Ok, let me try another tact. Suposing I said to you:

                                               Light particles (photons) from the sun were detected in a mine that is 2km deep. In other words, the entire mine is being illuminated by natural light straight from the sun.

Would would be minded to (initially) accept or reject this claim and why?  How would you arrive at any decision you take?

huxley2:

Ok, let me try another tacts. Suposing I said to you:

Light particles (photons) from the sun were detected in a mine that is 2km deep.

Would would be minded to (initially) accept or reject this claim and why? How would you arrive at any decision you take?

Edit:

I don't know if resorting to such tact is helping the discussion. Perhaps it may be more helpful to state precisely where you're going.

For the latest above, I would still arrive at any inference in the same way as discussed previously - such an asssertion would be considered independent of anyone's worldview. Whether or not anyone peremptorily rejects or affirms it, is not the issue.

I may come back later in the p.m. to see developments in the thread - if not, then tomorrow.

pilgrim.1:

Edit:

I don't know if resorting to such tact is helping the discussion. Perhaps it may be more helpful to state precisely where you're going.

For the latest above, I would still arrive at any inference in the same way as discussed previously - such an asssertion would be considered independent of anyone's worldview. Whether or not anyone peremptorily rejects or affirms it, is not the issue.

I may come back later in the p.m. to see developments in the thread - if not, then tomorrow.

Well the point I was making was that the statement is by and large what everyone does and and standard procedure everywhere:

Let me tell to the process of believing in anything. First you get a piece of information, either directly ( first hand account) or indirectly, you compare the information with your own store of information (what you accept to be possible) and personal experience (belief system). If the said information agrees largely with your own belief system, you take the story as true, but if the information given is either insufficient or contradicts with your own store of experience and stored information, you reject the whole story.

I said I accepted it in principle, except for some minor terminological looseness. But your position was that it is blatantly wrong, which I oppose. My problem with the statement was the use of the words "own belief system".

The statement, as it stand is generally true for most people. For instance, if I said to you that I just saw a ghost or and angel, you would be minded to believe me because in your "own belief system" ghosts and angels exists. But if I said, "I just saw Mohammed or a Jinn" you are most unlikely to believe me.

Now, how did you arrive at your position? Obviously, by referring to "your own belief system".

When Pastor Adeboye claims that Jesus spoke to he, do you think a moslem is likely to believe him?


My only quibble with the comment was the use of the words "own belief system", which as I have admitted is generally true is not very "objective" and therefore lacks generality. To make is more precise and therefore objective, I would tend to use the phrase;

a universally accepted standard system

Much as you hate to admit, that is why you found it hard to address my last question above. It is universally accepted that light particles are not capable of penetrating through layers of solid objects. How do we know this? - Because, solids objects reflect light. So you would intially reject the claim based on the universally accepted standard "that solid objects reflect light particles"

Note: to have a "universally accepted standard system" does not mean that one has the TRUTH. Everyone uses one of standard, or they may use their private or some communal one. For instance, When I said;

I have just seen Jesus walking on the street past my front door.


You are likely to reject this base on your "own belief system" which is Christianity, according to which Jesus is currently not on earth. But did you admit that? Far from it. This is what you said:

It is different from the above because that is a statement that has not materialized into an argument. If I were to then take it as an argument, I would first have to ask if it was "constructed along the lines" of the same weakness I observed earlier - basically, just because I have not experienced 'Jesus walking on the street past my front door' does not make your claim a "false" or an "impossible" one. Nor can I say that it is "true" - and independent of anyone's worldview(s) (mine included), your claim stands on its own merit and not on whether or not you're an atheist or I am a Christian theist.

What the hell was that? Is there an sense in that comment at all? Some honesty would go a long way, my dear.

@huxley2,

huxley2:

Well the point I was making was that the statement is by and large what everyone does and and standard procedure everywhere:

I understood you the first time; and honestly, it does not seem to add anything to what we're both conversing about.

huxley2:

I said I accepted it in principle, except for some minor terminological looseness. But your position was that it is blatantly wrong, which I oppose. My problem with the statement was the use of the words "own belief system".

In 'principle' - I do not deny your premise, nor am I in any position to oppugn your rights to appealing to such an approach for arriving at your position. The point in mine is this: broadly speaking, it is a self-defeating premise for falsifiability (which is not contingent on someone's worldview). If, on the other hand, you're saying that I should base falsifiability on someone's worldview, would you be happy for me to reject your claims based on my own theistic outlook or rather consider your statements on their own merit independent of anyone's worldviews?

huxley2:

The statement, as it stand is generally true for most people. For instance, if I said to you that I just saw a ghost or and angel, you would be minded to believe me because in your "own belief system" ghosts and angels exists. But if I said, "I just saw Mohammed or a Jinn" you are most unlikely to believe me.

Now, how did you arrive at your position? Obviously, by referring to "your own belief system".

No, huxley2. Your problem is that you're narrowing the discussion on reality to conclusive bias. I do not think the reality of such things as ghosts and spirits should be dependent on anyone's dispositions - not mine nor anyone else's. That is precisely what I had been trying to share with you and several atheists on NL. Anyone could make a zillion and one other claims - but it is a different thing to come to any informed positions about such a reality or existence; and the falsifiability of such claims are (and should be) independent of anyone's worldview. This is the reason (in my view) that some atheists have come to be inclined to believing in the existence of such phenomena - not because they previously were holding to a belief in such things, but rather because they exposed to such experiences independent of anyone's worldviews.

huxley2:

When Pastor Adeboye claims that Jesus spoke to he, do you think a moslem is likely to believe him?

That Muslim may not believe him based on his own conclusive bias. Such would, however, not be the same thing as arriving at a concrete position of a fairness divorced from one's worldview.

huxley2:

My only quibble with the comment was the use of the words "own belief system", which as I have admitted is generally true is not very "objective" and therefore lacks generality.

That's it in a nutshell: it lacks generality - and this generality is what I've been inclined to more than anything else. I cannot peremptorily reject or affirm  anyone's claim on the basis of bending it back to my own preconceptions.

huxley2:

To make is more precise and therefore objective, I would tend to use the phrase;

a universally accepted standard system

Much as you hate to admit, that is why you found it hard to address my last question above. It is universally accepted that light particles are not capable of penetrating through layers of solid objects. How do we know this? - Because, solids objects reflect light. So you would intially reject the claim based on the universally accepted standard "that solid objects reflect light particles"

No, I did not find your question "hard", and perhaps you are missing the point in your own premise. I have no problem with any "universally accepted standard system", and would have quickly asserted the same thing as you did for light particles.

Just as in your previous example about a man surviving without a heart, the same "universally accepted standard system" would have made you reject that claim of anyone surviving without a heart - whereas, what you failed to take into consideration is that we cannot draw any hard or concrete conclusions that in all possible worlds there is NO ONE who has ever survived without a heart! Doctors know that the "universally standard" of which you speak is that people ought to have functional hearts to survive - so what happens when there are cases where people deviate from the "universal standard". . are they going to reject the anomaly just because it does not fit into the mold of their own concepts?

This is why I'm being careful here: one does not just make a conclusion based merely on "I-accept-it-according-to-its-fitness-to-my-own-bias". I don't know if you are saying that falsifiability is contingent upon that same idea.

huxley2:

Note: to have a "universally accepted standard system" does not mean that one has the TRUTH. Everyone uses one of standard, or they may use their private or some communal one. For instance, When I said;

I have just seen Jesus walking on the street past my front door.

You are likely to reject this base on your "own belief system" which is Christianity, according to which Jesus is currently not on earth. But did you admit that? Far from it.

Lol, huxley2. . . you just further weakned your position. If, for the sake of an argument, I were to evaluate your statement, it would be a contradiction to assert that because Jesus is not on earth, therefore He could not have appeared to anyone! What harrumph it would be on my part!

While some Christians may find it hard to believe the possibility of Jesus walking on anyone's street, it is not so for me. Even though He is positionally in heaven, my worldview based on the Bible does not argue that it is impossible for Him to appear to anyone on earth. There are many verses that show the possibility of His appearing to people on earth - independent of what anyone (myself included); so to have arrived at your idea about my reaction is unnecessary. Whether or not I reject it does not make your claim a "false" one - the validity of your claim is not dependent on my personal experience or the lack thereof.

huxley2:

This is what you said:

It is different from the above because that is a statement that has not materialized into an argument. If I were to then take it as an argument, I would first have to ask if it was "constructed along the lines" of the same weakness I observed earlier - basically, just because I have not experienced 'Jesus walking on the street past my front door' does not make your claim a "false" or an "impossible" one. Nor can I say that it is "true" - and independent of anyone's worldview(s) (mine included), your claim stands on its own merit and not on whether or not you're an atheist or I am a Christian theist.

What the hell was that? Is there an sense in that comment at all? Some honesty would go a long way, my dear.

I have been honest all along with you - your lack of astute and careful reading seems to be doing you in. You may not see any sense in that comment and are trying ever so hard to dragoon an answer from me to fit your mold. This is why it does not surprise me that you'd make assumptions that are clearly unfounded about 'Jesus is currently not on earth' should therefore mean by default that I have to reject all claims to have seen Him appearing to anyone! Do you take time to reason objectively or merely trying to test-drive your own presumptions?

pilgrim.1:

@huxley2,


In 'principle' - I do not deny your premise, nor am I in any position to oppugn your rights to appealing to such an approach for arriving at your position. The point in mine is this: broadly speaking, it is a self-defeating premise for falsifiability (which is not contingent on someone's worldview). If, on the other hand, you're saying that I should base falsifiability on someone's worldview, would you be happy for me to reject your claims based on my own theistic outlook or rather consider your statements on their own merit independent of anyone's worldviews?

What the hell does this paragraph mean? What the hell is this?

it is a self-defeating premise for falsifiability (which is not contingent on someone's worldview).

And what does this means?

should base falsifiability on someone's worldview

How does falsifiability relate to this debate? Are you referring to the concept of falsifiability that is used in science to test for the "goodness" of a scientific theory or principle?


It is generally accepted that most "good" scientific theory must be capable of being falsified and if you formulate a theory you must state under what condition it could be shown to be false. For instance Karl Popper once thought that The Theory of Evolution was not a scientific theory because it was incapable of being falsified. But upon being told about how TTE could be falsified he withdraw his opposition to TTE.

Can you think of a way in which TTE could be falsified?

How is falsification relevant in this debate?

Reacting with such hell-cries is very unintelligent and self-defeating indeed. If in all possible worlds you alone in the universe do not understand what every intelligent mind can easily decipher, what in the world are you crying "what the hell" is this, that and the other for? But let me help your amusement:

huxley2:

What the hell does this paragraph mean? What the hell is this?

it is a self-defeating premise for falsifiability (which is not contingent on someone's worldview).

And what does this means?

should base falsifiability on someone's worldview

1. Falsifiability does not depend on one's worldview. if it does, please show me.

2. Are you arguing that one should base falsifiability on their worldview?

That's all it means, and I don't know what's biting you to be shouting "hell" this and that.

huxley2:

How does falsifiability relate to this debate? Are you referring to the concept of falsifiability that is used in science to test for the "goodness" of a scientific theory or principle?

You're obviously disjointed. Go back to the very page where you began to discuss wirinet's statement and see the connection. Short memory is a very unhelpful equipment and does not serve your cause well enough.

huxley2:

It is generally accepted that most "good" scientific theory must be capable of being falsified and if you formulate a theory you must state under what condition it could be shown to be false. For instance Karl Popper once thought that The Theory of Evolution was not a scientific theory because it was incapable of being falsified. But upon being told about how TTE could be falsified he withdraw his opposition to TTE.

Tsk-tsk. The first lesson you've got to learn is this: 'That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false' - miss that, miss everything! Your mind boggles with the idea that something "could be shown to be false" without the understanding of conditions on which that very thing could be falsifiable. Even so, falsifiability does not depend on anyone's worldview. QED.

huxley2:

Can you think of a way in which TTE could be falsified?

How is falsification relevant in this debate?

Ah, nice try - are you running out of gas that you're seeking to deflect this thread to an argument about TTE? You're sounding very cheap! The point at present is not about TTE, but about the very thing that you seemed to be peeved about: that falsifiability has nothing to do with any worldview. If you believe it has to be, please show me and stop whinging about what the hell is this, that and the other.

pilgrim.1:

Reacting with such hell-cries is very unintelligent and self-defeating indeed. If in all possible worlds you alone in the universe do not understand what every intelligent mind can easily decipher, what in the world are you crying "what the hell" is this, that and the other for? But let me help your amusement:

1. Falsifiability does not depend on one's worldview. if it does, please show me.

2. Are you arguing that one should base falsifiability on their worldview?

Who said "falsification" depends on one's worldview? Why does it need say in this debate? It is a bit like say "The Principle of Parsimony does not depend on one's worldview". Not only does it not make any sense, it is superfluous to the discussion.

pilgrim.1:



Tsk-tsk. The first lesson you've got to learn is this: 'That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false' - miss that, miss everything! Your mind boggles with the idea that something "could be shown to be false" without the understanding of conditions on which that very thing could be falsifiable. Even so, falsifiability does not depend on anyone's worldview. QED.

Ah, nice try - are you running out of gas that you're seeking to deflect this thread to an argument about TTE? You're sounding very cheap! The point at present is not about TTE, but about the very thing that you seemed to be peeved about: that falsifiability has nothing to do with any worldview. If you believe it has to be, please show me and stop whinging about what the hell is this, that and the other.

Who said "falsfification" means that it is false. These are my words;

It is generally accepted that most "good" scientific theory must be capable of being falsified and if you formulate a theory you must state under what condition it could be shown to be false.

If a theory cannot in principle be shown to be false, then the theory is deemed unfalsifiable and more that likely rejected. With respect to The Theory of Evolution, it can be shown to be false in a number of ways. Because it can be shown to be false, it is considered a "good" scientific theory.

What, in your own words, do you understand by the term "falsification"?

huxley2:

Who said "falsification" depends on one's worldview? Why does it need say in this debate? It is a bit like say "The Principle of Parsimony does not depend on one's worldview". Not only does it not make any sense, it is superfluous to the discussion.

What is the correlation between parsimony and falsifiability, huxley2? Are you so desperate to divert this thread with such weak antics that you're finding it falling flat on its face repeatedly?

When wirinet opined that the basis of accepting something as valid was whether or not it fitted one's 'belief system', my response pointed out the fallacy of that idea from the onset - that was when I mentioned falsifiability:

empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do
with anyone's worldviews or "belief system"

If you'd taken a look when I repeatedly referred you to that same point, all these unnecessary reactions would have been curtailed. However you slice it, there just is no way that such an idea in 'principle' could even be justified. Just to throw out your needless repetition over this matter was why I asked you to show me how one's belief system is the basis of validating any claim. Since you have not been able to show that, what is all the reaction about?

huxley2:

Who said "falsfification" means that it is false. These are my words;

If a theory cannot in principle be shown to be false, then the theory is deemed unfalsifiable and more that likely rejected. With respect to The Theory of Evolution, it can be shown to be false in a number of ways. Because it can be shown to be false, it is considered a "good" scientific theory.

What, in your own words, do you understand by the term "falsification"?

This discussion is not about TTE, and I'm not going to waste my time with you on that diversionary tactic.

pilgrim.1:

What is the correlation between parsimony and falsifiability, huxley2? Are you so desperate to divert this thread with such weak antics that you're finding it falling flat on its face repeatedly?

OK, I see your problem. You don't understand analogy. This is an ANALOGY, as indicated by the used of the phrase "It is a bit like ". Hurrrm, for goodness sake.

pilgrim.1:

When wirinet opined that the basis of accepting something as valid was whether or not it fitted one's 'belief system', my response pointed out the fallacy of that idea from the onset - that was when I mentioned falsifiability:

empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do with anyone's worldviews or "belief system"

Who said "empirical verification and falsifiability" were related to one's worldview? I don't think wirinet even said that. You are charging him for something he did not say or imply. Hence, the superfluity of the point.

pilgrim.1:

This discussion is not about TTE, and I'm not going to waste my time with you on that diversionary tactic.

No, I an not tryin to divert the thread, but simple giving an example of how falsification is used in science, as you have not shown that you understand the concept. Another example where falsification can be demonstrated is the "principle of the conservation of energy".

What do you understand by falsification? Still waiting!

huxley2:

OK, I see your problem. You don't understand analogy. This is an ANALOGY, as indicated by the used of the phrase "It is a bit like ". Hurrrm, for goodness sake.

I quite understand analogies and your point just doesn't cut it - hence, my asking the correlation between both words (parsimony and falsifiability) - these two ideas even in analogies are at opposite ends and irrelevant.

huxley2:

Who said "empirical verification and falsifiability" were related to one's worldview? I don't think wirinet even said that.

Did I say wirinet said that, hmm? Are you even reading at all or just doodling around? Read again:

[list]

pilgrim.1:

When wirinet opined that the basis of accepting something as valid was whether or not it fitted one's 'belief system', my response pointed out the fallacy of that idea from the onset - that was when I mentioned falsifiability:

empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do
with anyone's worldviews or "belief system"

[/list]

At any rate, please stop doodling around and show me how the validity of any claim depends on one's "belief system". That's all.

huxley2:

No, I an not tryin to divert the thread, but simple giving an example of how falsification is used in science, as you have not shown that you understand the concept. Another example where falsification can be demonstrated is the "principle of the conservation of energy".

What do you understand by falsification? Still waiting!

I posted you the link so often when I mentioned falsifiability - do you have any other ideas? Whatever example one may use to discuss falsifiability, what does it have to do with anyone's "belief system"?

pilgrim.1:

I quite understand analogies and your point just doesn't cut it - hence, my asking the correlation between both words (parsimony and falsifiability) - these two ideas even in analogies are at opposite ends and irrelevant.

Why do you even need to ask when NO correlation was made or implied. I was making a higher level analogy, not anything specific about parsimony. For "Parsimony", I could have used any number of other words/concept such as "reciprocity, double-jeopardy, exclusion, etc, etc. Please, please, don't go thinking that I am correlating these to falsification again, as you seem to have difficulties with analogy.

pilgrim.1:


Did I say wirinet said that, hmm? Are you even reading at all or just doodling around? Read again:

[list][/list]

At any rate, please stop doodling around and show me how the validity of any claim depends on one's "belief system". That's all.

I posted you the link so often when I mentioned falsifiability - do you have any other ideas? Whatever example one may use to discuss falsifiability, what does it have to do with anyone's "belief system"?

If Wirinet did not use these terms, why was it relevant to the discussion? Nothing in Wirinet's post suggest the relevance of these terms. All he said was the cross-checking of a candidate belief against one's already established belief system, a position I endorsed (with a little reservation). Now, how does this warrant the introduction of "empirical verification and falsifiability"

I await to see why these concept were relevant to the debate.

huxley2:

Why do you even need to ask when NO correlation was made or implied. I was making a higher level analogy, not anything specific about parsimony. For "Parsimony", I could have used any number of other words/concept such as "reciprocity, double-jeopardy, exclusion, etc, etc. Please, please, don't go thinking that I am correlating these to falsification again, as you seem to have difficulties with analogy.

Since it was a far-fetched analogy, it was irrelevant in bringing it up - regardless of any number of such analogies. You cannot beggar falsifiability to such beggared nuances. Throw this needless reaction out and let's move past this doodling.

huxley2:

If Wirinet did not use these terms, why was it relevant to the discussion? Nothing in Wirinet's post suggest the relevance of these terms. All he said was the cross-checking of a candidate belief against one's already established belief system, a position I endorsed (with a little reservation). Now, how does this warrant the introduction of "empirical verification and falsifiability"

Why do you have reservations while endorsing it? How is the validity of any claim based on anyone's worldviews?

huxley2:

I await to see why these concept were relevant to the debate.

The validity of any claim should not be based on anyone's belief system.

pilgrim.1:

Why do you have reservations while endorsing it? How is the validity of any claim based on anyone's worldviews?

No I did NOT "have reservations while endorsing it", as you said. I endorsed it while having some little reservation about the wording. Note the difference.

For instance, if you asked me to quantify how much I endorsed it, I would say 90%. With my re-phrasing, I would endorse it 98%. The other 2% is for someone else to come along and improved upon it.

pilgrim.1:

The validity of any claim should not be based on anyone's belief system.

Correct. One should hope that the validity of a proposition is rated against some independent objective standard. But this was NOT the point Wirinet was making. He was commenting on how people accept or reject candidate beliefs. When one accepts/rejects a belief it does not mean that the belief is true(valid)/false. It simply means that one has check it against some "standard" system, and one accepts or rejects it based on that one's already established "standard" (or belief system, to use Wirinet's words).

Now, how did "empirical verification and falsifiability" got smuggled into this discussion is still beyond us. All I can say is that you are trying to play smoke-and-mirrors, as is your wont.

@huxley2,

Please don't cheapen this discussion - it's already gravitated to needless boredom.

huxley2:

No I did NOT "have reservations while endorsing it", as you said. I endorsed it while having some little reservation about the wording. Note the difference.

What's the difference, really? You endorse it . . . were endorsing it . . . had endorsed it - whatever the position, you did so - with some reservation; or more correctly as in your quote: "a position I endorsed (with a little reservation)." My question was: why the reservation? You did NOT have reservations while endorsing it just strikes out the "little reservation" you expressed in having "endorsed" it, kwo?

Please, enough of all these games. It is immaterial whatever you endorsed or did not endorse with or without reservations however expressed.

huxley2:

Correct. One should hope that the validity of a proposition is rated against some independent objective standard.

[>pilgrim.1 rolls eyes< ] "Correct . . . Independent objective standard. . "? Was that not the very thing I had been pointing out for ages?? What was the point of your turning round and round to bore the discussion with such needless exercises only for you to come back to the same thing I've been saying all along?!? It's a bit annoying to read you circling round like this in discussions, and I do hope we can move on beyond this gamble.

huxley2:

But this was NOT the point Wirinet was making. He was commenting on how people accept or reject candidate beliefs. When one accepts/rejects a belief it does not mean that the belief is true(valid)/false. It simply means that one has check it against some "standard" system, and one accepts or rejects it based on that one's already established "standard" (or belief system, to use Wirinet's words).

I have no quarrels about your understanding of wirinet's post as I've made my point already. I asked how that deviated in any wise from the normative (or objective standard(s)) and I haven't got any answers as yet; so please let's move beyond this point.

huxley2:

Now, how did "empirical verification and falsifiability" got smuggled into this discussion is still beyond us. All I can say is that you are trying to play smoke-and-mirrors, as is your wont.

I didn't play any games nor smuggled in anything strange as the dog-chasing-his-tail pranks you've been playing all along. Empirical verification and falsifiability have absolutely NOTHING to do with anyone's "belief system" - put in another way: "The validity of any claim should not be based on anyone's belief system." You've called that "Correct", so what's the matter? If you thought otherwise, please show how; and since you're unable to show such, what's the mental crass you've been arguing over and over since?

This is the namby-pamby logic in atheist-discussions that I long anticipated in your style - make long boring arguments, seek diversionary antics (which repeatedly fall flat on their face), scuttle round your self-defeating premise . . and when you've tired yourself out, you accuse others of any number of smoke-and-mirrors games. This evidently has not worked in your favour, nor will it do so. The options open to you now is either move beyond this doodling recurring decimal in your failed logic; or keep repeating the very same boring moil and confirm the hollowness in your logic. I bet the latter would be more appealing to you, but I won't buy. Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley2,

Please don't cheapen this discussion - it's already gravitated to needless boredom.

What's the difference, really? You endorse it . . . were endorsing it . . . had endorsed it - whatever the position, you did so - with some reservation; or more correctly as in your quote: "a position I endorsed (with a little reservation)." My question was: why the reservation? You did NOT have reservations while endorsing it just strikes out the "little reservation" you expressed in having "endorsed" it, kwo?

Please, enough of all these games. It is immaterial whatever you endorsed or did not endorse with or without reservations however expressed.

[>pilgrim.1 rolls eyes< ] "Correct . . . Independent objective standard. . "? Was that not the very thing I had been pointing out for ages?? What was the point of your turning round and round to bore the discussion with such needless exercises only for you to come back to the same thing I've been saying all along?!? It's a bit annoying to read you circling round like this in discussions, and I do hope we can move on beyond this gamble.

I have no quarrels about your understanding of wirinet's post as I've made my point already. I asked how that deviated in any wise from the normative (or objective standard(s)) and I haven't got any answers as yet; so please let's move beyond this point.

I didn't play any games nor smuggled in anything strange as the dog-chasing-his-tail pranks you've been playing all along. Empirical verification and falsifiability have absolutely NOTHING to do with anyone's "belief system" - put in another way: "The validity of any claim should not be based on anyone's belief system." You've called that "Correct", so what's the matter? If you thought otherwise, please show how; and since you're unable to show such, what's the mental crass you've been arguing over and over since?

This is the namby-pamby logic in atheist-discussions that I long anticipated in your style - make long boring arguments, seek diversionary antics (which repeatedly fall flat on their face), scuttle round your self-defeating premise . . and when you've tired yourself out, you accuse others of any number of smoke-and-mirrors games. This evidently has not worked in your favour, nor will it do so. The options open to you now is either move beyond this doodling recurring decimal in your failed logic; or keep repeating the very same boring moil and confirm the hollowness in your logic. I bet the latter would be more appealing to you, but I won't buy. Cheers.

As you have admitted, if "Empirical verification and falsifiability" are not pertinent to the discussion WHY was it introduced into the discussion?

huxley2:

As you have admitted, if "Empirical verification and falsifiability" are not pertinent to the discussion WHY was it introduced into the discussion?

I didn't 'admit' your misinterpretation. This was what I threw out as immaterial -

[list]

pilgrim.1:

Please, enough of all these games. It is immaterial whatever you endorsed or did not endorse with or without reservations however expressed.

[/list]

Like I said:
'The options open to you now is either move beyond this doodling recurring decimal in your failed logic; or keep repeating the very same boring moil and confirm the hollowness in your logic. I bet the latter would be more appealing to you, but I won't buy.'

It's okay. We are impressed.

This discussion is officialy DEAD!
We're just moving round in circles. . . . . It's sad though coz i thought the religionists would come with an open heart. . .screw it! Nobody came with an open heart.

We don hear. Make una take am easy. . . or make more informed posts. Enjoy.

I dont understand why after 10 pages:

1. there is still no scientific or intellectual evidence as requested.

2. none of the opening post questions were answered

3. pilgrim allowed huxley to successfully divert the topic and digress the thread.

noetic2:

3. pilgrim allowed huxley to successfully divert the topic and digress the thread.

'Successfully' for where?
He tried, tried again, tried once more, tried repeatedly. . e no succeed!
I don tell una before - there are 10 points about atheistic logic.
Anyhow you slice it, you will find the same 10 points apply. Trust me.

pilgrim.1:

I didn't 'admit' your misinterpretation. This was what I threw out as immaterial -

[list][/list]

Like I said:
'The options open to you now is either move beyond this doodling recurring decimal in your failed logic; or keep repeating the very same boring moil and confirm the hollowness in your logic. I bet the latter would be more appealing to you, but I won't buy.'

Why did you introduce "Empirical verification and falsifiability" in a thread that has nothing whatsoever to do with these concepts? Was it not you who introduced them in this thread? Were you attempting to divert the thread? If that was your goal, then you succeeded, because we have spent a lot of post discussing something which should not be here in the first place.

Answer this simple question - Why did you introduce it?

huxley2:

Why did you introduce "Empirical verification and falsifiability" in a thread that has nothing whatsoever to do with these concepts? Was it not you who introduced them in this thread? Were you attempting to divert the thread? If that was your goal, then you succeeded, because we have spent a lot of post discussing something which should not be here in the first place.

Answer this simple question - Why did you introduce it?

This is a non-starter. How many pages ago did I first make reference to "Empirical verification and falsifiability"? And why are you complaining as if you only just woke up and saw it? I made that reference in reply to wirinet's, why didn't you object and complain back then - why now?!? None of your diversionary tactics will work in this thread, trust me. You've played that game far too long that is already weathered now. Think of a new hat-trick.

Túdor:

This discussion is officialy DEAD!
We're just moving round in circles. . . . . It's sad though coz i thought the religionists would come with an open heart. . .screw it! Nobody came with an open heart.

I agree but it is still interesting nevertheless, I am really enjoying pilgrim1 and her mental gymnastics . Very interesting person she is.

toneyb:

I agree but it is still interesting nevertheless, I am really enjoying pilgrim1 and her mental gymnastics . Very interesting person she is.

I find you a rather interesting fellow as well. . usual song you sing when you stand by the sidelines.

pilgrim.1:

This is a non-starter. How many pages ago did I first make reference to "Empirical verification and falsifiability"? And why are you complaining as if you only just woke up and saw it? I made that reference in reply to wirinet's, why didn't you object and complain back then - why now?!? None of your diversionary tactics will work in this thread, trust me. You've played that game far too long that is already weathered now. Think of a new hat-trick.

Well, the reason I have been insisting that you explain why you introduced a concept (ie "Empirical verification and falsifiability" that had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion are these:

1) Your technique of argumentation consists of making fatuous claims and charges, especially against atheists and atheism, with little or no evidence to support your claims/charges. You have this very annoying habit of using big and impressive sounding words/concept, maybe with the hope of bamboozling the readers, the weak ones of whom maybe be intimidated by your apparent "knowledge" of the concept.

I have repeated asked you to explain your understanding of these concepts and how they relate to the debate at hand, but you have been uniquely incapable to providing any explanation and reasons as to why you introduced these words/concept. That speaks a lot for your dishonesty and the sheer vacuity of your person.

Next time you wish to introduce a word/concept, please make sure you have a good grasp of it, as you will be held to account for it, especially if you use such words/concept to calumniate atheists or atheism.

2) Unwarranted and unmeritted triumphalism in the course of a debate. In the course of a discussion, you annoyingly and childishly shreak out expressions like "any comments/post will be thrown out", "I have won", "you lose", etc, etc. This is exceedingly infantile. The mature way to debate is to leave the content of your post to speak for themselves, or do you think your post cannot speak for themselves and you have to add these annoying phrases to aatempt to sway the debate.

3) You think "Because you say something, then it must be so". This is particularly annoying because you make such adhoc statements with little or no supporting evidence. For instance, I asked you to provide the conditions under which Randi would run his investigating of mediums, since you claimed that the conditions were unfair. How could you make a judgement that they are unfair when you do not know what they are?

4) You are particularly wont to make arguments based on personalities, rather than the facts or concepts expounded by the personalities.

5) You are very dishonest and deceitful. For instance, you charge Dawkins with being a 100 % there-is-no-god atheist (level 7 on the Dawkins's scale). And although I gave you Dawkins's own postion from his own book (The God Delusion), you dismissed it off-hand and will probably still regard Dawkins as a level 7 atheist.



You are just like all the Christian apologist of the past and in modern days - dishonest. From the likes of Martin Luther, Lee Strobel, McDowell, etc, etc. The one single thread that pervades you all is one of dishonest.

Now, put that in your cup and drink it.

@huxley2,

huxley2:

Well, the reason I have been insisting that you explain why you introduced a concept (ie "Empirical verification and falsifiability" that had nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion are these:

Thank you for taking the time to draw something out; but how many times would you need to learn the lesson that complaining and whinging like you do is not to be mistaken for intelligent doscourse?

I'll quickly run through your concerns:

huxley2:

1) Your technique of argumentation consists of making fatuous claims and charges, especially against atheists and atheism, with little or no evidence to support your claims/charges. You have this very annoying habit of using big and impressive sounding words/concept, maybe with the hope of bamboozling the readers, the weak ones of whom maybe be intimidated by your apparent "knowledge" of the concept.

I made things simple enough, pointed out my approach, gave links and evidence to the sources of statements I drew from atheist websites, remained consistent throughout my discussions. You didn't complain at that time, nor pointed out that the things I drew from those atheist websites were not true. Your complaint here is inconsequential.

huxley2:

I have repeated asked you to explain your understanding of these concepts and how they relate to the debate at hand, but you have been uniquely incapable to providing any explanation and reasons as to why you introduced these words/concept. That speaks a lot for your dishonesty and the sheer vacuity of your person.

I have followed through by pointing out that I left you the links that are referencing the meanings of what I was talking about. Your refusal to check them and bring forth a good discussion was not surprising, especially since I noticed you had nothing intelligent to add to where you started spinning on the same spot.

huxley2:

Next time you wish to introduce a word/concept, please make sure you have a good grasp of it, as you will be held to account for it, especially if you use such words/concept to calumniate atheists or atheism.

More than 6 pages ago I explained the terms I used particularly to YOU - pretending not to have noticed even after I reminded you is cowardly. See it by [size=14pt]CLICKING HERE[/size].

huxley2:

2) Unwarranted and unmeritted triumphalism in the course of a debate. In the course of a discussion, you annoyingly and childishly shreak out expressions like "any comments/post will be thrown out", "I have won", "you lose", etc, etc. This is exceedingly infantile. The mature way to debate is to leave the content of your post to speak for themselves, or do you think your post cannot speak for themselves and you have to add these annoying phrases to aatempt to sway the debate.

My apologies if you got upset there; but where did I say such things as "I have won"? This duplicity is quite a shame on your part! How many times did you shriek "what the hell is this" as if that was your own way of a "mature" discussion? Indeed, your needless repetitions were a bore not worth being entertained, but did that even help your diversionary antics?

huxley2:

3) You think "Because you say something, then it must be so". This is particularly annoying because you make such adhoc statements with little or no supporting evidence. For instance, I asked you to provide the conditions under which Randi would run his investigating of mediums, since you claimed that the conditions were unfair. How could you make a judgement that they are unfair when you do not know what they are?

Nope, don't try to keep up this falsehood. When you brought that charge of "because I say so", I refuted it and pointed you to what I plainly stated. If you did not agree, why was it you could not show anything to counter it. . . only to turn round in circles and then yap "Correct"? On the other hand, I amused you deliberately over Randi, seeing that you were slaving youself over to him - that's why I claimed temporary ignorance for your sake. The gentleman you pretend to be was not man enough to oblige us the conditions that you were aware of, no?

huxley2:

4) You are particularly wont to make arguments based on personalities, rather than the facts or concepts expounded by the personalities.

I'm not a personality slave like you, so stop this drivel. I was not the one who stated I'd submit myself to Randi or anyone else - you did, live with it. You're only complaining typically because Randi did not work for you.

huxley2:

5) You are very dishonest and deceitful. For instance, you charge Dawkins with being a 100 % there-is-no-god atheist (level 7 on the Dawkins's scale). And although I gave you Dawkins's own postion from his own book (The God Delusion), you dismissed it off-hand and will probably still regard Dawkins as a level 7 atheist.

Thank you. You've only been reading The God Delusion and deluding yourself, that's why you cannot see anything else! Outside of that book, has it ever occured to you that the same Richard Dawkins categorically wrote that "There Is No God"? Let me help you:

         Why there is no God

         >snip<

        © Richard Dawkins 2006

Please see it on the TimesOnline article which was written by Dawkins himself - HERE! Note that he did not start out with "there is probably no God", but a direct heading: "Why there is no God". You charge me with deceit and dishonesty and assume you're now the atheist honest monk - sad you can't see beyond your cubicle.

huxley2:

You are just like all the Christian apologist of the past and in modern days - dishonest. From the likes of Martin Luther, Lee Strobel, McDowell, etc, etc. The one single thread that pervades you all is one of dishonest.

Now, put that in your cup and drink it.

If your claims were half as intelligent as you had hoped to make it sound, then indeed you would have had a feather to your cap. But the insidious tomfoolery and cacophony that runs throw your posts is rib-cracking. Just because you can't discuss an issue, you twist and turn and look for loopholes to exploit for your accusations of dishonesty against others. . just because they're not atheists. If this cheap cackling is your best shot for your brand of atheism, sorry to once again confirm: I do not have the faith to be an atheist!

@huxley2,

So what's the new game up your sleeves? You have tried all sorts of diversionary antics, accused where those have failed you, and still have not made progress at all. Are we going to be ever marking time on the same spot with your round-about complaints that lead nowhere? I don't do prisoners, and I've always been open to wholesome dialogue. But I also sounded that my response will be no-nonsense where atheists begin to seek to beggar this discussion. If we're going to progress, please let me see something of good substance forth-coming - as long as they gender on the issues I've been discussing thus far. If not, no worries - at least, saving your drama won't hurt, would it?

noetic2:

3. pilgrim allowed huxley to successfully divert the topic and digress the thread.

You can now see why I initially replied that he just can't succeed in diverting the topic - try ever so hard as he may. The drama from their camp is magical in itself, and I enjoy wasting such inconsequential tail-chasing as in huxley2's style in discussions of this nature. After how many pages ago, he suddenly scratched on the idea that "empirical" this-and-that would be his latest magical antic to seize the moment. . . sad it has fallen flat again on its face.

Why is it [size=14pt]NOW[/size] that he suddenly woke up and started complaining about "empirical evidence"? If he'd been paying close attention, he would have seen that I was not the first person to even mention anything about "empirical evidence"; hence, how could I be charged with that piffle of having "introduced" it? I've allowed huxley2 to dwell on that page for far too long and enjoyed the amusement of watching his adulators guys scuttling around him; yet it amazes me that none of them could have helped him wriggle free from that misadventure. Was it 'pilgrim.1' that first spoke about "empirical evidence" in this thread? So, why should that be the only thing that he could chance upon in several replies to spin on the same spot on? Let me remind them of who first made reference to "empirical evidence" --

dalaman:

Most atheist world view relies mostly on empirical evidence.

source: from page 1 of this thread.

Since then, others have also made reference to it:

bindex:

Here is what Toneyb wrote on another thread. "God qualifies as something very mysterious, unintelligible and unfamiliar in the relevant sense. God is not visible, tangible or otherwise detectable by empirical means that we know or use.

source: still from page 1 of this thread.

William_C:

No body can disprove any of the gods, but the evidence provided in terms of religious text, personal experiences like miracles, prayers can be disproved or explained through other ways that are empirically verifiable.

How then could huxley2 have skipped all these and then chanced on the idea that it was I who "introduced" the 'empirical evidence' idea that has been of deep concern to him? What is all this running round in circles on the same spot supposed to achieve for his atheistic arguments? Ah, indeed. . . they like throwing questions, never seek to answer any themselves; then when they're out of gas, they either mark time on the same spot and repeat inconsequential objections, or resort to unfounded accusations - precisely as someone (perhaps you) predicted! What is even more amusing is the sort of solidarity support of mob back-patting his folks lend to the discussion - in hope that such distractions will speed up the diversion for them. My apologies it doesn't work with pilgrim.1 . . nada!

It only seems that, in more ways than I'd anticipated, they have helped to confirm again what I earlier observed:

'The options open to you now is either move beyond this doodling recurring decimal in your failed logic; or keep repeating the very same boring moil and confirm the hollowness in your logic. I bet the latter would be more appealing to you, but I won't buy.'.

We seem to have a basic misunderstanding or disagreement of my position as above

Let me tell to the process of believing in anything. First you get a piece of information, either directly ( first hand account) or indirectly, you compare the information with your own store of information (what you accept to be possible) and personal experience (belief system). If the said information agrees largely with your own belief system, you take the story as true, but if the information given is either insufficient or contradicts with your own store of experience and stored information, you reject the whole story.

You should be aware i was talking about belief as opposed to scientific knowledge. First let me give you a definition of belief;

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

How beliefs are formed
Psychologists study belief formation and the relationship between beliefs and actions. Beliefs form in a variety of ways.

* We tend to internalize the beliefs of the people around us. Albert Einstein is often quoted as having said that "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Political beliefs depend most strongly on the political beliefs most common in the community where we live.[4] Most individuals believe the religion they were taught in childhood. [5]

* People may adopt the beliefs of a charismatic leader, even if those beliefs fly in the face of all previous beliefs, and produce actions that are clearly not in their own self-interest.[6] Is belief voluntary? Rational individuals need to reconcile their direct reality with any said belief; therefore, if belief is not present or possible, it reflects the fact that contradictions were necessarily overcome using cognitive dissonance.

* The primary thrust of the advertising industry is that repetition forms beliefs, as do associations of beliefs with images of sex, love, and other strong positive emotions.[7]

* Physical trauma, especially to the head, can radically alter a person's beliefs.[8]

However, even educated people, well aware of the process by which beliefs form, still strongly cling to their beliefs, and act on those beliefs even against their own self-interest.

Source - Wikipedia

What i was trying to explain is that our belief system is a culmination the interpretation of all our past experience, experience of people we trust, the information we have stored from books and other sources and from information from trusted sources ( parents, pastors, gurus, etc).

Let me give one example, a person born in Tibet would find it difficult to believe that his salvation lies with a "convicted criminal" who was sentenced to capital punishment (hand on a cross) for "treasonable offense" in Palestine, by Roman authorities more than 2000 yrs ago. It will even be more absurd for him to believe this person was a God and was Killed because of the sin he had committed by being born before he was born or the sins he was about to commit. Now would you blame him no, because he had accumulated a different belief system which made those propositions absurd.

But this was NOT the point Wirinet was making. He was commenting on how people accept or reject candidate beliefs. When one accepts/rejects a belief it does not mean that the belief is true(valid)/false. It simply means that one has check it against some "standard" system, and one accepts or rejects it based on that one's already established "standard" (or belief system, to use Wirinet's words).

So Huxley was right in saying exactly what i mean.

Let me go further.

Let me tell you how a person come into his beliefs.

When a child is born, he has no beliefs or belief system, he is basically an atheist. He is then Christened, baptized, named and given the religious instructions of his parents. He then starts to take on the belief systems of his parents. ( you can often hear one to two year olds singing praise songs). Then the child goes to school and given further indoctrination by teachers the child comes in contact with. By the time the child goes through secondary school, the belief system of the child would have been a mosaic of the beliefs of his parents, his teachers, his friends( the dominants ones) and the books he had read. By the time he finished university his belief system will be almost complete and set. It could only be broken by either traumatic event of other equally strong emotional disturbances or disappointments. That is why it is almost impossible for someone to change religion after the age of 30.

Let me also digress by telling you how the Europeans manage to convert Africans to Christianity.

When the missionaries first came to Africa, they found the task of converting the people virtually impossible, the natives were happy and satisfied with their traditional religions. My people the Itsekiris and the Ijaws were about the first to come in contact with the missionaries, but they refused to convert for a very long time. Even the binis had to be converted at gun point. Anyway what the missionaries did was to set up schools, which went on to teach western education and values along with their religion. So by the time the child finishes school, he would be mentally European and Spiritually Christian. So by the time the stubborn elders pass away, we were left western educated Christianized Africans. So the missionaries tied education to Christianity. That was how black Africa was Christianized through the back door.

The Mohammedans did not have time for that, they used brute force to convert the adults and set up schools for their children after.

Now when you talk of scientific knowledge, then you can talk of "empirical verification and falsifiability". Belief systems holds no such standard.

I hope Huxley understands my arguments now.

wirinet:

We seem to have a basic misunderstanding or disagreement of my position as above
You should be aware i was talking about belief as opposed to scientific knowledge. First let me give you a definition of belief;

Source - Wikipedia

What i was trying to explain is that our belief system is a culmination the interpretation of all our past experience, experience of people we trust, the information we have stored from books and other sources and from information from trusted sources ( parents, pastors, gurus, etc).

Let me give one example, a person born in Tibet would find it difficult to believe that his salvation lies with a "convicted criminal" who was sentenced to capital punishment (hand on a cross) for "treasonable offense" in Palestine, by Roman authorities more than 2000 yrs ago. It will even be more absurd for him to believe this person was a God and was Killed because of the sin he had committed by being born before he was born or the sins he was about to commit. Now would you blame him no, because he had accumulated a different belief system which made those propositions absurd.

So Huxley was right in saying exactly what i mean.

Let me go further.

Let me tell you how a person come into his beliefs.

When a child is born, he has no beliefs or belief system, he is basically an atheist. He is then Christened, baptized, named and given the religious instructions of his parents. He then starts to take on the belief systems of his parents. ( you can often hear one to two year olds singing praise songs). Then the child goes to school and given further indoctrination by teachers the child comes in contact with. By the time the child goes through secondary school, the belief system of the child would have been a mosaic of the beliefs of his parents, his teachers, his friends( the dominants ones) and the books he had read. By the time he finished university his belief system will be almost complete and set. It could only be broken by either traumatic event of other equally strong emotional disturbances or disappointments. That is why it is almost impossible for someone to change religion after the age of 30.

Let me also digress by telling you how the Europeans manage to convert Africans to Christianity.

When the missionaries first came to Africa, they found the task of converting the people virtually impossible, the natives were happy and satisfied with their traditional religions. My people the Itsekiris and the Ijaws were about the first to come in contact with the missionaries, but they refused to convert for a very long time. Even the binis had to be converted at gun point. Anyway what the missionaries did was to set up schools, which went on to teach western education and values along with their religion. So by the time the child finishes school, he would be mentally European and Spiritually Christian. So by the time the stubborn elders pass away, we were left western educated Christianized Africans. So the missionaries tied education to Christianity. That was how black Africa was Christianized through the back door.

The Mohammedans did not have time for that, they used brute force to convert the adults and set up schools for their children after.

Now when you talk of scientific knowledge, then you can talk of "empirical verification and falsifiability". Belief systems holds no such standard.

I hope Huxley understands my arguments now.

This is a great insight. Although I think that there is a similar process going on with whether or not we accept scientific ideas. Many scientific ideas have been resisted by scientists simply because they contradicted what the scientist believes. A famous case is Einstein's rejection of the finding of Quantum Mechanics. Even here there is a trauma to be experience when what one once believed to be scientifically true is proved unsound.

What we believe about the world and the way it works, our world view, cosmology, etc seems to be intimately bound with our sense of well being.

In other words we all need structure. And it is this exactly that makes existentialism and nihilism such an unsatisfactory position to be in.

There is an inbuilt inertia in every belief system or cosmology. People will ignore facts that contradict their cosmology until those facts become big enough to shatter the cosmology and the believer's sense of well being along with it.

For the world to make sense it requires a lot of approximating and ignoring of details. I remember when I discovered this about myself. I was talking to someone and I couldn't quite understand what they were saying. In my head I was trying to MAKE sense of what they were saying. Then suddenly I had a realisation. I was literally MAKING sense of the guys words. It was a creative process. And often the sense we MAKE out of someone's words are quite different from the sense the person intended.

As regards Wirinet's words about how we are converted, especially in AFrica, I totally agree. I know especially how it took place amongst the yoruba. It was mainly in Egbaland. Abeokuta was full of returned slaves from sierra leone and also they had the CMS schools. The british were already in Lagos and the Egba people were enjoying being the middle men between the british and the indigenes for trade. Converted christians were given more regard by the British so it made sense if you wanted to better your status to become christian.

Chinua Achebe also discusses how this happened in Igboland and the way they were taught to despise their traditional religions.

I disagree with this statement though:

When a child is born, he has no beliefs or belief system, he is basically an atheist.

Atheism is a worldview and babies cannot be born Atheist. To be an atheist you must first have a concept of God before you can disbelieve in his existence. I also do not believe that one needs to have a concept of God in order to be close to God. If anything it puts a wedge between a man and God.

wirinet:

We seem to have a basic misunderstanding or disagreement of my position as above
You should be aware i was talking about belief as opposed to scientific knowledge. First let me give you a definition of belief;

Source - Wikipedia

What i was trying to explain is that our belief system is a culmination the interpretation of all our past experience, experience of people we trust, the information we have stored from books and other sources and from information from trusted sources ( parents, pastors, gurus, etc).

Let me give one example, a person born in Tibet would find it difficult to believe that his salvation lies with a "convicted criminal" who was sentenced to capital punishment (hand on a cross) for "treasonable offense" in Palestine, by Roman authorities more than 2000 yrs ago. It will even be more absurd for him to believe this person was a God and was Killed because of the sin he had committed by being born before he was born or the sins he was about to commit. Now would you blame him no, because he had accumulated a different belief system which made those propositions absurd.

[size=16pt]So Huxley was right in saying exactly what i mean.[/size]

Let me go further.

Let me tell you how a person come into his beliefs.

When a child is born, he has no beliefs or belief system, he is basically an atheist. He is then Christened, baptized, named and given the religious instructions of his parents. He then starts to take on the belief systems of his parents. ( you can often hear one to two year olds singing praise songs). Then the child goes to school and given further indoctrination by teachers the child comes in contact with. By the time the child goes through secondary school, the belief system of the child would have been a mosaic of the beliefs of his parents, his teachers, his friends( the dominants ones) and the books he had read. By the time he finished university his belief system will be almost complete and set. It could only be broken by either traumatic event of other equally strong emotional disturbances or disappointments. That is why it is almost impossible for someone to change religion after the age of 30.

Let me also digress by telling you how the Europeans manage to convert Africans to Christianity.

When the missionaries first came to Africa, they found the task of converting the people virtually impossible, the natives were happy and satisfied with their traditional religions. My people the Itsekiris and the Ijaws were about the first to come in contact with the missionaries, but they refused to convert for a very long time. Even the binis had to be converted at gun point. Anyway what the missionaries did was to set up schools, which went on to teach western education and values along with their religion. So by the time the child finishes school, he would be mentally European and Spiritually Christian. So by the time the stubborn elders pass away, we were left western educated Christianized Africans. So the missionaries tied education to Christianity. That was how black Africa was Christianized through the back door.

The Mohammedans did not have time for that, they used brute force to convert the adults and set up schools for their children after.

Now when you talk of scientific knowledge, then you can talk of "empirical verification and falsifiability". Belief systems holds no such standard.

[size=16pt]I hope Huxley understands my arguments now.
[/size]

With respect, you will see that I in fact understood your original statement ( I think I said I agreed with it 95% ), but I had a little reservation because I thought the comment could be made more general (although I know you were referring specifically to the acquisition of beliefs.)

If you had read my comments, you would have seen me questioning the relevance of "empirical verification and falsifiability" in this post. This was introduced by Pilgrim and I thought it had no place in this debate.