the “talk of tests” is merely telling you that the burden of proof rests with the theist (or with the leprechaunist for that matter) to explain why his assertions should be taken seriously. That you cannot or will not do that doesn’t make the problem go away.
Or that they are being 100% genuine and are seeking a way of finding God or cosmic Godlessness or other/ attaining conviction of his existence or otherwise.
Atheists are no more “seeking a way of finding God” than you’re seeking a way of finding leprechauns. Why would anyone “seek” anything when there are only unqualified assertions that they exist at all.
If you are conceding that existence is testable by scientific means only;…
Why do you insist on lying about this?
…then if they don’t believe in the existence of God then it must be on an empirical/ naturalistic basis.
No, it’s just because we’ve been given no good reasons of any kind to conclude otherwise.
And on that basis I question the ontological starting point of atheists.
As “that basis” is a lie your supposed questioning is redundant.
I don’t merely lack a belief in Leprechauns. I have a reason for not believing and it isn’t because i’m Not being given good reasons.
What reason do you have other than not being given good reasons to believe it?
-
I think many of us follow the exemplars we see as we grow up. Not least because it often defines the boundaries of what we think we can (or should) do and what we cannot (or should not do). And that is why positive mentoring roles are so important, particularly for kids brought up in less advantaged backgrounds who all too often feel that certain things are not attainable for 'people like them'.
So sure we should choose to follow our parents approach if we wish, but the key point here is that it must be a choice. We should feel just as free not to follow our parents' approach if that isn't aligned with our own personal development and aspirations. And as parents we should nature that ability to make those choices and have them respected. That doesn't mean that, as parents, we might not challenge our children (particularly when relatively young) on those choices, but ultimately our children are not us, and we are not our parents.
Yes I agree. My parents respected my choices, though they did challenge my atheism because of my refusal to go with them to the temple when I was 13 - but I think that was more to do with me losing my cultural heritage/ not spending family time with them and pulling away, mixed in with a bit of what are we going to tell others at the temple when they ask us where our kids are / what mischief will they get up to left home alone unsupervised on a Friday evening. They eventually said they did not care what I believed, I had to go with them as there was no problem with atheists going into a temple. They got tired of the arguments and after a while left me at home sometimes and my older brother got to stay home too so I would not be home alone. He was also an atheist but just did not feel the need to proclaim it.
To be fair, not wanting to go to the temple had less to do with atheism than just finding the whole experience so tedious whereby I would struggle to keep my eyes open as soon as the chanting started as it went on for what seemed like forever.
My parents also respected my choice to become a Muslim. I am sure we would be a lot closer if I shared the same world view as them on religion - they are non-practising Hindus and are politely tolerant of my tendency to practice my religion. I am pretty sure my mother finds the praying and fasting a bit silly and I can relate to that perspective but when my children were young and wanted to have a sleep over at their place sometimes during Ramadan, my mother would set her alarm to get up at 3am to help the children with eating something before dawn, which was nice of her.
-
Poor Vlad I suppose one should feel sorry for him really.
Should we? Why? We don't feel sorry for you that your contributions to the forum are usually limited to "IMO" followed by something a 5 year old could write and ending with "scum".
-
Should we? Why? We don't feel sorry for you that your contributions to the forum are usually limited to "IMO" followed by something a 5 year old could write and ending with "scum".
Thanks dear, how kind. ;D Are your contributions any better? ::)
-
Thanks dear, how kind. ;D Are your contributions any better? ::)
You're welcome ;D. Glad you got the message.
-
In the case of religion I must be one of the exceptions - my parents aren't particularly religious though they forced me to go to the Hindu temple with them once a week when I was a child so that I would not lose my culture and heritage. When I became a teen I found the notion of gods implausible and religion seemed stupid so I told them I was an atheist and therefore refused to go to the temple. They left the country when I was 18, and a few years later I started believing in god and became a Muslim about a year after that.
Not sure you are an exception Gabriella - although you have clearly shifted from the religion of your upbringing to a different religion as an adult. But that is a religious to religion shift, not non religious to religious, which is the thing which is very rare.
Now I've had a similar discussion with Vlad, who claimed to have been brought up in a non religious household yet was sent to Sunday School. I think this misunderstands what a non religious household and non religious upbringing means. Let's not forget that only about 10% of people in the UK (probably far less than that) participate in organised religious activities on any kind of regular basis, such as going to church, temple, mosque etc (except for weddings, funerals or perhaps once a year at Christmas). So the 90+% is what a non religious household looks like, what a non religious upbringing looks like - you don't go to church, you don't go to the temple, you don't go to Sunday school etc, etc. So regardless of how you perceive your patents religiosity they were clearly in that tiny proportion of activity religious people as they regularly went to the temple and took you - indeed it would appear that they were fairly insistent you go.
So Gabriella - whichever way you look at it, in the contexts of the research you were brought up in a religious household, not a non religious one.
And it isn't uncommon for people to 'rebel' against their upbringing as a teenager. Indeed it is very common. So you will find all sorts of people who claim to have been atheist and then became religious (Vlad is one I think, and you in a slightly less overt manner is another). But the reality is that you, and Vlad were brought up in a actively religious manner (temple, Sunday School), may have spent some time rebelling against that upbringing but largely folded back into it, albeit in your case into a different religion.
But I think moving from one religion to another is very different from genuinely moving from being non religious to being religious. The point being that most, if not all, religions are based around belief in a god, faith, tradition, custom and ceremony. If you are comfortable with that as you were brought up in that manner, then even a different religion will have very familiar elements to it. If, on the other hand you were brought up in a non religious manner those fundamental elements of religion may seems alien, unfamiliar and frankly unfathomable and implausible.
-
What's that Shakespearean play called now, ah yes it starts off 'Much ado etc
When you think you're getting through to this bloke it's usually when it's time to move the goal posts, it's not worth the bother.
ippy.
-
Not sure you are an exception Gabriella - although you have clearly shifted from the religion of your upbringing to a different religion as an adult. But that is a religious to religion shift, not non religious to religious, which is the thing which is very rare.
Now I've had a similar discussion with Vlad, who claimed to have been brought up in a non religious household yet was sent to Sunday School. I think this misunderstands what a non religious household and non religious upbringing means. Let's not forget that only about 10% of people in the UK (probably far less than that) participate in organised religious activities on any kind of regular basis, such as going to church, temple, mosque etc (except for weddings, funerals or perhaps once a year at Christmas). So the 90+% is what a non religious household looks like, what a non religious upbringing looks like - you don't go to church, you don't go to the temple, you don't go to Sunday school etc, etc. So regardless of how you perceive your patents religiosity they were clearly in that tiny proportion of activity religious people as they regularly went to the temple and took you - indeed it would appear that they were fairly insistent you go.
So Gabriella - whichever way you look at it, in the contexts of the research you were brought up in a religious household, not a non religious one.
And it isn't uncommon for people to 'rebel' against their upbringing as a teenager. Indeed it is very common. So you will find all sorts of people who claim to have been atheist and then became religious (Vlad is one I think, and you in a slightly less overt manner is another). But the reality is that you, and Vlad were brought up in a actively religious manner (temple, Sunday School), may have spent some time rebelling against that upbringing but largely folded back into it, albeit in your case into a different religion.
But I think moving from one religion to another is very different from genuinely moving from being non religious to being religious. The point being that most, if not all, religions are based around belief in a god, faith, tradition, custom and ceremony. If you are comfortable with that as you were brought up in that manner, then even a different religion will have very familiar elements to it. If, on the other hand you were brought up in a non religious manner those fundamental elements of religion may seems alien, unfamiliar and frankly unfathomable and implausible.
Fair enough - if that was the definition of a religious household in the survey then, yes I grew up in one and lost interest because I preferred Friday night TV at home to a temple, became an atheist because I wasn't provided a reason that made sense to me to believe and my parents were accepting of my lack of belief but wanted my cultural participation and wanted me to spend time with them (they both worked during the day), and then when it made sense to me shifted from atheism to a different religion.
There are other cultural practices that I discarded and then folded back into in some way though not exactly like my parents, so being religious is just another one.
-
Fair enough - if that was the definition of a religious household in the survey then, yes I grew up in one ...
I think that it is pretty self evidence that in a country where less than one in ten people participate in religious activities such as regularly going to religious worship, then if your household does (or did) then that is a religious household.
I think some people can lack perspective - effectively not seeing the whole spectrum in which the vast majority never engage in religious activity and then conclude that perhaps because they know some people at their church (or temple) who attend more often, or perhaps seems more fervent, or many engage in a range of ancillary activities within the church or temple, then somehow that means their household isn't really religious at all. If your household actively and regularly participate in religious worship or other religious activities then, by definition your household is religious. Non religious households simply don't do that.
-
... then, yes I grew up in one and lost interest because I preferred Friday night TV at home to a temple, became an atheist because I wasn't provided a reason that made sense to me to believe and my parents were accepting of my lack of belief but wanted my cultural participation and wanted me to spend time with them (they both worked during the day), and then when it made sense to me shifted from atheism to a different religion.
There are other cultural practices that I discarded and then folded back into in some way though not exactly like my parents, so being religious is just another one.
Fair enough - and I think you are being honest that religion was very much part of your upbringing and therefore many of those elements that were familiar from childhood resonate within the context of a different religion, but a religion nonetheless.
I think the point is that if you have been brought up in a non-religious household and never exposed to those religious elements and norms then the whole concept can seem very bewildering and the underpinning assumptions (e.g. a god, miracles etc etc) seem completely implausible. And for those brought up in a non religious manner I don't think the notion of merely being active in a cultural or social manner (even if you don't really believe) seems in any way attractive as the norms, culture and ceremony aren't familiar but tend to be rather alien.
-
Gabriella,
BHS - this is where you and I disagree. You seem to think that personal faith beliefs in gods are in a different category from other beliefs in abstract concepts that people can't agree definitions on, and I disagree. And I explained my thinking in relation to Welby's view on "justice" and Pratchett's view on "justice". Defining words like justice using another abstract concept like fairness is not really defining anything. What is fairness? How do you define it in order to establish that it has been achieved?
I’m not sure there’s much point in continuing with this other than to say, if person A says “god is hate” and person B says “god is love” there’s no way to arbitrate between them. Both are faith claims. By contrast, if person A says “justice is the process of seeking to apply various principles of fairness and equality” and person B says “justice is the process of randomly shooting every third person you meet” it’s easy to arbitrate who’s right and who’s wrong about that. How? By looking to the agreed, consensual definition of “justice” around which almost everyone coheres.
Hence my view that fairness seems to be based on a feeling of rightness, which is different for each individual who views an issue, and which is no different to the feeling of rightness a theist has in relation to the god they believe in. Some theists may tell you their definition of god is an eternal supernatural entity that is the source of the creation of the universe and judges the actions of humans. Other theists may have a less grandiose concept. I see no problem with dealing with each individual's definitions of "god" or "fairness" or "justice" as I find them.
You’ve just fallen back here into issues of what actually is just, fair etc which is a different matter from the conceptual principle of what justice etc concerns. What’s right and wrong might be different for every person, but the meaning of the word for seeking to apply principles of rightness and fairness (no matter what they happen to be) isn’t.
-
Not sure you are an exception Gabriella - although you have clearly shifted from the religion of your upbringing to a different religion as an adult. But that is a religious to religion shift, not non religious to religious, which is the thing which is very rare.
Now I've had a similar discussion with Vlad, who claimed to have been brought up in a non religious household yet was sent to Sunday School. I think this misunderstands what a non religious household and non religious upbringing means. Let's not forget that only about 10% of people in the UK (probably far less than that) participate in organised religious activities on any kind of regular basis, such as going to church, temple, mosque etc (except for weddings, funerals or perhaps once a year at Christmas). So the 90+% is what a non religious household looks like, what a non religious upbringing looks like - you don't go to church, you don't go to the temple, you don't go to Sunday school etc, etc. So regardless of how you perceive your patents religiosity they were clearly in that tiny proportion of activity religious people as they regularly went to the temple and took you - indeed it would appear that they were fairly insistent you go.
So Gabriella - whichever way you look at it, in the contexts of the research you were brought up in a religious household, not a non religious one.
And it isn't uncommon for people to 'rebel' against their upbringing as a teenager. Indeed it is very common. So you will find all sorts of people who claim to have been atheist and then became religious (Vlad is one I think, and you in a slightly less overt manner is another). But the reality is that you, and Vlad were brought up in a actively religious manner (temple, Sunday School), may have spent some time rebelling against that upbringing but largely folded back into it, albeit in your case into a different religion.
But I think moving from one religion to another is very different from genuinely moving from being non religious to being religious. The point being that most, if not all, religions are based around belief in a god, faith, tradition, custom and ceremony. If you are comfortable with that as you were brought up in that manner, then even a different religion will have very familiar elements to it. If, on the other hand you were brought up in a non religious manner those fundamental elements of religion may seems alien, unfamiliar and frankly unfathomable and implausible.
You seemed to ignore that a non religious parent could utilise a Sunday school for childminding purposes or for social purpose.
The way I think we can rationalise your definition of non religion is that you view the non religious as not countenancing that a non religious person would want their child exposed to religion. This is an active stance and does not consider the vast bulk of atheists who are apatheists. A committed and public atheist like yourself is unlikely to mix with the apatheist hoi Paloi though. So the idea of an atheist using a Sunday school might be foreign to you.
Lastly there is a paragraph in your post that looks like you are shaking hands with the no true Scotsman fallacy.
-
You seemed to ignore that a non religious parent could utilise a Sunday school for childminding purposes or for social purpose.
Hmm, what activity might parents regularly do on, say a Sunday morning, for perhaps an hour that they might need such regular child-care. Hmm, can't think.
Out of interest would you find it similarly so normal for a non religious family to drop their child off at Hebrew School at their local synagogue or weekend Islamic School at their local mosque in order to spend a couple of hours shopping.
-
Vlad,
There’s no such thing as “atheists” in the sense you’re attempting that we all think the same way, but the “talk of tests” is merely telling you that the burden of proof rests with the theist (or with the leprechaunist for that matter) to explain why his assertions should be taken seriously. That you cannot or will not do that doesn’t make the problem go away.
Atheists are no more “seeking a way of finding God” than you’re seeking a way of finding leprechauns. Why would anyone “seek” anything when there are only unqualified assertions that they exist at all.
Why do you insist on lying about this?
No, it’s just because we’ve been given no good reasons of any kind to conclude otherwise.
As “that basis” is a lie your supposed questioning is redundant.
What reason do you have other than not being given good reasons to believe it?
Well that’s all you, Hillside speaking on behalf of other people again.
I believe I put it as seeking a way of finding God or otherwise.
So a reading of your post would reveal that not only
You are not seeking a way of finding God you are not seeking a way of confirming an atheist status quo.
-
Hmm, what activity might parents regularly do on, say a Sunday morning, for perhaps an hour that they might need such regular child-care. Hmm, can't think.
Out of interest would you find it similarly so normal for a non religious family to drop their child off at Hebrew School at their local synagogue or weekend Islamic School at their local mosque in order to spend a couple of hours shopping.
We are talking about a gap of over fifty years since I went to Sunday school. We’re talking about a decade before people like Bernard Manning had millions of viewers and were awarded CBE’s etc.
It wouldn’t have happened in those days and doesn’t happen on grounds of culture/ race. There wasn’t in any case any nearby mosques or synagogues or nearby followers of Islam. Would a synagogue have been open to goyim?I don’t know. Non religious people of the sort who would have forbade their kids from Sunday school, RE lessons, nativities etc were extremely, extremely fringe.
You are viewing how religiously I was brought up in the nineteen sixties through the eyes of 2020.
I’m just laughing at the historical inaccuracy of what you have said and wonder why an intelligent chap like yourself keeps making this same mistake time and again. I put it down to your active non religious persuasion with a large helping of confirmation bias.
-
I think that it is pretty self evidence that in a country where less than one in ten people participate in religious activities such as regularly going to religious worship, then if your household does (or did) then that is a religious household.
I think some people can lack perspective - effectively not seeing the whole spectrum in which the vast majority never engage in religious activity and then conclude that perhaps because they know some people at their church (or temple) who attend more often, or perhaps seems more fervent, or many engage in a range of ancillary activities within the church or temple, then somehow that means their household isn't really religious at all. If your household actively and regularly participate in religious worship or other religious activities then, by definition your household is religious. Non religious households simply don't do that.
I agree and I don't think it's surprising that people can lack perspective on something they have not experienced. That is the thrust of many arguments about minorities being represented. I don't know any atheist families who brought their children up as atheist so have no experience of what life is like in those households.
My impression was that my parents stuck with the religion more to keep my grandparents happy and also as immigrants there is more of an incentive to try and retain some of the culture from your country of birth and religion covers a lot of those cultural bases. Once my grandparents died my parents made a bit of an effort for a while but soon became pretty uninterested in going to the temple, but while my grandparents were alive religion was certainly practised.
But yes I can certainly relate to the idea of people being baffled by aspects of alien cultures they have not had much prior experience of and being totally uninterested in engaging with them.
-
Gabriella,
I’m not sure there’s much point in continuing with this other than to say, if person A says “god is hate” and person B says “god is love” there’s no way to arbitrate between them. Both are faith claims. By contrast, if person A says “justice is the process of seeking to apply various principles of fairness and equality” and person B says “justice is the process of randomly shooting every third person you meet” it’s easy to arbitrate who’s right and who’s wrong about that. How? By looking to the agreed, consensual definition of “justice” around which almost everyone coheres.
Ok. But why would you need to arbitrate between them if god is a personal experience? Your choice would be based on your preference - a feeling of rightness. If you have no such feeling you would choose neither.
You’ve just fallen back here into issues of what actually is just, fair etc which is a different matter from the conceptual principle of what justice etc concerns. What’s right and wrong might be different for every person, but the meaning of the word for seeking to apply principles of rightness and fairness (no matter what they happen to be) isn’t.
If there aren't really agreed principles, what's the point of talking about them - it's all personal preference.
-
Vlad,
Well that’s all you, Hillside speaking on behalf of other people again.
You’re off to a bad start again. I wasn’t speaking on behalf of other people at all – rather I was just explaining that you can’t just assume that all atheists think alike (especially when you’ve just flat out misrepresented yet again what atheism actually entails).
I believe I put it as seeking a way of finding God or otherwise.
Wrongly, for the reason I explained and you’ve ignored.
So a reading of your post would reveal that not only…
That would be a mis-reading – you’re Vlad remember?
You are not seeking a way of finding God you are not seeking a way of confirming an atheist status quo.
I’m not “seeking” anything. I merely explain to you that no matter how many times you balls up an argument or just lie about what people here say, you’re still not one step closer to demonstrating that your claim “god” isn’t epistemically equivalent to my claim “leprechauns”.
-
Gabriella,
Ok. But why would you need to arbitrate between them if god is a personal experience? Your choice would be based on your preference - a feeling of rightness. If you have no such feeling you would choose neither.
Because if people want to have a dialogue about “god” then they must agree first what it is they’re attempting to discuss. It’s the basic definitional necessity for any dialogue if the participants aren’t just to talk past each other.
If there aren't really agreed principles, what's the point of talking about them - it's all personal preference.
What the point of talking about something is and whether it can be talked about are different matters. We could for example have a perfectly sensible discussion about the need for societies to strive for justice in order to maintain cohesion without once troubling ourselves with a different discussion about what “just” would mean in any specific case.
-
Gabriella,
Because if people want to have a dialogue about “god” then they must agree first what it is they’re attempting to discuss. It’s the basic definitional necessity for any dialogue if the participants aren’t just to talk past each other.
Yes and I think that could be done at the start of any discussion, where people define what they each mean by god. What they mean by god is part of what makes the discussion interesting. In the same way people could define what they each mean by "justice" or "right" or "wrong" at the start of a discussion - because none of those exist. It's just driven by individual people's feelings - what feels right or wrong or fair or just - so instead of using the words justice or fair - they could just say "I feel comfortable with this outcome."
What the point of talking about something is and whether it can be talked about are different matters. We could for example have a perfectly sensible discussion about the need for societies to strive for justice in order to maintain cohesion without once troubling ourselves with a different discussion about what “just” would mean in any specific case.
Not really - it would be a meaningless statement if no one can agree on what justice is because it is based on feelings. You could just as easily talk about the need for people in societies to strive for feeling comfortable about the interaction of rights and responsibilities and limitations to freedom in order to maintain cohesion. We could also have a perfectly sensible discussion about the need for people in societies to have a religion as a way of continuing cultural traditions that are important to them as a way of uniting generations and maintaining cohesion.
-
You seemed to ignore that a non religious parent could utilise a Sunday school for childminding purposes or for social purpose.
The way I think we can rationalise your definition of non religion is that you view the non religious as not countenancing that a non religious person would want their child exposed to religion. This is an active stance and does not consider the vast bulk of atheists who are apatheists. A committed and public atheist like yourself is unlikely to mix with the apatheist hoi Paloi though. So the idea of an atheist using a Sunday school might be foreign to you.
Lastly there is a paragraph in your post that looks like you are shaking hands with the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Yes I would agree with you that one part of PD's response does seem to read like a No True Scotsman fallacy. I don't agree with PD's idea of people claiming to be atheist. I was an atheist and then I wasn't. It's perfectly possible to change your mind - as PD pointed out - many people change from being theist to atheist as they get older - and labelling that as rebelling sounds as though it was not a reasoned out position. I agreed with the part that when I changed my mind and became a theist that I was more comfortable with theist ideas than someone who had not been exposed to religion in the household.
And I don't know any atheist families where their children do not have some exposure to religion because it's everywhere in the culture. I know atheist families whose children went to faith schools and the parents went to church and sang in the choir.
-
Yes and I think that could be done at the start of any discussion, where people define what they each mean by god. What they mean by god is part of what makes the discussion interesting. In the same way people could define what they each mean by "justice" or "right" or "wrong" at the start of a discussion - because none of those exist. It's just driven by individual people's feelings - what feels right or wrong or fair or just - so instead of using the words justice or fair - they could just say "I feel comfortable with this outcome."
Not really - it would be a meaningless statement if no one can agree on what justice is because it is based on feelings. You could just as easily talk about the need for people in societies to strive for feeling comfortable about the interaction of rights and responsibilities and limitations to freedom in order to maintain cohesion. We could also have a perfectly sensible discussion about the need for people in societies to have a religion as a way of continuing cultural traditions that are important to them as a way of uniting generations and maintaining cohesion.
I agree there must be an understanding of definition of terms and that principle is the basis on which I asked for a definition of the term method. The atheists as I do myself are in my view having difficulty outside the scientific method as evidenced by their sentiment that somehow it’s not up to them to define their meaning of it but for me to just run off and find one, “there’s a good chap.”
-
I agree there must be an understanding of definition of terms and that principle is the basis on which I asked for a definition of the term method. The atheists as I do myself are in my view having difficulty outside the scientific method as evidenced by their sentiment that somehow it’s not up to them to define their meaning of it but for me to just run off and find one, “there’s a good chap.”
It is entirely up to you, it's a simple part of the burden of proof. If you make a claim and also say that neither empirical evidence nor logic can be used to support it, then it's your job to provide something else - basically something (anything) that can distinguish your claim from random guessing and all the other claims that cannot be supported by logic or empirical evidence (leprechauns and the like).
How many more times do you need this explaining?
-
I agree there must be an understanding of definition of terms and that principle is the basis on which I asked for a definition of the term method. The atheists as I do myself are in my view having difficulty outside the scientific method as evidenced by their sentiment that somehow it’s not up to them to define their meaning of it but for me to just run off and find one, “there’s a good chap.”
I think having a discussion is fine but we are all aware that a discussion does not necessarily involve taking anyone's claims seriously.
I think the issue of a method is in relation to the specific atheist challenge that if theists want their claim of God as fact to be taken seriously by anyone who currently does not hold a belief in gods or that specific god, the theist needs to provide a method to justify their claim. As there is no method currently, it justifies the atheist position - which is that they do not share the theist's belief about gods.
It just makes the point that theism is based on a belief - for which there is no objective evidence. So while there might be some historical evidence that atheists find convincing that a person called Muhammad probably existed in 7th century Arabia, there is no evidence that he received a message from gods or any evidence that gods exists. He is said, according to the traditional stories, to have been illiterate, but there is no way of verifying this. And not having an explanation for the origins of the universe does not make gods any more plausible.
So gods remain a belief - a personal experience - a feeling unique to each individual whose mind interprets their feelings as a belief in a particular god. I think your suggestion that atheists are god-dodging sounds as patronising as PD's suggestion that some people claim to be atheists but they weren't really. I think I know what you are getting at, but having examined my feelings of belief, I don't think I am dodging the concept of the Trinity etc any more than you are dodging Allah.
-
Vlad,
I agree there must be an understanding of definition of terms and that principle is the basis on which I asked for a definition of the term method. The atheists as I do myself are in my view having difficulty outside the scientific method as evidenced by their sentiment that somehow it’s not up to them to define their meaning of it but for me to just run off and find one, “there’s a good chap.”
Basic shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. Again. “God” is your claim – it’s therefore your job to propose a method to verify it. If you don’t then that’s all you have - a claim.
Incidentally, if you’d only put your relentless dishonesty to one side for a moment you’d realise that you could answer your own question: the method I’m asking for is one that, if I attempted it to justify my claim “leprechauns”, you wouldn’t be able to falsify.
-
We are talking about a gap of over fifty years since I went to Sunday school. We’re talking about a decade before people like Bernard Manning had millions of viewers and were awarded CBE’s etc.
No I'm not, and I think you are doing the equivalent of people who assume that individuals get more religious as they get older simply because churches tend to be full of old people. That misunderstands the process.
You seem to be suggesting that back in the 60s and 70s it was commonplace for non religious people to send their kids routinely to Sunday School - presumably because far more kids went to Sunday school then than now - but that is a naive assertion because, of course, far more adults went to church in the 60s and 70s than do now. When we had this discussion some while ago I did a bit of research, comparing decline in overall church attendance and decline in Sunday school attendance and guess what. They almost perfectly mirror each other, both in terms of proportion of people attending church and children attending Sunday School and the rate of decline. Now you will always be able to find exceptions but the clear conclusion is that overwhelmingly the kids who went to Sunday School in the 60s and 70s had parents who attended church, and the same is true now. The difference in numbers is driven by the fact that far fewer parents attend church now than in the 60s and 70s so, unsurprisingly, fewer children (their children) attend Sunday school.
-
Non religious people of the sort who would have forbade their kids from Sunday school, RE lessons, nativities etc were extremely, extremely fringe.
Completely inappropriate comparisons.
RE lessons, nativities have always been part of the mainstream school curriculum and activities (in all schools, not just faith ones), so parents who object need to opt out of those activities and you are correct it tends to be a tiny fringe who will do so.
Sunday school is completely separate from normal schooling so parents need to opt in - entirely different to opt out from RE lessons etc. It is not an extreme fringe who forbid their children from Sunday School - indeed not sending your children to Sunday School is not a fringe or extreme position - it is the norm, the vast majority of parents in the UK do not send their children to Sunday school (i.e. opt in) and this was also true in the 60s and 70s when most parents didn't send their kids to Sunday school. But also most of those parents who choose not to send their kids to Sunday school will also not opt out of RE.
-
No I'm not, and I think you are doing the equivalent of people who assume that individuals get more religious as they get older simply because churches tend to be full of old people. That misunderstands the process.
You seem to be suggesting that back in the 60s and 70s it was commonplace for non religious people to send their kids routinely to Sunday School - presumably because far more kids went to Sunday school then than now - but that is a naive assertion because, of course, far more adults went to church in the 60s and 70s than do now.
My parents didn't. I think you are wrong also to conflate my bit of biography about myself as was originally intended with any statistical analysis. Are you actually providing the citations and references for all this stuff anyway?
-
No I'm not, and I think you are doing the equivalent of people who assume that individuals get more religious as they get older simply because churches tend to be full of old people. That misunderstands the process.
You seem to be suggesting that back in the 60s and 70s it was commonplace for non religious people to send their kids routinely to Sunday School - presumably because far more kids went to Sunday school then than now - but that is a naive assertion because, of course, far more adults went to church in the 60s and 70s than do now. When we had this discussion some while ago I did a bit of research, comparing decline in overall church attendance and decline in Sunday school attendance and guess what. They almost perfectly mirror each other, both in terms of proportion of people attending church and children attending Sunday School and the rate of decline. Now you will always be able to find exceptions but the clear conclusion is that overwhelmingly the kids who went to Sunday School in the 60s and 70s had parents who attended church, and the same is true now. The difference in numbers is driven by the fact that far fewer parents attend church now than in the 60s and 70s so, unsurprisingly, fewer children (their children) attend Sunday school.
I think there has been a general drop in many community activities. Pub attendance has also dropped as has membership of clubs and societies.
One point of interest though in the sixties and seventies is the decline of church youth clubs now a lot of people from non religious family used them. I would imagine church youth club attendance merely matches the decline in council or local non religious youth clubs.
-
Vlad,
Basic shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. Again. “God” is your claim – it’s therefore your job to propose a method to verify it. If you don’t then that’s all you have - a claim.
Incidentally, if you’d only put your relentless dishonesty to one side for a moment you’d realise that you could answer your own question: the method I’m asking for is one that, if I attempted it to justify my claim “leprechauns”, you wouldn’t be able to falsify.
You are trying to confuse burden of proof with definition of the term method here.
Your unwillingness to define what you mean should not be deliberately confused with my alleged avoidance of burden of proof.
-
You are trying to confuse burden of proof with definition of the term method here.
Your unwillingness to define what you mean should not be deliberately confused with my alleged avoidance of burden of proof.
It's not a confusion. If you're saying that the methods usually employed to distinguish the probably true from random guesses are not applicable then it's part of your burden of proof to come up with something else.
-
Vlad,
You are trying to confuse burden of proof with definition of the term method here.
Your unwillingness to define what you mean should not be deliberately confused with my alleged avoidance of burden of proof.
How is it possible for you to be so relentlessly, obdurately wrong about something no matter how many times you’re corrected on it?
Leprechauns are an objective fact. This claim is not amenable to naturalistic means of investigation or verification. It’s therefore your job to come up with an alternative method to do that job for me.
Can you see anything wrong with that? Anything at all?
-
It's not a confusion. If you're saying that the methods usually employed to distinguish the probably true from random guesses are not applicable.
Yes and you should be saying that as well.
You are suggesting method here what do you mean by method.
It's simple. All you have to do is move your finger in a manner which will tell me what you mean by method.
-
You are trying to confuse burden of proof with definition of the term method here.
Your unwillingness to define what you mean should not be deliberately confused with my alleged avoidance of burden of proof.
Method, and methodology, are commonly used terms, Vlad: I have a method for cooking boiled eggs for breakfast, and I feel sure if you felt similarly inclined when it comes to breakfast tomorrow morning I'd guess that the method you'll use will be broadly similar to mine, and if not we could consider the differences - have a think on that example and see if you can extrapolate from it to other things.
Alternatively, if you find the term 'method' confusing, have you considered using a dictionary?
-
Yes and you should be saying that as well.
You are suggesting method here what do you mean by method.
It's simple. All you have to do is move your finger in a manner which will tell me what you mean by method.
No matter how much you stamp your little foot, it's still your job, and nobody else's, to provide some means to distinguish your claims from random guesses. Nobody else is under any obligation to help you.
-
My parents didn't. I think you are wrong also to conflate my bit of biography about myself as was originally intended with any statistical analysis. Are you actually providing the citations and references for all this stuff anyway?
Nope what you accuse me of is exactly what you are doing Vlad.
If you say that you went to Sunday School and your parents weren't religious - fine, who am I to know differently. And that is perfectly consistent with my comment that 'you will always be able to find exceptions but the clear conclusion is that overwhelmingly the kids who went to Sunday School in the 60s and 70s had parents who attended church'. Note my emphasis - you are, I imagine, one of those exceptions.
However you are using you own anecdotal evidence relating to you individually to try to support an assertion that it was commonplace in the 60s and 70s for non religious parents to send their kids to Sunday School - I don't think that is true and that assertion cannot be sustained by the evidence of proportions of adults attending church and children attending Sunday School back then unless you make the bizarre claim that it was the children of non religious families packing out Sunday Schools while religious parents shunned Sunday School for their kids.
-
Method, and methodology, are commonly used terms, Vlad: I have a method for cooking boiled eggs for breakfast, and I feel sure if you felt similarly inclined when it comes to breakfast tomorrow morning I'd guess that the method you'll use will be broadly similar to mine, and if not we could consider the differences - have a think on that example and see if you can extrapolate from it to other things.
Alternatively, if you find the term 'method' confusing, have you considered using a dictionary?
I know how to boil an egg. I have boiled a few in my time.
I have found love but what can I say about a method. If it were that simple, oh I can boil an egg, everybody would find love wouldn’t they Gordon. If there were a method like one for boiling eggs everybody would find love.
That is what i’m Talking about Gordon. You see, beyond science and boiling an egg which is a scientific method in any case is there a describeable method or are there things that we experience, that you experience, that are real....see what happens if you were to tell them that your love /admiration of them wasn’t real...which are ineffable?
Finally I’d be most grateful if you didn’t start with ‘Don’t be stupid since it is water muddying, begging the question, horses laugh type fallacious stuff. If you are going to call me stupid or silly establish it by using a method. Thank you.
-
I know how to boil an egg. I have boiled a few in my time.
I have found love but what can I say about a method. If it were that simple, oh I can boil an egg, everybody would find love wouldn’t they Gordon. If there were a method like one for boiling eggs everybody would find love.
That is what i’m Talking about Gordon. You see, beyond science and boiling an egg which is a scientific method in any case is there a describeable method or are there things that we experience, that you experience, that are real....see what happens if you were to tell them that your love /admiration of them wasn’t real...which are ineffable?
Finally I’d be most grateful if you didn’t start with ‘Don’t be stupid since it is water muddying, begging the question, horses laugh type fallacious stuff. If you are going to call me stupid or silly establish it by using a method. Thank you.
Nice poetry, shame about the sense.
-
Vlad,
I know how to boil an egg. I have boiled a few in my time.
Having first bothered to establish first that there’s such a thing a an egg that can be boiled…
I have found love but what can I say about a method. If it were that simple, oh I can boil an egg, everybody would find love wouldn’t they Gordon. If there were a method like one for boiling eggs everybody would find love.
Who cares? Eggs are demonstrably exist as objects, love demonstrably exists as a phenomenon. How you would boil eggs or find love is neither here nor there as both are already shown to exist. If you’re trying to claim an analogy here with “god” though then it’s a hopeless one because your problem remains your failure to demonstrate first that there is a god to be found.
That is what i’m Talking about Gordon.
Why when it’s so plainly idiotic?
You see, beyond science and boiling an egg which is a scientific method in any case is there a describeable method or are there things that we experience, that you experience, that are real....see what happens if you were to tell them that your love /admiration of them wasn’t real...which are ineffable?
Gibberish.
Finally I’d be most grateful if you didn’t start with ‘Don’t be stupid since it is water muddying, begging the question, horses laugh type fallacious stuff. If you are going to call me stupid or silly establish it by using a method. Thank you.
When your efforts here are always stupid, fallacious or dishonest (see above) what’s the problem with pointing that out when it happens?
Yet again: if you want to assert there to be something you call “god”, then will you finally explain why anyone should take that claim more seriously than my assertion “leprechauns”. Why is his so difficult for you to do? Let me help you with that: it’s because they’re epistemically equivalent: both are unqualified assertions with no means of verification at all.
Deal with it.
-
Vlad,
Having first bothered to establish first that there’s such a thing a an egg that can be boiled…
Who cares? Eggs are demonstrably exist as objects, love demonstrably exists as a phenomenon. How you would boil eggs or find love is neither here nor there as both are already shown to exist. If you’re trying to claim an analogy here with “god” though then it’s a hopeless one because your problem remains your failure to demonstrate first that there is a god to be found.
Why when it’s so plainly idiotic?
Gibberish.
When your efforts here are always stupid, fallacious or dishonest (see above) what’s the problem with pointing that out when it happens?
Yet again: if you want to assert there to be something you call “god”, then will you finally explain why anyone should take that claim more seriously than my assertion “leprechauns”. Why is his so difficult for you to do? Let me help you with that: it’s because they’re epistemically equivalent: both are unqualified assertions with no means of verification at all.
Deal with it.
iIf anyone was to make the category error/category fuck between boiled eggs and love. It had to be you.
Until you find love you cannot really know if it exists.
-
Vlad,
iIf anyone was to make the category error/category fuck between boiled eggs and love. It had to be you.
Why you insist on soiling yourself on a public forum by parading your desperate ignorance of category error no matter how many times you’re corrected on it beats me entirely. I guess as category error and analogy are cousins and you’ve never understood how analogies work either though (see your unremitting obtuseness or dishonesty re the god/leprechauns analogy) it’s a problem of an unironic mind meeting non-literal ideas.
Needless to say boiling an egg and falling on love are for this purpose in the SAME category. That category is, “processes that lead to outcomes that demonstrably exist”. Your car crash in reasoning here is to equate something you can provide no good reason to think exists at all “god” all with outcomes that demonstrably do exist (boiled eggs/being on love). The process of how you arrive either of the latter is entirely irrelevant for this purpose.
Until you find love you cannot really know if it exists.
Did you actually mean to type that Hallmark cards dimwittedness? How about before you first fell in love – did all those films and plays about love not impinge on you at all, did you never observe your parents or other couples in love? How about love for a pet for example?
How far would you like to extend this idiocy before, road runner-like, you finally notice you ran off the edge of the cliff some time ago? How about Beijing? Ever been there? Let’s say that the answer is “no” – well then, presumably according to your “logic” you can’t know that Beijing really exist either right? How about murder? Ever murdered someone (I’m excluding here by the way the violence you regularly visit upon the English language). No? Well then, presumably you can’t know that murder “really exists” either can you?
Give your head a wobble will you, if only to salvage the few tatters of self-respect that remain.
-
I know how to boil an egg. I have boiled a few in my time.
Good to know, so we both agree that eggs exist in the universe and, moreover, we both know how to boil them.
I have found love but what can I say about a method. If it were that simple, oh I can boil an egg, everybody would find love wouldn’t they Gordon. If there were a method like one for boiling eggs everybody would find love.
So we both agree that people exist in the universe, and we both agree that it can be shown that there are strong emotional processes that happen in our brains in relation to certain other people: we can observe the interactions between them and conclude that there are indeed these strong emotional bonds going on (be they spouses, partners, family members, children or friends).
So real life can involve both boiled eggs and love, and we can tell the difference between the two because we have methods of enquiry that can distinguish them from each other (and, of course, from anything else).
That is what i’m Talking about Gordon. You see, beyond science and boiling an egg which is a scientific method in any case is there a describeable method or are there things that we experience, that you experience, that are real....see what happens if you were to tell them that your love /admiration of them wasn’t real...which are ineffable?
I see your random sentence generator has been repaired.
Finally I’d be most grateful if you didn’t start with ‘Don’t be stupid since it is water muddying, begging the question, horses laugh type fallacious stuff. If you are going to call me stupid or silly establish it by using a method. Thank you.
Why would I need a method for that when you already manage quite well all by yourself.
-
Good to know, so we both agree that eggs exist in the universe and, moreover, we both know how to boil them.
So we both agree that people exist in the universe, and we both agree that it can be shown that there are strong emotional processes that happen in our brains in relation to certain other people: we can observe the interactions between them and conclude that there are indeed these strong emotional bonds going on (be they spouses, partners, family members, children or friends).
So real life can involve both boiled eggs and love, and we can tell the difference between the two because we have methods of enquiry that can distinguish them from each other (and, of course, from anything else).
We observe the interactions too between people who say they have found love and realise it isn’t but have displayed the same interactions as those who would say otherwise.
What method therefore was used by these subjects to find love in each case?
Why would I need a method for that when you already manage quite well all by yourself.
WUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!
-
I don't agree with PD's idea of people claiming to be atheist. I was an atheist and then I wasn't.
I never meant to imply everyone went through a phase of thinking they are something (theist/atheist) that in reality they aren't, although I suspect it is quite common. And it cuts both ways - I'm a case in point.
I was brought up in a largely non religious household, although wider family were religious and church-goers. However growing up in the late 60s and 70s there was a pretty constant default mood music in society and schools etc that god existed and that that god was the christian one. So that was all around. I paid very little attention as a child but in my late teens and through university I really wanted to believe in god, certainly thought I did believe in god, but it wasn't true. I've always talked about coming to realise that I was atheist, not becoming an atheist. There was a clear and specific point in my life that I came to realise and recognise that I did not believe in god and at that point it was also clear to me that I never believed in god regardless of my earlier attempts to do so, and perhaps claim that I did.
I was always atheist even in the period when I thought I wasn't, I was perhaps just atheist in denial.
And you see this the other way too. Perhaps one of the most famous people who claimed to briefly be atheist prior to conversion to christianity is CS Lewis. Yet he claims that during his 'atheist' period he was angry with god for not existing. No atheist thinks like that because you cannot be angry with something that doesn't exist. To be angry with god confirms that CS Lewis really did believe in god at that time even though he may have been repressing that belief.
-
We observe the interactions too between people who say they have found love and realise it isn’t but have displayed the same interactions as those who would say otherwise.
Not quite sure what you mean here, given your somewhat mangled description, but these seem like two different states your are describing: one being what appears to be 'love' while the other looks like 'love' but isn't really 'love' at all and, presumably, this realisation you also speak of implies a method to distinguish between these two states.
What method therefore was used by these subjects to find love in each case?
No idea: it is your example though, and not mine, so perhaps you can advise on what this difference might be and how it is recognised - or to put it another way, what method distinguishes between 'love' and 'looks like love but isn't really'?
WUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!
Nope - just fair comment on my part.
-
Not quite sure what you mean here, given your somewhat mangled description, but these seem like two different states your are describing: one being what appears to be 'love' while the other looks like 'love' but isn't really 'love' at all and, presumably, this realisation you also speak of implies a method to distinguish between these two states.
No idea: it is your example though, and not mine, so perhaps you can advise on what this difference might be and how it is recognised - or to put it another way, what method distinguishes between 'love' and 'looks like love but isn't really'?
Nope - just fair comment on my part.
And what is the method?
At the moment you are admitting to being ignorant about methods and yet see no jrony in demanding methods from me.
If finding love is a real thing, then you are saying You don't know the method and therefore have no warrant to demand methods.
He shoots he scores leaving another atheist crying into his Horlicks, defeat, sticking to him like shit on a slipper.
-
And what is the method?
At the moment you are admitting to being ignorant about methods and yet see no jrony in demanding methods from me.
If finding love is a real thing, then you are saying You don't know the method and therefore have no warrant to demand methods.
He shoots he scores leaving another atheist crying into his Horlicks, defeat, sticking to him like shit on a slipper.
I really never seen somebody squirm and contort themselves quite so much to avoid a very obvious and simple request. No matter how much total shite you talk about other people and methods, it's still entirely up to you to justify your claims. You are free to try to do so in whatever way you see fit, regardless of anybody else's ideas about methods, which are actually completely irrelevant.
-
And what is the method?
At the moment you are admitting to being ignorant about methods and yet see no jrony in demanding methods from me.
It is your example, Vlad: the burden of proof requirement seems to confuse you.
If finding love is a real thing, then you are saying You don't know the method and therefore have no warrant to demand methods.
Again, the 'love' example is yours, Vlad, and not mine: maybe you should be more careful when suggesting examples without also considering what reasonable questions might be asked of you in relation to what you advance by way of examples.
He shoots he scores leaving another atheist crying into his Horlicks, defeat, sticking to him like shit on a slipper.
So you have - except that what you've actually scored is a sequence of own goals, Vlad.
-
It is your example, Vlad: the burden of proof requirement seems to confuse you.
Again, the 'love' example is yours, Vlad, and not mine: maybe you should be more careful when suggesting examples without also considering what reasonable questions might be asked of you in relation to what you advance by way of examples.
So you have - except that what you've actually scored is a sequence of own goals, Vlad.
Gordon....You are saying that finding love is an observable thing.
Ok what is the method for finding love.
Don't know?Won't provide one? Don't demand methods from me.
-
Gordon....You are saying that finding love is an observable thing.
Ok what is the method for finding love.
Don't know?Won't provide one? Don't demand methods from me.
Still squirming I see, Vlad. You can try to justify your claims in any way you want to - regardless of how anybody else defines 'method'. We can then see if it makes any sense (for example, would apply just as 'well' to leprechauns).
How about giving up the obvious distraction tactic and trying?
-
Vlad,
The lying idiocy is strong with this one, even for you.
And what is the method?
At the moment you are admitting to being ignorant about methods and yet see no jrony in demanding methods from me.
Of course we’re ignorant of the possible method to validate your assertions “god”, “supernatural” etc. Why? Because they’re only your effing assertions is why!
If finding love is a real thing, then you are saying You don't know the method and therefore have no warrant to demand methods.
Bollocks. “Love” is a ‘real thing” inasmuch as it’s an observable phenomenon, identifiable using various methods. Whether people “find” it, realise it or generally have no conscious control over falling into it at all has absolutely sweet FA to do with that.
He shoots he scores leaving another atheist crying into his Horlicks, defeat, sticking to him like shit on a slipper.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess
Yet again: Leprechauns are real. It’s your job to give me a method to investigate and validate that claim. You can’t do that. Therefore leprechauns are real.
He shoots he scores leaving another a-leprechaunist crying into his Horlicks, defeat, sticking to him like shit on a slipper.
-
Still squirming I see, Vlad. You can try to justify your claims in any way you want to - regardless of how anybody else defines 'method'. We can then see if it makes any sense (for example, would apply just as 'well' to leprechauns).
How about giving up the obvious distraction tactic and trying?
Notice. I will now no longer being taking part on this forum since 2 of my posts disappeared with no explanation and one has seemingly vanished mysteriously in the aforementioned context of unexplained censorship.
-
Vlad,
PS I corrected you recently (and yet again) on your failure to grasp the meaning of category error. I see that, as ever, you've just moved on to some other misunderstanding or lie.
Why do you never own the mistakes you make?
-
Vlad,
Notice. I will now no longer being taking part on this forum since 2 of my posts disappeared with no explanation and one has seemingly vanished mysteriously in the aforementioned context of unexplained censorship.
To be fair, you've never actually "taken part" in the sense of engaging honestly with what's said have you though.
-
Gordon....You are saying that finding love is an observable thing.
Indeed: I observed that you said that you were such a case yourself, in that you said you had found love.
Ok what is the method for finding love.
Not sure: I'd imagine that meeting the right person might be involved, but it is your example so perhaps you should advance the approach you favour and we can take it from there.
Don't know?Won't provide one? Don't demand methods from me.
Why not? After all it is your example, and I not you've haven't addressed the scenario that you set out yourself set: that there was 'love' and there was 'what looked like love but wasn't', and you have explained how to tell the difference despite being asked.
-
Notice. I will now no longer being taking part on this forum since 2 of my posts disappeared with no explanation and one has seemingly vanished mysteriously in the aforementioned context of unexplained censorship.
Firstly, why did you write this as an answer to my post? Secondly, are you sure you didn't press the wrong button yourself?
-
Until you find love you cannot really know if it exists.
Nobody is claiming that love has any kind of existence outside of human mind and bodies. The difference between experiencing love and experiencing God is only that you claim there is an entity independent of you that is causing the God experience.
The only way for the love/God analogy to work properly is if there are people claiming that love is caused by some independent entity, but there aren't and Cupid has been understood to be a metaphor for millennia.
-
Notice. I will now no longer being taking part on this forum
.....indefinitely?
-
Seb,
.....indefinitely?
Nah - couple of weeks usually.
-
Notice. I will now no longer being taking part on this forum since 2 of my posts disappeared with no explanation and one has seemingly vanished mysteriously in the aforementioned context of unexplained censorship.
Moderator:
Perhaps you should contact one of us with the details, Vlad.
While we do remove certain posts none have been removed from this thread so I'm not sure why you've raised this here, as part of this discussion, and not by PM.