Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8962 total)
108 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 106 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,039 Year: 2,787/23,288 Month: 978/1,809 Week: 97/313 Day: 14/39 Hour: 0/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Identifying false religions.
Huntard
Member (Idle past 711 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 166 of 479 (568483)
07-06-2010 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Big_Al35
07-06-2010 8:45 AM


'twas hacked, methinks.

Since Percy is here, the restoration has already begun.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Big_Al35, posted 07-06-2010 8:45 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Big_Al35, posted 07-06-2010 8:53 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 167 of 479 (568484)
07-06-2010 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Huntard
07-06-2010 8:49 AM


All in working order now! Good job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Huntard, posted 07-06-2010 8:49 AM Huntard has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 894 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 168 of 479 (568545)
07-06-2010 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by RAZD
07-05-2010 10:44 PM


Analogy?!!!
RAZD writes:

Still missing it bluegenes.

I have over 500 science fiction books in my library, therefore it is reasonable to believe that all books in my library are science fiction.

Are you looking for a prize for bad analogies? If there was no evidence of non-science fiction books existing, then the analogy might be apt. Try thinking before you type.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

This is a Very High Confidence theory. Level IV.

In your opinion

Of course it's my opinion, and a very well thought out opinion it is. What follows in your post is exactly like the efforts made by creationists when they can't falsify the theory of evolution. It's waffle.

Ancient random hypotheses:

All of the magical beings in these stories (and there are hundreds) are demonstrably figments of the human imagination. If you don't understand why, I'll explain.

Now, I'm waiting for one example of a real supernatural being, which is all it takes to falsify the theory.

I have plenty more evidence of false ones.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2010 10:44 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 07-18-2010 5:20 PM bluegenes has responded

Straggler
Member (Idle past 46 days)
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 169 of 479 (568555)
07-06-2010 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by RAZD
07-05-2010 9:00 PM


Re: Stop Evading The Question
Straggler writes:

RAZD writes:

ALL you have is an agreement that WHERE you can actually show human invention in a specific case, that THEN you have evidence of human invention in that specific case.

Question: If the specific god under consideration is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable how can it have originated as a human concept from anywhere other than the internal workings of the human mind?

RAZD writes:

That old canaard Straggler?

I will take it from this (unless you state otherwise in response to this) that you now accept that any specific god concepts that are immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable must be considered to be purely products of human invention.

This is significant progress.

RAZD writes:

and if it isn't?

If the specific god under consideration isn't immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable then we are talking about empirically detectable gods which can be investigated by the methods of science.

RAZD writes:

Now can you stop evading the issues?

The issue of whether or not the concept in question can be scientifically investigated is really rather significant as to how we progress on this is it not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2010 9:00 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by RAZD, posted 07-18-2010 5:25 PM Straggler has responded

Straggler
Member (Idle past 46 days)
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 170 of 479 (568558)
07-06-2010 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by jar
07-05-2010 8:52 PM


Re: Stop Evading The Question
RAZD writes:

ALL you have is an agreement that WHERE you can actually show human invention in a specific case, that THEN you have evidence of human invention in that specific case.

Straggler writes:

Question: If the specific god under consideration is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable how can it have originated as a human concept from anywhere other than the internal workings of the human mind?

Jar writes:

But of course any God we can discuss actually started right there, they are human constructs. It can't be any other way.

We agree that it started there. You seem to be suggesting that it should not end there. But why rationally should we pursue the human invention of god any more avidly than we would pursue any other blatant product of human imagination?

Jar writes:

We are limited to what a human can see, think, understand, and a GOD by definition would be far beyond anything we can imagine.

If one defines ones invention to be unimaginable I suppose one will be able to say that ones invention is unimaginable. I am not sure what your point is here?

Jar writes:

Yet we are still human, and so we try to create caricatures, ikons, images, concepts to best outline what we as a people imagine GOD to be.

Some people believe in an invented god that they are able to imagine. Others believe in an invented god that they define to be conceptually unimaginable.

This seems like a rather insignificant difference in terms of concluding that such beliefs are solely products of the human mind.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by jar, posted 07-05-2010 8:52 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by jar, posted 07-06-2010 2:53 PM Straggler has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 32166
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 171 of 479 (568561)
07-06-2010 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Straggler
07-06-2010 2:33 PM


Re: Stop Evading The Question
If GOD exists, then GOD exists regardless of any evidence or belief that GOD does not exist.
If GOD does not exist, then GOD does not exist regardless of any evidence or belief that GOD does exist.

That takes care of GOD.


However, it still leaves Gods and gods.

If there really is a GOD, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, then that GOD is further from a human than a human is from slime mold. A human has about as much a likelihood of knowing or understanding that GOD as slime mold has of knowing or understanding a human.

As a human, all we can do is imagine some approximation of what a real GOD might be, we create our Gods.

But why rationally should we pursue the human invention of god any more avidly than we would pursue any other blatant product of human imagination?

Good thing I don't suggest that you should pursue such subjects then. Some people do. It is of course irrelevant whether you do or not.

BUT...despite the fact that we cannot identify or determine if there is or is not a GOD, we can look at individual beliefs, at the Gods created and being marketed, and decide whether we believe they might be a reasonable icon and even if it happened to turn out that the caricature was really a GOD, whether that God is worthy of worship or should be opposed.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Straggler, posted 07-06-2010 2:33 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Straggler, posted 07-07-2010 2:18 PM jar has responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5950
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 172 of 479 (568562)
07-06-2010 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Straggler
07-04-2010 3:09 AM


Re: who is begging which question here?
Do you accept that the farting celestial cow hypothesis is an equally valid possibility?

That is the question.

And if not - Why not?

Because it's an Appeal to Ridicule -- a strawman.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Straggler, posted 07-04-2010 3:09 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Straggler, posted 07-07-2010 2:22 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

articulett
Member (Idle past 1788 days)
Posts: 49
Joined: 06-15-2010


Message 173 of 479 (568612)
07-07-2010 7:00 AM


I never could get the god idea to make sense. I tried, but it felt like rationalizing, and then I became afraid to even think about the subject lest I begin to doubt and get punished for my doubt (Catholic indoctrination). I thought the notion of god killing his kid (who was really him) for ME was creepy.

I used to believe in souls-- and I wanted to believe. But even after all these eons of belief, there isn't an iota of evidence.

And since most religions seem to claim that we have souls that do something or other after we die, that makes all religions BS to me. I don't see evidence that humans can feel ANYTHING after they die, so why should I be worried about heaven or hell or what some mortal tells me some supposed invisible deity wants?

If there were evidence for souls, scientists would be refining, testing, and honing that evidence like crazy-- for their own benefit as well as the benefit of those they loved. But if scientists can't find evidence for such things, why would we think anyone has? Why can't we test and no more about such things like we can about everything else that is real? If there were souls, then the souls would step in when a brain was damaged, but that doesn't happen. You can't even make a new memory without a working hippocampus... so why would we think anyone could think or feel anything without a brain at all? Now it just sounds like magical thinking to me-- like all supernatural beliefs. I can see why people believe in such things and why they want to hang on to those beliefs... but that doesn't work for me. I'm too aware of how easily people can be fooled... how easily I've fooled myself. Now I'd want evidence that consciousness CAN exist absent a material brain before I 'd care what anyone has to tell me about immaterial beings --including god(s) and souls.


Straggler
Member (Idle past 46 days)
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 174 of 479 (568659)
07-07-2010 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by jar
07-06-2010 2:53 PM


Re: Stop Evading The Question
If GOD exists, then GOD exists regardless of any evidence or belief that GOD does not exist.

If GOD does not exist, then GOD does not exist regardless of any evidence or belief that GOD does exist.

If Kermit the frog exists, then Kermit the frog exists regardless of any evidence or belief that Kermit the frog does not exist.

If Kermit the frog does not exist, then Kermit the frog does not exist regardless of any evidence or belief that Kermit the frog does exist.

Jar writes:

That takes care of GOD.

Only in so far as it takes care of absolutely anything one applies this statement to. It could be equally applied to anything from Santa Claus to raspberry jam via the Matrix and the Higgs Boson.

If there really is a GOD, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, then that GOD is further from a human than a human is from slime mold. A human has about as much a likelihood of knowing or understanding that GOD as slime mold has of knowing or understanding a human.

And if this god is both immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable then, as you previously wholeheartedly agreed, it is necessarily the case that this concept originated as a product of human imagination. How could it be otherwise? I fail to see what difference adding the additional attributes of being vastly superior and unimaginable to ones imagined concept makes to this logical conclusion?

BUT...despite the fact that we cannot identify or determine if there is or is not a GOD, we can look at individual beliefs, at the Gods created and being marketed, and decide whether we believe they might be a reasonable icon and even if it happened to turn out that the caricature was really a GOD, whether that God is worthy of worship or should be opposed.

Why worship or oppose any concept that we know must have been made-up?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by jar, posted 07-06-2010 2:53 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 07-07-2010 2:34 PM Straggler has responded

Straggler
Member (Idle past 46 days)
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 175 of 479 (568660)
07-07-2010 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Hyroglyphx
07-06-2010 2:54 PM


Re: who is begging which question here?
Because it's an Appeal to Ridicule -- a strawman.

And who get's to decide what is or is not ridiculous?

You?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-06-2010 2:54 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-07-2010 5:06 PM Straggler has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 32166
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 176 of 479 (568662)
07-07-2010 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Straggler
07-07-2010 2:18 PM


Re: Stop Evading The Question
Straggler writes:

If GOD exists, then GOD exists regardless of any evidence or belief that GOD does not exist.

If GOD does not exist, then GOD does not exist regardless of any evidence or belief that GOD does exist.

If Kermit the frog exists, then Kermit the frog exists regardless of any evidence or belief that Kermit the frog does not exist.

If Kermit the frog does not exist, then Kermit the frog does not exist regardless of any evidence or belief that Kermit the frog does exist.

Jar writes:

That takes care of GOD.

Only in so far as it takes care of absolutely anything one applies this statement to. It could be equally applied to anything from Santa Claus to raspberry jam via the Matrix and the Higgs Boson.

Okay.

Straggler writes:

If there really is a GOD, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, then that GOD is further from a human than a human is from slime mold. A human has about as much a likelihood of knowing or understanding that GOD as slime mold has of knowing or understanding a human.

And if this god is both immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable then, as you previously wholeheartedly agreed, it is necessarily the case that this concept originated as a product of human imagination. How could it be otherwise? I fail to see what difference adding the additional attributes of being vastly superior and unimaginable to ones imagined concept makes to this logical conclusion?

I don't remember agreeing to those conditions, however you seem to miss the distinction between GOD and god. Too bad.

I'm also not at all sure what logical conclusion you might be referring to.

Fortunately, what you fail to see is irrelevant and unimportant.

Straggler writes:

BUT...despite the fact that we cannot identify or determine if there is or is not a GOD, we can look at individual beliefs, at the Gods created and being marketed, and decide whether we believe they might be a reasonable icon and even if it happened to turn out that the caricature was really a GOD, whether that God is worthy of worship or should be opposed.

Why worship or oppose any concept that we know must have been made-up?

Read all I write.

jar writes:

BUT...despite the fact that we cannot identify or determine if there is or is not a GOD, we can look at individual beliefs, at the Gods created and being marketed, and decide whether we believe they might be a reasonable icon and even if it happened to turn out that the caricature was really a GOD, whether that God is worthy of worship or should be opposed.

First, note the underlined part. The reason to worship or oppose become important in two situations, one, the underlined parts above, but a secondary reason is the topic of this thread, it is a way to possibly identify false religions.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Straggler, posted 07-07-2010 2:18 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Straggler, posted 07-07-2010 3:26 PM jar has responded

Straggler
Member (Idle past 46 days)
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 177 of 479 (568669)
07-07-2010 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by jar
07-07-2010 2:34 PM


Immaterial Empirically Undetectable god/GOD
And if this god is both immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable then, as you previously wholeheartedly agreed, it is necessarily the case that this concept originated as a product of human imagination. How could it be otherwise? I fail to see what difference adding the additional attributes of being vastly superior and unimaginable to ones imagined concept makes to this logical conclusion?

I don't remember agreeing to those conditions.....

Then what exactly did you mean in the following discourse?

RAZD writes:

ALL you have is an agreement that WHERE you can actually show human invention in a specific case, that THEN you have evidence of human invention in that specific case.

Straggler writes:

Question: If the specific god under consideration is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable how can it have originated as a human concept from anywhere other than the internal workings of the human mind?

Jar writes:

But of course any God we can discuss actually started right there, they are human constructs. It can't be any other way.

You seem here to be accepting of the idea that any concept which is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable must have arisen as a product of human imagination.

No?

......however you seem to miss the distinction between GOD and god.

If both god and GOD are immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable I fail to see what distinction is necessary in this context? Both are necessarily products of the internal workings of the human mind.

How can it possibly be otherwise?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 07-07-2010 2:34 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by jar, posted 07-07-2010 3:40 PM Straggler has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 32166
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 178 of 479 (568673)
07-07-2010 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Straggler
07-07-2010 3:26 PM


Re: Immaterial Empirically Undetectable god/GOD
Straggler writes:

You seem here to be accepting of the idea that any concept which is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable must have arisen as a product of human imagination.

No?

Please read what I write. Humans are limited, there are things which we can imagine but there are also limits to both our imagination and to our ability to describe. Any God (note only the first letter capitalized) will be a product of our imagination and limited to what we can imagine, understand or describe.

That does not imply that there might be some entity GOD (note all upper case).

Straggler writes:

If both god and GOD are immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable I fail to see what distinction is necessary in this context? Both are necessarily products of the internal workings of the human mind.

How can it possibly be otherwise?

Utter nonsense. The fact that we are unable to understand or even describe something does not imply that that entity does not exist.

Now if I laid claim that I could describe, understand, know or actually commune with GOD you might have something.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Straggler, posted 07-07-2010 3:26 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Straggler, posted 07-07-2010 3:58 PM jar has responded

Straggler
Member (Idle past 46 days)
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 179 of 479 (568675)
07-07-2010 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by jar
07-07-2010 3:40 PM


Re: Immaterial Empirically Undetectable god/GOD
Jar writes:

Humans are limited, there are things which we can imagine but there are also limits to both our imagination and to our ability to describe.

Yes there are. But what has this to do with whether or not the concept you have described as being immaterial, empirically undetectable and unimaginable as necessarily being a concept that has arisen in the human mind? Where else could this idea possibly have originated from?

Why do you think labeling your concept of God with the attribute "unimaginable" and writing it in upper case makes any difference to this?

Jar writes:

The fact that we are unable to understand or even describe something does not imply that that entity does not exist.

I didn't say it did. I am saying that with no reason to think it does exist any conclusion that it does, or even might, exist is indistinguishable in terms of reliability as to guessing what might exist.

Now if I laid claim that I could describe, understand, know or actually commune with GOD you might have something.

As long as there is no evidenced reason for you to think GOD might exist I fail to see how you are doing anything other than guessing that it does or even might.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by jar, posted 07-07-2010 3:40 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 07-07-2010 4:12 PM Straggler has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 32166
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 180 of 479 (568678)
07-07-2010 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Straggler
07-07-2010 3:58 PM


Re: Immaterial Empirically Undetectable god/GOD
Why do you think labeling your concept of God with the attribute "unimaginable" and writing it in upper case makes any difference to this?

Because I defined it as making a difference.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Straggler, posted 07-07-2010 3:58 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Straggler, posted 07-14-2010 11:15 AM jar has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020