Identity Rule Refresh

[Ray Martinez]

Once again directed at Agnostics; namely Peter Nyikos, who has contributed to original thread derailment as a way of attempting to escape objective truth.

Identity Rule (proposed by me, Ray Martinez):

A person is as they argue, and not as they claim, if the two contradict.

Peter Nyikos: "You [= Ray] have deluded yourself into thinking that
I lie every time I deny that I am an atheist."

Peter argues for the factual validity of evolutionary theory, which uses the assumptions and restrictions of Naturalism/Materialism to explain evidence and produce claims of fact. Arguing for these claims of fact, and your Agnostic identity claim, contradict. That's all that I'm saying.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

No, they don't.

> That's all that I'm saying.

Promise?

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 24 May 2017 14:30:46 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Once again directed at Agnostics; namely Peter Nyikos, who has contributed to original thread derailment as a way of attempting to escape objective truth.
>
>Identity Rule (proposed by me, Ray Martinez):
>
>A person is as they argue, and not as they claim, if the two contradict.

Ray, I've asked you elsewhere but your reply has been ambiguous so can
you give a clear answer - is Ken Miller an atheist for believing
evolution is a natural, unguided process even though he explicitly
states that "It was God after all who chose the universal constants
that made life possible."?

A simple yes or no will clarify.

[snip stuff about Nyikos]

[Ernest Major]

There's a perfectly good reason for identifying him as an atheist - he
says that he does not believe in God. He presumably, in rejecting that
description, uses a narrower definition - perhaps what people label as
strong atheism (strong atheists are rather thin on the ground). However
that does less violence to the meaning of atheism that you do - so
you're a pot calling a kettle black.

There's also nothing wrong with him self-identifying as an agnostic
(John Wilkins did the same) - contrary to your claims agnosticism and
atheism are not disjunct categories.

And I take the opportunity to remind you that by the application of your
identity rule you are not a Bible-believing Christian.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Greg Guarino]

On 5/24/2017 5:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Once again directed at Agnostics; namely Peter Nyikos, who has contributed to original thread derailment as a way of attempting to escape objective truth.
>
> Identity Rule (proposed by me, Ray Martinez):
>
> A person is as they argue, and not as they claim, if the two contradict.

*If*

But they need not contradict.

Apparently Peter accepts universal common descent as essentially fact.
That means that all living creatures are related; descended by normal
reproduction from the same pool of very early ancestors.

But, Peter thinks that along those various lines of descent, there might
have been "interference" - targeted mutations perhaps - to bring about
changes that the tinkerer (God?) intended. I may be putting words in his
mouth here, but I suspect that he wonders if the goal of some of that
possible tinkering was us, human beings.

As best I can tell, Peter hopes that this is true, but does not know so.

To sum up, Peter thinks there might be a God, and specifically wonders
if one of the manifestations of that God might be deliberate "guiding"
of evolution. But Peter is not sure.

Assuming all of the above is true, that makes Peter agnostic. But even
if it is not true in his case, it describes one of many modes of belief
that, while accepting universal common descent, do not reject the idea
of God.

>
> Peter Nyikos: "You [= Ray] have deluded yourself into thinking that
> I lie every time I deny that I am an atheist."
>
> Peter argues for the factual validity of evolutionary theory, which uses the assumptions and restrictions of Naturalism/Materialism to explain evidence and produce claims of fact. Arguing for these claims of fact, and your Agnostic identity claim, contradict. That's all that I'm saying.
>
> Ray
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 24, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article<5aa9658f-1d99-421b...@googlegroups.com>):

Pete the Grate is NOT an atheist.

You, however, ARE a religious nut.
>
>
> Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Claims of fact produced by Naturalism/Materialism evidence interpreting philosophies, and Agnosticism, do in fact contradict.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

I'm not ignoring you, when I have the time I will respond.

Ray

[r3p...@gmail.com]

Show us anything written by Peter that says God or design does in fact exist?

>
> You, however, ARE a religious nut.

I've always admitted that my mind has been brainwashed by the Bible. Your mind, on the other hand, has been brainwashed by secularism, scientism and evolution.

The point: I can admit, you cannot. Your kind attempts to conceal bias from the audience. I, on the other hand, admit my bias up front. That's called being honest and objective.

Ray

[Rolf]

<r3p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41c26b08-1b9b-49b6...@googlegroups.com...

Honest maybe, but objective - definotely not. Basing one's whole
understanding of the world on fairytales, superstition and nonsense created
by ignorant sheepherders thousaunds of years is nothing but ignorance
elevated to religion.

Intelligent people with a non-corrupted mind have no problems wih accepting
the findings of science and the obvious fact that religion is an entirely
different and unrelated subject: The world of spirit and man's soul. The
first Christians were Gnostics and they were a huge problem for the
literalists. Gnosticism is not dead. Many christians realize the concept of
Christ-in-me as advocated by St. Paul and don't have a damn problem with
that. Literalism = delusion = stupidity = ignorance. They understand that
science denial is not what religion needs. The fact of AGW doesn't need it
either. Ray appears like a real ignoramus wrt the historical facts of the
origins of the scriptures that eventually were used to create a Canon. It
takes a lot of faith + ignorance to take the flood story at face value. The
facts are clear: The global flood is a fairytale.



>
> Ray
>

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 25, r3p...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<41c26b08-1b9b-49b6...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 9:34:53 AM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
> > On 2017 May 24, Ray Martinez wrote
> > (in article<5aa9658f-1d99-421b...@googlegroups.com>):
> >
> > > Once again directed at Agnostics; namely Peter Nyikos, who has contributed
> > > to
> > > original thread derailment as a way of attempting to escape objective
> > > truth.
> > >
> > > Identity Rule (proposed by me, Ray Martinez):
> > >
> > > A person is as they argue, and not as they claim, if the two contradict.
> > >
> > > Peter Nyikos: "You [= Ray] have deluded yourself into thinking that
> > > I lie every time I deny that I am an atheist."
> > >
> > > Peter argues for the factual validity of evolutionary theory, which uses
> > > the
> > > assumptions and restrictions of Naturalism/Materialism to explain evidence
> > > and produce claims of fact. Arguing for these claims of fact, and your
> > > Agnostic identity claim, contradict. That's all that I'm saying.
> >
> > Pete the Grate is NOT an atheist.
>
> Show us anything written by Peter that says God or design does in fact exist?

I suppose that I could, but to do that I’d actually have to read all his
posts, something that you’d have to pay me, a lot, to do. In case you
hadn’t noticed, I don’t like the demented demoted duke of dimness.

>
>
> >
> > You, however, ARE a religious nut.
>
> I've always admitted that my mind has been brainwashed by the Bible. Your
> mind, on the other hand, has been brainwashed by secularism, scientism and
> evolution.

actually... not so much.

>
>
> The point: I can admit, you cannot. Your kind attempts to conceal bias from
> the audience. I, on the other hand, admit my bias up front. That's called
> being honest and objective.

you’re not particularly objective, though you are far more honest than Pete
the Grate, not that that’s difficult.
>
> Ray

[Martin Harran]

It is over three weeks since I first raised this issue with you so you
have had quite a bit of time to think about it.

I get the distinct impression that you are struggling to come to
terms with the fact that this example shows the total illogicality of
your insistence that simply accepting the Theory of Evolution makes
someone an atheist.

[Ray Martinez]

Refresh for Peter who is obviously on the run. And refresh for Robert Camp who said Materialism and Naturalism do not contradict Agnosticism.

I will continue to wait patiently.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

For Martin Harran.

My view: Since the objective claims of evolutionary theory say design does not exist in nature, biodiversity, past and present, was not created by God. THEREFORE a person cannot say Christ approves or has led them to accept a biological production theory that denies His Father credit as Creator and Designer.

It would be nice if you could relate back to me my view so I know you at least understand?

Ray

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:91ff1654-2e8c-40c2...@googlegroups.com...

I am not Harran but I observe that it is of course entirely possible and
reasonable to assume that a person may accept the spirit of Christ and at
the same time realize that the theory of a transcedental entity called God
responsible for creating the universe and acting as creator of the first
life and director of evolution on our planet for the past 4. billion years
is a made up tale with nothing with reality to do.

Do you have any contrary evidence, except your absurd assumption that
"Appearance of design = evidence of design"?

Rolf

[Martin Harran]

No, I don't understand. Why don't you make it simple for me - is Ken
Miller an atheist, yes or no?

[jillery]

I am not Martin Harran either, thankfully. However, since I have
posted a contrary claim to what you describe above, it's reasonable
for me to respond as well, as my reply doesn't rely on Catholic Church
doctrine, which apparently you also reject.

Your view is straightforward, one shared by many of my friends and
relatives. In paraphrase, your premise is that God is the immediate
cause of all living things. You reject arguments based on indirect
cause, where God merely initiates events which ultimately lead to
biodiversity in nature. And any argument you reject necessarily isn't
Christian.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Robert Camp]

On 5/28/17 10:06 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Refresh for Peter who is obviously on the run. And refresh for Robert
> Camp who said Materialism and Naturalism do not contradict
> Agnosticism.

I said no such thing.

If you wish to dispute this, at least take the time to go back and read
the claim to which I responded so that we don't have to start at the
beginning.

Here's a hint (both to my response and why I won't reply further if you
repeat your apparently-irremediable misunderstanding): the naturalism
assumed by science is methodological, not philosophical.

[Ray Martinez]

Your honest admission concerning inability to understand ends our conversation especially in view of the fact that I related my position using no jargon.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:04:54 AM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 5/28/17 10:06 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Refresh for Peter who is obviously on the run. And refresh for Robert
> > Camp who said Materialism and Naturalism do not contradict
> > Agnosticism.
>
> I said no such thing.
>

Yes you did. You denied a contradiction between Naturalism and Agnosticism. Now you're saying your denial was intended to mean between methodological naturalism and Agnosticism. But even those contradict. The prefix word does not act to negate the meaning of Naturalism.

Ray

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:24:25 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 2:29:53 PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 May 2017 10:28:33 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >For Martin Harran.
>> >
>> >My view: Since the objective claims of evolutionary theory say design does not exist in nature, biodiversity, past and present, was not created by God. THEREFORE a person cannot say Christ approves or has led them to accept a biological production theory that denies His Father credit as Creator and Designer.
>> >
>> >It would be nice if you could relate back to me my view so I know you at least understand?
>>
>> No, I don't understand. Why don't you make it simple for me - is Ken
>> Miller an atheist, yes or no?
>
>Your honest admission concerning inability to understand ends our conversation especially in view of the fact that I related my position using no jargon.

My inability to understand related to understanding your position on
*atheism*, you didn't answer my question, you tried to switch the
topic to some vague concept of meeting Christ's approval.

You still haven't answered my question about Ken Miller; it doesn't
seem to register with you that your failure to answer is in effect
itself an answer - it shows that you realise your claim about
acceptance of ToE meaning de facto someone is an atheist is totally
unsustainable.

[Robert Camp]

On 5/30/17 9:20 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:04:54 AM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 5/28/17 10:06 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> Refresh for Peter who is obviously on the run. And refresh for
>>> Robert Camp who said Materialism and Naturalism do not
>>> contradict Agnosticism.
>>
>> I said no such thing.
>>
>
> Yes you did. You denied a contradiction between Naturalism and
> Agnosticism. Now you're saying your denial was intended to mean
> between methodological naturalism and Agnosticism.

It would be best if you didn't compound your (presumably innocent)
ignorance with intentional dishonesty. That's why I advised that you
look back at the previous posts.

You were the one who offered the context for naturalism/materialism. It
was, specifically, "Peter argues for the factual validity of

evolutionary theory, which uses the assumptions and restrictions of
Naturalism/Materialism to explain evidence and produce claims of fact."

There is nothing ambiguous about the referent here for the words
naturalism and materialism. It quite clearly is about scientific
methodology, and just as clearly demonstrates the appropriate context
for my comments. All you had to do was check back on what you said.

It's not unusual for me to defend your sincerity (if not your
competence). When you lie like this I have to wonder if that's a mistake.

> But even those contradict. The prefix word does not act to negate the meaning of Naturalism.

And this is the irremediable foolishness about which you've been
schooled countless times, and regarding which I said I wouldn't engage.
Take it up with someone who hasn't already wasted many hours on it.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 30, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article<4b128446-051a-4af3...@googlegroups.com>):

you haven’t addressed the question: Is Ken Miller an atheist, yes or no?

It is a very simple question. The answer would be equally simple: just one
word, a ‘yes;’ or a ‘no’. Why is it that you continue to dodge rather
than answer the question?

You don’t have to answer, but you really should know that your failure to
answer reveals much about your position. Do carry on.<gets popcorn>

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 9:59:53 AM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 5/30/17 9:20 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 8:04:54 AM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> >> On 5/28/17 10:06 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> Refresh for Peter who is obviously on the run. And refresh for
> >>> Robert Camp who said Materialism and Naturalism do not
> >>> contradict Agnosticism.
> >>
> >> I said no such thing.
> >>
> >
> > Yes you did. You denied a contradiction between Naturalism and
> > Agnosticism. Now you're saying your denial was intended to mean
> > between methodological naturalism and Agnosticism.
>
> It would be best if you didn't compound your (presumably innocent)
> ignorance with intentional dishonesty. That's why I advised that you
> look back at the previous posts.
>
> You were the one who offered the context for naturalism/materialism. It
> was, specifically, "Peter argues for the factual validity of
> evolutionary theory, which uses the assumptions and restrictions of
> Naturalism/Materialism to explain evidence and produce claims of fact."
>
> There is nothing ambiguous about the referent here for the words
> naturalism and materialism. It quite clearly is about scientific
> methodology, and just as clearly demonstrates the appropriate context
> for my comments. All you had to do was check back on what you said.
>
> It's not unusual for me to defend your sincerity (if not your
> competence). When you lie like this I have to wonder if that's a mistake.
>
>

Come on, Robert, lighten up. The fact of the matter has you offering a three word denial that says Naturalism/Materialism do not contradict Agnosticism. You never mentioned the methodological specifically, that's a fact and that's all that I'm saying. IF, in your mind, Naturalism/Materialism speak of the methodological then how does one relate epistemological Naturalism/Materialism?

> > But even those contradict. The prefix word does not act to negate the meaning of Naturalism.
> >
> And this is the irremediable foolishness about which you've been
> schooled countless times, and regarding which I said I wouldn't engage.
> Take it up with someone who hasn't already wasted many hours on it.

You've never explained how the prefix word at issue extricates Naturalism and Agnosticism from contradiction? And nobody has schooled anyone. We are worldview combatants debating crucial claims that have direct bearing on the origin of species. No one is a student or teacher here.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Woffie: My position has changed. A person who claims to be a Christian cannot speak as a Christian in the context of topic because the objective claims of evolutionary theory do not credit God as Creator or Designer. Thus a person cannot say that Christ approves of acceptance of a theory that says His Father did not design or create any living thing, past or present.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 6:49:53 AM UTC-7, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 5/24/2017 5:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Once again directed at Agnostics; namely Peter Nyikos, who has contributed to original thread derailment as a way of attempting to escape objective truth.
> >
> > Identity Rule (proposed by me, Ray Martinez):
> >
> > A person is as they argue, and not as they claim, if the two contradict.
>
> *If*
>
> But they need not contradict.
>
> Apparently Peter accepts universal common descent as essentially fact.
> That means that all living creatures are related; descended by normal
> reproduction from the same pool of very early ancestors.
>
> But, Peter thinks that along those various lines of descent, there might
> have been "interference" - targeted mutations perhaps - to bring about
> changes that the tinkerer (God?) intended. I may be putting words in his
> mouth here, but I suspect that he wonders if the goal of some of that
> possible tinkering was us, human beings.
>
> As best I can tell, Peter hopes that this is true, but does not know so.
>
> To sum up, Peter thinks there might be a God, and specifically wonders
> if one of the manifestations of that God might be deliberate "guiding"
> of evolution. But Peter is not sure.
>
> Assuming all of the above is true, that makes Peter agnostic. But even
> if it is not true in his case, it describes one of many modes of belief
> that, while accepting universal common descent, do not reject the idea
> of God.
> >
> >

A close and careful reading of what you said reveals that in behalf of relating Peter's view you did NOT make any positive statement for the existence of God, but made only negative statements (= Atheism). Words like "maybe" or "could" are not positive which means the negative is not harmed.

Ray

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 31, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article<92d9a195-4d4c-453a...@googlegroups.com>):

is that a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’? All that is necessary is a simple,
one-word answer. ‘Yes’ or ‘no’.

<this popcorn is delicious>

[Ray Martinez]

Why oh why has Ernest asserted again and not shown his claims to be true?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

How can Christ approve of a follower who accepts the veracity of an evolutionary theory that says His Father did not design or create biodiversity past or present?

Ray

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 30 May 2017 22:00:12 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

Was that really so hard to admit?

> A person who claims to be a Christian cannot speak as a Christian in the context of topic because the objective claims of evolutionary theory do not credit God as Creator or Designer. Thus a person cannot say that Christ approves of acceptance of a theory that says His Father did not design or create any living thing, past or present.

Now you seem to gloss over it.

Let me rephrase my original question to help clarify your new position
for those of us who are struggling to understand it.

Ken Miller says that God does not directly intefere in the process of
evolution but that He did create the conditions that led to us
evolving. Do you think that Miller "approves of acceptance of a theory

that says His Father did not design or create any living thing, past

or present." ?

[Ray Martinez]

You seemed to have botched your reply, did you intend to say Christ, but mistakenly say Miller?

While I wait for your answer, you have Miller holding to a deistic First Cause event, that is, the one-off ending of the Origin and Miller's proclamation where he says he believes in Darwin's God. This position is quite problematic. One reason is logical invalidity. A non-designed selection process does not infer the work of an invisible Designer, and second reason: The God of Genesis is not deistic, that is, cannot be said to have intruded into reality one time and forever after is absent. So Miller's view is subjective and illogical.

Ray

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 31, Ray Martinez wrote

(in article<8343295a-36d4-488e...@googlegroups.com>):

that’s still not a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’. Just one word. You can do it if
you try.

<more popcorn>

[Greg Guarino]

A simple and clear reading of what I wrote is that Peter does not know
if there is a God or not. Words like "might" and "could", and especially
"does not know" are the very essence of agnosticism.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 01:59:27 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

I'm trying to make sense of your original statement. Let's try it this
way: Miller accepts evolution, how does that mean he is agreeing that
God did not create *any living thing, past or present*?

>
>While I wait for your answer, you have Miller holding to a deistic First Cause event, that is, the one-off ending of the Origin and Miller's proclamation where he says he believes in Darwin's God. This position is quite problematic.

I agree that it can be problematic (though in different ways to what
you think is problematic) but do you think that makes him an atheist -
or at a least a bad Christian which seems to be your new position?

> One reason is logical invalidity. A non-designed selection process does not infer the work of an invisible Designer, and second reason: The God of Genesis is not deistic, that is, cannot be said to have intruded into reality one time and forever after is absent.

Where is Miller saying that? His stated view is specifically in regard
to evolution; I have never, for example, heard him saying that God
doesn't respond to prayer in various ways.

>So Miller's view is subjective and illogical.

Only if you take his view on evolution as his view on everything; now
that is subjective and illogical

[Stevet]

As all religious beliefs are subjective and illogical there is no question
of you or Ray being " right" or " wrong", you and Ray would be just as well
employed debating how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.

In fact we could use the " wisdom of the crowd" to estimate, I'll start
with 28.

--
Stevet

[Martin Harran]

>>>>>> you haven?t addressed the question: Is Ken Miller an atheist, yes or no?

>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a very simple question. The answer would be equally simple: just one

>>>>>> word, a ?yes;? or a ?no?. Why is it that you continue to dodge rather
>>>>>> than answer the question?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don?t have to answer, but you really should know that your failure to

How are they illogical?

[Ernest Major]

You would be more convincing advocate if you didn't reply, rather than
waiting 6 days to produce such a weak-sauce reply.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 5:34:53 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> Once again directed at Agnostics; namely Peter Nyikos, who has contributed
> to original thread derailment as a way of attempting to escape objective truth.

Classic blame the victim: it was you who abandoned the thread in the
wake of posts by me that you are afraid to deal with.

You are ALSO attempting to escape my arguments that YOU are a non-Christian
based on the very rule that you falsely claim to be applying to me:

> Identity Rule (proposed by me, Ray Martinez):
>
> A person is as they argue, and not as they claim, if the two contradict.

Your behavior contradicts your claim to be a follower of Jesus,
but when I argued for this, you snipped it saying it was irrelevant
to the topic you are discussing.

You have learned a lot from the way jillery uses the word "irrelevant."
Or did she learn its conscience-escaping usage from you?

> Peter Nyikos: "You [= Ray] have deluded yourself into thinking that
> I lie every time I deny that I am an atheist."
>
> Peter argues for the factual validity of evolutionary theory,

You've been corrected on this so many times, with careful reasoning,
that it now qualifies as a shameless lie.

I will repeat the reasoning if anyone but you asks for it, but
with you it would be a waste of time: you will simply stop talking
to me at some point, abandon the thread, and start a new thread
repeating the same lie. You've done it at least twice now.

> which uses the assumptions and restrictions of Naturalism/Materialism
> to explain evidence and produce claims of fact.

If you had limited yourself to "restrictions" you would have
a reasonable case, since you would only be saying what many diverse
people have told you innumerable times: that evolutionary *theory* uses
a naturalistic *methodology* without having anything to say
one way or the other about whether materialism is true or false.

By the way, have you been using the word "restrictions" earlier,
or have you added it this time as a fig leaf to partially
cover the very thing these innumerable corrections were doing.
That "very thing" is your demonstrable falsehood that
evolutionary theory uses the *assumptions* of naturalism/materialism.

> Arguing for these claims of fact, and your Agnostic identity claim,
> contradict. That's all that I'm saying.

Illogically saying. And if you keep repeating this irrational
claim of "contradiction," you will be accused by me of either
using the Marxist definition of "contradiction" or outright lying.

But don't worry: although jillery will use the flimsiest pretext
to accuse Glenn and me of lying, she loves you too much to ever
accuse you of lying, or even of dishonesty, no matter how many
thousand times you are demonstrably dishonest or insincere.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 9:14:53 AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:

> On 24/05/2017 22:30, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Once again directed at Agnostics; namely Peter Nyikos,

<snip for focus>

> There's a perfectly good reason for identifying him as an atheist - he
> says that he does not believe in God.

"believe in God" is ambiguous. It can be used in the sense of "I believe
in you," which, when said to a human being, means "I trust you."

In that sense, I "believe in God IF he exists and is more or less
like what the great Christian apologist C. S. Lewis believes he is."

But as I never tire of telling people, especially John Harshman,
I have to reluctantly agree that the evidence available
to me indicates a considerably higher likelihood that there
is a vast multiverse but no God overseeing our universe, than
that there is such a God.

> He presumably, in rejecting that
> description, uses a narrower definition - perhaps what people label as
> strong atheism (strong atheists are rather thin on the ground).

Correct. And as I have also argued elsewhere, I prefer the word
"agnostic" to "soft atheist," because it is much more natural
and intelligible to say,

I am agnostic about the existence of life on Mars.

than it is to say,

I am softly atheistic about the existence of life on Mars.

> However
> that does less violence to the meaning of atheism that you do - so
> you're a pot calling a kettle black.

More like a person in a glass house throwing stones.

> There's also nothing wrong with him self-identifying as an agnostic
> (John Wilkins did the same) - contrary to your claims agnosticism and
> atheism are not disjunct categories.
>
> And I take the opportunity to remind you that by the application of your
> identity rule you are not a Bible-believing Christian.

I'm not sure about that, but he is certainly no follower of Jesus
by his standards. He keeps riding roughshod over Jesus's
commandment "Do not bear false witness."

Not to mention that much-misused saying of Jesus, "Judge not,
lest you be judged."

> --
> alias Ernest Major


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
U. of S. Carolina

[Robert Camp]

On 5/31/17 8:36 AM, Stevet wrote:
> Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 May 2017 01:59:27 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 12:49:57 AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 May 2017 22:00:12 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 11:54:54 AM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2017 May 30, Ray Martinez wrote
>>>>>> (in article<4b128446-051a-4af3...@googlegroups.com>):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 2:29:53 PM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 May 2017 10:28:33 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>>>>>>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

>>> While I wait for your answer, you have Miller holding to a deistic First
>>> Cause event, that is, the one-off ending of the Origin and Miller's
>>> proclamation where he says he believes in Darwin's God. This position is
>>> quite problematic.
>>
>> I agree that it can be problematic (though in different ways to what
>> you think is problematic) but do you think that makes him an atheist -
>> or at a least a bad Christian which seems to be your new position?
>>
>>
>>> One reason is logical invalidity. A non-designed selection process does
>>> not infer the work of an invisible Designer, and second reason: The God
>>> of Genesis is not deistic, that is, cannot be said to have intruded into
>>> reality one time and forever after is absent.
>>
>> Where is Miller saying that? His stated view is specifically in regard
>> to evolution; I have never, for example, heard him saying that God
>> doesn't respond to prayer in various ways.
>>
>>> So Miller's view is subjective and illogical.
>>
>> Only if you take his view on evolution as his view on everything; now
>> that is subjective and illogical
>
> As all religious beliefs are subjective and illogical there is no question
> of you or Ray being " right" or " wrong",

Despite the fact that you and I might agree (more or less) on the first
clause of your statement, the second is clearly incorrect.

It does not follow from the putative illogic of a set of tenets that
arguments about the philosophical consistency and/or correct
interpretation of those tenets (which is the nature of the preceding
discussion) cannot be right or wrong.

> you and Ray would be just as well
> employed debating how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.

Indeed they might - at the point when they've reached the end of the
pin. Right now, they're trying to figure out who gets the shaft.

[Stevet]

From OED, "lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.". Lacking sense as
there no external ( outside your belief system) referent for terms such as
God etc , lacking "clear, sound reasoning" as you can say absolutely
whatever you want and make up any "reasoning" you want to justify it.

>
>> there is no question
>> of you or Ray being " right" or " wrong", you and Ray would be just as well
>> employed debating how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.
>>
>> In fact we could use the " wisdom of the crowd" to estimate, I'll start
>> with 28.
>
>

--
Stevet

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 17:16:21 -0000 (UTC), Stevet

<stol...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>>> As all religious beliefs are subjective and illogical
>>
>> How are they illogical?
>
>From OED, "lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.". Lacking sense as
>there no external ( outside your belief system) referent for terms such as
>God etc , lacking "clear, sound reasoning" as you can say absolutely
>whatever you want and make up any "reasoning" you want to justify it.

OK ....

- I love my wife.
- Ibelieve that she loves me.
- I believe Jimi Hendrix was an exceptionally talented guitarist.
- I also believe Django Reinhardt was an exceptionally talented
guitarist - as is Julian Bream.
-- I believe last night's sunset was unbelievably beautiful.

All those statements seem illogical according to your definition of
illogical - do you agree? If not, why not?

[Stevet]

Correct, if " right or wrong" is applied only to the consistency of a
particular argument compared to the agreed ( although by whom?) tenets of a
particular metaphysic. In a more general sense personal metaphysical
beliefs are just that, beliefs, and are neither right or wrong in the
sense of not having any meaning, and hence having the possibility of being
right or wrong, outside the tenet system.

>
>> you and Ray would be just as well
>> employed debating how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.
>
> Indeed they might - at the point when they've reached the end of the
> pin. Right now, they're trying to figure out who gets the shaft.
>
>> In fact we could use the " wisdom of the crowd" to estimate, I'll start
>> with 28.
>>
>
>

--
Stevet

[Stevet]

Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2017 17:16:21 -0000 (UTC), Stevet
> <stol...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> As all religious beliefs are subjective and illogical
>>>
>>> How are they illogical?
>>
>> From OED, "lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.". Lacking sense as
>> there no external ( outside your belief system) referent for terms such as
>> God etc , lacking "clear, sound reasoning" as you can say absolutely
>> whatever you want and make up any "reasoning" you want to justify it.
>
> OK ....
>
> - I love my wife.
> - Ibelieve that she loves me.
> - I believe Jimi Hendrix was an exceptionally talented guitarist.
> - I also believe Django Reinhardt was an exceptionally talented
> guitarist - as is Julian Bream.
> -- I believe last night's sunset was unbelievably beautiful.


>
> All those statements seem illogical according to your definition of
> illogical - do you agree? If not, why not?

No, I do not agree, because the term "belief" carries different semantic
values dependent on usage and context.

From OED,

1. An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without
proof.

1.1 Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion.

1.2 A religious conviction.

Your examples are 1.1 or opinions, and might or might not be illogical. I
hold the same opinions apart from the last , and that because it was cloudy
and raining here in Orkney last night.

My use of illogical only applies to "belief" in its sense defined by 1.2,
which is the context of the discussion.

>
>
>>>
>>>> there is no question
>>>> of you or Ray being " right" or " wrong", you and Ray would be just as well
>>>> employed debating how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.
>>>>
>>>> In fact we could use the " wisdom of the crowd" to estimate, I'll start
>>>> with 28.
>>>
>>>
>
>

--
Stevet

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 18:35:17 -0000 (UTC), Stevet

Ah right, you want to be able to define your own rules of logicality.
Out of interest, under these rules of yours, what makes a religious
conviction(1.2) different from something that one accepts as true or
real (1.1)?

[Stevet]

No, I use the conventional "rules" of illogicality, as briefly outlined
per the OED above. That I think that religious belief meets these
conventional criteria for illogicality is a different matter. I presume it
is my attribution of illogicality to religious belief, and not any
rewriting of the standard definition of illogicality, is what you are
referring to by "your own rules"


The two senses are not mutually exclusive e.g a religious belief 1.2 can
also fall under sense 1.1.

What distinguishes a religious belief is that it is part of metaphysical
belief system, as is the case in this context, whilst 1.1 is not dependent,
although it can be, on being part of a metaphysical belief system.

Not sure what you are trying to show with this semantic quibbling.

Do you not accept that a religious "belief" is of a totally different kind
or category or character from the usage as in "belief" that Jimi could
play a mean guitar?

Why do you think it has a separate dictionary entry?

>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> there is no question
>>>>>> of you or Ray being " right" or " wrong", you and Ray would be just as well
>>>>>> employed debating how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact we could use the " wisdom of the crowd" to estimate, I'll start
>>>>>> with 28.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

S

--
Stevet

[Ray Martinez]

Since everyone already knows that Atheists believe religion is subjective and illogical, what's the point?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

You've now amended your reply to say Peter is Agnostic. Since the OP acknowledges Peter's identity claim (Agnostic) all you've done is acknowledge as well.

Peter's identity claim, based on the fact that he argues FOR the factual validity of evolutionary theory, which is a product of epistemological Naturalism and Materialism, contradicts his identity claim. According to my identity rule a person is as they argue, and not as they claim, if the two contradict.

Ray

[jillery]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 09:09:12 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

Is anybody surprised?

>On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 5:34:53 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> Once again directed at Agnostics; namely Peter Nyikos, who has contributed
>> to original thread derailment as a way of attempting to escape objective truth.
>
>Classic blame the victim: it was you who abandoned the thread in the
>wake of posts by me that you are afraid to deal with.
>
>You are ALSO attempting to escape my arguments that YOU are a non-Christian
>based on the very rule that you falsely claim to be applying to me:
>
>> Identity Rule (proposed by me, Ray Martinez):
>>
>> A person is as they argue, and not as they claim, if the two contradict.
>
>Your behavior contradicts your claim to be a follower of Jesus,
>but when I argued for this, you snipped it saying it was irrelevant
>to the topic you are discussing.
>
>You have learned a lot from the way jillery uses the word "irrelevant."
>Or did she learn its conscience-escaping usage from you?

Snipping relevant content is what you do. So that makes Ray your
apprentice.

I suppose you're right, if noting your blatant lies qualifies as
"flimsiest pretext".

>she loves you too much to ever
>accuse you of lying, or even of dishonesty, no matter how many
>thousand times you are demonstrably dishonest or insincere.

Once again you show you have no idea what you're talking about.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 21:40:22 -0000 (UTC), Stevet

Ah, the bit where you reckoned that "you can say absolutely

whatever you want and make up any "reasoning" you want to justify

it". Funny, I don't know any religious believers who simply say
whatever they want and then make up reasons to believe it.

> That I think that religious belief meets these
>conventional criteria for illogicality is a different matter. I presume it
>is my attribution of illogicality to religious belief, and not any
>rewriting of the standard definition of illogicality, is what you are
>referring to by "your own rules"

Exactly.

Funny how some very clever people in science - Copernicus, Gregor
Mendel and Georges Lemaītre for example, or Collins, Polkinghorne and
Miller if you prefer more recent examples - had no trouble adopting
these" illogical* beliefs.

>
>
>The two senses are not mutually exclusive e.g a religious belief 1.2 can
>also fall under sense 1.1.
>
>What distinguishes a religious belief is that it is part of metaphysical
>belief system, as is the case in this context, whilst 1.1 is not dependent,
>although it can be, on being part of a metaphysical belief system.
>
>Not sure what you are trying to show with this semantic quibbling.

I just have a low tolerance level for people posting generalisms that
are just a heap of crap; that applies whether it is religious people
posting crap about science or scientific people posting crap about
religion - your claim is no better, for example, than AlphaBeta's
persistent drivel about evolution being nonsense peddled by atheists.

>
>Do you not accept that a religious "belief" is of a totally different kind
>or category or character from the usage as in "belief" that Jimi could
>play a mean guitar?
>
>Why do you think it has a separate dictionary entry?

Here's a clue for you - the numbering system indicates that 1.1 and
1.2 mean they are just specific uses of 1 - "An acceptance that

something exists or is true, especially one without proof."

Perhaps you could identify the *proof* that Jimi could play a mean
guitar.

[Greg Guarino]

No amending involved.

>
> Peter's identity claim, based on the fact that he argues FOR the factual validity of evolutionary theory, which is a product of epistemological Naturalism and Materialism, contradicts his identity claim. According to my identity rule a person is as they argue, and not as they claim, if the two contradict.
>
> Ray
>

Peter argues for the factual validity of Universal Common Descent, but
wonders if God guided the diversification of life on Earth. How could
such a person NOT be called agnostic?

[Stevet]

That is not me making up my own rules of illogicality, it is me
categorising a religious behaviour as illogical, a categorisation you
disagree with.

And have you not met Ray?

And to clarify and generalise my point, religious believers can, if they
wish, justify anything they say by reference to the tenets of the
particular " made up" belief system they have subjectively chosen, be that
Ibadism, Zoroastrianism, Mormonism etc

>
>> That I think that religious belief meets these
>> conventional criteria for illogicality is a different matter. I presume it
>> is my attribution of illogicality to religious belief, and not any
>> rewriting of the standard definition of illogicality, is what you are
>> referring to by "your own rules"
>
> Exactly.
>
> Funny how some very clever people in science - Copernicus, Gregor

> Mendel and Georges Lemaître for example, or Collins, Polkinghorne and

> Miller if you prefer more recent examples - had no trouble adopting
> these" illogical* beliefs.

Why is it funny? Do you think only stupid people can have religious
beliefs? That smart people cannot be illogical?

>
>>
>>
>> The two senses are not mutually exclusive e.g a religious belief 1.2 can
>> also fall under sense 1.1.
>>
>> What distinguishes a religious belief is that it is part of metaphysical
>> belief system, as is the case in this context, whilst 1.1 is not dependent,
>> although it can be, on being part of a metaphysical belief system.
>>
>> Not sure what you are trying to show with this semantic quibbling.
>
> I just have a low tolerance level for people posting generalisms that
> are just a heap of crap; that applies whether it is religious people
> posting crap about science or scientific people posting crap about
> religion - your claim is no better, for example, than AlphaBeta's
> persistent drivel about evolution being nonsense peddled by atheists.

Ah time for the gratuitous insult game! Very well, I have a low tolerance
for dissembling dismal- dreaming hedge-pigs.

I am not a scientist. To repeat my Wittgenstein quote; "We feel that even
if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have
still not been touched at all."

To say religious belief is illogical and subjective is not to deny its
central import to the lived experience of billions of people, or to deny
the good that has been done, and is still being done, throughout history by
people with religious motivations or inspirations. Logicality and
objectivity are not the default settings for human behaviour and thought,
being illogical and subjective is pretty normal.

Is to say religious belief is subjective a crap generalisation?

If so, What is an objective religious belief?

Is to say it has an illogical basis a crap generalisation?

Many highly intelligent religious believers think it is a matter of faith
and not logic, a revelation and not a reasoned conclusion, are they talking
crap generalisations as well?

>
>>
>> Do you not accept that a religious "belief" is of a totally different kind
>> or category or character from the usage as in "belief" that Jimi could
>> play a mean guitar?
>>
>> Why do you think it has a separate dictionary entry?
>
> Here's a clue for you - the numbering system indicates that 1.1 and
> 1.2 mean they are just specific uses of 1 - "An acceptance that
> something exists or is true, especially one without proof."
>
> Perhaps you could identify the *proof* that Jimi could play a mean
> guitar.

That 1.1 and 1.2 are specific usages is exactly what I was saying.

Again, what are you trying to show with all your grammatical quibbles
about the application of the different semantic values of the sign or term
" belief" ?





>
>
>



--
Stevet

[Stevet]

That God might decide, through the medium of your posts, to give a
revelation of his presence to some of those atheists?




>> Stevet

[Ray Martinez]

This comment defines Agnosticism as mere wondering if God exists.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

All that says is that the Biblical claim of Divine revelation is false. Since everyone already knows Atheists reject the claim as false, what's the point?

Ray

[Robert Camp]

On 6/1/17 9:25 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 6:24:53 AM UTC-7, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> On 5/31/2017 9:51 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 6:39:53 AM UTC-7, Greg Guarino
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/2017 1:21 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 6:49:53 AM UTC-7, Greg Guarino
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/24/2017 5:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

<snip>

>>> Peter's identity claim, based on the fact that he argues FOR the
>>> factual validity of evolutionary theory, which is a product of
>>> epistemological Naturalism and Materialism, contradicts his
>>> identity claim. According to my identity rule a person is as they
>>> argue, and not as they claim, if the two contradict.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>> Peter argues for the factual validity of Universal Common Descent,
>> but wonders if God guided the diversification of life on Earth. How
>> could such a person NOT be called agnostic?
>
> This comment defines Agnosticism as mere wondering if God exists.

Like atheism or theism, agnosticism comes in at least a few flavors, one
of which is essentially equivalent with "mere wondering if God exists."

[jillery]

As contrasted to dyslexic agnostics, who wonder if dog exists.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:21:58 -0000 (UTC), Stevet

No, I have never *met* him and I am always wary of making judgements
about people I have never met - Usenet is too full of people playing
silly games.

Within that limitation, I don't think Ray has simply made up his
religious beliefs; indeed, from what he has posted, his beliefs
regarding God seem fairly mainstream Christianity. Ray's problem is
not his religious beliefs - it is his inability to reconcile science
with those beliefs.

>
>And to clarify and generalise my point, religious believers can, if they
>wish, justify anything they say by reference to the tenets of the
>particular " made up" belief system they have subjectively chosen, be that
>Ibadism, Zoroastrianism, Mormonism etc

To be honest, I know nothing about Ibadism or Zoroastrianism and very
little about Mormonism but I doubt any of them are simply "made up";
if they do contain made up elements, then perhaps you might explain
why weaknesses or faults in those particular religions should be
extrapolated to *all* religious belief.

>
>
>>
>>> That I think that religious belief meets these
>>> conventional criteria for illogicality is a different matter. I presume it
>>> is my attribution of illogicality to religious belief, and not any
>>> rewriting of the standard definition of illogicality, is what you are
>>> referring to by "your own rules"
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> Funny how some very clever people in science - Copernicus, Gregor

>> Mendel and Georges Lemaītre for example, or Collins, Polkinghorne and

>> Miller if you prefer more recent examples - had no trouble adopting
>> these" illogical* beliefs.
>
>Why is it funny? Do you think only stupid people can have religious
>beliefs? That smart people cannot be illogical?

Not at all, but when a *lot* of very smart people - and what I gave
was only a small sample - believe something after having given it
considerable thought, I would be inclined to hesitate before simply
dismissing what they believe is illogical.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The two senses are not mutually exclusive e.g a religious belief 1.2 can
>>> also fall under sense 1.1.
>>>
>>> What distinguishes a religious belief is that it is part of metaphysical
>>> belief system, as is the case in this context, whilst 1.1 is not dependent,
>>> although it can be, on being part of a metaphysical belief system.
>>>
>>> Not sure what you are trying to show with this semantic quibbling.
>>
>> I just have a low tolerance level for people posting generalisms that
>> are just a heap of crap; that applies whether it is religious people
>> posting crap about science or scientific people posting crap about
>> religion - your claim is no better, for example, than AlphaBeta's
>> persistent drivel about evolution being nonsense peddled by atheists.
>
>Ah time for the gratuitous insult game! Very well, I have a low tolerance
>for dissembling dismal- dreaming hedge-pigs.
>
>I am not a scientist. To repeat my Wittgenstein quote; "We feel that even
>if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have
>still not been touched at all."
>
>To say religious belief is illogical and subjective is not to deny its
>central import to the lived experience of billions of people, or to deny
>the good that has been done, and is still being done, throughout history by
>people with religious motivations or inspirations. Logicality and
>objectivity are not the default settings for human behaviour and thought,
>being illogical and subjective is pretty normal.
>
>Is to say religious belief is subjective a crap generalisation?

No, and I never said that it is not subjective.

>
>If so, What is an objective religious belief?

I think that the existence of some superior force or entity beyond
what we humans are capable of comprehending could be argued as being
objective; the exact nature of that force or entity - what we mean by
"God" is where the subjectivity comes in.

>
>Is to say it has an illogical basis a crap generalisation?

Yes - unless you can put up very good arguments against the arguments
made by people like those I referred to earlier and other people who
have given their lives to studying the subject.

By the way, would you agree that your opinion of religious belief as
illogical is itself a subjective belief?

>
>Many highly intelligent religious believers think it is a matter of faith
>and not logic, a revelation and not a reasoned conclusion, are they talking
>crap generalisations as well?

Of course it is a matter of faith, and it is not just many highly
intelligent religious believers who think that, it is the very
definition of religious belief - faith without proof. That does not
make it illogical.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Do you not accept that a religious "belief" is of a totally different kind
>>> or category or character from the usage as in "belief" that Jimi could
>>> play a mean guitar?
>>>
>>> Why do you think it has a separate dictionary entry?
>>
>> Here's a clue for you - the numbering system indicates that 1.1 and
>> 1.2 mean they are just specific uses of 1 - "An acceptance that
>> something exists or is true, especially one without proof."
>>
>> Perhaps you could identify the *proof* that Jimi could play a mean
>> guitar.
>
>
>That 1.1 and 1.2 are specific usages is exactly what I was saying.
>
>Again, what are you trying to show with all your grammatical quibbles
>about the application of the different semantic values of the sign or term
>" belief" ?

I'm trying to figure out why you believe that 1.1 is not necessarily
illogical but 1.2 is inherently illogical; you only argument so far
seems to be that in regard to 1.2, people could simply make it up but
that does not take account of people who have given serious study to
religious belief and concluded that it is valid.

[Stevet]

I see no problem with Ray's ability to reconcile science with his beliefs,
his beliefs are paramount, thats it, very simple and clear.

I see a major problem on the other hand in this science/ religion
"reconciliation" with others, such as this Miller person ( my only
knowledge of him is from these threads so I am not talking about his
specific arguments), who adopt a "God of the Gaps" approach .e.g science
has proved evolution so they say ok then in which case God is no longer
involved in evolution but now we say he set up the " constants " enabling
evolution, and if science then shows why the " constants" must be as they
are Miller et al will adjust their beliefs to say, ok science is right
again, God did not set up the constants but set up the conditions which
made the constants what they are etc. That shifting God of the Gaps
reconciliation is far more problematic that Ray's insistence on the
fundamental truth of the Bible. ( Ray,please correct me if I am
misrepresenting you, I am sure we would both agree I am hardly the one to
speak on your behalf!)

>
>>
>> And to clarify and generalise my point, religious believers can, if they
>> wish, justify anything they say by reference to the tenets of the
>> particular " made up" belief system they have subjectively chosen, be that
>> Ibadism, Zoroastrianism, Mormonism etc
>
> To be honest, I know nothing about Ibadism or Zoroastrianism and very
> little about Mormonism but I doubt any of them are simply "made up";
> if they do contain made up elements, then perhaps you might explain
> why weaknesses or faults in those particular religions should be
> extrapolated to *all* religious belief.

The " etc" on the end was to indicate it applied to all religions including
all the Christian sects e.g Ibadism has no more or less weaknesses or
faults than, say, Protestantism or Catholicism, and all are equally made
up.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> That I think that religious belief meets these
>>>> conventional criteria for illogicality is a different matter. I presume it
>>>> is my attribution of illogicality to religious belief, and not any
>>>> rewriting of the standard definition of illogicality, is what you are
>>>> referring to by "your own rules"
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> Funny how some very clever people in science - Copernicus, Gregor

>>> Mendel and Georges Lemaître for example, or Collins, Polkinghorne and

>>> Miller if you prefer more recent examples - had no trouble adopting
>>> these" illogical* beliefs.
>>
>> Why is it funny? Do you think only stupid people can have religious
>> beliefs? That smart people cannot be illogical?
>
> Not at all, but when a *lot* of very smart people - and what I gave
> was only a small sample - believe something after having given it
> considerable thought, I would be inclined to hesitate before simply
> dismissing what they believe is illogical.

The vast majority of the Aztec population, which must have included a lot
of very smart people who gave the matter considerable thought, upheld the
religious belief that human sacrifice was efficacious and necessary.
Are you inclined to hesitate before dismissing this belief as illogical?

. And I could give numerous other examples of beliefs held, after
considerable thought, by intelligent people which you would dismiss as
illogical so it is not just a matter of Aztec beliefs.

I find this Aztec religious belief, no more or less illogical than the
belief, say, that Jesus was the son of God i.e all religious beliefs are
illogical

Do you think all religious beliefs are logical? If not what is your
criteria for distinguishing between logical and illogical ones?

That is not objective, you are merely stating your belief, which is fair
enough but is not objective in any sense.

>>
>> Is to say it has an illogical basis a crap generalisation?
>
> Yes - unless you can put up very good arguments against the arguments
> made by people like those I referred to earlier and other people who
> have given their lives to studying the subject.

Hindu theology, to give but one example, has a far longer history and
probably has had a equivalent amount of very intelligent people dedicating
their whole lives to studying the subject, do you then because of this
accept the tenets of Hinduism? Do you accept Hinduism ( just an example,
Ibadism, animism also apply) have a logical basis?

>
> By the way, would you agree that your opinion of religious belief as
> illogical is itself a subjective belief?

Not holding somebody else's religious belief is not a belief.

>
>>
>> Many highly intelligent religious believers think it is a matter of faith
>> and not logic, a revelation and not a reasoned conclusion, are they talking
>> crap generalisations as well?
>
> Of course it is a matter of faith, and it is not just many highly
> intelligent religious believers who think that, it is the very
> definition of religious belief - faith without proof. That does not
> make it illogical.

I agree with them.

And Yes it does make it illogical.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you not accept that a religious "belief" is of a totally different kind
>>>> or category or character from the usage as in "belief" that Jimi could
>>>> play a mean guitar?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think it has a separate dictionary entry?
>>>
>>> Here's a clue for you - the numbering system indicates that 1.1 and
>>> 1.2 mean they are just specific uses of 1 - "An acceptance that
>>> something exists or is true, especially one without proof."
>>>
>>> Perhaps you could identify the *proof* that Jimi could play a mean
>>> guitar.
>>
>>
>> That 1.1 and 1.2 are specific usages is exactly what I was saying.
>>
>> Again, what are you trying to show with all your grammatical quibbles
>> about the application of the different semantic values of the sign or term
>> " belief" ?
>
> I'm trying to figure out why you believe that 1.1 is not necessarily
> illogical but 1.2 is inherently illogical; you only argument so far
> seems to be that in regard to 1.2, people could simply make it up but
> that does not take account of people who have given serious study to
> religious belief and concluded that it is valid.
>
>

The " value" of religion is not in its arbitrary illogical belief systems,
its " value" is not philosophical, scientific or theological, its " value"
is cultural, social ,political etc and as a " lived experience" for the
billions of believers


--
Stevet

[Greg Guarino]

My comments state the obvious: That someone who does not know if God
exists or not is agnostic. In Peter's case, it seems that he greatly
wishes for a benevolent God to exist, but does not know if that is true.

[Ray Martinez]

This comment allows Agnosticism to be defined so broadly it becomes virtually meaningless. Robert's comment also epitomizes the subjective, and cannot be said to even have correspondence to any lexical meaning of Agnostic.

Ray

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 13:38:42 -0000 (UTC), Stevet

[...]

>> I'm trying to figure out why you believe that 1.1 is not necessarily
>> illogical but 1.2 is inherently illogical; you only argument so far
>> seems to be that in regard to 1.2, people could simply make it up but
>> that does not take account of people who have given serious study to
>> religious belief and concluded that it is valid.
>>
>>
>The " value" of religion is not in its arbitrary illogical belief systems,
>its " value" is not philosophical, scientific or theological, its " value"
>is cultural, social ,political etc and as a " lived experience" for the
>billions of believers

Errr.. .I didn't ask you about *value*, I ask you about why you

believe that 1.1 is not necessarily illogical but 1.2 is inherently

illogical. Talking about "value" does nothing to explain that.

[Robert Camp]

Of course it doesn't do any such thing. It allows one form of
agnosticism be exactly what it is - an expression of uncertainty and
indecision regarding the question of the existence of a deity.

That this is an inherently shallow contemplation doesn't suggest it is
meaningless, it just implies there is little depth there to be plumbed.
And of course, when empirically considering the existence of an entirely
unevidenced entity a substantial lack of meaning should surprise no one.

> Robert's comment also epitomizes the
> subjective, and cannot be said to even have correspondence to any
> lexical meaning of Agnostic.

Go look up the meaning of Weak Agnosticism and explain to me how it is
substantively different from "mere wondering if God exists."

[Ray Martinez]

The only valid definition of Agnostic is Huxley's AND Bertrand's because the latter crafted within Huxley's parameters, focusing on one major aspect with extended logical precision. All other definitions are therefore subjective. You can maintain all you want and even cite scholars but there is no such thing as "Weak Agnosticism." What you're arguing doesn't even rise to any lexical usage. Good day, Robert, you can have the last word.

Ray

[jillery]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 13:38:42 -0000 (UTC), Stevet
<stol...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:


[...]

>I see no problem with Ray's ability to reconcile science with his beliefs,
>his beliefs are paramount, thats it, very simple and clear.
>
>I see a major problem on the other hand in this science/ religion
>"reconciliation" with others, such as this Miller person ( my only
>knowledge of him is from these threads so I am not talking about his
>specific arguments), who adopt a "God of the Gaps" approach .e.g science
>has proved evolution so they say ok then in which case God is no longer
>involved in evolution but now we say he set up the " constants " enabling
>evolution, and if science then shows why the " constants" must be as they
>are Miller et al will adjust their beliefs to say, ok science is right
>again, God did not set up the constants but set up the conditions which
>made the constants what they are etc. That shifting God of the Gaps
>reconciliation is far more problematic that Ray's insistence on the
>fundamental truth of the Bible. ( Ray,please correct me if I am
>misrepresenting you, I am sure we would both agree I am hardly the one to
>speak on your behalf!)

Since you say your only knowledge of Ken Miller is from these threads,
how did you get the impression that Miller adopts a "God of the Gaps"?
I have looked through this thread, and I didn't see anybody state or
imply that.

[Mark Isaak]

One point that I think both you and Martin are missing is that
"illogical" is not necessarily a put-down. Emotions, which generally do
not follow formal logic, do not exist just to make our lives
complicated. They evolved because people without them tended to die or
otherwise not to reproduce.

Is it logical to put two decades of your life on hold purely to help a
person who, at the start of that period, cannot even talk? Is it
logical to canoe down river rapids, risking your life, to reach a point
you drove away from an hour earlier? Is it logical to risk increasing
one's risk of heart disease and diabetes by eating a slice of
cheesecake? I would answer No to all of those, but I would also say
that it is illogical to live a life without illogical elements such as
love, adventure, and pleasure.

Religion offers more benefits -- objective and subjective -- than
cheesecake or whitewater canoeing. That it is illogical (to the extent
it is) does not detract from those benefits. Religion also offers some
problems. But they are problems not because they are illogical (some, I
suspect, have been caused or exacerbated by logical scholastic
arguments), but because of their effects. So deal with the problems,
not the illogic.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 9:09:53 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 5:34:53 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Once again directed at Agnostics; namely Peter Nyikos, who has contributed
> > to original thread derailment as a way of attempting to escape objective truth.
>

> Classic blame the victim: it was you who abandoned the thread in the
> wake of posts by me that you are afraid to deal with.
>
> You are ALSO attempting to escape my arguments that YOU are a non-Christian
> based on the very rule that you falsely claim to be applying to me:
>

How many times is Peter going to make this claim while never providing the argument in support? The fact that Peter has made this claim at least six times or so while never backing it up with the actual application means he cannot. I've been keeping careful track, Peter has yet to apply my Identity Rule to myself and shown a contradiction in what I argue and what I identify as.

> > Identity Rule (proposed by me, Ray Martinez):
> >

> > A person is as they argue, and not as they claim, if the two contradict.
>
> Your behavior contradicts your claim to be a follower of Jesus,
> but when I argued for this, you snipped it saying it was irrelevant
> to the topic you are discussing.

Absurd. Once again Peter makes a generic accusation that I am in violation of the Identity Rule but he doesn't explain, specify, or apply his accusation to the Rule.

>
> You have learned a lot from the way jillery uses the word "irrelevant."
> Or did she learn its conscience-escaping usage from you?
>
>

> > Peter Nyikos: "You [= Ray] have deluded yourself into thinking that
> > I lie every time I deny that I am an atheist."
> >
> > Peter argues for the factual validity of evolutionary theory,
>
> You've been corrected on this so many times, with careful reasoning,
> that it now qualifies as a shameless lie.

Imagine that! Peter is up in arms because I said he argues for the factual validity of evolutionary theory! Yet there exists countless messages posted by Peter here at Talk.Origins where he does just that! How could Peter protest this fact? I am flabbergasted!

>
> I will repeat the reasoning if anyone but you asks for it, but
> with you it would be a waste of time: you will simply stop talking
> to me at some point, abandon the thread, and start a new thread
> repeating the same lie. You've done it at least twice now.
>

Completely false. Here Peter creates a complete falsehood as a diversion tactic to obscure the fact that he has yet to address the content of the OP directed at him. Two threads, same OP, and he has yet to address the Identity Rule because it exposes him as advocating two contradictory viewpoints, Naturalism and Agnosticism.

> > which uses the assumptions and restrictions of Naturalism/Materialism
> > to explain evidence and produce claims of fact.
>
> If you had limited yourself to "restrictions" you would have
> a reasonable case, since you would only be saying what many diverse
> people have told you innumerable times: that evolutionary *theory* uses
> a naturalistic *methodology* without having anything to say
> one way or the other about whether materialism is true or false.
>

Here Peter simply invokes the unspecified claim made in behalf of Naturalism or Materialism tagged with a prefix word asserted to extricate both phrases and Agnosticism from contradiction. Again, Peter fails to explain and make the argument, which reveals inability, fearing the argument is logically invalid. And Peter's comment recognizes the need for Naturalism and Materialism to need a prefix word to alleviate contradiction with Agnosticism.

> >
> By the way, have you been using the word "restrictions" earlier,
> or have you added it this time as a fig leaf to partially
> cover the very thing these innumerable corrections were doing.
> That "very thing" is your demonstrable falsehood that
> evolutionary theory uses the *assumptions* of naturalism/materialism.
>

That's precisely why prefix words are placed before Naturalism and Materialism, and precisely why you just advocated these prefix words alleviating contradiction with Agnosticism. You can't even remember what you just wrote?

>
> > Arguing for these claims of fact, and your Agnostic identity claim,
> > contradict. That's all that I'm saying.
>
> Illogically saying. And if you keep repeating this irrational
> claim of "contradiction," you will be accused by me of either
> using the Marxist definition of "contradiction" or outright lying.
>

What exactly is illogical? Why make the accusation without the argument or explanation? You've done this now countless times!

Ray

> But don't worry: although jillery will use the flimsiest pretext

> to accuse Glenn and me of lying, she loves you too much to ever

> accuse you of lying, or even of dishonesty, no matter how many
> thousand times you are demonstrably dishonest or insincere.
>

> Peter Nyikos

[eridanus]

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 9:04:53 PM UTC+1, r3p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 9:34:53 AM UTC-7, Wolffan wrote:
> > On 2017 May 24, Ray Martinez wrote
> > (in article<5aa9658f-1d99-421b...@googlegroups.com>):

> >
> > > Once again directed at Agnostics; namely Peter Nyikos, who has contributed to
> > > original thread derailment as a way of attempting to escape objective truth.
> > >

> > > Identity Rule (proposed by me, Ray Martinez):
> > >
> > > A person is as they argue, and not as they claim, if the two contradict.
> > >

> > > Peter Nyikos: "You [= Ray] have deluded yourself into thinking that
> > > I lie every time I deny that I am an atheist."
> > >

> > > Peter argues for the factual validity of evolutionary theory, which uses the

> > > assumptions and restrictions of Naturalism/Materialism to explain evidence

> > > and produce claims of fact. Arguing for these claims of fact, and your

> > > Agnostic identity claim, contradict. That's all that I'm saying.
> >

> > Pete the Grate is NOT an atheist.
>
> Show us anything written by Peter that says God or design does in fact exist?
>
> >
> > You, however, ARE a religious nut.
>
> I've always admitted that my mind has been brainwashed by the Bible. Your mind, on the other hand, has been brainwashed by secularism, scientism and evolution.
>
> The point: I can admit, you cannot. Your kind attempts to conceal bias from the audience. I, on the other hand, admit my bias up front. That's called being honest and objective.
>
> Ray

you are right, Ray. We all are brainwashed by a way of other. Some guys had been brainwashed by those that postulate the bible as the word of god. Other people is brainwashed by scientific literature or by some peculiar philosophy.
That was my case. I was in a boarding religious school where I was suffering
hunger. Then, at age 12 I reasoned that god do no existed, for if god loved
us so much... how I was suffering hunger? I concluded that I was being
swindled with this theory of a god creator. Then, my brain washed was not
exogenous but endogenous. I never had known any atheist, not read any atheist
or materialist book.
I was materialist because I was a damn little philosopher, and had to eat
everyday, and had to sleep, and to drink water, and to pee and defecate.
Then, I was a material animal like other animals. The main difference is the
humans can speak a lot. While the animals do not look like they are able to
speak a lot like humans.

Eri

[Robert Camp]

Why, thank you, I suppose I'll take it then.

You argue by definitional fiat. Sorry, you don't get to decide what is
an isn't valid. That's either a novice's resort, or an attempt to
declare victory when you have no counterargument. You're often guilty of
both, so in this case who knows?

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 1:09:54 PM UTC-7, Robert Camp wrote:
> On 6/2/17 10:16 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > The only valid definition of Agnostic is Huxley's AND Bertrand's
> > because the latter crafted within Huxley's parameters, focusing on
> > one major aspect with extended logical precision. All other
> > definitions are therefore subjective. You can maintain all you want
> > and even cite scholars but there is no such thing as "Weak
> > Agnosticism." What you're arguing doesn't even rise to any lexical
> > usage. Good day, Robert, you can have the last word.
>
> Why, thank you, I suppose I'll take it then.
>
> You argue by definitional fiat. Sorry, you don't get to decide what is

> an[d] isn't valid. That's either a novice's resort, or an attempt to

> declare victory when you have no counterargument. You're often guilty of
> both, so in this case who knows?

I could not have dreamt of a better reply by Robert that completely vindicates everything I said.

Robert proudly admits that his argument isn't based on accepted definitions and describes those that are, which in this case are mine, to be the work of a novice. He has everything ass-backwards and logically perverted with no awareness of anything amiss at all.

This is how Evolutionists "think." Illogically with no awareness of the fact.

Ray (Paleyan Creationist)

[Ray Martinez]

Refreshing and heartening to find out that someone **understands** some of the major claims that I make.

Martin Harran doesn't seem to understand, after how many years here at Talk.Origins? that my scientific viewpoints do not need reconciliation with the science of evolution because I am not an Evolutionist.

Evolution was NEVER true to begin with, which means Paley remains true. Even Darwin accepted and praised Paley early in his career in science. In fact, it's hard to find a mainstream Darwinian scholar who has anything bad to say about Paley excluding of course disagreement about reality.

The point is that the Darwinists are wrong about reality and evolution, Paley remains correct: species (organized complexity) correspond to the work of a Maker.

>
> I see a major problem on the other hand in this science/ religion
> "reconciliation" with others, such as this Miller person ( my only
> knowledge of him is from these threads so I am not talking about his
> specific arguments), who adopt a "God of the Gaps" approach .e.g science
> has proved evolution so they say ok then in which case God is no longer
> involved in evolution but now we say he set up the " constants " enabling
> evolution, and if science then shows why the " constants" must be as they
> are Miller et al will adjust their beliefs to say, ok science is right
> again, God did not set up the constants but set up the conditions which
> made the constants what they are etc. That shifting God of the Gaps
> reconciliation is far more problematic that Ray's insistence on the

> fundamental truth of the Bible. ( Ray, please correct me if I am

> misrepresenting you, I am sure we would both agree I am hardly the one to
> speak on your behalf!)

I'm okay with what you said.

For The Record: God of the Gaps presupposes the truth of evolutionary theory in geology and paleontology. Again, I reject evolution completely as unsupported, species remain immutable, created independently (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

We are not looking to insert God into any gap because "gaps" presuppose the stuff on both sides to already be filled----which is false. There is no evidence that micro-evolution has ever occurred on this planet. We see design. What we see falsifies the concept of evolution (older species originating newer species) and any notion that an unintelligent agent of evolutionary causation exists.

The God of the Bible told one specific man to sacrifice his son on one specific occasion. The man did as he was told, but God stopped him at the last moment. In the same record there are many passages that say human sacrifice is evil. The fact that many civilizations practice human sacrifice is accounted for as doing so at the behest of a god that doesn't exist.

Ray

[jillery]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 15:10:48 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The God of the Bible told one specific man to sacrifice his son on one specific occasion. The man did as he was told, but God stopped him at the last moment. In the same record there are many passages that say human sacrifice is evil. The fact that many civilizations practice human sacrifice is accounted for as doing so at the behest of a god that doesn't exist.

The God of the Bible also told an entire nation to kill every living
thing in the cities they attacked.

[Ray Martinez]

Yes, God commanded Joshua, for example, to kill every man, woman, child, and animal that belonged to certain nations in the promised land. These nations were given multiplied hundreds of years to repent and turn from worshipping idols, yet they refused. Judgement day came at the hand of Joshua. The deaths of the children are on the hands of their parents and leaders of their nation. These children suffered death at the hands of an invading army, but they of course go to heaven unlike the leaders and parents.

Ray

[Stevet]

In 1.1 the objects of the belief can be real, e.g Jimi Hendrix, and the
logicality of the belief can be judged by evaluating real facts e.g to say
"I believe the sun will rise tomorrow" is logical, to say "I believe the
sun will not rise tomorrow" is illogical. In 1.2 the belief object is
based on a arbitrary metaphysical conceptual system, e.g the Ibadi belief
that God will not show himself to the faithful on the Day of Judgement ,
and is inherently illogical

--
Stevet

[Stevet]

I am quite willing to concede that I have misconstrued Miller's views.

Forgetting Miller then, my views above still stand about the problematic of
approaches which accept scientific findings of no evidence of "
supernatural" involvement in area X, but instead declare the involvement
is in area Y where there is no agreed scientific explanation.

>
>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>
>

--
Stevet

[Stevet]

Agreed, as I said above the import of religion lies not in its
scientifically illogical belief systems but in it being a " real lived
experience" , a form or way of life, for billions.

--
Stevet

[jillery]

You have become afflicted with AlphaBeta's bad habit of deleting
context. Do you think that makes you sound clever?

Given your comments above, your objection to referring to the story of
Abraham and Isaac pales in comparison. No sane person rationalizes
genocide on the basis of worshipping idols.

[jillery]

On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 10:26:35 -0000 (UTC), Stevet

Whether you have misconstrued Miller's views is arguable, but that's
not what I asked. My impression is you have misconstued the views of
one or more posters to this topic. So I ask you again, how did you

get the impression that Miller adopts a "God of the Gaps"?

[Stevet]

Again I am quite willing to concede that I have misconstrued the views of
one or more posters on the topic of Miller's views, of which I know nothing
directly, never having read him and being certain I never will.

I got the ( mis) impression because posters stated, if my memory is not at
fault as well, that Miller accepts that there is no " supernatural"
intervention in evolution and that the supernatural intervention lies
elsewhere, again I have no idea if this is a fair or accurate precis of
his views. I think someone also mentioned that this "elsewhere" lies in
setting the constants enabling evolution to unfold, this being an area
where science has not provided an explanation, hence my (mis) impression he
uses a variety of the "God of the Gaps argument.

>
>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>
>

--
Stevet

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 10:18:04 -0000 (UTC), Stevet

What facts do you evaluate to show that Jimi Hendrix is a great guitar
player?

[Stevet]

.My example was " I believe the sun will\will not rise tomorrow" the
logicality of which can be evaluated factually . I also used the word "
can" and not " must" be judged ....etc

In your example " I believe Jimi is a great guitar player" you are using "
believe" to designate an aesthetic opinion that you hold. Whether
aesthetic judgements or " beliefs" can be factually justified has been a
matter of much debate, of which I have little interest. If you are
interested in whether aesthetic beliefs or opinions can be objectively or
logically justified maybe the following can help you

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetic-judgment/

And I still have no idea what you are trying to show by your quibbling
about the different and varied grammatical applications of the different
semantic values of the sign " belief". There are countless possible
propositions that can contain the sign " belief", do you want to analyse
them all?

What is your point?

>
>> In 1.2 the belief object is
>> based on a arbitrary metaphysical conceptual system, e.g the Ibadi belief
>> that God will not show himself to the faithful on the Day of Judgement ,
>> and is inherently illogical
>
>

C

--
Stevet

[jillery]

On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 12:20:26 -0000 (UTC), Stevet

Ok. I see these are two separate issues. I will leave for another
time whether Miller in fact adopts a "God of the Gaps", and focus on
stating my understanding of what you describe above.

By his own description in "Finding Darwin's God", Kenneth Miller is a
practicing Roman Catholic. I first learned of him back in the '90s
when PBS aired this "Firing Line" debate:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITqiIQu-fbA>

Since then, Miller has been a leader in challenging Intelligent Design
and its "Cdesign Proponentsists", and especially countering
Irreducible Complexity as described in "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael
Behe, who is also a self-identified practicing Roman Catholic. Miller
was a principal witness for the plaintiffs in "Kitzmiller v Dover",
where the school board tried to inject Creationism and Intelligent
Design into the curriculum under the guise of science.

IIUC what Miller wrote in "Finding Darwin's God", he views the
randomness of unguided natural processes, including quantum subatomic
interactions, as providing a foot in the door for God to influence
past, present, and future events. If someone were to label as
supernatural the occurrence of highly improbable but still possible
events which follow physical laws, then that might explain their
characterization of Miller's opinions as "God of the gaps".

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 14:26:39 -0000 (UTC), Stevet

The sun rising tomorrow has nothing whatsoever to do with belief,
science can tell us not only that the sun will rise [1] but can tell
us exactly what time it will rise in every different part of the
world.

([1] I'm assuming you are not going off on a tangent about the
possibility of a comet wiping us all out during the night.)

> I also used the word "
>can" and not " must" be judged ....etc
>
>In your example " I believe Jimi is a great guitar player" you are using "
>believe" to designate an aesthetic opinion that you hold. Whether
>aesthetic judgements or " beliefs" can be factually justified has been a
>matter of much debate, of which I have little interest. If you are
>interested in whether aesthetic beliefs or opinions can be objectively or
>logically justified maybe the following can help you
>
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetic-judgment/
>
>And I still have no idea what you are trying to show by your quibbling
>about the different and varied grammatical applications of the different
>semantic values of the sign " belief". There are countless possible
>propositions that can contain the sign " belief", do you want to analyse
>them all?
>
>What is your point?

I am trying to figure out why you regard my belief in God as illogical
but you see nothing illogical in my belief that Jimi Hendrix is a
great guitarist.

Sorry, but blethering about "aesthetic opinion" being different from
"belief" doesn't explain it.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 13:38:42 -0000 (UTC), Stevet

<stol...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't have time to go through everything in your reply but here are
a couple of points that jump out at me:

[匽

Stevet:
======

>I see a major problem on the other hand in this science/ religion
>"reconciliation" with others, such as this Miller person ( my only
>knowledge of him is from these threads so I am not talking about his
>specific arguments), who adopt a "God of the Gaps" approach .e.g science
>has proved evolution so they say ok then in which case God is no longer
>involved in evolution

Mainstream Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in
particular (of which Miller is a member) has *never* taught that God
is directly involved in evolution so "no longer involved" is
incorrect.

The problem with the "God of the Gaps" argument is that it is
predicated upon religious teaching having to be changed in response to
science closing a gap. Can you give any example of that happening?

[匽

Martin:
=====

>> I think that the existence of some superior force or entity beyond
>> what we humans are capable of comprehending could be argued as being
>> objective; the exact nature of that force or entity - what we mean by
>> "God" is where the subjectivity comes in.
>>

Stevet:
=====

>
>That is not objective, you are merely stating your belief, which is fair
>enough but is not objective in any sense.

Do you agree then that belief in multiverses is not objective in any
sense?

[匽

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 13:38:42 -0000 (UTC), Stevet
<stol...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

Oops, I missed this one from earlier:

[...]

>> By the way, would you agree that your opinion of religious belief as
>> illogical is itself a subjective belief?
>
>Not holding somebody else's religious belief is not a belief.

That's not what I asked you - I asked , would you agree that your
opinion of religious belief *as illogical* is itself a subjective
belief?

Any chance of you answering the question I asked?

[...]

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> Yes, God commanded Joshua, for example, to kill every man, woman, child, and animal that belonged to certain nations in the promised land. These nations were given multiplied hundreds of years to repent and turn from worshipping idols, yet they refused. Judgement day came at the hand of Joshua. The deaths of the children are on the hands of their parents and leaders of their nation. These children suffered death at the hands of an invading army, but they of course go to heaven unlike the leaders and parents.
>
> Ray
>
>
>
>
>

Yeah, sort of several problems with this.


The first one is that you are making this up. Nowhere in Joshua does
it say that these kingdoms are punished for being idolaters, let alone
that they were given hundreds of years to repent. Indeed, in the logic
of the Old Testament there is nothing to repent for them - they are not
part of the covenant, so they are not breaking the promise they made to
God. The god of the OT is by and large not interested what tribes other
than Israel are doing, apart of destroying them when they get in the way
of his plan for Israel. The idea of god wanting the worship of the whole
world is distinctively NT, so you are back-projecting much younger ideas
into the OT text.

God does in Deuteronomy and Joshua occasionally demand the destruction
of the altars etc of the conquered nations - but not to punish them, but
to ensure that his people do not get tempted to abandon him for these
other deities - made abundantly clear in Joshua 23.6 which shows that
the conquered nations, well, what's left of them, could continue the
worship to their gods, but that there must be no mixing or fraternizing
with them.

God does order murder of children for the idolatry of their parents, in
Hosea 13:16 e.g. but that is for Israelites braking the covenant and
abandoning him - and there is nothing about warnings, and chance for
repentance here either, let alone hundred of years. The punishment
follows directly the act


Same with the children of the conquered going to heaven, that's just
stuff you made up with no scriptural foundation whatsoever. Would also
make no sense, as the whole idea if afterlife is at best marginal in
Judaism, and only rises to prominence later in Christianity. So again
you are making things up and back-project stuff into the OT that's
simply not there.

Not that it matters much. Even if you give people warning that you are
going to murder them, and their families, and their kids, if they don;t
become fans of you, that still makes you a psychopath.

[Stevet]

I have explained the difference several times, " belief" is not a unitary
phenomena, logicality has to be evaluated separately for each individual
proposition containing the sign " belief"

"I believe the sun will not rise tomorrow" is a factual proposition and is
illogical
" I believe the sun will rise tomorrow" is a factual proposition and is
logical
" I believe Jimi is great" is a aesthetic proposition, and may be capable
of being considered logical, see link
"i believe in Zeus" is a metaphysical proposition and has an illogical
object
"I believe in God" is a metaphysical proposition and has an illogical
object

And so on for every conceivable proposition containing the sign " belief"

>
> Sorry, but blethering about "aesthetic opinion" being different from
> "belief" doesn't explain it.

Nope, that is not what I was blethering about

That point was that an " aesthetic judgement " , Jimi is great, can be
designated by the sign " belief", a metaphysical opinion , Brahma is the
creator God, can also be designated by the sign " belief", a factual
prediction , eg the sun will not rise etc, can also be designated by the
sign " belief". The fact that they can all be designated by the same sign,
"belief" , does not mean that a aesthetic judgement is the same as a
metaphysical opinion and that both are the same as a factual prediction.

I still not see the point of your grammatical and semantic quibbling.

Whether " Jimi is great" is illogical or not has no bearing on the
contention that metaphysical objects are illogical. We could, if we could
be arsed, rewrite every proposition we have made without using the sign "
belief" and your purely semantic quibble will evaporate.

"
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> In 1.2 the belief object is
>>>> based on a arbitrary metaphysical conceptual system, e.g the Ibadi belief
>>>> that God will not show himself to the faithful on the Day of Judgement ,
>>>> and is inherently illogical
>>>
>>>
>>
>> C
>
>

D

--
Stevet

[Stevet]

Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 13:38:42 -0000 (UTC), Stevet
> <stol...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't have time to go through everything in your reply but here are
> a couple of points that jump out at me:
>

> […]

>
> Stevet:
> ======
>> I see a major problem on the other hand in this science/ religion
>> "reconciliation" with others, such as this Miller person ( my only
>> knowledge of him is from these threads so I am not talking about his
>> specific arguments), who adopt a "God of the Gaps" approach .e.g science
>> has proved evolution so they say ok then in which case God is no longer
>> involved in evolution
>
> Mainstream Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in
> particular (of which Miller is a member) has *never* taught that God
> is directly involved in evolution so "no longer involved" is
> incorrect.

I am no expert but did not mainstream Christianity, before the advent of
science, believe in the Biblical account that God created animals etc? Do
not many religious people still believe the Biblical account? What do you
mean by " mainstream", is the validity of religious beliefs dependent on
numbers of believers?

>
> The problem with the "God of the Gaps" argument is that it is
> predicated upon religious teaching having to be changed in response to
> science closing a gap. Can you give any example of that happening?
>

evolution replacing creationism, in places.…]

>
> Martin:
> =====
>>> I think that the existence of some superior force or entity beyond
>>> what we humans are capable of comprehending could be argued as being
>>> objective; the exact nature of that force or entity - what we mean by
>>> "God" is where the subjectivity comes in.
>>>
>
> Stevet:
> =====
>>
>> That is not objective, you are merely stating your belief, which is fair
>> enough but is not objective in any sense.
>
> Do you agree then that belief in multiverses is not objective in any
> sense?

No, multiverses are " objective" scientific hypothesises not subjective
religious beliefs.

Again you seem to be bewildered by language , the grammatical fact that
the sign " belief" can be used to designate both a scientific hypotheses
and a religious conviction does not mean there is any " logical
equivalence" between a scientific hypothesis and a religious conviction,
you cannot " argue" from one to the other, there is no equivalence .
>
> […]
>
>



--
Stevet

[Stevet]

No, it is not my " belief" , it is a reasoned conclusion from the fact,
which you freely acknowledge, that religious belief is a matter of faith
not fact.

Again your point seems to be purely based on confusion on how language is
used,
>
> [...]
>
>



--
Stevet

[Stevet]

Thanks for the précis of his views.


A " foot in the door" is still a gap though, and the "God of
improbability", leaving aside the meaning of " improbability", is as
spurious as the "God of the gaps"

>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>
>

--
Stevet

[jillery]

On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 11:32:19 -0000 (UTC), Stevet

I disagree. They are quite different. The gaps to which some people
inject God are artifacts of our current lack of knowledge. History
has shown otherwise intelligent persons invoking God's hand as a
placeholder for their own ignorance.

OTOH we know uncertainty is an actual characteristic of reality, that
it's not possible even in principle to know everything in sufficient
detail to be able to predict precisely the course of all future
events; Newton's cosmic clock has a built-in random number generator.

[Stevet]

Yes they different arguments, but both are spurious

>
> OTOH we know uncertainty is an actual characteristic of reality, that
> it's not possible even in principle to know everything in sufficient
> detail to be able to predict precisely the course of all future
> events; Newton's cosmic clock has a built-in random number generator.

That is not what is spurious, what is spurious is inventing a metaphysical
object to " explain" the (alleged ) improbabilities. E.g if I won the
Eurolottery I would not conclude God or Shiva or the lottery demon had
chosen the balls .

>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>
>

--
Stevet

[jillery]

On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 12:58:35 -0000 (UTC), Stevet

That you wouldn't make said conclusion doesn't make it a God of the
Gaps argument, which is where I came in.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:45:40 -0000 (UTC), Stevet

<stol...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 13:38:42 -0000 (UTC), Stevet
>> <stol...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't have time to go through everything in your reply but here are
>> a couple of points that jump out at me:
>>

>> [?]

>>
>> Stevet:
>> ======
>>> I see a major problem on the other hand in this science/ religion
>>> "reconciliation" with others, such as this Miller person ( my only
>>> knowledge of him is from these threads so I am not talking about his
>>> specific arguments), who adopt a "God of the Gaps" approach .e.g science
>>> has proved evolution so they say ok then in which case God is no longer
>>> involved in evolution
>>
>> Mainstream Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in
>> particular (of which Miller is a member) has *never* taught that God
>> is directly involved in evolution so "no longer involved" is
>> incorrect.
>
>I am no expert but did not mainstream Christianity, before the advent of
>science, believe in the Biblical account that God created animals etc?

No.

>Do not many religious people still believe the Biblical account?

I don't know how many that still believe the *literal* Biblical
account (which is what I assume you mean) but any who do are not
following the doctrine i.e. defined teaching of any of the mainstream
Christian churches.

>What do you
>mean by " mainstream",

The Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion, the Methodist Church, the
Presbyterian Church for starters.

> is the validity of religious beliefs dependent on
>numbers of believers?

No, but if you're going to attack religious belief in general, you
really need to justify your attack on the beliefs held by the
majority, not a minority.

>>
>> The problem with the "God of the Gaps" argument is that it is
>> predicated upon religious teaching having to be changed in response to
>> science closing a gap. Can you give any example of that happening?
>>

>evolution replacing creationism, in places.?]

You don't seem to realise that Creationism is a relatively new kid on
the block; it really only arose with the rise of Fundamentalism in the
USA in the early 20th century; in effect, Creationism was developed as
an alternative to evolution, not the other way around.

You raise a fundamental point, however, about your arguments - you
seem to think that because*some*religious beliefs are clearly invalid
and that people *can* make up religious beliefs if they so wish, that
you can extend those shortcomings to *all* religious beliefs. Now that
is truly illogical!

>>
>> Martin:
>> =====
>>>> I think that the existence of some superior force or entity beyond
>>>> what we humans are capable of comprehending could be argued as being
>>>> objective; the exact nature of that force or entity - what we mean by
>>>> "God" is where the subjectivity comes in.
>>>>
>>
>> Stevet:
>> =====
>>>
>>> That is not objective, you are merely stating your belief, which is fair
>>> enough but is not objective in any sense.
>>
>> Do you agree then that belief in multiverses is not objective in any
>> sense?
>
>No, multiverses are " objective" scientific hypothesises not subjective
>religious beliefs.

You don't give any explanation of how they qualify as objective. I get
the distinct impression that your definition of logical and illogical
is what you find acceptable and what you don't find acceptable.

>
>Again you seem to be bewildered by language , the grammatical fact that
>the sign " belief" can be used to designate both a scientific hypotheses
>and a religious conviction does not mean there is any " logical
>equivalence" between a scientific hypothesis and a religious conviction,
>you cannot " argue" from one to the other, there is no equivalence .
>>

>> [?]
>>
>>

[Stevet]

Although no expert this cannot be right. I am sure a poll of both Muslims
and Christians in, say, the 11th century would result in pretty much 100%
agreement with the Biblical account. See below for a current poll.

>
>> Do not many religious people still believe the Biblical account?
>
> I don't know how many that still believe the *literal* Biblical
> account (which is what I assume you mean) but any who do are not
> following the doctrine i.e. defined teaching of any of the mainstream
> Christian churches.

According to Wikipedia

"According to a 2014 Gallup poll,[129] about 42% of Americans believe that
"God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time
within the last 10,000 years or so."[129] Another 31% believe that "human
beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of
life, but God guided this process,"and 19% believe that "human beings have
developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God
had no part in this process."[129]"

>
>> What do you
>> mean by " mainstream",
>
> The Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion, the Methodist Church, the
> Presbyterian Church for starters.

And what about Sunni ( approx 1.5 billion followers), Shavites ( 252
million), Sikhs ( 27 million). Buddhists ( 376 million) to name but a few

>
>> is the validity of religious beliefs dependent on
>> numbers of believers?
>
> No, but if you're going to attack religious belief in general, you
> really need to justify your attack on the beliefs held by the
> majority, not a minority.

That would be the Sunni then, with 1.5 billion adherents, far more than the
Catholic Christian sect with about 1.2 billion.



Could you then justify Sunni beliefs for me? Are they logical?

>
>>>
>>> The problem with the "God of the Gaps" argument is that it is
>>> predicated upon religious teaching having to be changed in response to
>>> science closing a gap. Can you give any example of that happening?
>>>
>> evolution replacing creationism, in places.?]
>
> You don't seem to realise that Creationism is a relatively new kid on
> the block; it really only arose with the rise of Fundamentalism in the
> USA in the early 20th century; in effect, Creationism was developed as
> an alternative to evolution, not the other way around.

You are correct that the designation " creationism" is a fairly modern
naming convention, and my use of it was imprecise and lazy, thank you for
correcting me.

To rephrase and clarify my point, replacing the modern terminology "
creationism" with " literal belief with the biblical account" giving the
clarified restatement " evolution replacing the literal belief in the
biblical account"

>
> You raise a fundamental point, however, about your arguments - you
> seem to think that because*some*religious beliefs are clearly invalid
> and that people *can* make up religious beliefs if they so wish, that
> you can extend those shortcomings to *all* religious beliefs. Now that
> is truly illogical!

Why are some religious beliefs " clearly" invalid? What is your criteria
for determining this?

If I were saying that some religious beliefs are " invalid" or illogical
then you might have a point, but I am not saying that, I am saying ALL
religious beliefs are illogical e.g I am not, as you say above,
extrapolating from some " clearly" invalid arguments to conclude all are
invalid, that is not a line of reasoning I put forward. In fact as all are
equally illogical I am a religious "democrat", and accord any religious
belief equal validity as any other religious belief, all are equal.

>
>>>
>>> Martin:
>>> =====
>>>>> I think that the existence of some superior force or entity beyond
>>>>> what we humans are capable of comprehending could be argued as being
>>>>> objective; the exact nature of that force or entity - what we mean by
>>>>> "God" is where the subjectivity comes in.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Stevet:
>>> =====
>>>>
>>>> That is not objective, you are merely stating your belief, which is fair
>>>> enough but is not objective in any sense.
>>>
>>> Do you agree then that belief in multiverses is not objective in any
>>> sense?
>>
>> No, multiverses are " objective" scientific hypothesises not subjective
>> religious beliefs.
>
> You don't give any explanation of how they qualify as objective. I get
> the distinct impression that your definition of logical and illogical
> is what you find acceptable and what you don't find acceptable.

They qualify as " objective" in exactly the same way as any other
scientific hypothesis qualifies as objective.

My use of the term " illogical" is pretty much in accordance with the
simple OED definition.....

"Lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning"

I am not changing or amending that meaning at all. Again you raise a
semantic red herring. My use of illogical is perfectly conventional.

What you are actually objecting to is not my Grammar but the fact that I
say all religious belief meets the criteria for being " illogical" , or to
restate using the OED definition...."All religious belief is lacking sense
or clear, sound reasoning"
>
>>

>> Again you seem to be bewildered by language , the grammatical fact that
>> the sign " belief" can be used to designate both a scientific hypotheses
>> and a religious conviction does not mean there is any " logical
>> equivalence" between a scientific hypothesis and a religious conviction,
>> you cannot " argue" from one to the other, there is no equivalence .
>>>
>>> [?]
>>>
>>>
>
>

--
Stevet

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 14:20:08 -0000 (UTC), Stevet

I think this is clearly the heart of your problem - you are making
sweeping judgements on things where your subject knowledge is, at
best, superficial. With respect, your arguments are more and more
reminding me of the people who reject the Theory of Evolution on the
basis that "I ain't descended from some goddamned monkey" or ",
"nobody ever saw a dog giving birth to a cat", the arguments serving
no purpose except to demonstrate their ignorance of what the ToE
actually is.

I'm really not interested in debating desperate about Creationism any
further with you until you do at least a modicum of work to educate
yourself. Here is a useful introduction to the history of Christian
teaching on Genesis. It is a bit superficial but at least it will give
you an accurate starting point rather than simply going on what seems
incredible to you.

http://biologos.org/common-questions/biblical-interpretation/early-interpretations-of-genesis

When reading that article, you should be aware that initially
Augustine and later Aquinas who are discussed in it have been and
still are the outstandingly dominant influence on Christian theology
since the fifth century.

I'm snipping all your stuff about polls because I'm only interested in
discussing defined and documented religious teachings, not some
opinion poll in the United States - where fundamentalism has a
particular stronghold - and trying to extrapolate that poll back to
1000 years of

[匽

>>> What do you
>>> mean by " mainstream",
>>
>> The Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion, the Methodist Church, the
>> Presbyterian Church for starters.
>
>And what about Sunni ( approx 1.5 billion followers), Shavites ( 252
>million), Sikhs ( 27 million). Buddhists ( 376 million) to name but a few

As I have previously told you, I have no interest in discussing
religions - for, indeed, any subject - about which I know little or
nothing. Anyway, they are irrelevant because you have said explicitly
that you are not rejecting *some* religious beliefs as illogical you
are rejecting *all* religious beliefs as illogical. The only religion
in which I would claim some expert knowledge is Christianity in
general and Catholicism in particular; if you cannot prove those to be
specifically illogical then your whole premise about *all* religious
belief falls apart.

>>
>>> is the validity of religious beliefs dependent on
>>> numbers of believers?
>>
>> No, but if you're going to attack religious belief in general, you
>> really need to justify your attack on the beliefs held by the
>> majority, not a minority.
>
>That would be the Sunni then, with 1.5 billion adherents, far more than the
>Catholic Christian sect with about 1.2 billion.
>
>
>
>Could you then justify Sunni beliefs for me? Are they logical?

I haven't a clue and without knowledge of them I can't categorise them
as either logical or illogical. But, as I just explained above,
Catholicism is sufficient to disprove your argument, no need to bring
other religions into it.

>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem with the "God of the Gaps" argument is that it is
>>>> predicated upon religious teaching having to be changed in response to
>>>> science closing a gap. Can you give any example of that happening?
>>>>
>>> evolution replacing creationism, in places.?]
>>
>> You don't seem to realise that Creationism is a relatively new kid on
>> the block; it really only arose with the rise of Fundamentalism in the
>> USA in the early 20th century; in effect, Creationism was developed as
>> an alternative to evolution, not the other way around.
>
>You are correct that the designation " creationism" is a fairly modern
>naming convention, and my use of it was imprecise and lazy, thank you for
>correcting me.
>
>To rephrase and clarify my point, replacing the modern terminology "
>creationism" with " literal belief with the biblical account" giving the
>clarified restatement " evolution replacing the literal belief in the
>biblical account"
>>
>> You raise a fundamental point, however, about your arguments - you
>> seem to think that because*some*religious beliefs are clearly invalid
>> and that people *can* make up religious beliefs if they so wish, that
>> you can extend those shortcomings to *all* religious beliefs. Now that
>> is truly illogical!
>
>Why are some religious beliefs " clearly" invalid? What is your criteria
>for determining this?

Young Earth Creationist belief that God created the world in six
literal days and that it all happened 6000 years ago is clearly
illogical because science has shown that the universe is about 14
billion years old and Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Science,
however can tell us absolutely nothing about God or whether he even
exists.

>
>If I were saying that some religious beliefs are " invalid" or illogical
>then you might have a point, but I am not saying that, I am saying ALL
>religious beliefs are illogical e.g I am not, as you say above,
>extrapolating from some " clearly" invalid arguments to conclude all are
>invalid, that is not a line of reasoning I put forward. In fact as all are
>equally illogical I am a religious "democrat", and accord any religious
>belief equal validity as any other religious belief, all are equal.

I think that placing*all* of anything into a simple category is one of
the most illogical things a person can do. YMMV

>>
>>>>
>>>> Martin:
>>>> =====
>>>>>> I think that the existence of some superior force or entity beyond
>>>>>> what we humans are capable of comprehending could be argued as being
>>>>>> objective; the exact nature of that force or entity - what we mean by
>>>>>> "God" is where the subjectivity comes in.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stevet:
>>>> =====
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not objective, you are merely stating your belief, which is fair
>>>>> enough but is not objective in any sense.
>>>>
>>>> Do you agree then that belief in multiverses is not objective in any
>>>> sense?
>>>
>>> No, multiverses are " objective" scientific hypothesises not subjective
>>> religious beliefs.

I think you would struggle to get many qualified scientists to agree
that multivesrse qualifies as a hypothesis on the basis that
classification as a hypothesis requires the ability for the solutions
put forward to be tested and as I understand it, nobody has yet come
up with any way of testing multiverses.

What particularly fascinates me is people who have no problem
whatsoever accepting the principle of multiverses and wormholes
connecting them, yet dismiss out of hand the very idea that what can
loosely be called "human consciousness" could pass into another
universe at the time of death which is essentially what Christian
belief in the afterlife boils down to. That doesn't seem to be much
consistency, let alone logic in that.

>>
>> You don't give any explanation of how they qualify as objective. I get
>> the distinct impression that your definition of logical and illogical
>> is what you find acceptable and what you don't find acceptable.
>
>They qualify as " objective" in exactly the same way as any other
>scientific hypothesis qualifies as objective.
>
>My use of the term " illogical" is pretty much in accordance with the
>simple OED definition.....
>
>"Lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning"

And you haven't yet given any convincing argument that Christian
doctrine for example lacks sense or clear sound reasoning. All that
you have really said is that because some religious believers might
make up things, all religious belief has to be treated as illogical.

>
>I am not changing or amending that meaning at all. Again you raise a
>semantic red herring. My use of illogical is perfectly conventional.

Sorry, but the fact that it seems conventional to you does not make it
conventional in reality.

>
>What you are actually objecting to is not my Grammar

No, I am objecting to you creating a substantive difference between
religious belief and any other form of belief. I don't regard the OED
is doing that, it is simply giving examples of different usages where
the differences are contextual rather than substantive.

>but the fact that I
>say all religious belief meets the criteria for being " illogical" , or to
>restate using the OED definition...."All religious belief is lacking sense
>or clear, sound reasoning"

And that is the fundamental flaw in your argument; specific religious
beliefs can be demonstrated to be illogical - for example YEC as
described earlier - but there is no logic whatsoever in saying that
because some beliefs are illogical, all beliefs must be illogical.

[Stevet]

You did not say I was incorrect in my points. To clarify...

Are you saying that it incorrect to say that in the past the majority , not
the opinions or qualifications of the theological elite, of religious
believers believed in the literal truth of the Biblical account?

Are you saying it is not factually correct, not only in the USA where
numerous polls show it but in places like Saudi Arabia etc, to say a
substantial amount of believers still think the same?

And to say my argument is equivalent to TOE deniers etc is not an reasoned
argument about the subject under discussion but a polite and pointless
tentative insult.

>
> I'm really not interested in debating desperate about Creationism any
> further with you until you do at least a modicum of work to educate
> yourself. Here is a useful introduction to the history of Christian
> teaching on Genesis. It is a bit superficial but at least it will give
> you an accurate starting point rather than simply going on what seems
> incredible to you.

As I said before I am not talking about the modern political movement of
Creationism, a subject on which like yourself I have no interest in
debating, and one which we are not discussing here. My point was about the
ordinary religious believer's acceptance in the literal truth of the
Biblical accounts both in the past and currently. This point has nothing to
do with the modern creationist movement.

That this belief in the literal biblical account was and is very widely
held is a historic and current FACT, not a matter of theological expertise
or debate.

>
> http://biologos.org/common-questions/biblical-interpretation/early-interpretations-of-genesis
>
> When reading that article, you should be aware that initially
> Augustine and later Aquinas who are discussed in it have been and
> still are the outstandingly dominant influence on Christian theology
> since the fifth century.
>
> I'm snipping all your stuff about polls because I'm only interested in
> discussing defined and documented religious teachings, not some
> opinion poll in the United States - where fundamentalism has a
> particular stronghold - and trying to extrapolate that poll back to
> 1000 years of
>

I accept your point that a few educated and highly intelligent theologians
wished to qualify literal readings of the Bible, my point was about the
views of ordinary believers and you do not have to be an expert on the
minutia of Christian theology to know this.

Modern polls, and not just in America, polls in Indonesia the Middle East
etc would give similar results, indicate the literal belief in the Biblical
account is still widespread, and must have been far more so in the past
before the scientific revolution.

Note that your dismissal of YEC and other views is not based on theological
reasoning but on scientific findings, 300 years ago etc you would not be
able to put forward that argument to dismiss YEC

…]

>
>>>> What do you
>>>> mean by " mainstream",
>>>
>>> The Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion, the Methodist Church, the
>>> Presbyterian Church for starters.
>>
>> And what about Sunni ( approx 1.5 billion followers), Shavites ( 252
>> million), Sikhs ( 27 million). Buddhists ( 376 million) to name but a few
>
> As I have previously told you, I have no interest in discussing
> religions - for, indeed, any subject - about which I know little or
> nothing. Anyway, they are irrelevant because you have said explicitly
> that you are not rejecting *some* religious beliefs as illogical you
> are rejecting *all* religious beliefs as illogical. The only religion
> in which I would claim some expert knowledge is Christianity in
> general and Catholicism in particular; if you cannot prove those to be
> specifically illogical then your whole premise about *all* religious
> belief falls apart.

Give me one then, and I will demonstrate.

>
>>>
>>>> is the validity of religious beliefs dependent on
>>>> numbers of believers?
>>>
>>> No, but if you're going to attack religious belief in general, you
>>> really need to justify your attack on the beliefs held by the
>>> majority, not a minority.
>>
>> That would be the Sunni then, with 1.5 billion adherents, far more than the
>> Catholic Christian sect with about 1.2 billion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Could you then justify Sunni beliefs for me? Are they logical?
>
> I haven't a clue and without knowledge of them I can't categorise them
> as either logical or illogical. But, as I just explained above,
> Catholicism is sufficient to disprove your argument, no need to bring
> other religions into it.

We are talking about religious belief, why cannot we bring other religions
into it? Catholicism is a minority view and does not speak " for religion"

So your criteria for deciding if a religious belief is " illogical" is
purely scientific?

Am I correct in saying this? , please correct me if I am wrong.

If I am right that this is your criteria then surely you are arguing a
"God of the Gaps" ?

By your reasoning Science can tell us absolutely nothing about not only
about God but also about Shiva, Yama,Odin , Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Brahma,
Valhalla, heaven etc etc etc

Is belief in them logical then?

If believe in your God is logical but belief in Shiva etc is illogical what
is your criteria, apart from it just being YOUR belief, for saying one is
logical and one is not?

If all are logical how can this be when they contradict each other?

>
>>
>> If I were saying that some religious beliefs are " invalid" or illogical
>> then you might have a point, but I am not saying that, I am saying ALL
>> religious beliefs are illogical e.g I am not, as you say above,
>> extrapolating from some " clearly" invalid arguments to conclude all are
>> invalid, that is not a line of reasoning I put forward. In fact as all are
>> equally illogical I am a religious "democrat", and accord any religious
>> belief equal validity as any other religious belief, all are equal.
>
> I think that placing*all* of anything into a simple category is one of
> the most illogical things a person can do. YMMV

?
This is how categorising works!
ALL of anything that meets the criteria is assigned to that category.
Is categorising ALL of humans into the simple category of mammals one of
the most illogical things a person can do?


All you are saying here is that you think Your religious beliefs are "
different" from other religious beliefs and should not be categorised with
them, the only reason for this is them being Yours and thus they are
"logical and valid" . Billions of Muslims and Hindus and Zoroastrians etc
etc could say exactly the same about their beliefs which do not accord
with yours

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin:
>>>>> =====
>>>>>>> I think that the existence of some superior force or entity beyond
>>>>>>> what we humans are capable of comprehending could be argued as being
>>>>>>> objective; the exact nature of that force or entity - what we mean by
>>>>>>> "God" is where the subjectivity comes in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stevet:
>>>>> =====
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not objective, you are merely stating your belief, which is fair
>>>>>> enough but is not objective in any sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you agree then that belief in multiverses is not objective in any
>>>>> sense?
>>>>
>>>> No, multiverses are " objective" scientific hypothesises not subjective
>>>> religious beliefs.
>
> I think you would struggle to get many qualified scientists to agree
> that multivesrse qualifies as a hypothesis on the basis that
> classification as a hypothesis requires the ability for the solutions
> put forward to be tested and as I understand it, nobody has yet come
> up with any way of testing multiverses.

No , it is a hypothesis because it has not been tested and verified, not
because (currently) there is no way of verifying it.

A scientific hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on
the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further
investigation. It remains a hypothesis until evidence confirms or
disconfirms it. It is up to those proposing the hypothesis to come up with
some way of confirming it, that they have not done so does not disqualify
it being a hypothesis, it is WHY it remains an hypothesis

>
> What particularly fascinates me is people who have no problem
> whatsoever accepting the principle of multiverses and wormholes
> connecting them, yet dismiss out of hand the very idea that what can
> loosely be called "human consciousness" could pass into another
> universe at the time of death which is essentially what Christian
> belief in the afterlife boils down to. That doesn't seem to be much
> consistency, let alone logic in that.

So you are saying you are unable to distinguish between a scientific
hypothesis and a religious belief?

>
>>>
>>> You don't give any explanation of how they qualify as objective. I get
>>> the distinct impression that your definition of logical and illogical
>>> is what you find acceptable and what you don't find acceptable.
>>
>> They qualify as " objective" in exactly the same way as any other
>> scientific hypothesis qualifies as objective.
>>
>> My use of the term " illogical" is pretty much in accordance with the
>> simple OED definition.....
>>
>> "Lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning"
>
> And you haven't yet given any convincing argument that Christian
> doctrine for example lacks sense or clear sound reasoning. All that
> you have really said is that because some religious believers might
> make up things, all religious belief has to be treated as illogical.

I have never said " because some.....therefore all", that is your defence
of your own particular beliefs being " right" whilst other religious
beliefs are " wrong". As I have explicitly stated many times, ALL religious
belief is illogical, that is my point

>>
>> I am not changing or amending that meaning at all. Again you raise a
>> semantic red herring. My use of illogical is perfectly conventional.
>
> Sorry, but the fact that it seems conventional to you does not make it
> conventional in reality.

What is unconventional about it?

>>
>> What you are actually objecting to is not my Grammar
>
> No, I am objecting to you creating a substantive difference between
> religious belief and any other form of belief. I don't regard the OED
> is doing that, it is simply giving examples of different usages where
> the differences are contextual rather than substantive.

Back to your semantic quibbling, I do not see the point. "Belief" is not a
substantive phenomena , not a unitary thing, its semantic value is always
contextual.

What equivalence is there between thinking Jesus in the son of God and
saying Jimi is a great guitarist apart from the fact that both might be
restated in the form of propositions which include the term or sign "
belief"?

Simply replace any reference in our posts to " religious belief" to "
religious faith" which does not change the sense of what we are saying by
an iota, and change any reference to "I believe Jimi is great" or to " I
think, or in my opinion Jimi is great" which also does not change the
meaning by an iota, and then your semantic pseudo- problem evaporates.

>
>> but the fact that I
>> say all religious belief meets the criteria for being " illogical" , or to
>> restate using the OED definition...."All religious belief is lacking sense
>> or clear, sound reasoning"
>
> And that is the fundamental flaw in your argument; specific religious
> beliefs can be demonstrated to be illogical - for example YEC as
> described earlier - but there is no logic whatsoever in saying that
> because some beliefs are illogical, all beliefs must be illogical.

For the umpteenth time I am NOT saying that, you are saying it in defence
of your own position.

I am saying ALL religious belief is illogical, that they are instances of
faith not instances of logic. I could not be more explicit that I am NOT
arguing from the illogicality of some to the illogicality of all!!

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again you seem to be bewildered by language , the grammatical fact that
>>>> the sign " belief" can be used to designate both a scientific hypotheses
>>>> and a religious conviction does not mean there is any " logical
>>>> equivalence" between a scientific hypothesis and a religious conviction,
>>>> you cannot " argue" from one to the other, there is no equivalence .
>>>>>
>>>>> [?]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

--
Stevet

[Oliver Crawford]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2017 15:05:30 -0000 (UTC), Stevet

<stol...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Martin Harran <martin...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>> I'm snipping all your stuff about polls because I'm only interested in
>> discussing defined and documented religious teachings, not some
>> opinion poll in the United States - where fundamentalism has a
>> particular stronghold - and trying to extrapolate that poll back to
>> 1000 years of
>>
>I accept your point that a few educated and highly intelligent theologians
>wished to qualify literal readings of the Bible,

A lot more than "a few".

>my point was about the
>views of ordinary believers and you do not have to be an expert on the
>minutia of Christian theology to know this.

I don't know why you persist in insisting that we deal with opinion
polls. Take that recent poll quoted earlier, for example; I'm willing
to bet that most of the people questioned in that poll hadn't thought
about evolution since they were last in a biology class in high school
or thought about Adam and Eve since they were last in Sunday class, in
both cases where they were probably more interested in wondering was
thetudent two seats in front up for a date on Saturday night.

I would also bet that if you had asked those who accepted evolution
does that mean that man descended from monkeys, a significant
proportion if not the majority of answered yes. The vast majority of
people have little knowledge of and even less interest in biology
except to the extent that it can give them better medicine or cheaper
food. The vast majority of religious believers are only concerned with
going to church on a Sunday or other occasions; they spend very little
time thinking about how science and religion work together.

When you want to know what scientists think, do you go by what is in
the popular press - something that has complained about regularly here
by scientists or do you go to the work of those actually practising
science? Why on earth then would you want to go by popular opinion
polls rather than the documented doctrine of a church to find out what
it teaches?

>
>Modern polls, and not just in America, polls in Indonesia the Middle East
>etc would give similar results, indicate the literal belief in the Biblical
>account is still widespread, and must have been far more so in the past
>before the scientific revolution.

One of the reasons why I think the Catholic Church is a good reference
point here is that it has probably the most extensive documentation
for any religious denomination of its doctrine including the full
history of how that doctrine has changed and developed over 2000 years
and, indeed, for several thousand years before that you take into
account Judaism, it's forerunner.

[匽

[Martin Harran]

Sorry, above post is by me - I clicked wrong persona

[Glenn]

"Martin Harran" <martin...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ansqjchpp2mvank9v...@4ax.com...

> Sorry, above post is by me - I clicked wrong persona
>

Chez Watt?

How do you manage to post this in reference to a future post? Does "above" not mean "the post I made after this one"?