Re: Faith Based Agnosticism With Opinions vs Atheist With (denial of) Opinions?
Hi Straggler,
Yeah you are a faith based agnostic with an opinion. I know. But where your use of the term "faith" departs from normal use is where you can only have faith within the limits of logic and reason. If one is going to have faith why must it be limited so?
It's also limited by not being contradicted by any known empirical evidence.
If you eliminate beliefs that are self contradictory or that are contradicted by evidence, then you are left with ones that may be true.
Curiously, these are the same tests I have proposed here as means to identify false religions, and note that this is not restricted just to religious beliefs.
Message 136: Your position on falsification combined with your outright denial that evidence favouring human invention ....
Having demonstrated that this "evidence" is incapable of showing what you want to show - because it is only true some of the time (and you can't tell when) - does not leave me in denial.
... has any validity demands that you be purely agnostic towards the magical and empirically undetectable Easter Bunny.
No, I start with being logically agnostic, and then look to see if there are any valid reasons to believe X or notX.
The fact that you are too embarrassed to actually unambiguously state this as your position for fear of looking ridiculous and your need to hide this should lead you to question the validity of the arguments that have led you to this conclusion that even you consider too silly to admit to.
Amusingly I have stated my position many times on many threads to many people.
So RAZ - What should I tell my son regarding the rationality of belief or otherwise in the actual existence of the Easter Bunny?
Be specific. No evasion. No ambiguity. Bunny atheist. Bunny agnostic. Or Bunny believer.
I could give you my opinion, but it is only opinion, and not a conclusion based on facts.
I also see absolutely no reason to form a conclusion on this, and it should be no surprise to you, based on previous debates. Amusingly, I also let my son reach his own conclusions. Perhaps you remember this:
question | is there sufficient valid information available to decide | | yes no | | decide based is a on empirical decision valid evidence necessary? (A) / \ yes no / | decide why based on decide inadequate at this evidence time? =guess =wait (B) (C)
(A) is a position based on empirical evidence that is validated and confirmed. (B) is a position based on worldview evaluation of available evidence. (C) is agnostic
The fourth option is to decide based on opinion whether you need to make a decision or not, which seems to be your obsession. You then make up reasons for your decision, and think that this shows that your decision was rational.
What you're trying to do is give one random hypothesis that explains the universe special privilege.
Actually what I have said time and again is that as god/s have not been invalidated that they remain a possibility. No one single random hypothesis is chosen in the process.
You have the same erroneous thinking shown above by the lottery example:
quote:Message 134: Assume we have a lottery, and there an unknown number of tickets sold:
Does the hypothesis that no one will win the lottery have a higher or lower probability than the hypothesis that one specifically identified ticket will win the lottery?
Does the hypothesis that someone will win the lottery have a higher or lower probability than the hypothesis that no one will win?
We can agree that the probability that one specific ticket will win is small, but that isn't the whole picture, no matter how much you pretend that it is. Ignoring the second hypothesis does not make it go away.
The question is whether or not the lottery will be won by any ticket.
So, I can post on science threads without contradiction, but you can't, ...
Amusingly, all you have done is assume that your opinion is true, while I recognize that they are opinions. Curiously, this does not make your posts on science threads any more valid than mine.
All you have done is begged the question by first assuming you are correct and then using your assumption as evidence that you are making a logical conclusion. You can't use an assumed conclusion as your premise for the conclusion.
Because it cannot be conclusively disproved, then, ...
... any pretense on your part for concluding that it is false, is you just expressing your opinion, without having sufficient evidence to substantiate it, and then pretending that it is true. This makes you a pseudoskeptic or a hypocrite.
No. "No god did it" is not an explanatory hypothesis because it leaves the universe unexplained.
And because you have eliminate this from the list, this means that you can't use any explanation that does not use god/s in it, as they are part and parcel of the "no god did it" explanation package.
the issue is the same, whether deist, theist or atheist ...
Hi Catholic Scientist, how's the dirt biking?
Which is why an agnostic position -- that we don't know is the logical rational conclusion ... as I have said many times.
And yet you yourself are not an agnostic - you're a deist. Are you acknowledging that your position is irrational?
I don't think its ever been in dispute that a belief in god is irrational. I think I might have argued that it can be rational.
The root of the argument is atheism being rational.
And as we have seen, when it relies on opinion yet claims to have knowledge of likelihood\probability without evidence supporting it, that it is not logical.
Conclusions based on opinion and belief (worldview) are not (strictly speaking) rational conclusions, whether deist, theist or atheist. We can acknowledge that they are opinions, or we can pretend to know something that is not known from empirical evidence. One is rational, the other irrational, whether deist, theist or atheist.
Opinions based on opinion and belief (worldview) that are logically consistent with all known evidence and are not contradicted by evidence can be considered rational opinions, whether deist, theist or atheist (else one is engaged in special pleading)
Straggler's never ending parade of lesser spirits from his BIG BOX OF GODS ...
Hi Straggler, still looking for answers to questions that cannot be simply resolved?
Nobody here disgrees that gods are a possibility. Do you still not understand that?
I do, that is not the issue. Do you understand that any claim of knowing the probability or likelihood that god/s do exist or not is making up the probability or likelihood and claiming to know something they do not know?
Do you accept that the farting celestial cow hypothesis is an equally valid possibility?
Equally valid compared to what? On what basis do you compare different concepts when there is no evidence one way or the other?
Message 150: By the terms of your argument one must remain wholly agnostic (i.e. very uncertain) if one is to remain rational with regard to the existence of the Easter Bunny.
OR recognize that your opinion on the matter is really opinion, that it is not fact, and that it is not a conclusion based on evidence.
This is the difference between a 2 and a 3 theist or a 5 and a 6 atheist:
quote:Message 91: As a result of the logical analysis we have:
As was demonstrated here:
Compare:
to:
OR:
If the logical form is true for any X then it is true for Y, now let Y = notX:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) still can be true true ... which is valid, and a true conclusion is reached.
3D, 4C and 5E fit this pattern. Possibility is a valid conclusion from a lack of contradictory evidence.
versus:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still absolutely true ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified. 1A and 7B fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments.
OR:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still more likely true than false ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified as well. 2F and 6G fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments.
You are left with opinion (pro or con), neither contradicted by evidence nor logically invalid, or agnosticism.
quote:The author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false.
Example:
You can't agree that evolution is true, because if it were, then we would be no better than monkeys and apes.
You must believe in God, for otherwise life would have no meaning. (Perhaps, but it is equally possible that since life has no meaning that God does not exist.)
Proof:
Identify the consequences to and argue that what we want to be the case does not affect what is in fact the case.
Curiously your opinion is not fact.
I am unsurprised that you are unwilling to come straight out and say that your argument necessarily results in the rational conclusion regarding the Easter Bunny to be agnosticism. The same degree of agnsoticism that applies to god no less.
quote:In order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. A slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the "if-then" operator.
Examples:
If we pass laws against fully-automatic weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully-automatic weapons.
You should never gamble. Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop. Soon you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to crime to support your earnings.
If I make an exception for you then I have to make an exception for everyone.
Proof:
Identify the proposition P being refuted and identify the final event in the series of events. Then show that this final event need not occur as a consequence of P.
Whether or not the easter bunny etc etc (any one from the long parade of lesser gods and spirits from your BIG BOX OF GODS) has no bearing on whether god/s exist that created the universe.
All you are doing is avoiding the real issue and pretending to be rational about your denial of the fact that all you have is opinion.
Each and every instance you bring up fails for the same reason, you are only looking at individual cases and not the whole picture.
quote:Assume we have a lottery, and there an unknown number of tickets sold:
Does the hypothesis that no one will win the lottery have a higher or lower probability than the hypothesis that one specifically identified ticket will win the lottery?
Does the hypothesis that someone will win the lottery have a higher or lower probability than the hypothesis that no one will win?
Do the unknown rules of the lottery affect these probabilities?
If you cannot actually measure the actual probability, then you are left with no viable test.
We can agree that the probability of any specific ticket is likely to be low, and express opinions to that effect, but the issue is not whether a single ticket will win, but whether the lottery as a whole will be won.
Hi Straggler, separate response to this issue, just to be clear:
My own addition would be to seek evidence that indicates the origin of the concepts or concept involved. With falsification being unnecessary to conclude unlikelihood of actual existence if the evidence strongly indicates that the concept has arisen for reasons other than being a part of objective reality. E.g. the origins of the concept that is fat jolly magical but undetectable and unfalsifiable Santa Claus.
Agreed. With Santa Clause it was shown that there was documented evidence of fiction being involved at several stages for the transition from an actual historical figure to the modern folklore version of Santa Clause, including the adaptation & addition of supernatural aspects.
This could be a reasonable test\process to determine whether specific beliefs are false.
For example the IPU.
For example the Celestial Farting Cow.
For example the Garage Dragon.
For example Russel's Orbiting Teacup.
...
Or the folklore version of the easter bunny.
Note that I have said all along that if you have evidence that some specific belief is made up then present it.
... OR:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still more likely true than false ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
If this evidence is empirical then you have a possible (A) conclusion:
question | is there sufficient valid information available to decide | | yes no | | decide based is a on empirical decision valid evidence necessary? (A) / \ yes no ... but ... / | | decide why make a based on decide decision inadequate at this anyway evidence time? based on =guess =wait opinion (B) (C) (D)
The evidence needs to be level III and not level II:
Of course you still need to treat each case on an individual basis, which is another reason that your seemingly endless parade of lesser gods and spirits from your BIG BOX OF GODS has absolutely no bearing on whether god/s exist that created the universe.
Personally I don't see that showing a high likelihood that Santa Clause was a combination of historical figure with fictionalization of supernatural aspects proves anything other than Santa Clause was a combination of historical figure with fictionalization of supernatural aspects, and thus says nothing about the validity of the easter bunny, or that this is in any way indicative to whether or not god/s exist.
So let's test you concept at a larger scale:
Can we use this test to show that there was no world wide flood?
Can we use this test to show that the earth is not young?
After 18 months of persistence on my part have you finally come round to the idea that evidence favouring human invention makes falsifying the unfalsifiable wholly unnececessary.
LOL.
No.
Not in any way.
Not in the slightest.
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.
Santa Clause was a case in point.
Does this then mean that the easter bunny is a case of human invention?
No.
Not in any way.
Not in the slightest.
That would be a ludicrous non-logical leap of blind faith.
You need to actually show the evidence that human invention was involved in the case of the easter bunny.
This is (once again) WHY your whole concept is absolutely useless to apply across the board, and it certainly does not get you anywhere near discussing god/s yet.
As I have said many many many times some people make some things up some of the time, therefore you need to actually show that a specific concept was actually made up before you can claim that it was made up.
It's a conclusion when you have the evidence to support the conclusion, it is NOT a premise for any valid conclusion, no matter how much wishful thinking and confirmation bias you throw that way.
You can only conclude that a specific B is A when you have evidence that the specific B in question is A.
Any argument of the following form is invalid: If A then B B Therefore, A
Examples:
1. If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta, thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.) 2. If the mill were polluting the river then we would see an increase in fish deaths. And fish deaths have increased. Thus, the mill is polluting the river.
Proof:
Show that even though the premises are true, the conclusion could be false. In general, show that B might be a consequence of something other than A. For example, the fish deaths might be caused by pesticide run-off, and not the mill.
Until you provide actual empirical evidence that the easter bunny was actually made up it is invalid to conclude that it was made up.
Have fun.
Yes let's. Now that you have agreed that falsification is unnecessary ...
Except that I did NOT say that in any way shape or form.
What I said was:
quote:
My own addition would be to seek evidence that indicates the origin of the concepts or concept involved. With falsification being unnecessary to conclude unlikelihood of actual existence if the evidence strongly indicates that the concept has arisen for reasons other than being a part of objective reality. E.g. the origins of the concept that is fat jolly magical but undetectable and unfalsifiable Santa Claus.
Agreed. With Santa Clause it was shown that there was documented evidence of fiction being involved at several stages for the transition from an actual historical figure to the modern folklore version of Santa Clause, including the adaptation & addition of supernatural aspects.
This could be a reasonable test\process to determine whether specific beliefs are false.
...
Note that I have said all along that if you have evidence that some specific belief is made up then present it.
...
Of course you still need to treat each case on an individual basis, which is another reason that your seemingly endless parade of lesser gods and spirits from your BIG BOX OF GODS has absolutely no bearing on whether god/s exist that created the universe.
Personally I don't see that showing a high likelihood that Santa Clause was a combination of historical figure with fictionalization of supernatural aspects proves anything other than Santa Clause was a combination of historical figure with fictionalization of supernatural aspects, and thus says nothing about the validity of the easter bunny, or that this is in any way indicative to whether or not god/s exist.
Color and bold added for emphasis.
This test of yours is ONLY VALID when you have the evidence to substantiate that a specific belief is in fact made up.
I want to use your most cited example of that which has been falsified to see if we agree of the limits of evidence based certainty.
It is both conceivable and philosophically possible that the falsification for a 10,000 year old flooded Earth could itself be falsified. Yes?
It is possible, as all scientific conclusions are tentative, but it is unlikely due to:
the preponderance of objective empirical (level III) evidence that not only shows the age of the earth to vastly exceed 10,000 years, but
many correlations that logically match due to age rather than misinterpretation, and
the fact that currently there is no evidence that contradicts or invalidates these ages.
any invalidation of this evidence would also invalidate virtually every branch of science and leave us in a situation where everything is illusion, including whether or not there was a young earth.
The existence of multiply validated objective empirical evidence that speaks specifically to the age of the earth, and the absence of contraditory evidence (up to now) means that it is valid to hold a "2" on the 1-7 scale.
Of course, here we see the young earth concept is identified as a false belief because it is contradicted by objective empirical evidence showing the age of the earth is older, and not by any evidence that this concept was made up, so it is not a validation of your test ... yet.
In order to show that your test can produce similar results at this level (rather than the minor league level of Santa Clause and Easter Bunny), you need to demonstrate how it works
quote:So let's test you concept at a larger scale: Can we use this test to show that there was no world wide flood? Can we use this test to show that the earth is not young?
Once again it is your turn to actually provide evidence and not just assert that you have evidence.
Incidentally, you couldn't be more wrong than when you claim that things cannot be described as "very improbable" or "very probable" when the actual probabilities are impossible to calculate. See your comment on the specific lottery ticket, for example, when we only know that there are many tickets, but not how many.
Yes DO see my comments.
Perhaps the second time you will understand what the argument is.
RAZD writes:
We can agree that the probability that one specific ticket will win is small,.....
Well done. You finally agree that one random hypothesis out of many that can be made is very unlikely to hit the nail on the head.
Golly, gee, whillikers. Talk about confirmation bias cherry picking statements to form a straw man.
My argument has never been that one specific hypothesis is correct, but that all that is necessary for god/s to exist is for ANY hypothesis to be correct, because any one being correct invalidates your position. THUS you must confront ALL the hypothesis as a whole in order to make your pseudo-probability "calculation" whether god/s exist or not -- understand?
We can agree that the probability that one specific ticket will win is small, but that isn't the whole picture, no matter how much you pretend that it is. Ignoring the second hypothesis does not make it go away.
The question is whether or not the lottery will be won by any ticket.
Amusingly, this demonstrates that for you to claim with any smidgeon of actual hope of logic or rationality that god/s do not exist is likely or probable, you need to deal with the second hypothesis, not the first.
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.
This is a Very High Confidence theory. Level IV.
In your opinion.
However, sadly, your opinion is not capable of forcing your concept to be logically valid. No matter how you cut it you are making the logically false assumption that B is evidence for A
Curiously, your problem is not how similar A and B are, but whether there is any B that is not A
If I have over 500 science fiction books in my library, then what is the probability that one book is not science fiction?
If I have over 500 billion science fiction books in my library, then does the probability that one book is not science fiction change?
If one book in my library is not science fiction then the probability in both cases is 1.
Message 163: Read my post again. I understand that you can split your random cow/s hypothesis into millions of different cow hypotheses. The same can be done for all other general random hypotheses. That still doesn't make a winner coming from the set of cow hypotheses any more likely. There is still no reason to consider cows of any description in any quantities as likely explanations of the universe.
The set of random hypotheses that doesn't involve cows is always far greater than the set that does.
Why cows? That's the point. Why not rocks or branes or any other word you care to think of?
You pretend that having an ever increasing number of science fiction books can change the probability that not one book is 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.
You're missing the point again. All you have done is deny the analogy rather than show it is a poor one, and this is typical cognitive dissonance conflict avoidance behavior.
You keep proposing science fiction books as evidence that non-science fiction books are not likely to exist in my library.
There can be whole shelves of science fiction stories about flatulent cows, but this does not address the issue of whether or not a non-science fiction book exists in my library.
Anyone should see that this is poor logic.
To paraphrase Jar -- either a non-science fiction book exists in my library or it does not ...
... and no amount of science fiction books known to be in my library affect the probability or likelihood of a non-science fiction book being in my library.
The capper is that you evidently cannot calculate, as asked, the probability that a non-science fiction book exists in my library, even though we both know that both kinds of books do in fact exist.
The point being, that if you cannot calculate the probability or likelihood of something when you know they both exist, then how do you hope in any way to pretend to be able to assign some kind of probability or likelihood to something that you do not know if it exists.
You can't: all you keep doing is talking about non-sense, pretending to know something you don't.
Of course it's my opinion, and a very well thought out opinion it is.
In your opinion.
However, all I see is poor logic, confirmation bias, begging the question, conflict avoidance, and other symptoms of cognitive dissonance.
I have plenty more evidence of false ones.
And there are plenty of instances of evidence of falsified scientific theories.
Now, I'm waiting for one example of a real supernatural being, which is all it takes to falsify the theory.
And I'm still waiting for evidence that no god/s exist, which is all it takes to falsify the theory.
In the meantime, the logical conclusion is agnostic: that neither proposition has been established by any evidence.
Without evidence one way or the other, all you have is the logical agnostic position OR purely personal opinions about what you personally think is true based on your worldview beliefs and biases.
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.
You're failure to understand is stunning.
Now you are grasping at straws again.
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?
Curiously that has absolutely no bearing on whether god/s in fact exist or not.
That is the basic issue.
Whether you can identify actual tests that show that actual beliefs are false is the issue of this thread.
For me, belief in something that I have no evidence (even personal evidence) is true is lunacy. I might just as well believe anything and everything is true.
Okay. I have absolutely no problem with you feeling that way.
Is it just me, or does anyone else see the parallel between this conclusion and the one fundamentalists make about atheist morality being completely unleashed, and one could do anything?
ie - is it a valid conclusion or just an inability to understand the actual position?
Are you arguing the conclusion that that behavior is lunacy, or suggesting that I should be arguing a different point?
Suggesting that perhaps your premises are flawed by not understanding the position.
If someone has hard evidence that something exists, and no evidence contradicting it, they should believe it exists.
Thus the earth is an oblate spheroid spinning on tilted axis in it's orbit around the sun, a small star in a remote arm of the milky-way galaxy is a valid belief (level III conclusion)*.
If someone has personal evidence, unavailable to others but convincing to them that something exists (and no contradicting), then they should believe it exists but understand and even support those who lack that evidence disbelieving.
They can believe it exists or not (they may remain skeptical), but if they believe it exists then this is only a personal opinion based on their worldview, experiences and biases. Without evidence that can be shown other people it cannot be more than personal opinion (level II conclusion)*
If someone has no evidence whatsoever that something exists, and no contradictory evidence, then they shouldn't believe it exists. They shouldn't believe it doesn't exist either.
For the same reasoning/logic applies to belief and non-belief.
... In the end though, they lack belief in that thing's existence.
Not really, the agnostic lacks confidence in conclusions either way.
People can still choose to believe that it exists (if nothing contradicts that belief, either by evidence or by logic) or they can choose to believe that it does not exist (if nothing contradicts that belief, either by evidence or by logic) or they can decide to be agnostic on the issue. The later is a logical position the other two are personal opinions.
There is nothing that forces anyone to believe, with no reason to believe.
There is nothing that forces anyone to disbelieve, with no reason to disbelieve.
The choice that will be made will be a personal opinion, based on their worldview, experiences and biases. Without evidence it cannot be more than personal opinion, a guess at best (level I conclusion)*.
In the end we must remember though, that belief is a conclusion not necessarily based on evidence:
Beliefs are what we think are true based on our worldview, experiences and biases.
Now, how does this help us identify false beliefs?
All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination.
This is the theory that you can't falsify:
Asupernatural being can exist that is not a figment of the human imagination..
... Observation tells us that science-fiction books frequently exist alongside non-science fiction books, and that books in general are real and common things. Which is why no-one else has made up any silly theories about books of any genre not being on your shelves.
Yes, but (amusingly) you are still incapable calculating the probability\likelihood that a non-science fiction book exists in my library.
Hi Big_Al35, and if I have not already said so, welcome to the fray.
I determine false religions/beliefs using the following guide;
Excellent, someone who is on topic!
1) Do people forge evidence for the sake of the belief? If this is true then it is a false religion.
Agreed.
So all creationist sites that list false information about evolution in specific and science in general are all evidence that this creationism is a false belief. See Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes for some examples.
Now, I would be a little generous and say that creationism per se is not invalid, just that the beliefs that concern the misinformation are false beliefs.
I would also say that any site that posts false information cannot be trusted to post valid information, particularly by anyone that does not know themselves whether the information is good or bad.
2) Do the proponents of the religion undermine your beliefs by stating that you have no evidence for your beliefs. ...
And do they argue against your beliefs in spite of the fact that they too have no evidence for their belief?
If they actually have evidence however that the belief in question is false, then this is a different matter.
For instance, if someone believed that the earth was flat and the center of the universe and less than 10,000 years old, then pointing out that the evidence shows that the earth is an oblate spheroid at least 4.5 billion years old, spinning on a tilted axis in an elliptical orbit around the sun, in company with several other planets and many other astronomical bodies, while the sun is out in a remote arm of the milky-way galaxy slowly orbiting the center of the galaxy, then we have evidence that the belief (that the earth was flat and the center of the universe and less than 10,000 years old) is actually in fact a false belief and should be discarded.
... If they do this their religion is a false one.
No, if you have no evidence then they could be correct, especially if they have evidence. If, however, they have no evidence, then their belief is really just their opinion, one that could be true or false, but for which there is insufficient information to discern.
3) Do the proponents of the belief state that you are either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked if you choose not to follow them? ...
LOL. blowback?
Would you say that someone who believes the earth is flat is none of these: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked? Is there some other category that would encompass people that believe something that is false? Let's run down the possibilities:
ignorant: they don't know the evidence that shows the earth is an oblate spheroid. Curiously, this is just a matter of education, but it is a sad truth that there are many people in the world that are not educated and could easily be ignorant of the facts. Ignorance can be cured by education (but there is the issue of being willing to learn).
stupid: they are incapable of understanding the evidence that shows the earth is an oblate spheroid. It is another sad truth that there are people in institutions that are stupid to a high degree, and the human race covers a broad spectrum of mental ability, so stupidity is a possibility.
insane: in my personal opinion this breaks down into two subcategories:
deluded: mislead, misinformed, people that have been lied to (see your item (1) as an example of people that lie to others) or given false information out of ignorance (etc) by the giver. This too is curable by education (but there is still the issue of being willing to learn, and here we can be dealing with an intentional program of indoctrination in some situations, not just being simply provided with misinformation, so it may be much more difficult), and
clinically delusional: people with a fixed false belief, one "strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution" (see delusion).
wicked: someone who is intentionally lying in order to delude others (again see your item (1) above). Whether they believe their own lies (like some seem to), they are trying to delude others into believing a false belief.
Can you think of any other category for someone that does not believe actual evidence that such a belief is a false belief? The only one I have come up with is apathetic: don't care about the truth, but then they would also be apathetic about the original disbelief ... but I don't find any other position for wiggle room when the issue is whether or not someone accepts the evidence that (say) the earth is an oblate spheroid at least 4.5 billion years old, spinning on a tilted axis in an elliptical orbit around the sun, in company with several other planets and many other astronomical bodies, while the sun is out in a remote arm of the milky-way galaxy slowly orbiting the center of the galaxy ... do you?
... If they do this their religion is a false one.
And yet we do find each of these categories in various people with known false beliefs, so if you point that out to them, does that make your belief false?
No, this just does not follow logically from the premises: if you are presented with evidence that is contrary to your belief and you have no refutation for the evidence other than disbelief, then you are putting yourself if an untenable position of having a belief that is contrary to the evidence.
Now note that two of the above categories, ignorant and deluded, are not the fault of the person, but of the lack of factual information being provided to that person, and they are curable by the presentation of the truth/s.
Now, when this kind of thing occurs to people with fixed beliefs, this usually results in cognitive dissonance, trying to resolve the inconsistencies between the belief and the evidence. The first avenue of escape is denial of the evidence, the second is to blame the messenger, or claim that the messenger is lying or that they are part of some vast conspiracy. It can be tough to go thru.
4) Do the believers think that your God is a cruel and evil God. If they believe this then theirs is a false religion.
Again, I don't see how this makes their religion false, rather than just a specific belief at best, and the truth or falseness would depend on the evidence, what that shows, and how you can refute their claims.
Personally, I don't see how god/s per se can be good or evil, but that's a different issue.
5) Does the proponent of the belief promote and evangelise his belief willingly or does he engage in negative tactics such as witholding information, not engaging and belittling his opponents. If he engages in negative tactics it is a false religion.
Having been the victim of this kind of behavior on other (creationist run) forums, I would agree that attacking the messenger rather than dealing with the substance of the message is a sign of a false belief and that their counter argument is weak at best.
™ Version 4.2
