Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

Options
13567…34

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Understood. But the rubber duck aims to get the speaker to improve their explanation and improve their understanding of their code so as to objectively improve it such that it achieves the desired result: i.e. it works.

    There is no improvement to an explanation which will make an explanation work for you.

    But you aren't doing it for me, you are doing it for the rubber duck. The duck doesn't judge, it is not antagonistic, it is not me in any way, it is just a rubber duck.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You presume rationality and sober assessment of the argument rules man. It doesn't. Not in my world view.

    Ok, so you admit that your worldview is not based on rationality or sober assessment and therefore is not going to be convincing to a not-already-believing third party. This brings us to the second question in the other thread:

    Why do you believe it?

    Yes, sure, you feel convinced of it, but that not is not because of objective rationing or logic, it is because of subjective feeling. Many other fundamentally contradictory theists claim the exactly the same way about their beliefs. Even some atheists might. You can't all be right. Maybe none of you are. So do you have something besides your subjective feeling that it is true? Or is your basis exactly the same, and therefore completely indistinguishable, from so many other worldviews?


  • Options
    #63
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    Far from it. It is yourself who has a problem with evidence, given your ongoing inability to find any to support your arguments

    Again, the problem can be with you. If you haven't the framework in which to appreciate then that's doesn't negate my position in any objective sense.

    Any more than any blindness negates an objective.





    As such the sum total of what you've said amounts to unsupported speculation. Whether you'd rather call this girded speculation or faith based argument doesn't change this. Logical consistency in an imaginary realm doesn't make that imaginary realm any more real, your girders are as imaginary as what they support.

    Again, you are not dealing with the key problem. You are in no way sidestepping the possibility that you are blind.

    You are merely pounding against the problem with various evidences concluded from the area we agree you have sight.

    But if that sighted realm has no bearing on a realm in relation to which you are utterly unsighted?

    There is no way to deal with the problem of the possibility of your being blind. Making assumptions as to your area of sight's ability to comment on where you may be blind is slightly foolish at this stage.

    Step back and consider how ludicrous it is. A kind of self declaration that your area of sight can comment on the whatever the whole might be. Or limit whatever the whole might be to what you can see. Both ludicrous.


  • Options
    #64
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,708 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Again, the problem can be with you. If you haven't the framework in which to appreciate then that's doesn't negate my position in any objective sense.

    Any more than any blindness negates an objective.

    Again, you are not dealing with the key problem. You are in no way sidestepping the possibility that you are blind.

    You are merely pounding against the problem with various evidences concluded from the area we agree you have sight.

    But if that sighted realm has no bearing on a realm in relation to which you are utterly unsighted?

    There is no way to deal with the problem of the possibility of your being blind. Making assumptions as to your area of sight's ability to comment on where you may be blind is slightly foolish at this stage.

    Step back and consider how ludicrous it is. A kind of self declaration that your area of sight can comment on the whatever the whole might be. Or limit whatever the whole might be to what you can see. Both ludicrous.

    The framework that I'm working in is reality, same as everyone else. The notion that not subscribing to someone else's irrational religious belief system, or random delusions for that matter, is tantamount to blindness is patently ridiculous. Perhaps you are blind for ignoring the return of He who cannot be named and prophesy that "neither can live while the other survives?"

    You seem to be unable to distinguish between sight and imagination.


  • Options
    #65
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    smacl wrote: »
    is tantamount to blindness is patently ridiculous.

    In my experience it is a common theist trope to claim to be able to "see" what we are "blind" to. It is not that they have no evidence, it is that we are blind and simply can not see what they can.

    The analogy to blindness is however a really poor one. You see when a person is ACTUALLY blind you can still evidence to them the existence of the things they can not see. You can evidence the existence of things like colour. You can evidence the existence of sight itself.

    So the analogy does not hold. When I tell a blind person they are blind, I can substantiate the existence of both sight, and the object they are blind to, in other ways. I can evidence the object they can not see exists. I can evidence sight exists. And I can evidence they lack that sense while I have it.

    Contrast this to the theist who can scream "blind" until he is blue in the face, but is entirely unable to substantiate the existence of that blindness, the sight, or the thing we are supposedly blind to.


  • Options
    #66
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,708 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    In my experience it is a common theist trope to claim to be able to "see" what we are "blind" to. It is not that they have no evidence, it is that we are blind and simply can not see what they can.

    The analogy to blindness is however a really poor one. You see when a person is ACTUALLY blind you can still evidence to them the existence of the things they can not see. You can evidence the existence of things like colour. You can evidence the existence of sight itself.

    So the analogy does not hold. When I tell a blind person they are blind, I can substantiate the existence of both sight, and the object they are blind to, in other ways. I can evidence the object they can not see exists. I can evidence sight exists. And I can evidence they lack that sense while I have it.

    Contrast this to the theist who can scream "blind" until he is blue in the face, but is entirely unable to substantiate the existence of that blindness, the sight, or the thing we are supposedly blind to.

    Agreed. Away from religion I've encountered something similar talking to people about film or music. e.g. someone claims a film is great, when asked why fluster and if pressed say something along the lines of "you just don't get it!". Basically, they've become invested enough in a subjective belief or preference that they're willing to assert it is an objective truth, but this doesn't bear close inspection. Furthermore, they'll happily shill the film to protect their point of view rather than back down. My take is that religious people out to save souls, as openly admitted by the OP in this thread, are basically doing the same.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    Agreed. Away from religion I've encountered something similar talking to people about film or music. e.g. someone claims a film is great, when asked why fluster and if pressed say something along the lines of "you just don't get it!". Basically, they've become invested enough in a subjective belief or preference that they're willing to assert it is an objective truth, but this doesn't bear close inspection. Furthermore, they'll happily shill the film to protect their point of view rather than back down. My take is that religious people out to save souls, as openly admitted by the OP in this thread, are basically doing the same.

    I wasn't talking about something we both agree is subjective.

    I don't really see an address to the sustance: delusion vs blind.


  • Options
    #68
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    The framework that I'm working in is reality, same as everyone else.

    That's a claim as to the extent of reality, i.e. you can see all there is to be seen in principle.

    Which is no different ro my claim (my extent merely extending beyond yours)

    How does that shift things away from stalemate?




    The notion that not subscribing to someone else's irrational religious belief system, or random delusions for that matter, is tantamount to blindness is patently ridiculous.

    I'm not asking you to subscribe. I'm asking you for a way to definitvely decide that its delusion and not blindness. Since you claim it is delusion and not blindness.

    Convenient. But lacking this far, in substance.

    How does one know they are blind to what they can't see, if what they can see has no connection to what they can't?

    (an optically blind person has connection to what they are blind to - via other empirical realm senses. But that connection need not be there. In that case blind is utterly blind)


  • Options
    #69
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Double post


  • Options
    #70
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    In my experience it is a common theist trope to claim to be able to "see" what we are "blind" to. It is not that they have no evidence, it is that we are blind and simply can not see what they can.

    Okay.
    The analogy to blindness is however a really poor one. You see when a person is ACTUALLY blind you can still evidence to them the existence of the things they can not see. You can evidence the existence of things like colour. You can evidence the existence of sight itself.

    Okay. What happens here is that one empirically based sense is out of action but the other four can still combine and inform about the empirical world, including about empirically evidenced blindness. 4 wheels on my wagon and I'm still rollin' along .. as it were.

    But if the blindness isn't about the empirical world then there are no secondary actors to prop things up. How would you convince someone with no senses that they had no senses?
    So the analogy does not hold.

    You can see that it does work when explained out. Now you'll doubtlessly have seen this last theist trope in response to your athiest trope response.

    What athiest trope response comes next? For I haven't seen it yet. It always appears to halt at stalemate in the delusion trope vs. the blind trope discussion

    (p.s. it would be more accurate to call it a biblical trope, since its all over the bible. That being the stone the theists lick the idea off. 2000 years to develop a trope response .. and counting)


  • Options
    #71
    Peatys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Peatys


    Antiskeptic, why do you care what other people think?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Peatys wrote: »
    Antiskeptic, why do you care what other people think?

    Because I know the score. Because the upsides for folk are wonderful and the downside not so (even if opted for by a persons will). Because God, who is the wonderful behind the wonderful upside thinks it important. And I can see his point. Because God (for relational, intimacy reasons) invariably works on man through man). Because every "win" is a kick in the bollox to evil (which isn't an unenjoyable thing to inflict).

    Ultimately. Because you're worth it.


  • Options
    #73
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Peatys wrote: »
    Antiskeptic, why do you care what other people think?

    Great book btw (with a what instead of why)


  • Options
    #74
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Okay. What happens here is that one empirically based sense is out of action but the other four can still combine and inform about the empirical world

    Again, what happens is when I claim someone is blind I can evidence the existence of sight and the existence of the things they are blind to. When a theist tells me I am blind, he is just saying it and can not evidence it at all.

    Which is no small difference. Still not a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning from you that a god exists. Just your being anti skepticism written on every post.


  • Options
    #75
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,708 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    That's a claim as to the extent of reality, i.e. you can see all there is to be seen in principle.

    Which is no different ro my claim (my extent merely extending beyond yours)

    How does that shift things away from stalemate?

    Reality is the quality or state of being real. Real is the opposite of imaginary, abstract or virtual. While in the context of the dynamic nature of human understanding this is a continuous spectrum rather than a discrete binary pair, all of your arguments and propositions lie in the realm of the imaginary. Even your stalemate is in an imaginary game of chess where you seem to fail to realise that you're the only one playing.


  • Options
    #76
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    Well the whole point you're making is "What if everybody is inherently irrational in a way that prevents them from reaching my conclusion and that conclusion is the correct one".

    Well then God would exist, be as you imagine he is and we'd be unable to realise that due to being too biased. It's contained in the definition of the scenario. That's it. It's not really a discussion, it's just a defining trait of a particular scenario.


  • Options
    #77
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,637 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Because I know the score. Because the upsides for folk are wonderful and the downside not so (even if opted for by a persons will). Because God, who is the wonderful behind the wonderful upside thinks it important. And I can see his point. Because God (for relational, intimacy reasons) invariably works on man through man). Because every "win" is a kick in the bollox to evil (which isn't an unenjoyable thing to inflict).

    Ultimately. Because you're worth it.

    You know the score?

    Ah here. You know the way you believe you’re doing some good by trying to reason with folks here? You’re actually doing nothing of any value or worth at all, to anyone but yourself.

    If you want to do good, go and do something with tangible results, something that matters in the real world. Because your god stories and make-believe, the notion that *anyone* is ‘worth it’ is just timewasting nonsense, serving no purpose other than to reinforce your notions that there is purpose beyond your own miserable existence.

    Hide from life if you want. Argue that you’re right and I’m wrong. Believe that. But I’ll get on with a life full of action and purpose, while you hide away from your own, favouring time spent on this pedantry over being a better person.

    Your god is yours. As loving as your imagination permits. As powerful as your deep, dark emptiness demands, filling that space with a strength you’ll only find in make believe.

    I think it’s pitiful to think you could ‘save’ a soul along the way when all you’re doing is slowly losing a part of what should be your own precious life with silliness and make believe.

    Pity. You have mine.


  • Options
    #78
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    JayZeus wrote: »
    You know the score?

    Ah here. You know the way you believe you’re doing some good by trying to reason with folks here? You’re actually doing nothing of any value or worth at all, to anyone but yourself.

    If you want to do good, go and do something with tangible results, something that matters in the real world. Because your god stories and make-believe, the notion that *anyone* is ‘worth it’ is just timewasting nonsense, serving no purpose other than to reinforce your notions that there is purpose beyond your own miserable existence.

    Hide from life if you want. Argue that you’re right and I’m wrong. Believe that. But I’ll get on with a life full of action and purpose, while you hide away from your own, favouring time spent on this pedantry over being a better person.

    Your god is yours. As loving as your imagination permits. As powerful as your deep, dark emptiness demands, filling that space with a strength you’ll only find in make believe.

    I think it’s pitiful to think you could ‘save’ a soul along the way when all you’re doing is slowly losing a part of what should be your own precious life with silliness and make believe.

    Pity. You have mine.

    Anyway. Back to our discussion. Delusion vs blindness.


  • Options
    #79
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    Reality is the quality or state of being real. Real is the opposite of imaginary, abstract or virtual. While in the context of the dynamic nature of human understanding this is a continuous spectrum rather than a discrete binary pair, all of your arguments and propositions lie in the realm of the imaginary. Even your stalemate is in an imaginary game of chess where you seem to fail to realise that you're the only one playing.

    "What I think is the spectrum of reality is the spectrum of realiity

    Fewer words smacl.

    Now getting beyond your belief system. For I know what your belief is long since.


  • Options
    #80
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Anyway. Back to our discussion. Delusion vs blindness.

    But surely as per your thread title his opinion matters?
    Bit rude to dismiss it like that no?
    Although pleasing to see you can be brief in your comments.


  • Options
    #81
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    But lacking this far, in substance.
    That would be an understatement.

    On a separate question - in the past, you've mentioned I think that you're an engineer who works in software. Do you approach your professional responsibilities as an engineer with the same nihilistic attitude with which you support your theological claims?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,872 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm sure you believe in the theory of evolution. A theory so well established it is considered as known. Yet we know theories can be overturned. How can what is known not be known in the event of overturning? Well, it being a belief enormously undergirded unto it being known is how you know.

    It's more than a bit much to be going on about theories being overturned by evidence, when your theory is only one among many thousands of them, and not one of them has any shred of evidence for them whatsoever.

    I know you won't like that. But that's your problem to solve

    Your claiming to know rather than to believe is entirely meh, it doesn't change what I think about your beliefs one bit. Congratulations on proving that one part of your 'knowledge' is wrong, however.

    It wasn't intended as an insult.

    Whatever about your intent, it implies that non-believers are lesser humans in some way.

    You will mock

    No.
    Wrong again.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #83
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,872 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Because I know the score.

    ...and we're back to empty assertion again.

    As Robindch has implied, I'm quite sure that you apply logic, reason and evidence in all areas of your day to day life - except one.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,637 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Anyway. Back to our discussion. Delusion vs blindness.

    Or in your case, blindness and delusion.


  • Options
    #85
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    JayZeus wrote: »
    Or in your case, blindness and delusion.

    MOD

    Less of this please. Restrict your comments to the post not the poster. Thanking you


  • Options
    #86
    LaFuton
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 784 ✭✭✭LaFuton


    i just read through most of this thread, out of genuine interest and alot of finely written articulate posts

    but it seems (imho} seems everyone is allowed to say there's no God, "imaginary" "make believe" even "nonsense" some of the words used

    calling the Holy Bible "folklore"

    nobody is pulled on asserting these with their certainty

    OP seems to get it for insisting he is a believer and like most believers its sorta a knowing feeling

    i think people should be more respectful of the faithful, (not the nutbag zealots obvz) but good folk like our old wans and grandparents

    especially in Ireland as Celtic Christianity was one of the finest and liberal iterations of faith, look it up folks, v interesting.

    peace
    (ex theology student who abandoned monkhood)


  • Options
    #87
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    LaFuton wrote: »
    but it seems (imho} seems everyone is allowed to say there's no God, "imaginary" "make believe" even "nonsense" some of the words used calling the Holy Bible "folklore" nobody is pulled on asserting these with their certainty

    Human language, like English, often works like this. We speak in certainties and absolutes even when not ENTIRELY certain or absolute. Often this is because that is how the language works.

    Often too it is because it is simply shorter and clearer to speak that way. It is easier to say "There is not god" than it is to say "I recognise the minute possibility there is a god, but also recognise that the quantity of argument, evidence, data and reasoning offered by theists to substantiate this idea to date is precisely and exactly ZERO. So we can and should operate under the functional premise there is no god in play here.".

    Rather than complain people are talking in certainties therefore, it is often more helpful to engage in discourse with them and unpack their beliefs and see what they actually think and feel and believe. You will very often find atheists like myself expand upon our position and be clearer and more descriptive of our actual positions on request. In contrast however you have seen that when we engage with our resident theist on the matter, no further clarifications, arguments, evidence, data, or reasoning is forthcoming. Just a restatement of his original assertions and a cloud of obfuscation.

    So in short no, I would not say with ABSOLUTE certainty that there is no good or the Bible is just a work of fiction. I say it with FUNCTIONAL certainty, given that there simply is no substantiation of any type that they are anything but fiction and imaginary entities.
    LaFuton wrote: »
    OP seems to get it for insisting he is a believer and like most believers its sorta a knowing feeling

    In fairness, though I have kept my interaction with the OP to a minimum intentionally, I think the reason he "gets it" from the other users here as you put it is not at all because he insists he is a believer. I think in fact if that was all he insisted, most users would have ignored him entirely.

    You are painting only half the actual picture here.

    No I think he "gets it" because he went one step further than this and derided the skeptic of his position too. Insisting they were just "making excuses" or were "being wilful" in their "denial", "lying" because we are "unruly, destructive and hateful", and that objections to his assertions are "truly erroneous, truly mad".

    Further he did not, as you put it, claim that HE knows that a god exists either. If you read the very title of the OP he was claiming WE already know it too. He was not at all insisting HE is a believer. He was insisting WE are. And I can see why that baited some responses from some users here.

    In contrast most users have been highly civil in response so it is interesting which way you admonish the thread for where respect should go. A string of invective against the skeptic exists in the OP which was NOT returned by the majority of users. An OP which is basically the 700 word manifesto version of the OPs chosen username. Your admoinishments in their selective bias therefore remind me of this.
    LaFuton wrote: »
    i think people should be more respectful of the faithful

    Nearly all users here already are entirely respectful of the faithful. They are just not respectful of the faith. Many here live by the mantra, phrased often differently but amounting to "Respect people, not ideas". We would even respect the "nutbag zealots" as you put it, because they are PEOPLE too. We just would not respect their ideas.

    Alas many people conflate the two. They see an attack on an idea, or lack of respect from an idea, to be the same as an attack on the person who HOLDS that idea. That is their error, not ours. We can certainly explain the difference to them but if they insist on clinging to the conflation all the time, and taking offence on behalf of their ideas, or the ideas of others.... then the fault and the blame is entirely their own.

    As for "old wans" I have more respect for them than that. I do not see old people as delicate little flowers requiring our protection and dancing on tip toe around their sensibilities. But strong experienced wise people who I can engage with every bit as robustly on interesting topics as I can anyone middle aged.
    LaFuton wrote: »
    especially in Ireland as Celtic Christianity was one of the finest and liberal iterations of faith

    You will have to clarify what you mean here as I am not sure what you feel elevates local iterations of the Christian faith over global versions. Especially when one looks at the horrors of the Catholic Religion and those perpetrated by the Catholic Church in it's name. Exactly what unique or particular local qualities do you think are interesting or relevant in this context?


  • Options
    #88
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,708 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    LaFuton wrote: »
    i just read through most of this thread, out of genuine interest and alot of finely written articulate posts

    but it seems (imho} seems everyone is allowed to say there's no God, "imaginary" "make believe" even "nonsense" some of the words used

    calling the Holy Bible "folklore"

    nobody is pulled on asserting these with their certainty

    OP seems to get it for insisting he is a believer and like most believers its sorta a knowing feeling

    i think people should be more respectful of the faithful, (not the nutbag zealots obvz) but good folk like our old wans and grandparents

    especially in Ireland as Celtic Christianity was one of the finest and liberal iterations of faith, look it up folks, v interesting.

    peace
    (ex theology student who abandoned monkhood)

    Mod: Welcome to the A&A forum. Please take a moment to read the charter and note there is a specific thread for feedback. As a rule of thumb here, respect is due to the individual poster but not their opinions or beliefs and we have no problem with robust criticism of ideas once it does not involve personal abuse

    From a personal point of view, those who look for respect of their belief system should start by according it to others. In this case the OP has come onto an atheist forum openly admitting that they are here to save souls. This is obviously disrespectful of the position held by most regular members of this forum and as such fully deserves the derision it is accorded.

    Christianity has a long tradition of trying to impose its belief system on others while writing off indigenous local belief systems as folklore. That many people of other traditions regard Christian mythology as nonsense and its traditions as folklore is hardly surprising nor something it is in any position to complain about. Personally I follow the secularist ideals of "freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion". If you want me to respect your religious beliefs, trying to ram them down my throat is the wrong way to go about it.


  • Options
    #89
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    LaFuton wrote: »
    i think people should be more respectful of the faithful

    As already pointed out, this is a atheist forum for the most part,

    Coming into the forum and referring to atheist as lesser human's isn't respectful.
    Try going into the motor forum and calling all motorist dicks and see what the reception is.

    As already pointed out, people have respected the OP but we sure as heck don't have to respect a story he choose to believe in as fact.


  • Options
    #90
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    You will have to clarify what you mean here as I am not sure what you feel elevates local iterations of the Christian faith over global versions. Especially when one looks at the horrors of the Catholic Religion and those perpetrated by the Catholic Church in it's name. Exactly what unique or particular local qualities do you think are interesting or relevant in this context?
    He means Christianity as practiced in pre-Norman Gaelic Ireland, which was more monastically oriented, scholastic and liberal than Roman Catholicism elsewhere. Many historians would agree with this description, but it's not really relevant as it was long gone by the time of our grandparents. In fact it was gone in the 1400s, so of very little relevance to the faith of any elderly people today.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Again, what happens is when I claim someone is blind I can evidence the existence of sight and the existence of the things they are blind to. When a theist tells me I am blind, he is just saying it and can not evidence it at all.

    Which is no small difference. Still not a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning from you that a god exists. Just your being anti skepticism written on every post.

    That's a reiteration of something said already. Can we move on to what I said (and asked of you) subsequent to and in response to this?

    The blindness is complete sensory blindness to the realm being considered. No wheels on your wagon. How do you evidence a realm to somebody with complete sensory blindness?

    That is the question needing addressing.


    -


Advertisement