Religion Vs God

[Grim_Reaper]

I guess the next question is to ponder whether , just like you are applying the correct normative issues to determine you have a virus, whether you are applying the correct normative issues that determine approaching god

I would have to say yes both I cannot see but only one has and effect that I can feel and measure the exact effect it has on me. So again one is real the other a myth.

 

[lightgigantic]

I would have to say yes both I cannot see but only one has and effect that I can feel and measure the exact effect it has on me. So again one is real the other a myth.

My point is that upon carrying a virus, a change is noticeable. If you were the only one who wasn't affected, you could talk about the imaginations of others dictating that they have a virus. This of course, would say nothing about the truth of the claim, since you would stand outside of the normative issues that surround getting a virus.

Similarly, if you stand outside of the normative issues that dictate approaching god, your experience of the subject is probably not the best avenue for departure.

 

[iceaura]

I quoted your statement begging the question. The words "atheist" and "theist" do not appear in it.
”
do you need neon lights to fathom which camp suggests there is a means and which camp doesn't?

You introduced a reference to a couple of undefined "camps" irrelevant to my posting; and thereby deflected the question, concealed your lack of answer to it, and assumed the conclusion you were apparently unable to argue for - in the process of attacking the poster of the original argument, me.

It's a common rhetorical trick of yours, apparently designed to avoid actual debate by providing opportunities to set any debaters the task of defending themselves rather than their arguments.

A singular lack of honor is visible, in all of that.

But to return:

the essence of the debate is whether religion offers a means to interact with god.

The attempt to reframe the debate into one in which the existence of the god and its relevance to religion is assumed is noted, and the response dismissed accordingly.

The fact that "begging the question" was at issue is ironic.

But is another response available?

 

[Grim_Reaper]

My point is that upon carrying a virus, a change is noticeable. If you were the only one who wasn't affected, you could talk about the imaginations of others dictating that they have a virus. This of course, would say nothing about the truth of the claim, since you would stand outside of the normative issues that surround getting a virus.

Similarly, if you stand outside of the normative issues that dictate approaching god, your experience of the subject is probably not the best avenue for departure.

Still a virus can be detected via science and it can be verified vis symptomes know a god cannot be measure nor proved actually it can and it is call being delusional.

 

[lightgigantic]

Still a virus can be detected via science and it can be verified vis symptomes know a god cannot be measure nor proved actually it can and it is call being delusional.

more correctly, a virus can be detected by the normative issues that frame its detection (of which, science is one)

If you want to argue that all things detectable are within the purview of such "science", you have a difficult task ahead of you ....

 

[lightgigantic]

You introduced a reference to a couple of undefined "camps" irrelevant to my posting

I would have thought that a veteran poster such as yourself wouldn't have had such trouble determining the camps

; and thereby deflected the question, concealed your lack of answer to it,

I see assertions in your posts, not questions.
Haven't the foggiest what you're on a bout here

and assumed the conclusion you were apparently unable to argue for - in the process of attacking the poster of the original argument, me.

the reason you stand defamed is because you whitewashed the argument.

IOW you can't even deem the suggestion that there are two camps to the argument, simply because you are too gung-ho about your own.
:shrug:

It's a common rhetorical trick of yours, apparently designed to avoid actual debate by providing opportunities to set any debaters the task of defending themselves rather than their arguments.

On the contrary, your unwillingness to entertain the notion of a camp other than your own kills any chance of discussion at the onset

A singular lack of honor is visible, in all of that.

But to return: The attempt to reframe the debate into one in which the existence of the god and its relevance to religion is assumed is noted, and the response dismissed accordingly.

Don't know why you can't see the connection between advocating that there is no means to knowing god (because there is no god) and atheism.

The fact that "begging the question" was at issue is ironic.

But is another response available?

Irony certainly is the word for it, since its clear you are trying to (re)frame the debate into one in which there is only one viewpoint on the existence of god.

 

[iceaura]

I would have thought that a veteran poster such as yourself wouldn't have had such trouble determining the camps

There were no such relevant camps. As a veteran poster, I recognized the rhetorical ploy.

On the contrary, your unwillingness to entertain the notion of a camp other than your own kills any chance of discussion at the onset

Your continued attempt to establish "camps" whose division assumes the conclusion I would argue against in the first place, is not going to fly with me. I see no reason to assume that what I think is so is false, before beginning a discussion about it.

Your unwillingness to participate in that discussion would be best handled by remaining out of it.

Don't know why you can't see the connection between advocating that there is no means to knowing god (because there is no god) and atheism.

Irrelevant. More deflection, rigged with personal attack as always. I pointed to this technique earlier {LGRI}

It's a common rhetorical trick of yours, apparently designed to avoid actual debate by providing opportunities to set any debaters the task of defending themselves rather than their arguments.

You don't seem to be able to respond in any other manner.

since its clear you are trying to (re)frame the debate into one in which there is only one viewpoint on the existence of god.

I am trying to maintain the original frame, in which the existence of a god is not assumed by any "camps", and the influence of bringing one on the stage of a religion is therefore open for consideration.

 

[lightgigantic]

There were no such relevant camps. As a veteran poster, I recognized the rhetorical ploy.

Huh?
You can't recognize the clash between two ideologies that the religious sub forum on sci has come to exemplify?

Your continued attempt to establish "camps" whose division assumes the conclusion I would argue against in the first place, is not going to fly with me. I see no reason to assume that what I think is so is false, before beginning a discussion about it.

So you don't consider yourself to be prominently banging the gong of atheism?

Your unwillingness to participate in that discussion would be best handled by remaining out of it.

Irrelevant. More deflection, rigged with personal attack as always. I pointed to this technique earlier: You don't seem to be able to respond in any other manner.
I am trying to maintain the original frame, in which the existence of a god is not assumed by any "camps", and the influence of bringing one on the stage of a religion is therefore open for consideration.

errr ... and you can't fathom a guess which camp a discussion of religion removed from any assumption of god's existence tends to prop?

 

[iceaura]

You can't recognize the clash between two ideologies that the religious sub forum on sci has come to exemplify?

Easily. It's irrelevant, however, and the personal attack is as well.

So you don't consider yourself to be prominently banging the gong of atheism?

More irrelevancy, rigged with personal attack. To avoid further repetition, let's call that LGRI, for "response one" - I edited the label, into my previous reply above.

errr ... and you can't fathom a guess which camp a discussion of religion removed from any assumption of god's existence tends to prop?

Presuming you have no effective argument in a given discussion is no reason to shove it into some other discussion. Remain silent, if nothing avails you.

 

[jpappl]

My point is that upon carrying a virus, a change is noticeable. If you were the only one who wasn't affected, you could talk about the imaginations of others dictating that they have a virus. This of course, would say nothing about the truth of the claim, since you would stand outside of the normative issues that surround getting a virus.

Similarly, if you stand outside of the normative issues that dictate approaching god, your experience of the subject is probably not the best avenue for departure.

Bad example.

We have evidence of the virus itself and of it's effects.

 

[lightgigantic]

Bad example.

We have evidence of the virus itself and of it's effects.

well sure evidence identifiable by persons who meet the normative requirements for determining it. By your argument, a healthy person (who stands outside of the discipline of medicine and biological analysis) could be justified in labeling the infected as delusional

 

[lightgigantic]

Easily. It's irrelevant, however, and the personal attack is as well.
More irrelevancy, rigged with personal attack. To avoid further repetition, let's call that LGRI, for "response one" - I edited the label, into my previous reply above.
Presuming you have no effective argument in a given discussion is no reason to shove it into some other discussion. Remain silent, if nothing avails you.

Perhaps it would be irrelevant if you didn't insist that the discussion involve relegating the topic to the perimeters of atheism.
:shrug:

I mean seriously - Which group of persons are more likely to go at lengths about a discussion about religion removed from any assumption about god's existence?

Atheists or theists?

 

[jpappl]

well sure evidence identifiable by persons who meet the normative requirements for determining it. By your argument, a healthy person (who stands outside of the discipline of medicine and biological analysis) could be justified in labeling the infected as delusional

This is your only and standard argument and it is also absurd.

The simple fact is, there is no physical evidence for god.

So no matter how much we want to know god, we can't know because there is no evidence.

There is evidence for a virus, we both can witness this evidence if we wish. We can not do that for god.

You keep coming back with these ridiculous examples of those who do not look will not know, but it is not the same because no matter how hard you look you won't find these kind of evidences. So no matter what, you have nothing to show.

Of course if someone doesn't want to look at the evidence of the virus they don't have to, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Just means the person chooses to remain ignorant. The evidence is there for all who want to see unlike your god, there is no evidence for anyone to see of course.

Next you will come back with, the person is not looking in the right places just like someone who would want to see a virus under a microscope and going to mcdonalds instead.

These are two different issues and it's a flawed argument on your part. Because again the difference is there is evidence for the virus. It serves only one purpose and that is to deflect away that which you have no answers for.

To be fair, nobody has these answers, just that some of us figured that out a while ago.

 

[lightgigantic]

This is your only and standard argument and it is also absurd.

standard rebuttals arise from standard arguments

The simple fact is, there is no physical evidence for god.

Do you make this statement from the authority of normative issues that frame the claim of god's existence ... or from an entirely separate means of acquiring knowledge (aka empiricism), as if it has a monopoly on all knowable claims?

So no matter how much we want to know god, we can't know because there is no evidence.

But once again, a discussion of whether there is or isn't evidence is a discussion of the normative issues of qualification that frame a claim.

At the very least, there are very good reasons why we don't accept a janitor's claim that there is no evidence in legal proceedings ... particularly when in the audience of forensic scientists.

There is evidence for a virus, we both can witness this evidence if we wish. We can not do that for god.

If we apply the normative issues that surround knowing a virus, sure we can. And if we don't, we can't.

The claim of evidence for god is much the same.

You keep coming back with these ridiculous examples of those who do not look will not know, but it is not the same because no matter how hard you look you won't find these kind of evidences. So no matter what, you have nothing to show.

Its not ridiculous. Its how all or any claims of evidence function.

What is ridiculous however is to expect a claim to be evidenced by a means that has no capacity to reveal it. This doesn't necessarily render the means totally dysfunctional. It simply means that it is inappropriate given the pursuit.

Of course if someone doesn't want to look at the evidence of the virus they don't have to, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Just means the person chooses to remain ignorant.

hehe

fancy that, eh?

The evidence is there for all who want to see unlike your god, there is no evidence for anyone to see of course.

If you really want to pursue this line of thought, you would have to exmine the normative issues that frame the claim. For instance I can howl like a madman about how there is paltry evidence for accurate readings of temperature ... for as long as I only use a tape measure ...

Next you will come back with, the person is not looking in the right places just like someone who would want to see a virus under a microscope and going to mcdonalds instead.

sure

These are two different issues and it's a flawed argument on your part. Because again the difference is there is evidence for the virus.

well yeah, but it won't be discernible by your average joe popping in for a big mac

It serves only one purpose and that is to deflect away that which you have no answers for.

On the contrary, for as long as you steer clear of the normative issues, you are begging the question.

Kind of like saying there is no evidence of anything beyond the mind and senses because over 200 years of investigation with the mind and senses has not revealed it.

To be fair, nobody has these answers, just that some of us figured that out a while ago.

lol
and if nobody has the answers, how did they figure that out, eh?

 

[jpappl]

Light,

What is ridiculous however is to expect a claim to be evidenced by a means that has no capacity to reveal it.

Exactly, so why do you keep comparing the two scenarios. They are not the same.

I don't expect you to provide evidence for god because there is none.

However, evidence of a virus can be revealed and you can be invited to see it. You can't do that with god no matter how much someone wants to see the evidence. The evidence you have for god is only in your mind.

To be fair, nobody has these answers, just that some of us figured that out a while ago. ”

lol
and if nobody has the answers, how did they figure that out, eh?

We figured out that there is no answer to that question because there is no evidence to support it and we can't prove it does not exist.

 

[iceaura]

I mean seriously - Which group of persons are more likely to go at lengths about a discussion about religion removed from any assumption about god's existence?

If you don't want to participate in the discussion, remain silent. When you pretend to be participating while indulging in rhetorical ploys to beg the question at hand, you're called on it. No problem.

The simple fact is, there is no physical evidence for god.

Do you make this statement from the authority of normative issues that frame the claim of god's existence .

Any existence for which physical evidence could be found, or for which the concept make sense, sure.

 

[lightgigantic]

Light,



Exactly, so why do you keep comparing the two scenarios. They are not the same.

why?

I don't expect you to provide evidence for god because there is none.

Which again brings us back to whether you make this claim based on the standard means one determines evidence (namely, application of the normative issues that surround it) or something else ...

However, evidence of a virus can be revealed and you can be invited to see it. You can't do that with god no matter how much someone wants to see the evidence. The evidence you have for god is only in your mind.

What's clear is that in your mind you are prepared to entertain the normative issues that surround viruses but can't come to the table when it comes to god.
:shrug:

We figured out that there is no answer to that question because there is no evidence to support it and we can't prove it does not exist.

hehe
Who's this "we"?

 

[lightgigantic]

If you don't want to participate in the discussion, remain silent. When you pretend to be participating while indulging in rhetorical ploys to beg the question at hand, you're called on it. No problem.

well yeah, any fool can relegate a topic to the purview of their values and gain a consensus
:shrug:

Any existence for which physical evidence could be found, or for which the concept make sense, sure.

Step outside the normative issues that frame a claim and it all looks zany.

 

[jpappl]

LG,

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Light,



Exactly, so why do you keep comparing the two scenarios. They are not the same. ”

why?

I already explained why.

Here:


"Of course if someone doesn't want to look at the evidence of the virus they don't have to, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Just means the person chooses to remain ignorant. The evidence is there for all who want to see unlike your god, there is no evidence for anyone to see of course.

Next you will come back with, the person is not looking in the right places just like someone who would want to see a virus under a microscope and going to mcdonalds instead.

These are two different issues and it's a flawed argument on your part. Because again the difference is there is evidence for the virus. It serves only one purpose and that is to deflect away that which you have no answers for."

“ I don't expect you to provide evidence for god because there is none. ”

Which again brings us back to whether you make this claim based on the standard means one determines evidence (namely, application of the normative issues that surround it) or something else ...

No it doesn't bring us back, you are the only one going back in cicles chasing your own tail as if the two are the same. I will tell you when the two are the same, when you have some evidence of god. That's when. Until then, they are worlds apart, as far apart as me claiming there is a tooth fairy. Can you prove to me there is no tooth fairy ? No, well maybe you aren't looking in the right places eh. That is your suggestion and is flawed, because no matter where you tell me to look, the evidence won't be there. That makes them different.

“ However, evidence of a virus can be revealed and you can be invited to see it. You can't do that with god no matter how much someone wants to see the evidence. The evidence you have for god is only in your mind. ”

What's clear is that in your mind you are prepared to entertain the normative issues that surround viruses but can't come to the table when it comes to god.

Why should I. You won't catch me at the tooth fairy conventions either. You are asking me to put blind faith in that which has no evidence to support the idea and when I say that, I am referring to all of the religions versions of god.

I am not claiming there is not a possibility for one, but there is no evidence that one that has been presented, IE a supernatural being that is still connected to us in spirit etc is real.

So if this god is real, the reason we have no evidence of it is that it is not connected to us in anyway specifically. So what kind or god is it then ?

“ We figured out that there is no answer to that question because there is no evidence to support it and we can't prove it does not exist. ”

hehe
Who's this "we"?

The we is all of us who have enough sense to know the limitation of our current knowledge base. IE, anybody who makes the claim that currently we can neither prove nor dis-prove gods existence.

That burden is on the person making the claim for it's existence.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,



I already explained why.

Here:


"Of course if someone doesn't want to look at the evidence of the virus they don't have to, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Just means the person chooses to remain ignorant. The evidence is there for all who want to see unlike your god, there is no evidence for anyone to see of course.

Next you will come back with, the person is not looking in the right places just like someone who would want to see a virus under a microscope and going to mcdonalds instead.

These are two different issues and it's a flawed argument on your part. Because again the difference is there is evidence for the virus. It serves only one purpose and that is to deflect away that which you have no answers for."

That's a text book example of circular reasoning.

The issue is that evidence is determined by application of normative issues that frame it.

You say that this isn't the case in regards to god, because there is no evidence.

(But if one hadn't applied the normative issues that frame the claim, how would they know?)

Answer - because there is no evidence.

No it doesn't bring us back, you are the only one going back in cicles chasing your own tail as if the two are the same. I will tell you when the two are the same, when you have some evidence of god. That's when.

Until you begin to approach the issue of the normative issues that frame the claim, your ideas about when the two are the same or different or anything are nothing more than mere expressions of your ideas.

Until then, they are worlds apart, as far apart as me claiming there is a tooth fairy. Can you prove to me there is no tooth fairy ? No, well maybe you aren't looking in the right places eh.

well maybe you could suggest a few normative issues that surround the claim of the tooth fairy and we could take it from there.

That is your suggestion and is flawed, because no matter where you tell me to look, the evidence won't be there. That makes them different.

The flaw of your view is that you dictate where and what evidence is before you .... even before you begin inquiry of the normative issues that frame the claim.

(a mode of learning that is on par by reading books by their cover)

Why should I. You won't catch me at the tooth fairy conventions either. You are asking me to put blind faith in that which has no evidence to support the idea and when I say that, I am referring to all of the religions versions of god.

And that's precisely the problem here.
Your values don't permit inquiry, so its a closed subject to you

I am not claiming there is no a possibility for one, but there is no evidence that one that has been presented, IE a supernatural being that is still connected to us in spirit etc is real.

If you readily admit that you don't have a snow ball's chance in hell of coming within 100 feet of merely theoretical issues of application, it shouldn't come as a big surprise that further complexities greet you at the point of conclusion.

So if this god is real, the reason we have no evidence of it is that it is not connected to us in anyway specifically. So what kind or god is it then ?

The reason is that your conclusion about the evidence is drawn from assumptions about how we determine connections (assumptions that work perfectly well for examinations of dull matter, but are perfectly lousy in other fields)

The we is all of us who have enough sense to know the limitation of our current knowledge base.

hehe
"our"?
who's that again?

(sounds like a rabid amplification of "me")

IE, anybody who makes the claim that currently we can neither prove nor dis-prove gods existence.

Still waiting for some explanation why this conclusion is the default consensus of "our" knowledge base.

That burden is on the person making the claim for it's existence.

and to be more precise, the burden is to supply the normative issues that frame the claim.

Once that done, the burden is on the individual to apply themselves.

So the ball's in your court.