AJ,

I notice you’ve posted again since your last batch of posts. Seems as if you have a lot of time on your hands for internet discussions. These are only in response to your comments from yesterday.

[Yes, and opinions don’t come under that definition for the reasons I just mentioned. An opinion doesn’t say anything about how it was arrived at. The explanation does that and the explanation would describe the evidence.]

An opinion can lead to another opinion. An opinion is simply a view or belief about something, and of course a view or belief can lead to another view, and thus if shown to be plausible an opinion can be used to “demonstrate an assertion” .

The part you’re really missing is that the justification for opinions can comprise other opinions. Thus, opinions can comprise evidence, and whether directly or indirectly is beside the point.

[you failed to take into account the fact that external factors cause people to cherry-pick the good bits in the doctrines of their chosen religion and assumed that everyone who adhered to an inherently divisive belief system would necessarily be out for blood and war].

I’ve answered these specific points in earlier posts and I won’t be repeating myself.

On the general issue of war and religious belief, I’m confident enough in my arguments. I’m confident that most people will read our respective comments and agree with me that 1. Religion is not the primary cause of war- human nature is, and 2. The world would not be a more peaceful place without religion because human nature would dictate that people would simply fight over other things, and the small number of religious wars throughout history would be replaced and possibly exceeded by wars over other things.

(continued)

[You don’t know how others think and basing your argument on such an assumption is asinine.]

I can know what others think when they tell me what they think. There is nothing “asinine” about listening to what other people say. When people write their thoughts down and they choose to make themselves come across as dogmatic naturalists, then I can call them dogmatic naturalists.

[No, not so much “examine”, but the willingness to “change” them if the evidence dictates].

This distinction makes no difference to the arguments I’m making.

[No, it’s not, because the belief system has the ability to influence the epistemology greatly.]

Yes, they often do have that ability.

But this fails to even address my point that Christianity is a big enough tent to accommodate different epistemologies, much less undercut it.

You cannot assume that “Christianity” is a single belief system with one single view on epistemology. Issues such as epistemology are well and truly secondary issues within the big tent of Orthodox Christianity.

i aghree with traves point's
but first

AJ's quote...""uphill battle
to go from a supernatural occurrence
to an interventionist god""

i hate this word
''SUPER"..when its paired with..*'natural'

by its very nature..super MEANS abouve 'natural'
thus infering..the hand of god..or not/man

the conventional interventionist god...
""who knows..who you are,
cares about you,""

is as sure
as you knowing..who you are
and..by the fact..*you care for yourself

these are the 'natural logic/logus'
that indicates the good of god..[spirit]..
sustaining us ALL..our lives..from with-in...

thus knows the 'self'..[by inner/name]
and by nature/natural...who fascilitates
such basics needs..as 'caring for ourselves'

that we honour..by respecting others
serving others...as we would serve good of god

[loving god [nurture]..by
loving all natural/living being]

that science hasnt found*/nor created
cant even begin to replicate..in part or in whole

[ie the inner living spirit...
you call you..IS god's spirit sustaining its life/living]

not the one...said to..""answers your prayers""

thats done by spirits/semons
who also are sustained..their living
sustaining their freewill...to hellP..or hinder you
according to our collective wills/loves/inclinations/works

sustained to live
by the good acts of life

a good who...""minds what holy days you observe""
NOT IN THE LEAST...,

nor the one who...""minds what you do with your genitals""
except not hurt thy neighbours wife/daughters
as to hurt them...hurts good...[god]

nor the one...loved/hurt..""and minds
who you have sex with and in what way.""

as long as both stay happy and gay
thus that inner good of god..ensures the collective god
into a better day

IF..."naturalists refuse to consider opposing views,
then what does that matter..if they’ve been given no evidence""

nature is the state
of accepting what is...naturally here
in nature

its oppisite neds facts..that change the natural
into a supernatural...or a science

both of these need proof
but naturally a naturalist
accepts everything..*as being naturally..*what it is

NEEDS thus no proof
need not 'judge'..what is untruth

NEED not...""to consider,regarding those views?}}

NEED not.."Remember,""

only...""views""...what is*
..is not...

..""are not..*evidence of anything;""
except what...'is'

is because it is
here/now

thus NEEDS no..."evidence
helps to form...*views.""

thats for those..*UN*/natural
ists/scienctis/tisk-tisks
to prove..

not a naturalist
to disproove*

AJ Phillips

Just an observation regarding:

>> The day someone presents some demonstrable, measurable and verifiable evidence for the supernatural, you can start making claims of dogmatism .. <<

Even if we found scientifically verifiable proof of "the supernatural" - which would of itself render the "super" entirely natural. This would not prove any religious dogma. The deity as described by the Abrahamic religions, in particular, is highly improbable given the lack of compassion and wisdom displayed by this deity in the biblical texts.

Religious fundamentalists better beware if they get what they wish for.... any superior being would not be amused by their treatment of non-believers and free-thinkers.

I’ve been following the thread with some interest but deliberately stayed out of it because it seemed to be churning the same old stuff. I cannot align myself with either Trav or AJ Phillips, but I can’t resist a quick comment.

AJ Phillips says: <<The day someone presents some demonstrable, measurable and verifiable evidence for the supernatural, you can start making claims of dogmatism but until then, any such claims will remain unfounded and not to mention, incredibly stupid.>>

LOL! The dogmatist denying dogmatically that he is dogmatic. Logical empiricism revealing its own arrogant will to power over the world.

As always, he demands that only the scientific approach to life can lead to awareness and understanding of reality. Anyone taking another approach is “incredibly stupid”.

Like AJ Phillips, I don’t accept the concept of “supernatural” either, but I’m still happy to be classed as a “Christian”. And it was not merely by logical consideration of empirical data that I arrived at that view about supernaturalism.

Therefore I must agree with Trav’s observation that: << ... Christianity is a big enough tent to accommodate different epistemologies... >>

I have lost track of who is where on this thread, and can only add the following.

An opinion can only become fact when conclusively supported and soundly proven by objective evidence, and mere weight of consensus can not satisfy this stipulation/requirement.

On a point of clarity:

Fred Smollett , amateur philosopher and part-time seer, part-time gardener of Kenosha, Wisconsin once mused, as follows:

“Truth is a perfect crystal, clear in every detail, beautiful of form, and revealing of all it has to offer;
Untruth is a fog, masking both truth and the path to its revelation; and,
Partial-truth is a chisel, chipping at and denying clarity, distorting the whole, and creating false paths and barriers to discovery.”

“And, you know”, Fred continued, ”truth is also a bit like an onion, the more you peel away to get at the centre of the thing, the more you get to realise that the whole is a far greater thing than the sum of its parts. Life’s a bit like that too, don’t you think?”

Fred may have something there.