Identifying false religions.

Not necessarily. The inability to back up a claim does not mean that claim is incorrect, it simply means there is a lack of reason to accept it.

Why should this be a factor directly linked to its truth? 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. 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. 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.

I would like to ask about these prophesies. Which are the most impressive and to your view provide more evidence for your claim, prophesies that are fulfilled almost immediately or very old prophesies that are fulfilled long after their being written? (I am suspect the old ones)Also, if someone were to fulfill one or two of a series of predictions in a prophecy but fail to do the rest, is the prophecy considered false or do we just wait until they area all fulfilled? (I am inclined to say that you would wait)The reason I ask these two questions is to highlight a disconnect in assessing prophecy that I think you might be exhibiting. A hypothetical abstract prophecy might be the claim that someone with qualities A and B will do a series of acts, C, D, and E. No time limit or date is provided.If the prophecy is immediately fulfilled it isn't terribly impressive because short-range predictions are made all the time. Accurate predictions of political races are hardly considered prophecy because pertinent information is available on which to base such predictions. Predicting a political race hundreds of years later would be much more impressive; given the time frame, there is no way the appropriate information would be accessible.On the other hand, this type of prediction slants in the opposite direction. The claim that "someone fitting this bill" will come along with qualities and acts A-E increases in likelihood as time goes by. Someone with quality A but not B has no affect on the prediction; only a positive result is counted. The longer you have to wait for a positive result the less impressive the prediction, due to the increased pool of potential fulfillments.So my last question is, how old are these prophecies you are referring to? A few years? A few hundred years? Maybe a few *thousand* years? What does that equate to in impressiveness?

In my view, this sentiment is explained in this way:If part of the Bible is false, then the Bible's claims must be evaluated piecemeal in order to separate the falsehoods/exaggerations/myths/etc from the truth. Theists know that if they were to honestly do this, all of the supernatural elements of the Bible would be swept aside and they would be left with a book of moral teachings and poorly recorded history. Moral teachings which are extremely questionable now that they lack supernatural backing.This is I think why theists commonly cling to their holy books as being divinely inspired if not truly inerrant.

With the "honestly" part, Catholic Scientist.

Supposing that you have any reasonable standards of observing the world we live in, I wouldn't describe that as an assumption but rather an observation.

Centuries of consistent observation ruling out violations of natural law doesn't qualify as data showing that the supernatural could not have happened? Or are you suggesting that our sample of reality isn't representative of the whole?How about we turn this question around; what *would* qualify as that data you are talking about?

The ability of people to make ridiculous claims is, so far as I can tell, unbounded. The lack of a single confirmed instance of a supernatural occurrence is far more telling. So you would agree that such possibilities are simply hypothetical and that all our observations indicate that reality hasn't fundamentally altered in form or function within the time periods we are addressing, correct? No. I am saying that since absolutely no supernatural occurrence, explanation, or claim has born out when reasonably isolated from error or fraud, the only intellectually honest response is to reject unevidenced claims of supernatural events until such time as sufficient supporting evidence is presented.I am not aware of any account of the supernatural within the Bible that has the support of that evidence, considering the unbroken string of failures referenced above. Given the vested interest of extremely large and resourceful organizations to present such evidence, as well as the careful research of the scientific community as a whole, I consider concluding that the supernatural does not exist a very solid position.Thus, if we are to strip the Bible of unreasonable or untrue claims it would be utterly lacking in the supernatural.
Source: xkcd: Age Milestone Privileges (Randall Munroe)

No. If those beliefs are inconsequential to the core beliefs of the religion, and those core beliefs are not contradicted by evidence, then those core beliefs can be tentatively considered not disproved.The lack of evidence to the contrary is not in and of itself a reason to believe a claim. The existence of an undetectable pink unicorn may not be contradicted by evidence, but it isn't reasonable to tentatively consider such a belief true based on that fact.

Unless the religious view is true, and the god or gods actually exist and operate outside of reality. In that case it is the terms "natural" and "reality" which are lacking, or referencing a subset that we previously thought was the whole.I take your meaning, but I think the distinction (vague as it is) is helpful to the discussion. Simple terms aid in the conveyance of simple ideas, such as assessing basic credulity.

Unless you subscribe to a dualistic view where God exists, but not within reality. Or perhaps that god is a collective consciousness and in essence is imagination.I'm not trying to defend this position, but if it actually were the case that a god existed outside of reality (as nonsensical as that might appear)... then it wouldn't be part of reality. You argue quite reasonably that there is no such place or thing, and I would be inclined to agree considering that is part of my argument against gods being able to exist there. I don't see how your definitions are going to prevent that. A theist will simply argue that your definitions rule out the existence of their deity *by definition*; it is you being closed-minded rather than them not providing proof for their claim. I think in many cases it aids the discussion of actual observations. If someone believes because the Bible says stuff happened, then there is nowhere for the discussion to go. Classifying it as supernatural claims or natural claims doesn't address the meat of the issue at all.

No, that isn't what "valid" means in the context of logic. A logically valid argument is one where the conclusion follows from the premises. A valid argument could be made for something that has solid evidence to the contrary, simply by including untrue premises. Evidence to the contrary is therefore irrelevant to determining the logical validity of an argument. No, it may not, at least not on those ground alone. For instance:Premise 1: The IPU is invisible.
Premise 2: The IPU is pink.
Premise 3: The IPU is a unicorn.
Premise 4: The IPU exists.
Conclusion: An invisible, pink unicorn known as the IPU exists.This is a valid argument. It has no premises which are disproved. However, those elements are NOT enough to tentatively consider the conclusion true. Following the thread of logic, discussing the topic is impossible if you are going to insert untrue premises. A wildly incorrect view of logic makes any response you might offer on the topic pointless to discuss. No, it is not reasonable to consider something true if a logically valid argument can be presented to prove it, and there is no contradictory evidence. If you don't understand this, it is no wonder you are a theist.

RAZD writes: ​ Or is it just a poor argument from consequences?

It is neither; it is simply an observation.

RAZD writes: ​ Poisoning the Well fallacy?

Someone who misunderstands logic is likely to make illogical arguments; having made an illogical argument the proper response is to point out the logical error, not trundle on as though it has to be addressed in another fashion.

RAZD writes: ​ Those elements are not enough to say that you must consider the conclusion true, certainly, but they are also not anywhere near enough to tentatively or otherwise consider the conclusion false either. ​ Amusingly, therefore, if someone wants to believe in the IPU, this shows that such a belief is not unreasonable.

You just said it in the first paragraph, and then completely ignore it in the second.Those elements are not enough that we must consider the conclusion true, and they are not enough that we must consider the conclusion false. They are not enough to show that such a belief is unreasonable either. HOWEVER, the belief may actually be unreasonable and be proved unreasonable by another method, or other data not part of the argument presented.So no, it is not true that if someone wants to believe in the IPU such a belief is not unreasonable. The inability of the particular argument we are considering to prove something unreasonable doesn't mean it cannot be proved unreasonable! That is a basic fallacy of Composition.

RAZD writes: ​ Curiously, I am not the one that posted a self contradicting opinion about the validity of belief.

You already quoted that line, double quoting is unnecessary considering I wrote it. I am not *that* narcissistic. It would also help if you pointed out a contradiction somewhere in your claim.

RAZD writes: ​ And interestingly, just because arguments with untrue premises can be valid, does not mean that that arguments with premises that have not been invalidated cannot be valid.

In the terminology of logic, I can't figure out what you mean by invalidating premises. I am going to assume you mean proving premises untrue.In that case, yes, the truth of the premises has no bearing on the validity of the argument. That was my point in the first place; the mere fact that the premises have not been proved false does not mean we can consider the argument valid. The soundness of the argument though, does depend on the premises being true. Simply pointing out that the premises have not been proved false does not establish them as being true either.

RAZD writes: ​ ... and the definition provided in Message 103 shows that a conclusion is valid if (a) the form is properly constructed and (b) if the premises, taken as true in the argument, lead to the conclusion. ​ This does not mean (I repeat) that the conclusion is proven , just that it is valid. ​ A logically valid argument is one that may be (tentatively considered) true if the premises are not known to be false.

Again, a thousand times no! A logically valid argument is true if the premises are known to be true! If you don't know that, if you are unsure of the truth of the premises, the argument is simply valid with premises of unknown truth.It is not reasonable to consider something true, tentatively or otherwise, simply because an argument based on facts that may or may not even exist can be made for that something. Such an approach would result in literally *anything* being tentatively considered true.Of course this reductio ad absurdum depends on you recognizing such a state of affairs as absurd.

RAZD writes: ​ Again, YOU consider this statement true even though you have no evidence to prove it, it is just your opinion.

My IPU example proves that such a leap is unreasonable. You have yet to address it. This is how discussions work; you have presented an argument, and I pointed out a flaw. If you don't want to address it that is your prerogative, but discussion of arguments on the topic is the entire purpose of a discussion board.Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.

It appears that those harmful things which you avoid now are the result of trial and error; stumbling blocks which the religious have encountered and the harm they have inflicted are now avoided by rote rather than vision.How then do you address one of the greatest harms of all? I refer to the partner a theist provides to an atheist in any cooperative goal, such as society. A team member who is unable or unwilling to look at evidence and make rational decisions based on that evidence is a hindrance rather than a help. Are we to suffer the trial and error of a theist looking for the right answer that is in front of them, or is the atheist eternally to instruct the theist on proper behavior based on the evidence? The reason why theists so often try to defend faith by pretending it isn't belief in a concept without evidence, or even an attempt to find evidence, is because such behavior is clearly monumentally stupid and harmful to others. Apply such a behavior to *anything* else and you would see it for yourself.Suppose you were to use faith toward the subject of the state of the traffic lights you encounter. Lets say you faithfully assume that they are all green... obviously you are going to get pasted by another car eventually, and are a great harm to others. Not all the time of course, sometimes it is actually green and everyone is fine. But it should be clear that you are a danger to others regardless.In the case of faith your options are much greater; there may be millions of possible colors of the light, or no light at all. You may not be able to see the light, either because you have painted the windshield opaque (went to a Christian college) or conditions prevent it from being viewed at all. The fallout from your decision is the same though; faith that you know something that you don't know, have no reason to know, is harmful in and of itself.0 No, that is called "lying". Or pulling stuff out of your butthole, making stuff up, or "imagining". The proper, honest answer is "I don't know." Especially so when you *cannot* know. Pascal's Wager? Again?The proper response is uncertainty with increased caution. Religion would get you killed here, when the previously unknown winged bear-scorpion attacks the theist with a Bible, a cross, and unwavering faith that his/her fictional deity will protect them. How can you claim to have a moral compass when it is fixed on a god, and you are unable to assess the morality of something like genocide? How can you claim to be a moral agent at all?Your moral compass through faith is an arrow drawn on a rock pointing a random direction. I see no reason why you would defend such a thing.

What possible disagreement could you have to the concept that it isn't OK to believe something is true just because it *might* be true?