jamesb

Don't get me started on consciousness, that's a whole other debate. After all the best definition of consciousness we've managed to come up with is that consciousness is that which is introspectable. This debate, however, is about an external entity, at least according to your assertion. However suffice it to say that 'I think, therefore I am' is not a proof. It is an assertion. Very different things. Logical assertions are non-empirical, I agree, but are mostly drawn from empirical evidence. This applies particularly in science where the chain of reasoning begins with an observation. Observations are empirical.

I have no idea...never looked at it.

My words are definitely wasted on you, yes, and you really do seem unable to grasp the simple point that nothing is above requirements of evidence. No. The supposed logic you accuse me of deny is that you are saying 'you cannot test god, because god says so'. That is recursive, not a valid argument in the slightest. It is no better than me talking about the space teapot, which you have still been unable to form any reply to - other than your repeated assertion that your beliefs are above the requirements of evidence and of suspicion. Not at all - just obviously a question you are unable to answer. Disprove the space teapot - the assertion is just as strong as yours for your religion. I'm not trying to make you believe anything. I'm trying to get you to put forward some evidence for your beliefs, which is not founded upon the beliefs themselves. You are unable to do so and so keep on leaping on the recursive argument of 'thou shalt not demonstrate thine faith, because thine faith art above the suspicion of evil scientifically minded people who do not believe, thus sayeth your god'. If you put forwards some well-founded, valid logic at some point I'll be more than happy to accept it. Still waiting at the moment. Then where is this non-empirical evidence? You've yet to bring any forwards, but you keep on talking about it. Let's have a look. Bring forward your evidence. Simple request. So now it's only personal judgment? In that case you have neither empirical nor non-empirical evidence, just your own beliefs. If opinions matter so little, why are you so desperate to convince me that your religion is better than any other out there? There was no point to address. You believe that your religion is better. Others believe that their religion is better. Your judgment holds no more weight than theirs, and none of you can bring forth any evidence to support your bias. By observing the world, and comparing observations within the world to the theories that science puts forward. If they do not match then the science is wrong and a new theory must be developed to address this. You, quite clearly, do not understand scientific theory. Trying to accuse me of a lack of understanding is a bit pointless when you subscribe to a religion with no evidence. You are claiming that whichever deity you choose is being the requirement for evidence, as is the rest of the religion. You then talk about how there is evidence (but refuse to bring it forward) and continually throw vague diversions at arguments rather than addressing the questions. Or to put it another way - why should you believe in your deity rather than the great space teapot? I'm still waiting for an answer on this. The idea is to help me relieve stress at work, rather than causing structural damage to my forehead and keyboard. Then present your non-empirical evidence. You've not even managed that so far. Just one thing, if you can come up with non-empirical evidence, I'm allowed to come up with it for my own theories of religion as well. Seems fair to me.

If it's existence can not be tested, demonstrated, or evidence put forwards for it then it most likely does not exist. See, simple. Flippancy won't really help you there. If faith does not fit within a scientific model, why are you trying to argue that it sometimes deserves to be exempt? It is evidence you believe that faith is somehow special and beyond questioning or doubt, so why the argument? Obviously myself and us other hell-bound atheists are foolish for actually wondering about the world and asking for evidence of things rather than blindly accepting with faith whatever any one particular religion may tell us. It would appear a religion in this instance stopped you questioning. See, I can make vaguely insulting statements too. So if science proves it, then the giant space teapot is not accounted for within the theory that science has just proven? They are equally invalid objectively. Yep. Pretty much. And? If you understood my reasoning for it, then you would accept the view in the same way as myself. You do not understand the reasoning, nor the logical points in favour, nor do you understand how to present a logical argument against it, you simply refute anything which does not agree with your world view by saying that your particular view does not need to be supported by evidence. There is no way to challenge such an assertion, as you do not put forwards anything which either can be challenged, or is worth challenging. Space teapot. Again we have your argument that my worldview violates the rules of your religion by demanding evidence, which you cannot provide. Condemning me as asking for evidence, where many have asked before and been refused, is not a particularly good argument. We should strive not to let personal opinion affect judgment - that's not the same thing as being without a personality. Simply done. There are many explanations other than the particular interpretation of god which is put forwards by the Christian faith. None of these is any more compelling than any other, assuming that aspects of faith are taken as a fact. Thus the probability of the Christian faith being more correct than any other faith is lower than that of any other faith (or lack of faith) being more correct than the Christian faith. Only if you test it without stepping outside the bounds of the system, so not the best example. It is, however, no less coherent than any other religious model. As to research, I have plenty of research material which I have worked through. You accept the dimension with no evidence, and a refutation of any evidence which is put forwards. Given my pub visits, usually a duel (blunted swords with shields, great fun and a good way to settle a disagreement). You can direct the issues to any requirement for authority - a hangover of the bicameral mind and thus religion/the desire for authority to justify or rationalise any decision. Cheers. I'll buy you a pint if you're ever down this way, and can stand to drink with a filthy skeptic. I really don't think religious morality is doing much to fill the vacuum of being a 'good person' which was previously required. Religion really doesn't have that much to do with morality whatsoever. There are evil fanatics, and there are good athiests, and there are evil athiests, and good fanatics.

Which you should strive to overcome. Stating that has no logical basis. On logical grounds there are plenty of reasons to dismiss the theory. Evidence? Demonstration? Perfection implies perfection in creation also, to bring up one of the oldest arguments. Besides if we're going down the my god's bigger than your science route I can make a quick conversion and bring lots of gods to the party. No you don't. We have a disagreement about what that dimension consists of. You think it's a mystical place outside of our understanding. I think it's a side-effect of a bicameral ape brain and a few thousand years of societal complexity ramping up massively and forcing control structures to be put in place as our brains adapted to cope with the massive changes. And to be quite honest, I find my theory of it much more interesting to study.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck it's probably a duck. If it's invisible like something non-existent, untestable like something non-existent, and non-demonstrable like something non-existent...you know where I'm going here. Existence is not a physical description, it can also describe abstracts. Unless you can demonstrate some evidence that $deity exists it is a matter of faith, and you are making an assumption. I studied physics at university. Part of that involved testing the most fundamental principles on which physics is grounded, and deriving for myself the theories which arise from those observations. You've stated before that you accept everything within science. As such, since there is no rule within science which forbids testing religion, science has every right to both comment on, and inform and test, religion. If they are equally valid, how can a particular religion be more consistent, developed, and therefore by implication more valid at the same time? My view of religion is far from jaded. It's a fascinating societal construct which, I personally, believe is explained by the bicameral mind. Of course if more evidence comes to light to refute this (or to support it) then I will naturally change my view. No you haven't. You've just come up with standard statements along the lines of 'it's religion, you can't test it', 'science can't test religion', and so forth. None of those are a reason to someone who does not subscribe to the same belief system as you. I remember those. Those were good days. Problem there - if the religion is true, and correct for you then by it's own rules it must also be true and correct for everyone else. If it is not true and correct for everyone else then it is not internally consistent. So make up your mind - is the religion true and valid, and therefore by it's own rules applicable to everyone, or is it purely personal and thus by it's own rules invalid?

No one's telling you to think differently at all, just disagreeing with your view that one particular religion is correct. Why on earth 'we don't know' be a neutral view? It's not a view, it's an open question which allows for an answer to come about. Or allows the questioner to answer it for themselves, to their own satisfaction. Maybe we just have very different definitions of positivity. Are you talking about the positive, happy attitude one or the electrical charge kind, or something else?

This conflicts with your later comment about science being unable to test the metaphysical. If it interacts with the physical world, it can be tested and demonstrated. If it does not interact then it is inconsequential in any case, and not worth spending time worrying about and performing rituals for. You've made a fundamental mistake their. Your opinion of a result does not, in any way, affect the validity of the result. There are many, many scientists who have worked to defend or provide evidence for a theory, only to be forced to conclude that it was incorrect. Just because they believe it does not make it true in any way. You're also evidently unaware of my own value system. You're assuming that I don't value the universe simply because I don't believe in a religion. This is a trap that religious types often fall into, in the same way that they assume there is no way for an athiest to develop an objective moral code. It's like the classic argument that only religion can lead people to altruism, and is just as invalid. Of course a child's exploration is nonsense. Valuable nonsense, but nonsense. As to the leap of faith comment, we know to some degree what the conditions were at the beginning of your particular religion (others drift further back, or not as far). It is interesting that the only modern religion I'm aware of is a scam through and through. I won't name it in order to avoid being put on a watch list and the potential of legal threats. You constantly hammer at religion being a valid world view without once revealing a valid reason why. This is my beef.

Why should it be? It is a fallacy to assume that because something is not provable through a method, it must be a unique exception rather than false. How convenient. Theory doesn't fit the facts, so rather than assuming that the theory might be wrong and look at alternatives you quickly change it so it does fit the facts, while saying that it was nearly right all along. If a theory makes repeated assertions which are shown to be inconsistent, might it not be worth looking at the alternatives instead of saying that the theory is beyond testing due to its special status? Reasoning from a false premise gives you a false theory, no matter how logically coherent it is. Working from an assumption that a deity exists does not prevent a logically coherent theory, nor does it somehow magically mean the theory must be correct (see several references to the number of other religions which exist). And yet you're following, without much in the way of questioning, a religion which those goat herders devised. So you are expected to test your faith, but not question the fundamentals of that same faith? Not really that much of a test. No - deities are not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method according to religion. Psychology and sociology have plenty of explanations for both deities and religion. The scientific method can quite happily be applied to religion.

I still don't see why religion should be an exception. A scientific method is a way of looking at and understanding the world. Not simply parts of it, but the whole thing. Certainly there are things we don't yet understand, which doesn't mean we never will, but why should religion be exempt from the tests that are applied to everything else? I could apply the same argument to your saying that it is a strong assertion. I still see no evidence for Christianity being more developed, nor more correct, than any other religion. Any theory which is put forward by a scientific approach is open to testing. Whether or not we are capable of those tests at the moment is another matter. String theory makes certain predictions. If those predictions are found to be accurate then we will be able to add weight to the theory. If they are found to be wrong then it's a case of going back to the drawing board. What testable predictions does religion make? A coherent philosophy is not necessarily a correct one. The simplest answer, despite Occam's razor, is not always right. Internal coherency in a system is easy to build if you fir the system to any principles you happen to choose, and ignore all other evidence. As an example - do you reject the theory of evolution and subscribe to creationism? Some time ago doing so would have violated the coherency of the Christian religion. Now the interpretation has been loosened so that it is acceptable for someone who believes in evolution to count themselves as a Christian. This is the fundamental point where we disagree. I do not see any reason that religion should be exempt from testing. I can understand that, were I to accept a religion, the various warnings against testing $deity would give a reason. Since I do not accept a religion though this prohibition on testing should not apply to me. So what, exactly, other than your religion itself places religion as being outside the bounds of scientific testing.

If you look you'll go blind and won't be able to see the Triffids.

He's made up of dog. Dog DNA Test Kit from What Breed Is My Dog - Experts in Dog DNA Testing | - might be what you're looking for.

Then why do you not present your evidence? Leave the faith out of it for now, and just give me your evidence for not only a deity, but Christianity as the single correct religion. Again, what information? Where is the evidence that Christ died for your sins? Please don't present your argument again without including your evidence. Your reasoning for Christianity being more developed is fairly weak. There are many, many religions out there which are just as internally coherent as Christianity. Belief in the FSM is logically consistent, if you accept to start with the existence of the deity concerned. There is nothing unique or special about Christianity over any other religion. And you accuse me of arrogance.

But you present no alternative method other than unthinking faith. Thereby dismissing everything else, whether or not any evidence is provided alongside. As you've said, your deity is dependent purely on faith and the mere fact that you believe is enough for you - regardless of any evidence either way. You then suggest that my desire for evidence somehow makes me short-sighted and gullible. You have presented no rationalisation for faith whatsoever, simply repeated that you believe, therefore it's true. Not much of a rationalisation. So because I consider any problem from the basis of evidence, I'm suspending my capacity to consider it? Did you think that through? Which doesn't prevent the methods from being mutually exclusive. One relies on evidence, the other relies on a lack of evidence, claiming that you can use both independently is foolish - either one is valid, or the other is. Trying to claim you can consider both of them to be valid means that you fail to understand the implications of either. Granted - I will admit that I believe the evidence of my own eyes and experiences. I also will look at the available evidence on either side of a question and make my own decision. If there is no evidence for one argument of two, then I will discount it in favour of the side which has evidence backing it. I follow the best summation of my experience of the world around me - and will revise that according to any new evidence which comes to light. I will not believe something simply because I am told it, which is one of the fundamentals of organised religion. No. Your claims that your belief is somehow more valid, more developed or in any way better than any other belief is laughable. Will you please try and actually read what I'm saying? There is no need to challenge your world view, as self-admittedly you have no evidence whatsoever for them, and fundamentally cannot present or find evidence for your basic view. All I've seen so far is you claiming that evidence is irrelevant, because you believe otherwise. Not much of a refutation there. A better one might be to present some sort of evidence, rather than just stating that your view is more valid because you have no evidence. Oh, wait, your view relies on a lack of evidence. Never mind then.

Yes. The eternal teatime of the soul. Where the faithful are rewarded with scones and Earl Grey, and the blasphemers are cursed to decaff Tetley with those strange dry biscuits which crumble the moment you dunk them.

How dare you question the teapot? Long has it watched over us, and in ritual ceremony do we partake of tea once a day, on special occasions eating it's sacred scones with jam and clotted cream. Woe betide any who place the jam upon the scone before the cream, for they shall be scalded by his steamy wrath!

Your argument still seems to hinge around 'it's true because it doesn't require evidence - and in fact rejects evidence as being possible'. There is an invisible space teapot in orbit between us and the sun. There is no way to detect it. This is essentially the same as your argument. The difference is that if I believe in the invisible space teapot it will have no impact, and no authority over my life - I am still free willed and not bound by a higher authority. Why would you willingly give up your rational judgment of a statement? Doing so is not healthy in any situation. No, you can't use both methods, as mine and yours are mutually exclusive. My method relies on evidence, analysis and preferably proof (where available, although evidence and judgment are fine in the short term for less important matters). Your method relies on faith. If you claim that you can use my method, which demands evidence, then you are making a false claim as you have already demonstrated your willingness to believe in something with no evidence. Whether you were or not is irrelevant. You stated that your religion is more developed, more coherent. You even suggest it is more logically consistent than a rational worldview, despite it's fundamental basis requiring an absence of proof. And here you are again, claiming that your religion is 'better'. The statement didn't really need to be refuted as it was somewhat laughable to begin with. No. You've demonstrated quite effectively that you have confused beliefs in conflicting theories. You also do not understand rationalism, believe your worldview to be better than anyone else's, and demand that there be no proof for your view. I do not have a confused view of the components involved I'm afraid. I am going in circles, simply because your argument purely consists of the same statements repeated over and over, ignoring any suggestions that you should consider evidence or a rational, scientific approach. There really is no point arguing with you. You're a believer. What you believe in is pretty much irrelevant, as I have had similar conversations with people of many religions. So far you have said nothing new or interesting, and I very much doubt you're going to having seen your arguments to date.

So because some require that all evidence must be demonstrable to a third party, they are denying the truth of the matter? I really, really hope you never end up doing jury service. But the point I and others have been trying to make is that it is not factual, no religion is, and therefore there is no difference in the suppositions on which any religion is based. Hence they are all equally valid. You don't understand my world view in the slightest, seeing as you hold to a conflicting perspective where evidence is not required to draw a conclusion. As for defending against illogical supposition, and not trying to convince anyone of your beliefs, you have repeatedly stated that your faith is more developed. As an example: Implying therefore that any system which is not Christianity is less logically coherent and complete. A somewhat ridiculous statement. Faith has no place in a rational world view. These two statements cannot both be true if you are using rationalised in it's philosophical sense. If on the other hand you are using it as one dictionary definition has, that to rationalise is to "defend, explain away or make excuses by reasoning" then yes.

There's a book you should read. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. It provides a much better basis for religion than simple superstition, and is a fascination read as well.

No, that's not an observable nature. That is an absence of evidence. It's somewhat like saying that there are aliens among us, because you can't see them. You can prove anything you want that way, so long as you can't provide any evidence for it. Sorry, would that be the original or revised Nicene creed? You cannot separate empirical evidence and evidence. You are suggesting a difference where there is none. If you have to rely on faith for your information, your information is not evidence. Please try to stick to the common definitions, it makes everything so much easier. You cannot observe something which does not have verifiable proofs. Observation is a verifiable proof - it can be reproduced, replicated and demonstrated. Suggesting that observation and proof are separate things is nonsense. I would have to say that your own arguments have completely invalidated this statement. Religion is based on faith. Faith is the acceptance of a tenet in absence of all evidence. I am not combining the two, but pointing out that one relies on the other. I have never stated any level of superiority over Christians, or any other religion, or athiests. You have stated that if someone disagrees with you, their world view is inferior. I concede that all religions are equally valid, or invalid. However it is evident that you do not understand my world view in the slightest. Incidentally Christianity is an evangelical religion. If you accept it's tenets should you not also be trying to convince others of it's truth? If you do not accept its tenets, should you really be calling yourself a Christian? You have not rationalised your world view, as you have made no attempt to evaluate your basic, accepted axioms.

Uh... So wait, you're now trying to use the argument that because there is no evidence, that's evidence? But you've already said that god supervises and is involved in the universe. Involvement requires action, action requires a result, therefore involvement means that there should be evidence. A more complete and logical coherence would not then fragment into so many different sects with individual beliefs - the authenticity of the tenets would be self-evident through logical evaluation. Segmentation denotes that the religion is not coherent. I call it faith - not based on any information. As for empirical evidence you appear to be arguing the same way as me - that there is no proof, no empirical evidence, no justification, just faith. Faith relies on the acceptance of a theory despite the lack of evidence. And for your last statement about thinking fallaciously, basing decisions on empirical evidence is not thinking fallaciously I'm afraid to say. I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion. I'm not even sure if your arguments are still coherent here. So Christianity is not automatically correct, it is just better and more developed? You cannot separate the issue of belief in $deity from religion itself. Therefore any arguments which apply to the existence of $deity apply to the validity of religion. The practices of a religion itself can be argued about separately, but still can only be valid if the base assumption that $deity exists is true. So you don't claim that it's true for anyone else, just that anyone who believes differently from you is inferior and arguing from a weaker position? I'm sorry to say that I've not really noticed any strength in your arguments, or really any true arguments. Your claims seem to be centralised around - - I believe, therefore $diety is - My particular sect of Christianity is more developed (by my definition), therefore it is superior Please correct me if I've somehow missed something more solid in your arguments.

Accepting claims without demonstrable proof is commonly considered foolish. If you are happy to do so, then I have $6 000 000 in a bank in Nigeria which I am happy to share with you should you help me transfer it out of the country. Your expenses will be minimal, and more than compensated by the money coming in. Christianity is split into thousands of different variants and interpretations. Which of these, precisely is more developed? Additionally how are you defining development? Christianity is not the oldest religion, so what makes it so much more developed than any other? You forgot to add - without evidence. Logical conclusions? Christianity is, in your opinion, well-developed and therefore is automatically correct? You are not drawing logical conclusions from available data, you are drawing a logical conclusion given the assumption that a deity exists. Since that is not a testable theory any conclusions drawn from it are also untestable and in dispute. As for claims - you are claiming that Christianity is true. That is quite a clear claim. I am simply claiming that it is no more true, or testable, than any other religion. This does not necessarily equate to saying that all religions are invalid, or that there is not one correct and true religion. It is neither an endorsement or a condemnation of religion, but simply pointing out that no particular viewpoint based upon an article of faith is any more valid than any other.

There is no evidence in favour either. Flying Cosmic Teapot argument. I don't assume that all religions are equally developed at all - I state that they are all equally valid, all being internally consistent (to a degree, and interpretation covers a huge variety of sins) and all being based upon axioms which have to be accepted on faith and cannot be tested. I'm glad that you have such a clear understanding of all the various religions, well enough to know that only yours is the right one which allows you to speak directly to god. Unfortunately there are many, many religions which allow for a direct interface with $deity including several variants of paganism. Meanwhile there are variants of Christianity which consider there to be intermediaries between man and god. Also claiming that you have direct contact with god through your religion makes it no more or less valid than any other - unless you can demonstrate that link in a way which can be tested in order to test the fundamental axiom of religion by an objective viewer. Finally your comment about lacking belief - you are correct in that a non-believer (which by your view includes all non-Christians who do not subscribe to your specific interpretation) is still accepting an axiom on which they are basing their world view. However their fundamental assumption does not require so many leaps of faith to accept - no claims are made of an untestable being or beings somehow supervising all things without involvement in the system.

Any theory withstands scrutiny if you accept the axioms it is based on. Since in the case of religion those axioms are a matter of belief, any believer of any religion will believe it stands up to scrutiny, and their belief in the theory will be as justifiable as any other believer's, of any religion. Since the foundation of any system cannot be proven through the system itself (mathematics is the best example of this) there is no way to prove or disprove the system if you are a believer. Since the axiom itself is intrinsically untestable (as far as we currently know) all that can be done is to put forward evidence, none of which can be conclusive.

They're completely unrelated probabilities. Whether one is true doesn't make the other more likely. Throwing a triple six on three dice doesn't make it more likely that your next throw of three dice will be a triple six. And the probability of life existing is 1. There is no way to quantify the probability of god existing since there is no statistically significant evidence So you don't claim that god exists, you're just saying that he does? The moment you express your belief to others you are taking on the burden of proof. If I say I have a castle somewhere then wouldn't you expect me to somehow demonstrate it if I want you to believe me?