SusanDoris the millstone

1141517192034

Comments

  • BroJames wrote: »
    @lilbuddha I recognise that there are differences, especially where one is talking about ‘a faith’, but I note that both definitions use the phrase ‘belief/ve in’, and what I am saying is that there isn’t a fundamental difference between belief in the safety or otherwise of a bridge and belief in God.

    You’re right, of course, that I can verify or falsify my belief, faith, or trust in the bridge by practical experiment. I don’t think my belief, faith or trust in God can be verified in the same way. To some extent this is because that belief finds support in the credibility of evidence for a claimed historical event, and a great deal of historical evidence of all kinds is not able to be tested experimentally.
    As we-re still in Hell, I will ask if you think there is one item of information gained by investigations, experiment and testing in the world of science, medicine, evolutionary biology, and I'll just bering in archaeology too, technology, micro-biology
    fineline wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Well, Christians are always saying to me that they don't need evidence, because they have faith.
    Exactly - and that kind of confidence*carries less weight these days. Fewer people are prepared to give that view a free pass - or, to use a phrase I used somewhere recently, a free rein.

    \*or, maybe, arrogance

    SusanDoris, what kind of free pass do you think we are asking for?

    Is it not arrogance to expect religious people to be answerable to your approval? Most religious people are just going about their business, and are not required to evidence their faith to you or anyone else.
    I thought it would be clear enough that my comment was a general one, not directed at posters here, nor at anybody else or group in particular.

  • Well, just a minor point, faith in God is faith in the supernatural. FFS, are there supernatural bridges?

    Yes! He's called JESUS!

    I'll get me coat...

    IJ

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    edited September 2018
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Well, Christians are always saying to me that they don't need evidence, because they have faith.
    Exactly - and that kind of confidence*carries less weight these days. Fewer people are prepared to give that view a free pass - or, to use a phrase I used somewhere recently, a free rein.

    \*or, maybe, arrogance

    SusanDoris, what kind of free pass do you think we are asking for?

    Is it not arrogance to expect religious people to be answerable to your approval? Most religious people are just going about their business, and are not required to evidence their faith to you or anyone else.

    I thought it would be clear enough that my comment was a general one, not directed at posters here, nor at anybody else or group in particular.

    Yes, that was clear, and my 'we' was also a general one, referring to religious people in general. My question still stands.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    @lilbuddha I recognise that there are differences, especially where one is talking about ‘a faith’, but I note that both definitions use the phrase ‘belief/ve in’, and what I am saying is that there isn’t a fundamental difference between belief in the safety or otherwise of a bridge and belief in God.
    I think there is and you acknowledge part of this below.
    You’re right, of course, that I can verify or falsify my belief, faith, or trust in the bridge by practical experiment. I don’t think my belief, faith or trust in God can be verified in the same way. To some extent this is because that belief finds support in the credibility of evidence for a claimed historical event, and a great deal of historical evidence of all kinds is not able to be tested experimentally.

  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Not using the most basic assumptions about engineering, dickwad.
    Actually there are, you contentious bellend. If they ask nicely, they are mostly treated nicely.
    Why are you being so thick? There are some basic assumptions about bridge building that everyone must accept to discuss how one failed. The end.
    Discussing Christianity doesn't require any knowledge at all because being a Christian doesn't. And that is part of why trust in engineering is different to faith in God.
    Why can't you get that through your dense skull into the tiny bit of space that isn't reserved for being a contentious dick, Fighty McFightface?

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    @SusanDoris you asked
    As we-re still in Hell, I will ask if you think there is one item of information gained by investigations, experiment and testing in the world of science, medicine, evolutionary biology, and I'll just bering in archaeology too, technology, micro-biology
    I take it that when you say ‘one item’ you mean ‘one item of evidence in support of my belief’.

    I think my answer is that none of the fields you mention offer evidence that either supports or contradicts my belief in God. My belief includes the idea that God has acted in history, most clearly in Jesus Christ, and I believe that there is evidence within the discipline of historical enquiry which supports that belief - though that is not one of the disciplines you have listed.
  • The reason is that God is a spirit! Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the little donkey he came to town in, is this stuff for real?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited September 2018
    @lilbuddha I think we may have to agree to disagree. I don’t think the nature of belief, as such, is different depending on whether the belief is verifiable by testing or not. I think belief is the same thing in either case.
  • The reason is that God is a spirit! Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the little donkey he came to town in, is this stuff for real?

    YES!

    (Well, the donkey is conjectural, as they didn't have buses in those days...)

    IJ

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    edited September 2018
    fineline wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Well, Christians are always saying to me that they don't need evidence, because they have faith.
    Exactly - and that kind of confidence*carries less weight these days. Fewer people are prepared to give that view a free pass - or, to use a phrase I used somewhere recently, a free rein.

    \*or, maybe, arrogance

    SusanDoris, what kind of free pass do you think we are asking for?

    Is it not arrogance to expect religious people to be answerable to your approval? Most religious people are just going about their business, and are not required to evidence their faith to you or anyone else.

    I thought it would be clear enough that my comment was a general one, not directed at posters here, nor at anybody else or group in particular.

    Yes, that was clear, and my 'we' was also a general one, referring to religious people in general. My question still stands.

    SusanDoris, I just remembered that you were previously having difficulty understanding how general comments about all Christians could be seen to apply to individual Christians here, so let me elaborate on my previous reply a bit.

    If Christians say to you that they don't need evidence, as they have faith, that may be an unsatisfactory answer to you, but so what? You asked out of curiosity, and they answered from their understanding, about something personal to them. They weren't obliged to answer at all. Saying you're not going to give their answer a free pass suggests Christians in general (which of course will include Christians here too) are somehow obliged to give you a satisfactory answer to get a free pass.

    So my question remains: what sort of free pass do you mean? Do you mean your approval? Or do you mean you will keep pestering them until they give you the answer you want, so the 'free pass' is you accepting their answer and leaving them alone?

    Both these options seem kind of warped to me, as if you assume Christians owe you something, and are answerable to you. I may of course be totally misreading, but it is not clear. So I would find it helpful if you would elaborate a bit on this free pass thing, and what you meant by it.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    @SusanDoris you asked
    As we-re still in Hell, I will ask if you think there is one item of information gained by investigations, experiment and testing in the world of science, medicine, evolutionary biology, and I'll just bering in archaeology too, technology, micro-biology
    I take it that when you say ‘one item’ you mean ‘one item of evidence in support of my belief’.

    I think my answer is that none of the fields you mention offer evidence that either supports or contradicts my belief in God. My belief includes the idea that God has acted in history, most clearly in Jesus Christ, and I believe that there is evidence within the discipline of historical enquiry which supports that belief - though that is not one of the disciplines you have listed.
    Actually, there is evidence* that a person called Jesus existed and preached. It isn't strong, though. And there is no proof he was HIM. The evidence for that is even less reliable.

    *Evidence ≠ proof
  • You didn't get my point that embracing non-theism might make you a better listener?

    Nontheistic friend, this is not necessarily my fight, but I'm afraid I cannot let this pass. SD quite recently described on this thread how she "listens" to these discussions. Her reader . . . reads . . . in . . . an . . . uninflected . . . monotone . . . with . . . no . . . emphasis . . . or . . . distinction . . . between . . . emotions . . . or . . . posters.

    In addition, to review something discussed earlier, she must wade through minutes, perhaps hours, of material to retrieve the original.

    Wore, this very thread is starting to fragment into multiple subtopics between/among multiple subsets of posters, which must make it a nightmare from someone listening rather than reading to follow.

    Frankly, I wonder if the cause of making SD a better listener might not be better-served by taking up a Shiply collection for some improved technology which might enhance SD's access to the Ship. IOW, the problems here may lie as much with Synthetic Dave as they do with SusanDoris.

  • Drat. That should be "worse," not wore. Missed edit window.
  • The reason is that God is a spirit! Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the little donkey he came to town in, is this stuff for real?

    YES!

    (Well, the donkey is conjectural, as they didn't have buses in those days...)

    IJ

    So you are equating belief in the supernatural with belief in the natural world? Gordon Bennett. Where are the constraints?
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    I agree with Ohher that this thread must be a nightmare to listen to through Synthetic Dave - even reading it visually is confusing! Earlier, I just went for a quick bath, and when I returned there were 25 new posts.

    Thing is, on the one hand, we have people addressing the actual issue, which is SD's repetition of the same question in lots of threads, and looking constructively at how her questions could be better directed and dealt with in their own threads. And on the other hand, we have people discussing the actual ideas SD wants to discuss, which is all very interesting, but this could surely go into a new Purg thread! And then we have the people intent on insulting SD, as this is Hell where we can insult, but since SD has specifically said she doesn't engage with insults (a decision which I totally respect), these seem a bit pointless.
  • Ohher: you miss my point about 'listen' methinks. How many times does one (SD) need to be told that their style is irritating before change is made? She doesn't need to go back in the thread to get the message. I believe she has heard it with her ears and understood it. The way I read the OP on the thread that she started about the Ship's Christian perspective seems to me to suggest that the message has not yet been acted upon.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    The reason is that God is a spirit! Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the little donkey he came to town in, is this stuff for real?

    YES!

    (Well, the donkey is conjectural, as they didn't have buses in those days...)

    IJ

    So you are equating belief in the supernatural with belief in the natural world? Gordon Bennett. Where are the constraints?

    Sorry - my Awful Evangelical past must be rearing its ugly head...and my brain (what's left of it) is being fried by this thread. I need GIN.
    :cold_sweat:

    IJ

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Discussing Christianity doesn't require any knowledge at all because being a Christian doesn't.

    Just highlighting this, because it's a particularly special kind of stupid.
  • The reason is that God is a spirit! Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the little donkey he came to town in, is this stuff for real?

    YES!

    (Well, the donkey is conjectural, as they didn't have buses in those days...)

    IJ

    So you are equating belief in the supernatural with belief in the natural world? Gordon Bennett. Where are the constraints?

    Sorry - my Awful Evangelical past must be rearing its ugly head...and my brain (what's left of it) is being fried by this thread. I need GIN.
    :cold_sweat:

    IJ

    No problem, brother. It just seems that the logical end-point of this, is that belief in anything is the same as belief in anything else. The only distinction seems to be that I really really believe in X, and your belief in Y is just stupid. Or I suppose, it's true because I say so. So it goes.
  • The reason is that God is a spirit! Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and the little donkey he came to town in, is this stuff for real?

    YES!

    (Well, the donkey is conjectural, as they didn't have buses in those days...)

    IJ

    So you are equating belief in the supernatural with belief in the natural world? Gordon Bennett. Where are the constraints?

    Sorry - my Awful Evangelical past must be rearing its ugly head...and my brain (what's left of it) is being fried by this thread. I need GIN.
    :cold_sweat:

    IJ

    No problem, brother. It just seems that the logical end-point of this, is that belief in anything is the same as belief in anything else. The only distinction seems to be that I really really believe in X, and your belief in Y is just stupid. Or I suppose, it's true because I say so. So it goes.

    Ah well - that pretty much sums up this interminable thread, no?

    IJ
  • Ohher: you miss my point about 'listen' methinks. How many times does one (SD) need to be told that their style is irritating before change is made? She doesn't need to go back in the thread to get the message. I believe she has heard it with her ears and understood it. The way I read the OP on the thread that she started about the Ship's Christian perspective seems to me to suggest that the message has not yet been acted upon.

    No, I understood (and largely agree with) your actual point: SD does in fact seem sometimes to sidestep issues and respond to "bits" of people's posts without addressing the main ideas. She does seem to be slow in changing her behaviors (well, she's getting on; that happens). Her intrusions sometimes seem deliberate (though that's speculative), and sometimes perhaps are purely accidental (I wouldn't know).

    But let's also bear in mind the difficult conditions she's working within. Sighted posters needn't remember whose name was at the start of some lengthy post; we can see the avatar. Sighted posters can see visual markers between quoted material and the poster's own comments; Synthetic Dave apparently just drones on from one block of text to the next. I don't know, but do suspect, that SD is juggling as fast as she can, and while continuing to encourage changed behavior, we might also cut her a bit of slack.

    Or see if any improved versions of Synthetic Dave have come on the market.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Ohher: you miss my point about 'listen' methinks. How many times does one (SD) need to be told that their style is irritating before change is made? She doesn't need to go back in the thread to get the message. I believe she has heard it with her ears and understood it. The way I read the OP on the thread that she started about the Ship's Christian perspective seems to me to suggest that the message has not yet been acted upon.

    Change is genuinely hard for anyone, if you've been communicating a certain way all you're life, and harder as you get older. From what SD is saying, she is trying to understand, and she is genuinely working on creating new threads in Purg to focus on her preferred topics.

    To be honest, she is way more patient than I would be if this thread were directed at me - I think by now, if it were me, I'd have reached a point of 'Bugger the lot of you, you pretentious, self-important wankers!' (Not applying this insult to anyone, but it's what Hell threads can look like sometimes.)

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    ISTM that whatever belief is ‘in’ the belief itself is qualitatively the same thing. The thing believed in may be true or false, it may be evidenced scientifically, historically, or not at all. That may make belief easier or harder, but it doesn’t (IMHO) change the nature of belief as such. As lilbuddha rightly remarks,
    Evidence ≠ proof
    I would say that I often operate on the basis of the strong evidence of frequent experience (e.g. that a chair or a bridge will bear my weight) but that actual proof only comes from direct experience in many instances i.e. experimentally or experientially. (The exceptions are mathematical and logical proofs.)
  • I always thought that belief without evidence is faith, and belief against evidence is delusion. Hence religious faith is not a delusion, as it doesn't contradict any evidence, but if I believe I'm Napoleon, that is delusional, as I didn't recently fight the battle of Austerlitz. Hence, Dawkins' book title is an error.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    I would have said that faith is not necessarily belief without evidence.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Discussing Christianity doesn't require any knowledge at all because being a Christian doesn't.

    Just highlighting this, because it's a particularly special kind of stupid.
    How so? One can be a Christian and not know shit about it. I’d wager fewer examine their belief system than do, in any religion.
    And yet, being somehow makes one’s argument more real?
  • Well, just a minor point, faith in God is faith in the supernatural. FFS, are there supernatural bridges?

    Yes! He's called JESUS!
    And here I was thinking Bifröst.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Discussing Christianity doesn't require any knowledge at all because being a Christian doesn't.
    If one knows nothing at all about Christianity how can one discuss it? How can one say anything halfway intelligent or applicable? Any discussion of Christianity is going to be a discussion of some subtopic or point, for instance, What should I do about Church? Well if you didn't know what church was, or that Christians in general attend churches, and the gold standard is weekly, all of which are KNOWLEDGE, how can you contribute to that thread? Your generalization is ridiculous.
  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    Eventually one person snaps and makes a thread telling the person she is being very annoying, and then several people agree, and everyone tries to explain to her that it's not that they're anti-religion, or that they haven't considered her questions, but they are simply trying to have conversations about very specific scientific topics.

    SusanDoris, in that sort of scenario, would people's frustrations make sense to you? And does this help in any way, as you consider creating a new thread to ask the specific questions you are interested in?
    Thank you - your posts are always very thoughtful I find. That was an interesting read - much appreciated - and actually, I have worked all that out for myself by now.

    Your posts show no sign that you have worked that out for yourself.

  • Moo wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    Eventually one person snaps and makes a thread telling the person she is being very annoying, and then several people agree, and everyone tries to explain to her that it's not that they're anti-religion, or that they haven't considered her questions, but they are simply trying to have conversations about very specific scientific topics.

    SusanDoris, in that sort of scenario, would people's frustrations make sense to you? And does this help in any way, as you consider creating a new thread to ask the specific questions you are interested in?
    Thank you - your posts are always very thoughtful I find. That was an interesting read - much appreciated - and actually, I have worked all that out for myself by now.

    Your posts show no sign that you have worked that out for yourself.

    While what Moo says rings true, can we bear in mind that this thread is 17 pages long, is crammed with tangents and sub-fights having little to do with Thunderbunk's original complaint against SusanDoris, that SusanDoris is working her way through all this fooferah (relevant or not to the changes she's being urged to make) under circumstances that most of us would find trying, and started 12 days ago?

    As someone upthread noted, change is hard. It often takes time, too.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Discussing Christianity doesn't require any knowledge at all because being a Christian doesn't.
    If one knows nothing at all about Christianity how can one discuss it? How can one say anything halfway intelligent or applicable? Any discussion of Christianity is going to be a discussion of some subtopic or point, for instance, What should I do about Church? Well if you didn't know what church was, or that Christians in general attend churches, and the gold standard is weekly, all of which are KNOWLEDGE, how can you contribute to that thread? Your generalization is ridiculous.
    My generalisation is spot on. Christianity doesn't have any knowledge requirements, therefore knowledge isn't required to participate. Knowledge is the key to an informed discussion. But a Christian POV is a POV of a Christian, informed or not. Getting dipped in a pool by your parents is the only qualification needed in some sects. And Purg doesn't have any entrance tests. Information is the key, not membership, to most discussions.
  • You just contradicted yourself. If information is not required, how can it be key?
  • mousethief wrote: »
    You just contradicted yourself. If information is not required, how can it be key?
    It is the key to informed discussion, which I said. The exception I implied is experience. I could argue chapter and verse about Orthodoxy, if I have the knowledge, but I could never tell anyone what it felt like to be Orthodox. I could speculate on how it might feel, I could extrapolate from my possibly related experience, but it would remain speculation.
  • Information is the key, not membership, to most discussions.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Information is the key, not membership, to most discussions.
    Really mousethief? You cannot bother to connect the dots within a post? Each sentence must contain qualifications, even if the informing information is only 4 sentences away?
  • FFS you two, get a room. Or at least stop making SusanDoris wade through this crap, which has nothing to do with her.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    FFS you two, get a room. Or at least stop making SusanDoris wade through this crap, which has nothing to do with her.
    Whilst I do not want to cause her any discomfort, this cannot be a consideration on every thread on which she is involved. But, as this one is specifically about her, I'll stop.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...I don't think most of you who are arguing this are stupid. ...

    How generous of you.



  • I have read through new posts and will be back later, but just a note first in defence of synthetic Dave! It is programmed to read like a normal voice, with pauses for commas and voice dropping for full stops and some slight rise and fall, but without any reference to content of course, i.e. not a monotone.
  • Well, well, well. The troll is well and truly fed.
  • BroJames wrote: »
    @SusanDoris you asked
    As we-re still in Hell, I will ask if you think there is one item of information gained by investigations, experiment and testing in the world of science, medicine, evolutionary biology, and I'll just bering in archaeology too, technology, micro-biology
    I take it that when you say ‘one item’ you mean ‘one item of evidence in support of my belief’.

    I think my answer is that none of the fields you mention offer evidence that either supports or contradicts my belief in God. My belief includes the idea that God has acted in history, most clearly in Jesus Christ, and I believe that there is evidence within the discipline of historical enquiry which supports that belief - though that is not one of the disciplines you have listed.
    Yes, I think that's it, more or less. You have an abundance of evidence for beliefs but it is all subjective , isn't it, and lacks that one - dare I say it :) - fact to change the world.

    If any religion other than Christianity tried to take over this country's background CofE, then I'd be there on the front lines, defending it. If things are going to change, and I strongly believe they will, then it has to happen gradually and, one hopes, peacefully.

  • 44 comments since I went to bed last night! This thread certainly goes on and on!

    @nontheistfriend I have bought the book you recommended and I’m finding it fascinating.

    :)
  • on and on and on and on
  • mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Discussing Christianity doesn't require any knowledge at all because being a Christian doesn't.
    If one knows nothing at all about Christianity how can one discuss it? How can one say anything halfway intelligent or applicable? Any discussion of Christianity is going to be a discussion of some subtopic or point, for instance, What should I do about Church? Well if you didn't know what church was, or that Christians in general attend churches, and the gold standard is weekly, all of which are KNOWLEDGE, how can you contribute to that thread? Your generalization is ridiculous.

    It depends on the subject. Asking questions is a good way of furthering discussion when you have little/no knowledge of the subject.

    But I would never jump into an Ecclesiantics thread and ask ‘what is a canticle?’ as that would be disruptive. Reading the thread will give clues, or google can be your friend. However, in a more general thread questions are good if knowledge of the subject is small but interest in the subject is big.

  • Many apologies for messing up the tags. I hope it is more or less clear.
    fineline wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Well, Christians are always saying to me that they don't need evidence, because they have faith.
    Exactly - and that kind of confidence*carries less weight these days. Fewer people are prepared to give that view a free pass - or, to use a phrase I used somewhere recently, a free rein.

    \*or, maybe, arrogance

    SusanDoris, what kind of free pass do you think we are asking for?
    I don't think it is being asked for, I think it is, or rather, was, a given. As I have mentioned - when I was young,you would never have heard anyone on radio, particularly as it was nowhere near as available as now, challenging Christian beliefs nor the newspapers. And although there might have been, must have been, exchanges of views among philosophers, and that would have been by letter!, the believers did not have to defend their God beliefs. They had a free pass. That has changed massively during the past two to three decades.
    Is it not arrogance to expect religious people to be answerable to your approval?
    Taking the you as a general one, yes, but that is not happening. There are documentaries about ancient stone circles, about archaeology in other countries, about buildings connected with many religions, about new discoveries in medicine, etc. Do the faith believers come along and counter these with better objective evidence? No. And from that, I conclude that the gradual change that I believe will come about will be through education, i.e. verifiable, estabished evidence. And just to make another thing clear!! It is human nature I think to understand there will always be faith believers - who have a right to hold those beliefs. My 'red line' is to do with educating children, but that is for another time and topic.
    Most religious people are just going about their business, and are not required to evidence their faith to you or anyone else.
    I absolutely agree with this last point.
    I thought it would be clear enough that my comment was a general one, not directed at posters here, nor at anybody else or group in particular.

    Yes, that was clear, and my 'we' was also a general one, referring to religious people in general. My question still stands.

    SusanDoris, I just remembered that you were previously having difficulty understanding how general comments about all Christians could be seen to apply to individual Christians here, so let me elaborate on my previous reply a bit.

    If Christians say to you that they don't need evidence, as they have faith, that may be an unsatisfactory answer to you, but so what? You asked out of curiosity, and they answered from their understanding, about something personal to them. They weren't obliged to answer at all. Saying you're not going to give their answer a free pass suggests Christians in general (which of course will include Christians here too) are somehow obliged to give you a satisfactory answer to get a free pass.

    So my question remains: what sort of free pass do you mean? Do you mean your approval? Or do you mean you will keep pestering them until they give you the answer you want, so the 'free pass' is you accepting their answer and leaving them alone?

    Both these options seem kind of warped to me, as if you assume Christians owe you something, and are answerable to you. I may of course be totally misreading, but it is not clear. So I would find it helpful if you would elaborate a bit on this free pass thing, and what you meant by it.
    I hope the previous part of my post has explained, but if not I will try again, but I have probably messed up the tags quite enough here so I'll stop and post!
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    Many apologies for messing up the tags. I hope it is more or less clear.
    fineline wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Well, Christians are always saying to me that they don't need evidence, because they have faith.
    Exactly - and that kind of confidence*carries less weight these days. Fewer people are prepared to give that view a free pass - or, to use a phrase I used somewhere recently, a free rein.

    \*or, maybe, arrogance

    SusanDoris, what kind of free pass do you think we are asking for?
    I don't think it is being asked for, I think it is, or rather, was, a given. As I have mentioned - when I was young,you would never have heard anyone on radio, particularly as it was nowhere near as available as now, challenging Christian beliefs nor the newspapers. And although there might have been, must have been, exchanges of views among philosophers, and that would have been by letter!, the believers did not have to defend their God beliefs. They had a free pass. That has changed massively during the past two to three decades.
    Is it not arrogance to expect religious people to be answerable to your approval?
    Taking the you as a general one, yes, but that is not happening. There are documentaries about ancient stone circles, about archaeology in other countries, about buildings connected with many religions, about new discoveries in medicine, etc. Do the faith believers come along and counter these with better objective evidence? No. And from that, I conclude that the gradual change that I believe will come about will be through education, i.e. verifiable, estabished evidence. And just to make another thing clear!! It is human nature I think to understand there will always be faith believers - who have a right to hold those beliefs. My 'red line' is to do with educating children, but that is for another time and topic.
    Most religious people are just going about their business, and are not required to evidence their faith to you or anyone else.
    I absolutely agree with this last point.
    I thought it would be clear enough that my comment was a general one, not directed at posters here, nor at anybody else or group in particular.

    Yes, that was clear, and my 'we' was also a general one, referring to religious people in general. My question still stands.

    SusanDoris, I just remembered that you were previously having difficulty understanding how general comments about all Christians could be seen to apply to individual Christians here, so let me elaborate on my previous reply a bit.

    If Christians say to you that they don't need evidence, as they have faith, that may be an unsatisfactory answer to you, but so what? You asked out of curiosity, and they answered from their understanding, about something personal to them. They weren't obliged to answer at all. Saying you're not going to give their answer a free pass suggests Christians in general (which of course will include Christians here too) are somehow obliged to give you a satisfactory answer to get a free pass.

    So my question remains: what sort of free pass do you mean? Do you mean your approval? Or do you mean you will keep pestering them until they give you the answer you want, so the 'free pass' is you accepting their answer and leaving them alone?

    Both these options seem kind of warped to me, as if you assume Christians owe you something, and are answerable to you. I may of course be totally misreading, but it is not clear. So I would find it helpful if you would elaborate a bit on this free pass thing, and what you meant by it.
    I hope the previous part of my post has explained, but if not I will try again, but I have probably messed up the tags quite enough here so I'll stop and post!
  • I give up!! I have written a long post with lots of comments and it seems to be still in the drafts (edit) area but won't post. I'll try again later.
  • It looks as if your post is here, just the quote tags have messed up. Trying to sort out the @SusanDoris post above, I think it should look like this:

    Many apologies for messing up the tags. I hope it is more or less clear.
    fineline wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Well, Christians are always saying to me that they don't need evidence, because they have faith.
    Exactly - and that kind of confidence*carries less weight these days. Fewer people are prepared to give that view a free pass - or, to use a phrase I used somewhere recently, a free rein.

    \*or, maybe, arrogance

    SusanDoris, what kind of free pass do you think we are asking for?
    I don't think it is being asked for, I think it is, or rather, was, a given. As I have mentioned - when I was young,you would never have heard anyone on radio, particularly as it was nowhere near as available as now, challenging Christian beliefs nor the newspapers. And although there might have been, must have been, exchanges of views among philosophers, and that would have been by letter!, the believers did not have to defend their God beliefs. They had a free pass. That has changed massively during the past two to three decades.
    fineline wrote: »
    Is it not arrogance to expect religious people to be answerable to your approval?
    Taking the you as a general one, yes, but that is not happening. There are documentaries about ancient stone circles, about archaeology in other countries, about buildings connected with many religions, about new discoveries in medicine, etc. Do the faith believers come along and counter these with better objective evidence? No. And from that, I conclude that the gradual change that I believe will come about will be through education, i.e. verifiable, estabished evidence. And just to make another thing clear!! It is human nature I think to understand there will always be faith believers - who have a right to hold those beliefs. My 'red line' is to do with educating children, but that is for another time and topic.
    fineline wrote: »
    Most religious people are just going about their business, and are not required to evidence their faith to you or anyone else.
    I absolutely agree with this last point.
    fineline wrote: »
    I thought it would be clear enough that my comment was a general one, not directed at posters here, nor at anybody else or group in particular

    Yes, that was clear, and my 'we' was also a general one, referring to religious people in general. My question still stands.
    fineline wrote: »
    SusanDoris, I just remembered that you were previously having difficulty understanding how general comments about all Christians could be seen to apply to individual Christians here, so let me elaborate on my previous reply a bit.

    If Christians say to you that they don't need evidence, as they have faith, that may be an unsatisfactory answer to you, but so what? You asked out of curiosity, and they answered from their understanding, about something personal to them. They weren't obliged to answer at all. Saying you're not going to give their answer a free pass suggests Christians in general (which of course will include Christians here too) are somehow obliged to give you a satisfactory answer to get a free pass.

    So my question remains: what sort of free pass do you mean? Do you mean your approval? Or do you mean you will keep pestering them until they give you the answer you want, so the 'free pass' is you accepting their answer and leaving them alone?

    Both these options seem kind of warped to me, as if you assume Christians owe you something, and are answerable to you. I may of course be totally misreading, but it is not clear. So I would find it helpful if you would elaborate a bit on this free pass thing, and what you meant by it.

    I hope the previous part of my post has explained, but if not I will try again, but I have probably messed up the tags quite enough here so I'll stop and post!
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    @SusanDoris you asked
    As we-re still in Hell, I will ask if you think there is one item of information gained by investigations, experiment and testing in the world of science, medicine, evolutionary biology, and I'll just bering in archaeology too, technology, micro-biology
    I take it that when you say ‘one item’ you mean ‘one item of evidence in support of my belief’.

    I think my answer is that none of the fields you mention offer evidence that either supports or contradicts my belief in God. My belief includes the idea that God has acted in history, most clearly in Jesus Christ, and I believe that there is evidence within the discipline of historical enquiry which supports that belief - though that is not one of the disciplines you have listed.
    Actually, there is evidence* that a person called Jesus existed and preached. It isn't strong, though. And there is no proof he was HIM. The evidence for that is even less reliable.

    *Evidence ≠ proof
    fineline wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Well, Christians are always saying to me that they don't need evidence, because they have faith.
    Exactly - and that kind of confidence*carries less weight these days. Fewer people are prepared to give that view a free pass - or, to use a phrase I used somewhere recently, a free rein.

    \*or, maybe, arrogance

    SusanDoris, what kind of free pass do you think we are asking for?
    I'll see if I can remember what I posted which got lost. I can just hear a few voices say, 'Why bother?' !!
    Firstly, I do not think a 'free pass' I asked for. When I was young, there would not have been radio presenters who would have challenged the CofE's authority and privileged position, nor wold the newspapers. There must have been debates going on, but I expect these would have been in small circles, and possibly by letter. Since then, thre have been documentaries about all aspects of science, astronomy, archaeology, etc, as well as programmes about religions, the buildings and connected art, and some interviews with religious leaders - in other words much access to verifiable information. Have religious leaders come back with documentaries with better, more reliably checkable information? No.
    At this point, I mention again that I will spring to the defence of those who deny people's right to believe what they choose, but my red line concerns children and education, but that is a topic for another time and place.
    Is it not arrogance to expect religious people to be answerable to your approval?
    Of course it would be, if that is what I thought or did.
    Most religious people are just going about their business, and are not required to evidence their faith to you or anyone else.
    Absolutely agree.

    Hope that comes out okay.

    I thought it would be clear enough that my comment was a general one, not directed at posters here, nor at anybody else or group in particular.

    Yes, that was clear, and my 'we' was also a general one, referring to religious people in general. My question still stands.

    SusanDoris, I just remembered that you were previously having difficulty understanding how general comments about all Christians could be seen to apply to individual Christians here, so let me elaborate on my previous reply a bit.

    If Christians say to you that they don't need evidence, as they have faith, that may be an unsatisfactory answer to you, but so what? You asked out of curiosity, and they answered from their understanding, about something personal to them. They weren't obliged to answer at all. Saying you're not going to give their answer a free pass suggests Christians in general (which of course will include Christians here too) are somehow obliged to give you a satisfactory answer to get a free pass.

    So my question remains: what sort of free pass do you mean? Do you mean your approval? Or do you mean you will keep pestering them until they give you the answer you want, so the 'free pass' is you accepting their answer and leaving them alone?

    Both these options seem kind of warped to me, as if you assume Christians owe you something, and are answerable to you. I may of course be totally misreading, but it is not clear. So I would find it helpful if you would elaborate a bit on this free pass thing, and what you meant by it.

  • Has this thread been closed or something? I have re-written my reply to FineLine but can't seem to be able to post it.
This discussion has been closed.