|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Identifying false religions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
jar writes: I'm actually pretty sure that no evidence is even possible as long as we live.... I said above that it is just a belief not a conclusion. What ever might have convinced me is simply personal, of no value to anyone else. Again, you are drawing distinctions between beliefs and conclusions that I don't think you have adequately explained, and are not implied through the regular use of the language. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Again, you are drawing distinctions between beliefs and conclusions that I don't think you have adequately explained, and are not implied through the regular use of the language. Okay, but that is your problem, not mine.
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. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi bluegenes,
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. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi 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. 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. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : second by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Jar,
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? Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Almost a one for one correspondence it seems.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Almost a one for one correspondence it seems. It would seem that way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
RAZD writes: 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? My overall view: If someone has hard evidence that something exists, and no evidence contradicting it, they should believe it exists. 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. 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. In the end though, they lack belief in that thing's existence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
I determine false religions/beliefs using the following guide;
1) Do people forge evidence for the sake of the belief? If this is true then it is a false religion.2) Do the proponents of the religion undermine your beliefs by stating that you have no evidence for your beliefs. If they do this their religion is a false one. 3) Do the proponents of the belief state that you are either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked if you choose not to follow them? If they do this their religion is a false one. 4) Do the believers think that your God is a cruel and evil God. If they believe this then theirs is a false religion. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2316 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
Big_Al35 writes:
That rules them all out then. For Christianity specifically, how many false "ark of Noah's" have been found.
1) Do people forge evidence for the sake of the belief? If this is true then it is a false religion. 2) Do the proponents of the religion undermine your beliefs by stating that you have no evidence for your beliefs. If they do this their religion is a false one.
Again, all seem to be false then. For Christianity, creationists regularly claim there is no evidence for speciation. Or for any of the other religions that are around.
3) Do the proponents of the belief state that you are either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked if you choose not to follow them? If they do this their religion is a false one.
Again, this seems to rule out all religions. Again, fro Christianity, I don;t know how many times I've been told "you just don't get it!'.
4) Do the believers think that your God is a cruel and evil God. If they believe this then theirs is a false religion.
Yep, there they all go again. For Christianity specifically, they tell me that because I'm an atheist, I must be completely immoral.
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.
And again, every religion ever. For Christianity, see Kent Hovind.If he engages in negative tactics it is a false religion. So, according to all your points, all religions are false. Christianity specifically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2498 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined:
|
RAZD writes: You keep proposing science fiction books as evidence that non-science fiction books are not likely to exist in my library. No, I don't. I am not proposing that something that is well known to commonly exist in a certain kind of place doesn't exist in one of those places because something else that is well known to exist in that kind of place does exist in that one place.
RAZD writes: 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. Well, you made it up, so any poor logic is hardly surprising. 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. Observations are the base of scientific theories. This is the theory you can't falsify:
All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination. It is not falsified by pointing out that the existence of imaginary supernatural beings does not prove that real supernatural beings don't exist. The theory that all animals are born from other animals does not prove that there are not individual animals who pop into existence by magic, but it is accepted because the only confirmed source of animals is other animals. The only confirmed source of supernatural being concepts is the human imagination. Someone who accepts the theory that all animals are born from other animals as a strong theory, but does not accept the theory that all supernatural beings are born of the human imagination as a strong theory, is someone who is being inconsistent and irrational.
RAZD writes: However, all I see is poor logic, confirmation bias, begging the question, conflict avoidance, and other symptoms of cognitive dissonance. You seem to spend a lot of time reading your own posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
bluegenes writes: Someone who accepts the theory that all animals are born from other animals as a strong theory, but does not accept the theory that all supernatural beings are born of the human imagination as a strong theory, is someone who is being inconsistent and irrational. Okay. That is a fair statement. What is the problem with being inconsistent and irrational at times? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Someone who accepts the theory that all animals are born from other animals as a strong theory, but does not accept the theory that all supernatural beings are born of the human imagination as a strong theory, is someone who is being inconsistent and irrational. For me, I don't have any reason to think that any animal wasn't born from other animals. If I did, then I'd accept that it might be true. Depending on the reason, I might even believe it happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2498 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
jar writes: Okay. That is a fair statement. What is the problem with being inconsistent and irrational at times? For those who honestly admit their inconsistency and irrationality, and understand that to be the case, I see no serious problems. Such people are unlikely to be forceful and political in their supernatural beliefs, and would not seek to impose them on others. On the other hand, it could be argued, on observation, that the less inconsistency and irrationality there is in human cultures, the better off the people are in those cultures. If you sign a cheque for aid to a foreign country, it'll be headed somewhere where the rate of supernaturalism is very high. And welcome back to the argument factory, if I haven't already said it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
On the other hand, it could be argued, on observation, that the less inconsistency and irrationality there is in human cultures, the better off the people are in those cultures. Perhaps, but I doubt that it could be argued successfully. Often it is essential to be inconsistent. That is how advances are made. Within the topic though, it is necessary IMHO to understand that Gods and gods that we discuss are limited by the human imagination. That does not preclude though the very existence or reality of some GOD that is beyond our limited imagination. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024