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.
Same here. Exactly. It would require positive evidence for the proposition, but if there was some, then I'd take it on board and assess it.
Same with supernatural beings actually existing outside our heads! I wouldn't actually mind my theory being falsified. It would be about the most exciting moment in human history, when you think about it.
What!!!!!. There really are leprechauns?
It would certainly make the world even more interesting than it already is, but I don't think it's going to happen.
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.
Same here. Exactly.
So then, one could accept your animal theory while not accepting your supernatural one without being inconsistent and irrational.
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.
Indeed, the gods that theists believe in are limited by their imaginations. It would, theoretically, be impossible to believe in gods that were beyond their imaginations, just in the concept of "things beyond the imagination."
This ends up as "I believe in something, but I cannot know what it is".
There wouldn't be a word for it. And if a word was given to it, it would be meaningless.
One thing that may be beyond the imagination is pure complete nothing.
I can also assign some characteristics to it, for example "The Creator of all that is, seen and unseen."
"Creators" are things we can imagine. A creator of all things seen and unseen would have created itself, and written this post.
That might be stretching the imagination.
jar writes:
If someone asks me for proof, I can offer none.
But that also does not preclude the Gods and gods folk worship from representing some real entity.
Of course not. They could all be worshipping colliding branes or quantum fluctuations without knowing it, if you want to look at things that way. My theory that all supernatural beings are figments of the imagination is a strong theory, not a "proof".
The theory that all animals are born from other animals is not a proof, either, just as modern evolutionary theory is not a "proof" that naturalistic evolution explains everything about life on earth.
Strong theories give us the rational default positions in relation to the evidence available at any particular time.
On the topic, any individual described religion involving supernatural beings should be considered very likely to be false as the default position.
That is, by those who wish to be considered rational. Others can believe that Tinkerbell created the universe if they feel like it. As you point out, why not?
I didn't say that it couldn't be. We were talking about things that could exist that are beyond the human imagination. "Stretching the imagination" doesn't mean "not existing".
jar writes:
bluegenes writes:
On the topic, any individual described religion involving supernatural beings should be considered very likely to be false as the default position.
Okay, but that still has nothing to do with GOD. Sheesh.
It's you who suggested that things that folks worshipped might have something to do with a real entity you call GOD, not me. Sheesh.
It's you who suggested that things that folks worshipped might have something to do with a real entity you call GOD, not me. Sheesh.
No, that's not what I said.
I said that the gods or Gods folk imagine could actually represent something that really existed. A religion is a human creation. But that says nothing about the reality of any god, God or GOD.
The topic is "Identifying false religions" and so has nothing to do with any real GOD.
It's entirely possible though that some of the gods being marketed could represent real gods. If that were shown to be true then we, as humans, need to decide whether or not to accept, respect, worship or oppose that or those real gods.
For example, it is entirely possible (although I personally think highly unlikely) that the god Buzsaw tries to market might turn out to be real. In that case, if the evidence is convincing I see no option but to accept the god. However the god Buzsaw markets is not worthy of my respect, certainly not worthy of worship and I think it is definitely something that should be opposed.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
I can also assign some characteristics to it, for example "The Creator of all that is, seen and unseen."
Just as I can imagine a perfectly straight line, I can imagine "GOD", but there are limits.
If someone asks me to go much beyond generalities, I get stumped.
If someone asks me for proof, I can offer none.
But that also does not preclude the Gods and gods folk worship from representing some real entity.
Forgive me, Jar, but what you just said quite explicitly means that you cannot imagine this "god" thing.
You're able to say that "god" is supposed to be the "creator of all that is," but that's not actually a property of this "god" thing.
It's nothing more than a mysterious answer to a mysterious question. Your "god" leaves us exactly as ignorant regarding the mysteries of the origin of reality (if there is such a thing) as we were before you used the term.
When I imagine a car, I can tell you specific properties that make it a car - wheels, a passenger compartment, an engine of some sort, and so on. When you ask how I arrived at work today, when I tell you "I drove here in my car," you have an actual explanation as to my mode of transportation that leaves you possessing more information than you had previously (because it eliminates such possibilities as train, bus, taxi, walking, bike, or even outlandish conceivable possibilities like teleportation).
When you try to imagine a perfectly straight line, you can tell me the properties of that line. You can tell me that such a line will never intersect a perpendicular line; that it can be defined by any two points in space; that it stretches infinitely in both directions; that it defines a single dimension, as opposed to a two-dimensional plane or a three-dimensional cube or even a dimensionless point; that such a line would lie on an infinite number of two-dimensional planes, and so on. The definition of a perfectly straight line is extremely specific and precise, and cannot be confused with even similar things like rays or even line segments.
When you imagine this "god" thing as an explanation for where "everything" came from, no possibilities have been eliminated. No descriptive qualities are conveyed. "God" is not an answer - it's a password that simply stops your curiosity without providing any new information.
You haven't "imagined" anything beyond a word.
The fact that you can only define "god" in extremely general terms means that it isn't actually defined at all. To be defined, you have to be able to distinguish the thing represented by the word from things that are not represented by the word.
As a thought experiment, try replacing the word "god" with a made-up word, and see if it makes just as much sense.
If you ask how I got to work today and I say "phlogiston," or "magic," you would notice that you are confused and still don't know how I arrived at work. Would you have any more information if I responded with the word "god?"
If you ask how the Universe came to be, do you have more or less information by answering "phlogiston," "magic," "marklar," or "god?" Perhaps one satisfies your curiosity more, but do you actually have more information about the origins of the Universe by using any of those answers?
If, a hundred years from now, we actually explain with certainty the origin of the Universe, and we call the theory "phlogiston theory," would that mean that those who answer the question today with the word "phlogiston" actually knew all along? Does the possible future definition of a word convey present meaning?
Forgive me, Jar, but what you just said quite explicitly means that you cannot imagine this "god" thing.
You're able to say that "god" is supposed to be the "creator of all that is," but that's not actually a property of this "god" thing.
It's nothing more than a mysterious answer to a mysterious question. Your "god" leaves us exactly as ignorant regarding the mysteries of the origin of reality (if there is such a thing) as we were before you used the term.
Well, of course it is a property of this thing; this thing is that which created all that is, seen and unseen.
Of course it leaves us ignorant "regarding the mysteries of the origin of reality (if there is such a thing) as we were before you used the term. I have not only said that ever since I've been at EvC, I have repeated it here even since I've been back. It tells us nothing about "how", only "who".
Rahvin writes:
If you ask how the Universe came to be, do you have more or less information by answering "phlogiston," "magic," "marklar," or "god?" Perhaps one satisfies your curiosity more, but do you actually have more information about the origins of the Universe by using any of those answers?
Huh?
Irrelevant word salad!
Please read what I write.
I defined GOD as the Creator of all that is, seen and unseen.
Go back and reread what I write. Nowhere will you find me saying "How the world got here is by God creating the world."
How is an entirely different question than who.
How all that is, seen and unseen was created is a question of science.
Who did it is a question of belief and theology.
Edited by jar, : left out the quote I was replying too.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
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.
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)*
Other people have no compelling reason to consider it more than their personal opinion based on their world view, but presumably the person with the experiences would consider it as more than that. For instance, someone who thinks they saw Bigfoot would presumably consider it more genuine than their preference for chocolate cake, even if they were simply mistaken about that observation of Bigfoot.
They should be distinguishable by the person with the private evidence.
RAZD writes:
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.
No, the latter two are insanity if they are not accompanied by evidence. Deciding to believe that something exists simply based on personal preference and a lack of contradictory evidence sums up what I would view as mental illness.
RAZD writes:
For the same reasoning/logic applies to belief and non-belief.
Keep in mind that deciding not to believe a claim is not the same as deciding that the claim is false.
RAZD writes:
There is nothing that forces anyone to believe, with no reason to believe.
Good, that is exactly the behavior I am saying would be lunacy to perform.
RAZD writes:
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)*.
Those who base their interpretation of what exists in reality on personal opinion alone are in my opinion engaging in unsound thinking practices.
A personal observation should be distinguishable from personal opinion, otherwise the individual has serious problems relating to reality.
---
To identify false beliefs, each proposed belief should be treated as a claim.
If that claim has adequate evidence to warrant belief in the claim, it should be accepted.
If it does not, the claim should be rejected. This does not mean the claimed thing does not exist, merely that the claim is unsupported.
Everything else tends to be a question of what constitutes "adequate evidence", and I propose that personal preference does not constitute adequate evidence to believe something exists.
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
(1)