Is Richard Dawkins' Anti-Religion Campaign Dividing Society?

[SF]

Tell me the difference. Is 'faith' in the invisible pink unicorn actually created by a real invisible pink unicorn?

No, YOU tell me the difference.
Is faith in god(s) created by real god(s)
It's your belief, you must prove it somehow in order for me to take it into consideration.

Look in the mirror.

Stop the wordplay, you know what I ment.

The something 'extra' (as u call it), is called consciousness. And like i said before, of course there is interaction between consc. and brain. So what? Light can interact with a prism also, but that doesn't make the prism the creator of light. Also, music comes from a radio, but that doesn't mean there is an orchestra inside ur radio. There are plenty of examples in nature that provide analogies for other options.

Nope, I'm afraid analogies simply don't mean anything.
We know where light comes from, we know where radio signals come from

Actually, u were making the claim that consciousness is material. Please demonstrate this.

We have no indication that it comes from anywhere else, so we won't consider it does!
Appeal to ignorance is illogical.

We can't prove that muscle strength DOESN'T come from some "immaterial soul" we can't disprove, but we won't consider it does with no indication towards that point.

This entire sentence is really meaningless unless u can define what u mean by 'natural'.

Natural as in naturalism/materialism/scientism.

Neither can all scientific theories be true, does that mean that are all false?

Scientific theories don't claim they are absolute truth. Religions do.
Scientific theories are tested all the time. Religions aren't.
Scientific theories embrace contradictory evidence and correct themselves. Religions don't.
When scientists disagree, they confront evidence and arguments until they agree which one describes reality. When religions confront, they would rather annihilate each other over the existence of nonfalsifiable (or downright false) god(s) than admit they are wrong.

This is simply false, experiences cannot be measured. U can measure a whole bucket of cortisol, but that doesn't mean the bucket loves u

Nope, because bucket + cortisol = nothing, however, human being + cortisol = stressed out human being.

Btw, cortisol is the stress hormone, not the love hormone :)

 

[PIT2]

No, YOU tell me the difference.

I don't think there is a difference, u do... remember?

Stop the wordplay, you know what I ment.

U asked for evidence of intelligent beings, i have shown u the evidence. My entire point all along was that many atheistic arguments against god would also argue against humans.

Nope, I'm afraid analogies simply don't mean anything.
We know where light comes from, we know where radio signals come from

And we don't know where consciousness comes from. Analogies are very useful in science as well as outside of it, btw.

We have no indication that it comes from anywhere else, so we won't consider it does!

Just for ur information, the brain is not 'something else' than the rest of the universe. It consists of the same ordinary matter and forces as the rest of the universe does. Now please demonstrate what makes the brain 'special' and how this 'specialness' creates consciousness, whereas the rest of the universe doesnt.

Scientific theories don't claim they are absolute truth. Religions do.
Scientific theories are tested all the time. Religions aren't.
Scientific theories embrace contradictory evidence and correct themselves. Religions don't.
When scientists disagree, they confront evidence and arguments until they agree which one describes reality. When religions confront, they would rather annihilate each other over the existence of nonfalsifiable (or downright false) god(s) than admit they are wrong.

So what? I am not defending religions, I am simply exposing atheistic reasoning to be similar to them

U have tried to use some strong claims about mind and reality as atheistic arguments, and i have subsequently shown these claims to be based on faith.

 

[Doc Al]

I mentioned my definition of faith in my previous post. I don't think religious faith has anything special that sets in apart from any other type of faith.

All you've done is twist and dilute the meaning of "faith" so that statements such as:

(1) I am confident that the chair I'm sitting on probably won't collapse any time soon.
(2) I believe that Elvis is outside my window riding a flying pink elephant.​

are equal examples of "faith". I reject such a dilution of meaning. If you insist upon such wordplay, all you've done is shift the burden to a different point. (I suppose by your definition, even atheism is a "religion".)

But religious faith is clearly belief in things that go against reason and knowledge, or at least lack rational justification. As Voltaire put it, "Faith consists in believing what reason does not believe". Tertullian stated clearly (speaking of Christian faith) that religious dogma was to be believed because it was absurd.

There is no god required for someone to have faith in something.

Well, that's certainly true!

 

[PIT2]

All you've done is twist and dilute the meaning of "faith" so that statements such as:

Of course i have diluted the meaning, since it is being used here (aswell as in popular language) as if it is a completely novel property of the human mind that only arises when religion is involved. I don't believe in fairytales, whether religious people claim their faith is different from other faiths, or whether atheists claim the same of them.

Do religious people like christians not believe in their religion, because they read the stories in the bible (which mention observations by persons in the past) or are told them by their parents? Is this not (to some extend and however weak) a rational basis for their belief?

Btw i view faith as a continuum, going from that which is minimally backed up by logic and evidence, to that which is maximally backed up by logic and evidence.

 

[SF]

All you've done is twist and dilute the meaning of "faith" so that statements such as:

(1) I am confident that the chair I'm sitting on probably won't collapse any time soon.
(2) I believe that Elvis is outside my window riding a flying pink elephant.​

are equal examples of "faith". I reject such a dilution of meaning. If you insist upon such wordplay, all you've done is shift the burden to a different point. (I suppose by your definition, even atheism is a "religion".)

Hell yeah! \m/ >_< \m/.
That should put an end to all the linguistic nonsense.

U asked for evidence of intelligent beings, i have shown u the evidence. My entire point all along was that many atheistic arguments against god would also argue against humans.

Yeah, except we can observe humans, but no god(s) have been observed to date :)

And we don't know where consciousness comes from.

It has been showed in the previous posts that counsciousness is inseparable from the brain.

We haven't observed consciousness outside the human brain, so we're not going to keep "all options open". When we'll study consciousness we'll consider it comes from the brain.

A rock may be conscious (whatever a "conscious rock" may mean) but we're not going to treat the rock as conscious unless evidence is brought forth of that fact.

Analogies are very useful in science as well as outside of it, btw.

Yeah, when a scientist is using illogic instead of logic :)
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html

Analogies are based on vague similarities between objects. Analogies are fake examples.

Just for ur information, the brain is not 'something else' than the rest of the universe. It consists of the same ordinary matter and forces as the rest of the universe does. Now please demonstrate what makes the brain 'special' and how this 'specialness' creates consciousness, whereas the rest of the universe doesnt.

You got my point.
The brain is just what we see, a bunch of neurons in a certain pattern. A result of these neurons is consciousness. That's all I'm saying, I'm not trying to prove it's special. It's special to us, yes, but not to the rest of the universe.

So what? I am not defending religions, I am simply exposing atheistic reasoning to be similar to them

Nope, you're weasel wording.
Let's see how this discussion went.
- You asked me if I believe consciousness comes from the brain.
- I, a rational being automatically said "yes" since no other possible traditional sources of consciousness (like souls or whatever) are backed up by evidence.
- You now made it look like my belief that consciousness occurs in the bunch of atoms we call the brain is the same as the faith in god(s) by using vague definitions of "consciousness". Sometimes you ment sensations, sometimes you ment something else.
- If you would have asked "how do you know tomorrow apples won't fall up?" no one would have taken you seriously, and we might even have laughed, but instead you insisted on playing with the vague notion of "consciousness".
- You are trying to say that just because we don't know EVERYTHING about something, making suppositions about it is wrong. But what suppositions did we do?
That sensations occur in the brain? Sensations have been linked to brain chemistry and there is NO REASON to think otherwise.
That thoughts occur in the brain? When different areas of the brain are affected by trauma, some thoughts can't be processed (like recognising faces).

The huge piles of evidence give me a high chance that I am right.
Let's say 99.9% due to the fact that there is NO evidence for alternatives and such they do not deserve more than 0.1%.
What about god(s)? What is the chanse for the existence of god(s)? Since no god(s) have been proven by evidence yet, we'll still give them 0.1% (and I'm being kind because they would deserve much less).

What does all this add up to?
99.9% vs 0.1%.
Well excuse me for trusting statistics :).. because faith in distrusting statistics is just that. Illogical irrational blind faith.

 

[PIT2]

Yeah, except we can observe humans, but no god(s) have been observed to date :)

This is false. Read my earlier post towards u in this topic.

It has been showed in the previous posts that counsciousness is inseparable from the brain.

If u can demonstrate that consciousness is inseperable from the brain, then u deserve a nobelprize. Go ahead

We haven't observed consciousness outside the human brain

'We' haven't observed it in the brain either.

The brain is just what we see, a bunch of neurons in a certain pattern. A result of these neurons is consciousness. That's all I'm saying.

U might as well say that god exists. I am sorry, but ur arguments are just not credible, and many of ur statements are simply false. U misportray the achievements of science in a gross manner and this type of misrepresentation (which i can assure u is not unique to ur being) is damaging to science as a whole.

 

[arildno]

Cling to your silly Bronze Age myths if you want to, PIT2.
Just don't expect others to respect your intellect for doing that.

 

[PIT2]

Cling to your silly Bronze Age myths if you want to, PIT2.

Such as...

 

[arildno]

Well, I don't know which particular Bronze age myth you happen to be clinging to, nor is it very relevant.

What IS relevant, is that you engage in pointless word-play so as to "save" a place for such beliefs as a rational strategy..
Therefore, it is more probable that you yourself cling to some such myth than that you don't cling to any such one.

 

[PIT2]

Well, I don't know which particular Bronze age myth you happen to be clinging to, nor is it very relevant.

What IS relevant, is that you engage in pointless word-play so as to "save" a place for such beliefs as a rational strategy..
Therefore, it is more probable that you yourself cling to some such myth than that you don't cling to any such one.

Im sorry, but all i have claimed so far, is that god is not an illogical or irrational concept, and that people claim to have experienced god directly.

I don't think these two statements are myths. If u disagree, tell me what is illogical about the concept of god (the second statement is a simple fact), which i have described as:

God (to me) represents a number of ideas about reality, such as "the universe was created by an intelligence" and "life was created by an intelligence".

Also, if u disagree with any other point I've made, or accuse me of 'wordplay' then i expect u to back it up with arguments. I am not wordplaying. I have been trying to get across the parallels between human mind and the concept god, and the fact that atheistic arguments are rendered invalid when let loose on the former. It exposes the double standards and flaws in atheistic reasoning.

 

[Hurkyl]

Cling to your silly Bronze Age myths if you want to, PIT2.
Just don't expect others to respect your intellect for doing that.

Because information age myths are preferable?

 

[arildno]

Nobody has said that the God concept is il-LOGICAL, however, all the evidence in the world shows that it is ir-RATIONAL.

Within topics like maths&logic the irrational attitude is equivalent to the illogical attitude.

But then again, statements within maths or logic are NOT "statements about the world".
Which happens to make all the difference.

A crucial component in any RATIONAL attitude towards the world is that your statements ABOUT the world is backed up with OBJECTIVE evidence.
Mere intrapersonal evidence don't count, in any situation.

 

[PIT2]

Nobody has said that the God concept is il-LOGICAL, however, all the evidence in the world shows that it is ir-RATIONAL.

Good, i disagree with u on this point. How is it irrational? For people who directly experience god, is it irrational? For people who see that intelligence only comes forth from other intelligence, is it irrational to bring this observation right back to the origin of the universe? For people who see that consciousness can shape the brain, and that the brain appears to be composed of the same matter and forces as the rest of the universe, is it irrational to then also bring this observation to the rest of the universe? For people who observe intelligence as the sole thing in the entire universe that is capable of producing complex and highly functioning systems (ive borrowed these terms from another topic on here, so it may sound familiar), that it is THE most creative force ever observed, is it irrational to bring this observation right back to the origin of life?

Tell me, what is irrational about the two ideas I've described? The mere fact that something is not falsifiable, does not make something irrational.

A crucial component in any RATIONAL attitude towards the world is that your statements ABOUT the world is backed up with OBJECTIVE evidence.
Mere intrapersonal evidence don't count, in any situation.

Oh yes, intrapersonal evidence does indeed count. It is in fact irrational to ignore this kind of evidence because of a method which is demonstrably flawed when it comes to the very subject.

 

[Interposer]

...For people who directly experience god, is it irrational?

What is your justification for supposing it is actually god these people have directly experienced?

 

[Interposer]

Also, if u disagree with any other point I've made, or accuse me of 'wordplay' then i expect u to back it up with arguments. I am not wordplaying.

No need for argument, here is your own admission;

Of course i have diluted the meaning,…

satisfied yet?
…………………………..
You have defined faith as;

Not knowing something for certain, but believing it to be true. Thats what i call faith.

Then added;

Btw i view faith as a continuum, going from that which is minimally backed up by logic and evidence, to that which is maximally backed up by logic and evidence.

But have also stated;

I don't think there is anything special about religious faith that sets it appart from any other type of faith.

And this demonstrates more contradiction and wordplay because all faith clearly is not the same or you would not have described differences using your continuum and yet go on to say there is nothing to set religious faith apart from any other type of faith.

 

[Interposer]

Because information age myths are preferable?

If you must call it thus then, yes; it is preferable to look forward to scientific advancenments then to look back into an abyss of superstition, ignorace, and fear.

 

[Interposer]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


I didn't realize theology was a subfield of mathematics!

Make up your mind; do you wish to complain when your your profession is first ignored and then again later when it is used !

 

[PIT2]

And this demonstrates more contradiction and wordplay because all faith clearly is not the same or you would not have described differences using your continuum and yet go on to say there is nothing to set religious faith apart from any other type of faith.

I don't see any wordplay or contradiction? Notice i spoke of 'the continuum of faith'. Dont u agree that people can have faith in things that are not religious?

 

[Interposer]

To begin you have yet to address this;

Also, if u disagree with any other point I've made, or accuse me of 'wordplay' then i expect u to back it up with arguments. I am not wordplaying.

No need for argument, here is your own admission;

Of course i have diluted the meaning,…

If dilution of the meaning of a word cannot be considered wordplay then please spell out what does?
…………………………..
Going on, your continuum is also a demonstration of nonsensical wordplay because a continuum may be defined thus;
Meaning #1: “a continuous nonspatial whole or extent or succession in which no part or portion is distinct of distinguishable from adjacent parts”
The above may be found at dictionary.com; http://www.answers.com/continuum%2C

Because no part is distinct from any other part then it may be considered wordplay when you attempt to show distinction by “going from that which is minimally backed up by logic and evidence, to that which is maximally backed up by logic and evidence.”
…………………..
Lastly, please address my post#224

 

[SF]

This is false. Read my earlier post towards u in this topic.

I have succesfully refuted them. Just read my replies to your posts :)
Then again, wait here, i'll do it again at the end of this post.

If u can demonstrate that consciousness is inseperable from the brain, then u deserve a nobelprize. Go ahead

I don't even have to demonstrate it's inseparable for the brain since there is no other alternative to begin with.
Where else would it take place? In the soul? LOL. In order for "human consciousness" to be experienced it has to happen in a human brain or something that works like that brain (and we haven't found such a thing yet).

'We' haven't observed it in the brain either.

Vagueness.
What do you mean by observing? Looking at it with our own eyes? ..lol. That can never be done so we need to rely on other observations.

It has been shown that by affecting the brain with chemical and mechanical factors we can severely alter different properties of "consciousness".
Further more, all the other things a human is capable of have been linked to physical/chemical origins, there is NO reason to doubt consciousness would behave differently.

Because of this, I can state with enough certainty that consciousness "happens" in the brain.
I have already showed you that the chanse for consciousness to arise anywhere else is extremely little, and if trust in statistics is faith, then be it.
I'll take my 99.9% to your 0.01% :)

And stop trying to "prove" by analogy that the brain just "filters" a stream consciousness coming from "the soul" like light prisms filter light from the sun. Analogies are wrong and souls don't exist. (0.0000000000000000000001% thing).

U might as well say that god exists. I am sorry, but ur arguments are just not credible, and many of ur statements are simply false.

Piggyheadness argument is illogical. Sorry bud.

U misportray the achievements of science in a gross manner and this type of misrepresentation (which i can assure u is not unique to ur being) is damaging to science as a whole.

And belief in god(s) and soul(s) is here to rescue science from naturalists.

Im sorry, but all i have claimed so far, is that god is not an illogical or irrational concept, and that people claim to have experienced god directly.

I don't think these two statements are myths. If u disagree, tell me what is illogical about the concept of god (the second statement is a simple fact)

God's existence is illogical. It's an ipse dixit :) ...unless you can bring forth evidence of the existence of god(s).

Also, if u disagree with any other point I've made, or accuse me of 'wordplay' then i expect u to back it up with arguments. I am not wordplaying. I have been trying to get across the parallels between human mind and the concept god, and the fact that atheistic arguments are rendered invalid when let loose on the former. It exposes the double standards and flaws in atheistic reasoning.

Parallels are analogies and are thus illogical. (As has been shown to you).

Because information age myths are preferable?

What myths? Ipse dixit :)

What is your justification for supposing it is actually god these people have directly experienced?

He doesn't have any. :)
He desperately clings to anything he can - now it's "what people say".

First believers burned people on the stake.
Then they said god(s) don't require people to do so any more.
Then they said god(s) accepted gays and other religions.
Then they switched the burden of proof and said you can't disprove god(s) (therefore they must exist).
Then they oversimplified god(s) by giving them vague definitions so people couldn't disprove the ancient god(s) like allah and yahweh who were falsified by the same book(s) that created them.
Then they said that me knowing that the next time i let an apple go it will fall requires the same faith as believing in god(s) (and floating Elvises as one guy here added).
The final argument was that "people experienced god".

Well, after they experienced god(s), what did they do?
They told us about it! Ipse dixit - illogical argument.
Not only they can't prove god(s), they disagree on god(s).
One experiences "allah", but "allah" is in direct contradiction to the "jesus" experienced by another.

He claims that the simple fact that god(s) are "experienced" by people makes them true. Not all god(s) can be true at the same time since they are contradictory => it automatically follows that some people are wrong.
If people can be wrong about the god(s) they "experience", than just the fact that one "experiences" god(s) is not evidence that god(s) exist, which was the initial statement.

Too bad :) Ipse dixit on their behalf.

Dont u agree that people can have faith in things that are not religious?

Irrational faith can exist about many things, sure, but belief that a scientific theory backed up by evidence will yield valid results is NOT one of things.

 

[Hurkyl]

What myths? Ipse dixit :)

I wonder -- did you understand my point, or did you only pick up on half of it?

 

[SF]

I wonder -- did you understand my point, or did you only pick up on half of it?

I got it and it was indeed funny :).. but let's just say that "Information-age myths" love being falsifiable and and adore being tested :)

Oh, and:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No it isn't. No one claims nonfalsifiable god(s) have 0% chance of existence, just that it's a meaningless pseudotheory that doesn't even have to be disproved.

Any "arguments" brought forth for the existence of god(s) (such as the people "experiencing" them) have been proven false, and thus - by modus tollens we can conclude that the god(s) that were "experienced" don't exist.

Why?
Deists (or whatever) say: if god(s) exist then people experience them.
People don't experience them => god(s) don't exist.

 

[PIT2]

Meaning #1: “a continuous nonspatial whole or extent or succession in which no part or portion is distinct of distinguishable from adjacent parts”
The above may be found at dictionary.com; http://www.answers.com/continuum%2C

Because no part is distinct from any other part then it may be considered wordplay when you attempt to show distinction by...

Sorry if i gave u the wrong impression. I don't really care if u think I am wordplaying. Have fun with it

Also, please reread the last 2 pages. I am the one that was saying religious faith has nothing special that sets it apart from any other type of faith (the continuum quote u give above clearly fits well, see the bold part).

 

[PIT2]

I have succesfully refuted them. Just read my replies to your posts :)

So far u have claimed that there is no evidence for consciousness outside the brain, or of a god. Both are of course false. People have been reporting out of body experiences for a long time. People have also been reporting direct experience of god. This is evidence. Of course I am aware that u and some other people reject the evidence, because it cannot be demonstrated objectively. However, this is an irrational position to hold. U cannot show objectively that mothers love their children, and more such obvious truths. Yes, in science there is demand for objective evidence. Fine. But don't mistake science for a religion. Science is not scientism, and is demonstrably not the only path to truth.

Also, I am aware of the possibility of inducing OBE's, and the various experiments that have been carried out (what did u expect on 'the physicsforums', that u could simply fool the other guy with bogus arguments?), but please let Deepak Chopra show u the skewedness of using such experiments as 'proof' that it is all just the brain:

It may be curious that stimulating some area of the brain can induce out-of-body experiences or the feeling of sinking into a bed, or that Buddhist monks have low activity in their Orientation Association Area (OAA), as cited by Shermer. Unfortunately, these experiments have little bearing on the afterlife. Induced states are quite feeble as science. I can put a tourniquet on a person’s arm, depriving the nerves of blood flow, and thereby eliminate the sensation of touch. This doesn’t prove that quadriplegics with paralyzed limbs aren’t having a real experience. I can induce happiness by giving someone a glass of wine and having a pretty girl flirt with him. That doesn’t prove that happiness without alcohol isn’t real.

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debates/afterlife.html

How can u defend an assumption with interpretations of experimental results whose existence depends on it? Thats like trying to make an upside down pyramid more stable by stacking extra blocks on it.

Why?
Deists (or whatever) say: if god(s) exist then people experience them.
People don't experience them => god(s) don't exist.

Uve got to work on ur logic skills a bit more

if I study twenty mothers who smile when shown their baby’s picture, anyone can find twenty others (suffering from post-partum depression, for example) who don’t. But that doesn’t prove that mothers don’t love their babies.

 

[SF]

People have been reporting out of body experiences for a long time. People have also been reporting direct experience of god. This is evidence.

No it isn't. It's an unproven statement just like there is "evidence" for the loch ness monster of fairies.

However, this is an irrational position to hold. U cannot show objectively that mothers love their children, and more such obvious truths.

Proof by analogy. Illogical.
It still remains rational to accept that no everything people report is true in spite of your refusal to accept it :)

Science is not scientism, and is demonstrably not the only path to truth.

What other paths are there? Random guessing? Religion? LOL.
Science is, quote:

Tell the truth, and try not to fool yourself. It is less a "method" than an ethical position. As Jacob Bronowski put it, "We ought to act in such a way that what is true can be verified to be so." It doesn't guarantee that we will find the truth, but it does at least give us a chance to identify those theories which are more probable than the alternatives, and it is the only method I know of that has any hope of even approaching the approximate truth.

I can put a tourniquet on a person’s arm, depriving the nerves of blood flow, and thereby eliminate the sensation of touch. This doesn’t prove that quadriplegics with paralyzed limbs aren’t having a real experience. I can induce happiness by giving someone a glass of wine and having a pretty girl flirt with him. That doesn’t prove that happiness without alcohol isn’t real.

Wrong analogies = the mark of pseudoscience, and Deepak Chopra is a faithful practitioner of that. Junk science.

We know many other ways to obtain happiness, but we only know one place where to find consciousness.
We also know only one place where breathing takes place - the LUNGS, so we're not going to look for it anywhere else!

if I study twenty mothers who smile when shown their baby’s picture, anyone can find twenty others (suffering from post-partum depression, for example) who don’t. But that doesn’t prove that mothers don’t love their babies.

Yeah, anecdotal evidence again, as I said: pseudoscience.
To date no one has found god(s), and the "evidence" consisting of people "experiencing" god(s) works the same for Fairies, Hob Goblins, Leprechauns and Yeti.

Occam's Razor does away nicely with all that.

Uve got to work on ur logic skills a bit more

Yeah, I shouldn't even logically consider improbable god(s), it's a waste of time :)

 

[PIT2]

Yeah, anecdotal evidence again

Did u just say it is evidence, thereby contradicting urself and admitting that what I've been saying all along is true?

as I said: pseudoscience.
To date no one has found god(s), and the "evidence" consisting of people "experiencing" god(s) works the same for Fairies, Hob Goblins, Leprechauns and Yeti.

Dont forget love, joy, sadness, anger, etc. Why use double standards?

Also, experiences are not science, nor a pseudoscience: science is based on experiences, not the other way around. Truth can only be found through experience (whatever that truth is, god, round earth, etc.).

 

[arildno]

Since you are unable to distinguish between "statements about the world" and "emotions felt", you have just shown yourself incompetent to participate in any rational discussion of various truth criteria.

 

[PIT2]

Since you are unable to distinguish between "statements about the world" and "emotions felt", you have just shown yourself incompetent to participate in any rational discussion of various truth criteria.

Yes i have trouble distinguishing between the two. Are emotions not part of the world?

 

[arildno]

And I assume you have difficulties distinguishing between your ass and your brain. After all, they're both parts of your body, right?

 

[PIT2]

Please go on and explain ur point?
Are u saying that experiences do not say something about 'the world'? Or something else?

 

[arildno]

The point has already been explained to you.

And that's another thing:
Do you think you sound cool by writing "u" rather than "you"?
You don't.
All your posts show a degree of childish petulance to which the appropriate reply is "Shut up until you have grown up".

 

[PIT2]

The point has already been explained to you.

And that's another thing:
Do you think you sound cool by writing "u" rather than "you"?
You don't.
All your posts shows a degree of childish petulance to which the appropriate reply is "Shut up until you have grown up".

Writing 'U' is simply a habit of mine, which i haven't changed because it is entirely irrelevant in online discussions. U can keep on insulting me, but really it doesn't bother me and so its a bit pointless.

There is a difference between claiming there is no evidence, and admitting that there is evidence but that science does not have the tools to evaluate it. Not being able to evaluate evidence through science doesn't imply that the evidence is false either.

 

[Interposer]

Sorry if i gave u the wrong impression. I don't really care if u think I am wordplaying. Have fun with it

I don't really care if you care; I'm simply doing what you insisted must be done and note your unwillingness to concede any point or answer questions now asked in two separte posts. I will therefore continue;

The wordplay is found because to admit a difference between “minimally backed up by logic and evidence” and “maximally backed up by logic and evidence” actually sets faith(s) up to not all be the same (illogical to state differences yet also claim sameness). Your ‘continuum’ errs to exclude faith based on no logic and/or evidence whatsoever and must therefore be dismissed as presently worded, thank you.

Put another way, tactical maneuvers at work seem to be; find common agreement/concession not everything is to be understood by science, introduce article of faith, ‘dilute the meaning’ so difference between that which is “minimally backed up by logic and evidence” and that which is “maximally backed up by logic and evidence” may be lumped together in bizarre ‘continuum’ where even the most outlandish personal belief system must become indistinguishable from, say, hope that science may yet develop cure for the bald head following partial success of Rogaine and Propicia…
This is not science (makes bad philosophy too, but as now thinking back makes me laugh, thank you again).

As if not enough; To state that ‘hope’ and ‘expectations’ are appeals to faith (as previously stated to another forum member) does injustice to definitions and is further evidence the charge against you of wordplay has merit. Perhaps best to simply call it another act of dilution, yes?

 

[SF]

Did u just say it is evidence, thereby contradicting urself and admitting that what I've been saying all along is true? ;)

Anecdotal evidence is evidence like junk science is science :)

Dont forget love, joy, sadness, anger, etc. Why use double standards?

We can all experience love, joy, sadness and anger, and they can also be triggered by certain substances.

Why use the same standard

 

[PIT2]

We can all experience love, joy, sadness and anger, and they can also be triggered by certain substances.

Good point, and the same point can be made about the people who claim to experience god during meditation. Many others throughout the world and over a timespan of thousands of years have tried it and reported similar experiences. Even u could experience it urself, though it apparently takes many years of practice.