Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "Gap Between Muslims & Rest of UK Society Wider Than Ever + Cass TRANS REPORT Should Shame the NHS" video.

@scorpiorob7986 "They are both man made religions = FACT! " What makes it a fact? What's your evidence?
9
@scottishlassie5993 "The Catholic and Protestant Church once held a lot of power but that has gone and so will slam." That doesn't necessarily follow. Christianity brought the West freedoms, including the freedom to decide whether to be Christian or not. Islam does not have the same attitude.
7
@iainrae6159 "irony is that supernatural Gods are unlikely to exist" Multiple ones, yes, but otherwise, what's your evidence? "...organised religions have all the hallmark of being man made beliefs." Howso, in the case of Christianity?
6
@anonnemo2504 Another attempt "all religion is based upon denial of reality" Evidence please, for that applying to Christianity.
5
@AndrewBush-d2j "...I find them alright strict to their faith what is wrong with that" Do you know what their faith teaches? Actually, I find the non-strict ones okay, because they don't believe a lot of what it teaches.
4
@jacobkenney5646 Christianity is the basis of Western Civilisation, having introduced public hospitals, many charities, universal education, the university system, modern science, and many freedoms, and spreading democracy, raising the status of women, and twice abolishing slavery.
4
@gilly5094 "it requires unquestioning belief in a supernatural entity, ..." What does? "...also a belief in life after death, therefore the burden of proof is on the follower of the religion..." That is false. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. anonnemo2504 made the claim, so he has the burden of proof.
3
@dragonofhatefulretribution9041 "The fact that you trust mainstream views..." I didn't say that I did. I said that I'm not about to buy and read books without good reason, specially ones that go against mainstream views. The key part is "without good reason". In fact I don't accept a lot of mainstream views, because I don't agree with the worldview that they are based on. "I don’t need to do better than anything." Yes, you do. You need to provide me with some evidence, not just tell me to buy and read some books that supposedly provide the evidence I asked for. If you have some (not excessively-long) online free articles for me to read, I'm happy to do that.
2
@30noir "The claim is that god exists" What claim that God exists? Where did I claim that? "You can't ask someone to prove he doesn't." I can if they make that claim that he doesn't exist. Or in this case that Christianity is made up. As I said, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If someone claims that Christianity is made up, they have the burden of proof.
2
@anonnemo2504 Trying again, part 2 "...(however, on the issue of the existence of a supreme being, nobody has done this)." What's your evidence that nobody has? "Is it reasonable and logical, for example, to believe that there is a magic Grandpa in the sky?" Probably not. But then we're not talking about a magic Grandpa, but about God. "For my part, I do not think so." As far as God is concerned, what is your reason and logic?
2
@anonnemo2504 Trying again, part 1B "Proving a positive, i.e. something that really exists, should always be possible..." Agreed. "Proving a negative, however, is not always possible." Agreed. But there also seems to be a profound ignorance among atheists that takes no account of the fact that even if they claim a negative, they still have the burden of proof regarding that claim.
2
@anonnemo2504 "I've have no idea what you mean by "trying again part X" etc.." I tried posting a comment, but YT hid it. So I tried again, breaking it into separate parts. The second part posted, so I then tried to break the first part into two sub-parts. "Just as I have no idea as to why your powers of logic fail you so and can you see not see that the term, "magic Grandpa" is only a euphemism?" It's not merely a euphemism. It's mockery, where you choose to insult rather than be civil. "I have already answered your final question." Not that I've seen. "One cannot prove the non-existence of a supreme being, because one cannot uncover an absence of evidence for it." I realise that, as I said. But that does not remove the onus of someone making such a claim to back it with evidence. If they can't back the claim, they shouldn't make it. If they make it, they should back it. If they can't, then they are talking nonsense and their credibility is shot. If I said that evolution never happened, and you challenged me to back that claim with evidence, and I refused on the grounds that I can't produce evidence of something that didn't happen, would you find that acceptable? Would you think that it was okay for me to make such an evidence-free claim without it being considered nonsense? "You're welcome." To what? Your failure to properly answer my questions?
2
@dragonofhatefulretribution9041 "Read “Not In His Image” & “Caesar’s Messiah”." I'm not about to buy and read books without a good reason to do so, specially ones that go against mainstream views. You'll need to do better than that.
1
@30noir "Burden of evidence, my dude." What about it? The burden of proof lies on the one making a claim, right?
1
@anonnemo2504 "all religion is based upon denial of reality" Evidence please, for that applying to Christianity. "...it is at about the same stage of its development as Christianity was during the Inquisition." First, Christianity is Judaism fulfilled. In that sense, Christianity goes back well before 2000 years ago. Second, and ignoring that point, what you really mean is that it's at the same age as Christianity was then. That it's about the same stage of "development" assumes that Christianity developed, and that Islam follows a similar process of development. Neither is in evidence.
1
@anonnemo2504 Trying again "all religion is based upon denial of reality" Evidence please, for that applying to Christianity. "...it is at about the same stage of its development as Christianity was during the Inquisition." First, Christianity is Judaism fulfilled. In that sense, Christianity goes back well before 2000 years ago. Second, and ignoring that point, what you really mean is that it's at the same age as Christianity was then. That it's about the same stage of "development" assumes that Christianity developed, and that Islam follows a similar process of development. Neither is in evidence.
1
@anonnemo2504 Trying again "all religion is based upon denial of reality" Evidence please, for that applying to Christianity. "...it is at about the same stage of its development as Christianity was during the Inquisition." First, Christianity is Judaism fulfilled. In that sense, Christianity goes back well before 2000 years ago. Second, and ignoring that point, what you really mean is that it's at the same age as Christianity was then. That it's about the same stage of "development" assumes that Christianity developed, and that other religions follow a similar process of development. Neither is in evidence.
1
@anonnemo2504 "There is so much, far too much to cover in the couple of minutes I allow myself to type this reply..." That's okay. I didn't ask for every bit of evidence. "...essentially, the vastly superior credibility of rigorously tested science over two thousand year old myths." That's a bald assertion, not evidence, and cites a discipline created on the basis of Christianity (i.e. science) to supposedly disprove Christianity! You'll need to do better than that! And what's your evidence that they are myths? "Thunder and lightning are examples of many phenomena we used to attribute to "supernatural gods", i.e. things we could not explain." I realise that you were not answering me there, but in my case, I asked for evidence in the case of Christianity. Interesting that you didn't provide that answer to me. Is that because you realised that was not the case with Christianity? "The list of these is becoming shorter and, theoretically, if we survive as a species for long enough, the list may cease to exist, as will religion." No, it will simply be replaced with an atheistic religion. "Excellent point, well made." How is a completely wrong argument an excellent, well-made, point? So, I'm still waiting for evidence of your claim.
1
@gilly5094 "you are being deliberately obtuse." Not at all. I'm simply challenging your claims. "You claim that there is a God..." Not in this thread I didn't. "...something that has never been substantiated by proof over thousands of years." Evidence for that claim please. "Therefore, the burden of proof is obviously on the believer to prove the existence of something that has never been demonstrated to exist." No, as I pointed out, the burden of proof is on the one making the claims. "Believers are the ones making the claim for the entity." And atheists are the ones making the claim for the non-existence of the entity. So your point is...? "If I told you I could fly, you would call me a liar and fantasist unless I could demonstrate it to you." Of course. Because you made the claim that I would be challenging. (Actually, I wouldn't call you either thing before giving you a chance to substantiate the claim.) If you told me that you couldn't have been born, you would still have the onus to prove that claim, not me to prove that you had been, even though I'd be utterly convinced that you had been.
1
@iainrae6159 "The onus is on you to justify such an extraordinary claim" What claim—let alone extraordinary claim—did I make? On the contrary, you made a claim, so the onus is on you to back it up. Why aren't you?
1
@anonnemo2504 "There also seems to be a profound ignorance amongst the religionists that takes no account of the fact that proving a positive should always be possible" What's your evidence that there is such a profound ignorance? "(however, on this issue they consistently fail)" What is your evidence for that? And there also seems to be a profound ignorance among atheists that takes no account of the fact that someone questioning their claim of no God is therefore claiming God exists. gilly5094 claimed that I said that God exists, but I made no such claim. "Proving a positive, i.e. something that really exists, should always be possible..." Agreed. "Proving a negative, however, is not always possible." Agreed. But there also seems to be a profound ignorance among atheists that takes no account of the fact that even if they claim a negative, they still have the burden of proof regarding that claim. "...(however, on the issue of the existence of a supreme being, nobody has done this)." What's your evidence that nobody has? "Is it reasonable and logical, for example, to believe that there is a magic Grandpa in the sky?" Probably not. But then we're not talking about a magic Grandpa, but about God. "For my part, I do not think so." As far as God is concerned, what is your reason and logic?
1
@gilly5094 Another attempt "you are being deliberately obtuse." Not at all. I'm simply challenging your claims. "You claim that there is a God..." Not in this thread I didn't. "...something that has never been substantiated by proof over thousands of years." Evidence for that claim please. "Therefore, the burden of proof is obviously on the believer to prove the existence of something that has never been demonstrated to exist." No, as I pointed out, the burden of proof is on the one making the claims. "Believers are the ones making the claim for the entity." And atheists are the ones making the claim for the non-existence of the entity. So your point is...? "If I told you I could fly, you would call me a liar and fantasist unless I could demonstrate it to you." Of course. Because you made the claim that I would be challenging. (Actually, I wouldn't call you either thing before giving you a chance to substantiate the claim.) If you told me that you couldn't have been born, you would still have the onus to prove that claim, not me to prove that you had been, even though I'd be utterly convinced that you had been.
1
@anonnemo2504 Trying again, in parts "There also seems to be a profound ignorance amongst the religionists that takes no account of the fact that proving a positive should always be possible" What's your evidence that there is such a profound ignorance? "(however, on this issue they consistently fail)" What is your evidence for that? And there also seems to be a profound ignorance among atheists that takes no account of the fact that someone questioning their claim of no God is therefore claiming God exists. gilly5094 claimed that I said that God exists, but I made no such claim. "Proving a positive, i.e. something that really exists, should always be possible..." Agreed. "Proving a negative, however, is not always possible." Agreed. But there also seems to be a profound ignorance among atheists that takes no account of the fact that even if they claim a negative, they still have the burden of proof regarding that claim.
1
@anonnemo2504 Trying again, in parts, part 1A "There also seems to be a profound ignorance amongst the religionists that takes no account of the fact that proving a positive should always be possible" What's your evidence that there is such a profound ignorance? "(however, on this issue they consistently fail)" What is your evidence for that? And there also seems to be a profound ignorance among atheists that takes no account of the fact that someone questioning their claim of no God is therefore claiming God exists. gilly5094 claimed that I said that God exists, but I made no such claim.
1
@gilly5094 Another attempt "you are being deliberately obtuse." Not at all. I'm simply challenging your claims. "You claim that there is a God..." Not in this thread I didn't. "...something that has never been substantiated by proof over thousands of years." Evidence for that claim please. "Therefore, the burden of proof is obviously on the believer to prove the existence of something that has never been demonstrated to exist." No, as I pointed out, the burden of proof is on the one making the claims. "Believers are the ones making the claim for the entity." And atheists are the ones making the claim for the non-existence of the entity. So your point is...? "If I told you I could fly, you would call me a liar and fantasist unless I could demonstrate it to you." Of course. Because you made the claim that I would be challenging. (Actually, I wouldn't call you either thing before giving you a chance to substantiate the claim.) If you told me that you couldn't have been born, you would still have the onus to prove that claim, not me to prove that you had been, even though I'd be utterly convinced that you had been.
1
@gilly5094 Another attempt, part 1 "you are being deliberately obtuse." Not at all. I'm simply challenging your claims. "You claim that there is a God..." Not in this thread I didn't. "...something that has never been substantiated by proof over thousands of years." Evidence for that claim please. "Therefore, the burden of proof is obviously on the believer to prove the existence of something that has never been demonstrated to exist." No, as I pointed out, the burden of proof is on the one making the claims.
1
@gilly5094 Another attempt, part 2 "Believers are the ones making the claim for the entity." And atheists are the ones making the claim for the non-existence of the entity. So your point is...? "If I told you I could fly, you would call me a liar and fantasist unless I could demonstrate it to you." Of course. Because you made the claim that I would be challenging. (Actually, I wouldn't call you either thing before giving you a chance to substantiate the claim.) If you told me that you couldn't have been born, you would still have the onus to prove that claim, not me to prove that you had been, even though I'd be utterly convinced that you had been.
1
@anonnemo2504 "You're welcome to your strange world where logic and reason play second fiddle to blind "faith" and dogma." And you think it's your right to simply make up such accusations about me, without providing a whit of evidence? "It is yourself who has no answers." More invention. "For me, however, a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent soon becomes tiresome." Especially when you're outwitted, it seems. And prefer to invent excuses.
1
@jacobkenney5646 Thank you, and the same to you.
1
@linmal2242 "Spot On" Thank you. "Interesting that the term 'lack of faith' has such anti-social overtones, as if one is a 'Mongul', or 'heathen'!" Well, one probably is! (Heathen: "a person who does not belong to a widely held religion") But I never use the term. Rather, I point out that it's not a lack of belief in God, but a belief in no God. I therefore don't like the terms "believers" and "unbelievers"—we all believe in something. Christians in God, and atheists in no God.
1