Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Identifying false religions.
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 16 of 479 (564183)
06-08-2010 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Pauline
06-08-2010 8:03 PM


You've used facts, Rahvin, to make your point clear to me. Facts about the earth, the sun etc. I fail to see how AZ's:
quote:
AZP3 writes:
Is it 'my' religion with 'my' conception of 'my' god?
If not then it is false.
is a fact rather than philosophy........or why you would make it out to be that way in order to facilitate a logical fallacy.
As I said, I'm not defending AZ's statements or agreeing with them in this case. I understand why he's making such a point, but I would never advocate believing that one;s own perspective is right, and that all other perspectives are wrong simply because they are not one's own perspective - and in fact I don;t think AZ would advocate it either, and he was simply being sarcastic because this seems to describe the behavior of some people (ie, "Religion X is wrong because I believe Religion Y," with no actual assessment of fact or evaluation of the accuracy of claims).
I was responding only to your response, where it seemed that you were appealing to the desirability consequence of a more "orderly and moral" world as support for the existence of a deity. The desirability of a more moral world has nothing to do with whether deities do or do not exist; they either do or do not, regardless of how much we like or dislike the consequences.
If you were not in fact trying to make any such statement, then we simply have misunderstood each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Pauline, posted 06-08-2010 8:03 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Pauline, posted 06-08-2010 9:22 PM Rahvin has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3848 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 17 of 479 (564188)
06-08-2010 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rahvin
06-08-2010 8:31 PM


I was responding only to your response, where it seemed that you were appealing to the desirability consequence of a more "orderly and moral" world as support for the existence of a deity.
An example of "sometimes you read what you what to read as opposed to what is really written"?
I never said that a morally disorderly world implies the absence or presence of God. If I need to write something within the next two minutes, that doesn't mean that a pencil will fall down from heaven to aid me. A pencil could be present irrespective of whether or not I need it. I can't make it exist by wanting it (well, maybe mentally I could, but not in reality--which reality is more important than the fancy thought world). I only intended to say, ego centrism is a poor philosophy to live by. However, you do raise a relevant point. I think a person who believes other religions are wrong just because they are not his/her religion is himself wrong in his thinking and he could do better. I do not think hinduism is wrong because it is not my religion. I have no personal say on whether a religion is true or false.....and no one does. I feel very sad when people use religion as a tool for personal hidden agendas.
If you were not in fact trying to make any such statement, then we simply have misunderstood each other.
Well, you garlanded me with the prestigious "creationist makes logical fallacy" honor, so what else could I have said?
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rahvin, posted 06-08-2010 8:31 PM Rahvin has not replied

killinghurts
Member (Idle past 5106 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 18 of 479 (564197)
06-08-2010 10:44 PM


Thanks for the replies all, very interesting read.
Regarding Dr. Sings analysis..
If we take the statement from AZ as a factual claim
"AZP3" writes:
Is it 'my' religion with 'my' conception of 'my' god?
and apply it to what Rahvin was saying
"Rahvin" writes:
All claims should be evaluated against reality
We can see that "'my' conception of God" cannot be evaluated against reality... correct?
To then take something that cannot be evaluated against reality and then evaluate it against another claim that cannot be evaluated against reality (i.e. another religion), what do we end up with?
A bit of a muddled head if you ask me!
Edited by killinghurts, : example

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Coyote, posted 06-08-2010 11:19 PM killinghurts has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2218 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 19 of 479 (564200)
06-08-2010 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by killinghurts
06-08-2010 10:44 PM


What do we end up with?
We can see that "'my' conception of God" cannot be evaluated against reality... correct?
To then take something that cannot be evaluated against reality and then evaluate it against another claim that cannot be evaluated against reality (i.e. another religion), what do we end up with?
A bit of a muddled head if you ask me!
We end up with some 4,000 extant world religions, and some 40,000 different sects, denominations, and flavors of Christianity alone.
If there is no way to differentiate among the various claims using empirical evidence, any disagreement is liable to just result in a schism. Both groups will go on their merry ways feeling that each has the ultimate trvth.
Result: 40,000 different interpretations of Christianity alone.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by killinghurts, posted 06-08-2010 10:44 PM killinghurts has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 479 (564204)
06-08-2010 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by killinghurts
06-06-2010 10:04 PM


Corroborating Evidence
killinghurts writes:
One thing that really seems quite amazing to me is the number of religions/cults that claim to worship the one and only 'true' God. Surely they can't all be correct, according to the bible there is only one God (Exodus 20:1-6)
What steps would you take to identify a false religion?
Corroborating evidence that it is supernatural.
    Johnny come lately takeoff from an old established doctrine, contradictory to the original. Usually this originates from one self acclaimed prophet. Examples of this are Mormonism and Islam, both take - offs from the Biblical record, contradictory in some aspects from the original but having enough of it to draw adherrants.
These come to mind.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by killinghurts, posted 06-06-2010 10:04 PM killinghurts has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 06-09-2010 12:01 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 06-09-2010 12:03 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 24 by Phage0070, posted 06-09-2010 4:02 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 33 by mh, posted 06-09-2010 1:46 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 34 by Rahvin, posted 06-09-2010 6:50 PM Buzsaw has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2218 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 21 of 479 (564208)
06-09-2010 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
06-08-2010 11:31 PM


Re: Corroborating Evidence
Corroborating evidence that it is supernatural.
Don't forget contradictory evidence. It takes very little contradictory evidence to disprove an idea or belief -- or a theory.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 06-08-2010 11:31 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2010 8:56 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2218 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 22 of 479 (564209)
06-09-2010 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
06-08-2010 11:31 PM


Re: Corroborating Evidence
4. How old is it? If it's true, it should have been around from the beginning of recorded human history having some established doctrine.
5. It should not be a Johnny come lately takeoff from an old established doctrine, contradictory to the original. ...
You're Jewish?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 06-08-2010 11:31 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2010 7:22 PM Coyote has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 23 of 479 (564210)
06-09-2010 12:59 AM


AZP3 writes:
Is it 'my' religion with 'my' conception of 'my' god?
If not then it is false.
Dr Sing responds:
And you think the world we currently live is...in bad condition?
Just think what would happen if all of the 6 billion people in the world thought the same way you did....we would end up in a more moral and orderly world, right? Right!!
How can someone not seethe idiocy of such statements?
Dr. Sing:
The consequences of 6 billion people following the philosophy in question would be infinitely detrimental to the world's moral state.
I agree with the above.
Most of us do see the idiocy of the statements.
I would hope not all 6+ Billion humans think like this but I would wager that there are multiple hundreds of millions who do.
And you are right, the stupidity of reaction and the violent consequences of this question/answer define the history of almost every religion since man was able to write.
We heard and saw it in the jews with the canonites. We heard and saw it in the christians of ancient Rome. We heard and saw it with the catholics and the crusades. We heard and saw it with the hindus and the Ksatradharma.
We hear and see it today with the christian fundamentalists who have abortion doctors in the crosshairs of their rifles. We hear and see it in the constant declarations of islamic jehad.
We heard and saw it big time on 9/11.
Religion has been the bane of human existence since the first man believed.
I wish people did not think this way. I wish they did not ask. I especially wish people did not act so violently based on the answers they find when they do ask. Unfortunately, this appears to be one of the hallmarks of religion.
Edited by AZPaul3, : added thought (where none was before?)
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Pauline, posted 06-09-2010 9:00 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 479 (564224)
06-09-2010 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
06-08-2010 11:31 PM


Re: Corroborating Evidence
Buzsaw writes:
2, Enough verifiable historical significance.
Why should this be a factor directly linked to its truth?
Buzsaw writes:
3. Culturablly benefits. Do the cultures under it's influencef fare relatively well?
I don't see how this is relevant to the truth of the religion. A religion might have a particularly beneficial effect to society and yet still be false, and a religion founded on truth might be fundamentally damaging to society.
If instead we are simply identifying unique religions rather than "true" ones, I still don't see why cultural benefits would be a factor.
Buzsaw writes:
4. How old is it? If it's true, it should have been around from the beginning of recorded human history having some established doctrine.
Not necessarily. Religions need not involve creation stories or be known from the dawn of man. An actually existing deity revealing itself to people and gaining followers within the last month would in my assessment easily qualify as a true religion.
Buzsaw writes:
5. It should not be a Johnny come lately takeoff from an old established doctrine, contradictory to the original. Usually this originates from one self acclaimed prophet. Examples of this are Mormonism and Islam, both take - offs from the Biblical record, contradictory in some aspects from the original but having enough of it to draw adherrants.
This is going to be quite the tangle to unravel. Mormonism might be a takeoff of Christianity, but Christianity is also a takeoff of Judaism. Judaism might also be a takeoff of various creation and fertility myths combined with a fictional racial history.
Drawing a consistent line is likely to be either highly arbitrary or impossibly difficult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 06-08-2010 11:31 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 479 (564246)
06-09-2010 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Coyote
06-09-2010 12:01 AM


Re: Corroborating Evidence
Coyote writes:
Don't forget contradictory evidence. It takes very little contradictory evidence to disprove an idea or belief -- or a theory.
Of course, you do mean the debatable evidence, debatable relative to the thesis premise which determines the application of that evidence.
The more corroborating non-contradictory evidence supportive to a given religion, the more ligitimate it becomes.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 06-09-2010 12:01 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 06-09-2010 11:04 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Pauline
Member (Idle past 3848 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 26 of 479 (564249)
06-09-2010 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by AZPaul3
06-09-2010 12:59 AM


AZP3 writes:
I would hope not all 6+ Billion humans think like this but I would wager that there are multiple hundreds of millions who do.
And you are right, the stupidity of reaction and the violent consequences of this question/answer define the history of almost every religion since man was able to write.
Bitter reality. Your are right. It is ironic that religion, whose intention is peace and morality, often is the source of spite among otherwise congenial brethren. Just take the ongoing hindu vs. muslim battle in India, for example. Hundreds of innocent lives are being sacrificed on the alter of religion for no sane reason.
Religion has been the bane of human existence since the first man believed.
One-eyed prophet? Religiophobe? Sounds like the judgment of Thamus...yeah, the invention of writing did breed forgetfulness and false wisdom but it also enabled widespread communication amongst other benefits. It is rather drastically pessimistic to say that religion is "the" (wow!) bane and nothing but "the" bane" of human history.
KH writes:
We can see that "'my' conception of God" cannot be evaluated against reality... correct?
Correct. 'My conception of god' could equal anything...and that includes intangible ideas...which cannot be tested against reality to assess their truth. Therefore there is no point in even defending or professing "my conception of god' on the basis of "well, its MY religion'.
Evaluating a god concept against reality doesn't always work. For it to work, the god must be tangible...which barring a few hindu gurus, all gods are intangible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by AZPaul3, posted 06-09-2010 12:59 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 5054 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 27 of 479 (564252)
06-09-2010 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by killinghurts
06-06-2010 10:04 PM


What steps would you take to identify a false religion?
Religion is essentially a doctrine that is not supported by evidence.
So I would look for evidence to support the doctrine of a religion.
If there is sufficient evidence to establish that the doctrine is true, then you have identified a "false religion".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by killinghurts, posted 06-06-2010 10:04 PM killinghurts has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by AZPaul3, posted 06-09-2010 9:21 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 28 of 479 (564253)
06-09-2010 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
06-09-2010 9:18 AM


Hey Chimp,
Can you flesh this out, please. Sounds bass-ackwards to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 06-09-2010 9:18 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 06-09-2010 9:42 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 5054 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 29 of 479 (564255)
06-09-2010 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by AZPaul3
06-09-2010 9:21 AM


Hey Chimp,
Can you flesh this out, please. Sounds bass-ackwards to me.
No problem.
Basically, what I was saying is that a "true religion" would be an oxymoron.
Once something is established (e.g. by ample evidence) as being a fact, it is no longer a religion. It's just a fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by AZPaul3, posted 06-09-2010 9:21 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by AZPaul3, posted 06-09-2010 9:44 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 30 of 479 (564256)
06-09-2010 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
06-09-2010 9:42 AM


Ahh, I see, said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw.
Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 06-09-2010 9:42 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024