Atheist advert provokes complaint

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

In this particular case, it's nothing to do with argumentum ad populum, alright?

Then what point were you trying to make? Lots of people believe in God, therefore... ?

Yawn. Look at some of my previous posts above.

You've not made any point in your posts above. You've backed away from saying that it is evidence for god, but you've not said what you now think is significant about it.

What do you think is significant about the fact that lots of people believe they have experienced god?

You're basically asking me a question I politely asked you earlier!

Nuts!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Where have I once questioned you on anything to do with argumentum ad populum? You've even said this:

Me: 'If you've experienced something, and discover that many others have experienced what you've experienced, this is not argumentum ad populum!'

You: 'You're absolutely right, it is evidence.

It's evidence that people are prone to experiencing feelings they interpret as divine interaction. But, it's absolutely not evidence that the things they experience are divine interaction.'

So! For you to then later say: 'I don't need any experience of my own in order to tell you this, it is simple basic logic, argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. You've written that you accept this, yet you are still questioning me about it. Why?'

The simple mention that other people have experienced what you have is not argumentum ad populum, it's just a statement of fact.

However (pay very careful attention to this, it is important) you then questioned my statement that "it's absolutely not evidence that the things they experience are divine interaction." This implies that you think it is evidence that the things they experience are divine interventions, which makes it into an argumentum ad populum.

There is no way you can take issue with my statement "it's absolutely not evidence that the things they experience are divine interaction." without committing argumentum ad populum.

This is doubly wierd, because in other statements you have admitted that it is not evidence for god, so why on earth are you still questioning me for saying it is not evidence for God?

Finally, just what is it about the fact that a lot of people believe in god that you think is significant? is there any reason whatsoever that you keep harping on about it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Quote

What do you think is significant about the fact that lots of people believe they have experienced god?

You're basically asking me a question I politely asked you earlier!

I've told you what I think is significant about it, nothing, beyond suggesting that people are prone to attributing certain feelings to divine interaction. I've mentioned this several times already.

Now, since you brought it up (and I assume you had a reason for doing so), what do you think is significant about it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Where have I once questioned you on anything to do with argumentum ad populum? You've even said this:

Me: 'If you've experienced something, and discover that many others have experienced what you've experienced, this is not argumentum ad populum!'

You: 'You're absolutely right, it is evidence.

It's evidence that people are prone to experiencing feelings they interpret as divine interaction. But, it's absolutely not evidence that the things they experience are divine interaction.'

So! For you to then later say: 'I don't need any experience of my own in order to tell you this, it is simple basic logic, argumentum ad populum is a fallacy. You've written that you accept this, yet you are still questioning me about it. Why?'

The simple mention that other people have experienced what you have is not argumentum ad populum, it's just a statement of fact.

However (pay very careful attention to this, it is important) you then questioned my statement that "it's absolutely not evidence that the things they experience are divine interaction." This implies that you think it is evidence that the things they experience are divine interventions, which makes it into an argumentum ad populum.

There is no way you can take issue with my statement "it's absolutely not evidence that the things they experience are divine interaction." without committing argumentum ad populum.

This is doubly wierd, because in other statements you have admitted that it is not evidence for god, so why on earth are you still questioning me for saying it is not evidence for God?

I'm not.

I honestly believe if you go back and read page 5 of this thread you'll be able to answer your own questions with what I've said already.

If you look at my post #117 I've asked you:

'Please explain to me how you know this. Did you once have a similiar experience and then later realise you were mistaken to think there was any divinity involved?'

And: 'Agreed, but how would you know this? What would you know of these peoples experiences?'

Your corresponding post #122 doesn't fully address these questions - you're responding with questions of your own. You're then making assumptions and jumping to conclusions, then answering points made to JackC, whilst all the time confusing the issue.

I said earlier, if you don't wish to answer these questions, that's fine. If you feel an answer such as:
'I don't need any experience of my own in order to tell you this' is good enough, then we've reached a disagreement.

If you are going to answer them, then please do so. At the moment this discussion is turning into a rolling goat-fuck again.

And it's your fault!

(Oh no it's not!)

Oh yes it is!

Ad infinitum

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What do you think is significant about the fact that lots of people believe they have experienced god?

You're basically asking me a question I politely asked you earlier!

I've told you what I think is significant about it, nothing, beyond suggesting that people are prone to attributing certain feelings to divine interaction. I've mentioned this several times already.

Now, since you brought it up (and I assume you had a reason for doing so), what do you think is significant about it?

What's significant is you making a blind assumption of peoples experiences without having experienced them for yourself.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Quote

This is doubly wierd, because in other statements you have admitted that it is not evidence for god, so why on earth are you still questioning me for saying it is not evidence for God?

I'm not.

You are.

Quote

'Please explain to me how you know this. Did you once have a similiar experience and then later realise you were mistaken to think there was any divinity involved?'

And I've said, many, many times, that I know it is not evidence from simple logic. Whether I have had such an experience or not is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. For you to think it is evidence would be argumentum ad populum. You have stated that you are not using argumentum ad populum, and that you agree that it is not evidence. So why, why, are you still asking me how I know it is not evidence?

Quote

I said earlier, if you don't wish to answer these questions, that's fine. If you feel an answer such as:
'I don't need any experience of my own in order to tell you this'

I don't, because the discussion stems from me telling you that sheer number of people who think they have experienced god says nothing about whether the experiences are real. Which part of this do you find difficult?


Now, since you have stated that you are not using argumentum ad populum, what is it that you think is significant about the large number of people who think they have experienced god?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

What's significant is you making a blind assumption of peoples experiences without having experienced them for yourself.

That has nothing to do with the point in question. You brought up the point that a lot of people think they have experienced God. I have said that the number of people who think this is not evidence for God. You say that you agree that this is not evidence of God.

So what about it do you think is important?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

Out of curiousity; do you personally know somebody who has faith in an afterlife or God of some description? Such as a relative or close friend? Someone you trust. Have you ever asked them what exactly their faith is based on?

(I only ask because I know only a couple of atheists, yet know numerous trustworthy people who believe in a life after death, and a God of some description,etc. And the reasons they believe are quite fascinating. You'll have to trust me when I say these are stable and intelligent people. Their examples of their own personal evidence cannot be simply brushed under a carpet. Neither can mine.)

I apologise for all the questions I'm firing at you!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Out of curiousity; do you personally know somebody who has faith in an afterlife or God of some description? Such as a relative or close friend? Someone you trust.

Of course.

Quote

Have you ever asked them what exactly their faith is based on?

Yes.



What is it you think is significant about there being a lot of people who think they have experienced God, given that you accept it is not evidence for God?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

What's significant is you making a blind assumption of peoples experiences without having experienced them for yourself.

That has nothing to do with the point in question.

Wrong.

Quote

You brought up the point that a lot of people think they have experienced God. I have said that the number of people who think this is not evidence for God. You say that you agree that this is not evidence of God.

So what about it do you think is important?

Your 'simple logic' that you know all these people to be wrong in their beliefs.

Yes, numerous people believing something doesn't make it true, numerous people believing something isn't evidence. But it also doesn't make it untrue. It doesn't provide evidence either that all these people are wrong.

I question your 'simple logic' that all these people are mistaken in their beliefs of divinity.

How do you know that they're mistaken?

What's simple is that you do not know that. So stop saying you do - 'simple logic' my arse.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Out of curiousity; do you personally know somebody who has faith in an afterlife or God of some description? Such as a relative or close friend? Someone you trust.

Of course.

Quote

Have you ever asked them what exactly their faith is based on?

Yes.



What is it you think is significant about there being a lot of people who think they have experienced God, given that you accept it is not evidence for God?

I think I answered that already. The area of the discussion you're mentioning was an area I was originally pointing out to you, remember?

Seriously now. What was their own personal evidence based on, if you don't mind me asking? And what was your thoughts of this personal evidence?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Your 'simple logic' that you know all these people to be wrong in their beliefs.

Yes, numerous people believing something doesn't make it true, numerous people believing something isn't evidence. But it also doesn't make it untrue. It doesn't provide evidence either that all these people are wrong.

I said "it's absolutely not evidence that the things they experience are divine interaction."

I did not say "it's evidence that the things they experience are not divine interaction."

Do you understand the difference? At the moment, you're trying very hard to seem like you do not.

Now, since you accept that "numerous people believing something doesn't make it true" why, why, are you still questioning my statement that "it's absolutely not evidence that the things they experience are divine interaction"?

Quote

I question your 'simple logic' that all these people are mistaken in their beliefs of divinity.

My simple logic is that the sheer number of them is no evidence that their beliefs are correct. I have explained this to you many, many times.

You must have had to work incredibly hard to be thinking at such a crazy tangent to what has actually been said.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

I think I answered that already. The area of the discussion you're mentioning was an area I was originally pointing out to you, remember?

But you have not said what you think is significant about it.

Quote

Seriously now. What was their own personal evidence based on, if you don't mind me asking? And what was your thoughts of this personal evidence?

From what I can remember, for the people I've asked in person, it was mostly from having been brought up with the bible and finding the Jesus story persuasive, and thinking that there must be something out there to start the universe going. Standard stuff.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

Addressing your post #137: despite lack of evidence, could they indeed be correct in their divine beliefs then?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

I think I answered that already. The area of the discussion you're mentioning was an area I was originally pointing out to you, remember?

But you have not said what you think is significant about it.

Quote

Seriously now. What was their own personal evidence based on, if you don't mind me asking? And what was your thoughts of this personal evidence?

From what I can remember, for the people I've asked in person, it was mostly from having been brought up with the bible and finding the Jesus story persuasive, and thinking that there must be something out there to start the universe going. Standard stuff.

I have said what I think is significant about it. See post #130.

The standard stuff you mention isn't what I'd call personal evidence, it's more a thought process. Pity. Could've been some interesting points of discussion there. . .

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Addressing your post #137: despite lack of evidence, could they indeed be correct in their divine beliefs then?

I've seen no reason to think they are.

Quote

The standard stuff you mention isn't what I'd call personal evidence, it's more a thought process. Pity. Could've been some interesting points of discussion there. . .

You asked me what their reasons were, I gave them. None of my friends have told me that they've personally experienced God.

(Well, one did, but she was more a housemate than a friend. And I wouldn't have trusted her to remember to breath in and out every day.)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

I have said what I think is significant about it. See post #130.

That's not the reason. I know that's not the reason, because you weren't even talking to me when you first brought it up.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

You're too late; a friend of mine prayed to God to turn himself into a steak and kidney pie, which of course, he was obliged to do. My friend then ate him. Sorry if that's spoiled your experiment.

How would that spoil my experiment, or are you attempting humor?

Either way it doesn't matter, as i think it is quite safe to say that our little prayer has fallen on deaf ears, if those ears even exist.

So what can we take away from this,

1. Prayer doesnt work
2. God doesnt answer prayer, cant be bothered.
3. ooh and the big one, GOD DOESN'T EXIST.....

Now if you as a believer in the almighty simply dismiss this result then that is rather a close minded approach to faith. Now as an educated person which im sure you are, then you really have to ask yourself why was our prayer not answered, god quite clearly states in a number of places in the bible that he will, and to remind him we even listed a few in our prayer.. So in your mind that should be an element of doubt, if there is not, then you are truly beyond reason and intelligent debate.

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[DannHuff 0]

There could be another reason why your prayers are not answered.

"It’s your sins that have cut you off from God. Because of your sins, he has turned away and will not listen anymore."

[maadmax 0]

Either way it doesn't matter, as i think it is quite safe to say that our little prayer has fallen on deaf ears, if those ears even exist.

So what can we take away from this,

1. Prayer doesnt work
2. God doesnt answer prayer, cant be bothered.
3. ooh and the big one, GOD DOESN'T EXIST.....

..................................or.....................

4. You don't understand what prayer is about and ask for things with improper motives.

"You ask and do not receive because you ask with wrong motives" James 4:3


...

[JackC 0]

Quote

No. Consider for now it being something you can't logically explain. Therefore you're dismissing it. It's something that you don't understand, nor want to understand. It's gone straight into your 'bunkum' drawer, hasn't it?

Vortexring, your point is not something I can logically explain because it is not logical. If a thing that you can conceive of is not logical, that's pretty good evidence that it's bollocks. For example, circles cannot simultaneously be squares.

Quote

Is that how you live, dismissing everything that doesn't present itself to you as logical!? C'mon!

When logic is applicable, yes. Logic is a particularly effective bullshit filter. To ignore logic would leave you open to believing all kinds of baloney. Is that how you live your life? C'mon!

[frequentfaller 0]

"we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet right now, and whilst your at it can you please feed the millions of starving children, and perhaps end war and hatred."

sounds pretty good to me.
what would be the correct motive?

Born ok 1st time.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

No. Consider for now it being something you can't logically explain. Therefore you're dismissing it. It's something that you don't understand, nor want to understand. It's gone straight into your 'bunkum' drawer, hasn't it?

Vortexring, your point is not something I can logically explain because it is not logical. If a thing that you can conceive of is not logical, that's pretty good evidence that it's bollocks. For example, circles cannot simultaneously be squares.

Sorry if this sounds smartarse-ish but: 'Consider for now it being something you can't logically explain'.

Quote

Is that how you live, dismissing everything that doesn't present itself to you as logical!? C'mon!

When logic is applicable, yes. Logic is a particularly effective bullshit filter. To ignore logic would leave you open to believing all kinds of baloney. Is that how you live your life? C'mon!

Who said ignore logic? But to live ones life ignoring everything that's illogical. . . .

This seems to heading back to questions I asked earlier:

'You also mention personal experience being not much use as evidence - to an extent I disagree, as it could be more than enough evidence for an individual - which has been my point all along.

If you've an individual with no experience, what's the solution? What have you done to come to your conclusion? Again, what about these people with experience? Doesn't that play merry hell with your conclusion on the subject?

Or, is it because they're all wrong and your right? (Even though you've no idea what they may have experienced?)'

Basically imagine person 'A' has had several experiences which he believes are evidence of an afterlife. He meets person 'B'. They both discover they've had virtually the same experiences. Funny old thing, so has person 'C'. Then person 'D' joins in the conversation. Poor 'D', he hasn't had anything like the experiences which cause A,B & C to believe in an afterlife. What does 'D' go and do? What should he do?

Call them liars? Mistaken? Insane?

Or should he state that their beliefs are not something he can logically explain because they are not logical?

Then what?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

You're too late; a friend of mine prayed to God to turn himself into a steak and kidney pie, which of course, he was obliged to do. My friend then ate him. Sorry if that's spoiled your experiment.

How would that spoil my experiment, or are you attempting humor?

Isn't it obvious how it'd spoil your experiment?

Earlier you said: "And you did say in Mark 11:24 “Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. “

Well, like I told you, my mate prayed to God, and asked Him to turn Himself into a steak and kidney pie, which God, through the power of my friends prayer, had no choice but to do so. My friend then scoffed the pie. So perhaps you should have tried your experiment earlier, before my friend done his?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

I have said what I think is significant about it. See post #130.

That's not the reason.

It bloody is!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'