Identifying false religions.

Hi Phage0070, a lot of agreement here ...... but a couple of issues. Agreed, as I pointed out ad nauseum to Straggler regarding the value of subjective (personal experience) evidence, and this is the difference between level I and level II concepts, however it is still opinion. Said person is of the opinion that they saw bigfoot. Sorry, special pleading. The agnostic position is the only one supported by logic, so if any choices are "insanity" then it is both positions that take an opinion (true or false) based on a lack of evidence. It is still making a decision based on an absence of evidence, rather than just not making a decision.I can be totally agnostic on the issue of bigfoot, and that means I neither believe nor disbelieve the claim of the person who had a personal experience (subjective evidence) and they are of the opinion that they saw bigfoot.I can also be of the opinion that whether I believe or not, there are plenty of people looking for evidence, so I can wait to see if more persuasive evidence turns up: I don't need to rush out and start looking myself. And you are free to have that opinion. Curiously, it will have little effect on whether the opinions of others are true or not.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

Said person is of the belief that they saw Bigfoot as an objective observation, distinct from their subjective opinions on other things. Anyone else they make the claim to may be unable to distinguish this from their opinion, but the observer presumably *can*. That is the key reason why it is reasonable for the observer to believe Bigfoot exists, and why it isn't reasonable for the third other party to believe the claim.The point is that the observer's "opinion" of seeing Bigfoot as you state it shouldn't be confused with other opinions, such as their preference for there being a million dollars in their bank account, or preference for there to be a god. The observer *must* be able to distinguish these things with some regularity, otherwise they are suffering from mental illness. Pardon, I mean "the other two" as you said, not the latter two. Agnosticism is indeed the only reasonable position in a complete lack of evidence. No, it isn't. Rejecting a claim does not imply a decision on the subject of the claim whatsoever. Rejecting someone's claim of seeing Bigfoot does not mean that you have made a decision that Bigfoot exists or does not exist. It simply means that you don't find that claim adequate.If you have rejected all claims of Bigfoot's existence you don't necessarily conclude that Bigfoot does not exist. However, you should also lack belief in its existence and by doing so you are an a-Bigfoot-ist in that regard. Similarly, rejecting all claims of a god's existence does not imply a decision about the existence of gods, but should logically result in atheism. And by doing so you lack belief in Bigfoot's existence, correct? Sure. Someone being insane does not directly effect the reality of their beliefs, but it does tend to result in them holding wrong beliefs.

You really don't know the difference between a scientific theory and a random hypothesis, or baseless guess, do you? Do you want some clues? Would you like to point to a bluegenes post in which the claim is made that bluegenes can make a probability calculation on what books you've got in your room? Would you like to point to a bluegenes post that makes the claim that bluegenes can make probability calculations on everything in the world?Board members with basic reading comprehension will have missed these posts.What bluegenes claims is this: It is rational and productive to make probability estimates on many things without being able to mathematically quantify the probability.I can demonstrate this to you. I'll list 100 things that I estimate as "very improbable" to be in your house. In every case, no member of this board will be able to give a mathematical figure on the probability to within an order of magnitude. In fact, they won't be able to say anything but "very improbable", or, in your unique case, "I'm completely uncommitted because I cannot know". If I'm right on every single one, I will have demonstrated that my way of viewing the world is correct in this respect.If I'm wrong on one single thing, then I'll send you 100,000 dollars.If none of the things can be found in the house, you send 1,000 dollars to Percy to help with the site.Agreed? Show some confidence.

Which part of "philosophically possible" or "random chance" was unclear to you?Your GOD - This immaterial and undetectable "creator of all that is, seen and unseen" - Is identical in this regard to any other such unfalsifiable and empirically imperceptible entity. Same to you. Indeed. So, if you are going to bother opposing anything, oppose the belief. Not the invented god concept. Anyone who thinks that writing a word in BIG letters changes it's evidential validity is promoting personal appeal at the expense of evidential and logical consistency.Which is fine if that is your want. But let's not pretend it is anything other than that.

Huh?Unless or until it is detected. I don't see any reason to oppose beliefs. I do see reasons to oppose behaviors at times.However if you read back you will see that I spoke of opposing even more than just actions but rather the very god.For example, should it turn out that the God Buzsaw tries to market actually happened to be GOD, then I believe it is our duty to actively oppose it. That's fine and if you ever come across someone who thinks that "writing a word in BIG letters changes it's evidential validity" please let me know and I will help you discuss the subject with them.

---

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

And how might this detection occur?Do you accept that there is no more reason to elevate this possibility above the possibility that any other such unfalsifiable and empirically imperceptible concept that can be plucked from the arse of humanity might also exist? Beliefs lie behind behaviours. Subtle difference. But other than that - OK I agree. And I see little point in opposing entities that (philosophical possibility and random chance aside) are necessarily the products of human invention. As all empirically imperceptible entities must be. How could it be otherwise? The chances of Buz's god turning out to actually exist are so ridiculously unworth worrying about that our concerns would be better spent opposing the potentially dangerous beliefs and actions of those that follow this almost certainly false concept. Then could you clarify what you think the evidential and logical difference (if any) is between your GOD and any other unfalsifiable and empirically imperceptible concept?

No idea. Dying might be one. Of course. It's a good thing then I never suggested opposing the products of human invention unless they lead to behavior that needs to be addressed. Whatever. But that is of course unrelated to anything I said. Of course not. I have said several times that it is not an evidential matter but rather one of definition.

---

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

I think we can all see why many might find that belief personally appealing. Then I see little disagreement between us. Maybe you could try explaining the reasons for this to RAZ. And would you also agree that ones definition is derived from what one finds personally appealing?

Of course not.

---

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

Then what?

Your evasiveness, ambiguity and refusal to answer straight questions is depressingly familiar and wholly expected.Are the god concepts under discussion empirically imperceptible or not? Then it is empirically detectable and able to be investigated empirically. And how we go about this will very much depend on whether or not you are talking about empirically detectable gods or not.

I have tried to explain this to you several times, and I'll try again.In the case of my believe in GOD, it would be appealing to have some warm, personal, understandable critter.But I don't see how that is possible, no matter how appealing that might be.If there is a GOD, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, then the gulf between that entity and me is greater than the gulf between me and slime mold.However, I can imagine some God, in this case the generic Judaic-Muslim-Christian God. That is something totally different then GOD, something where I can assign a few more characteristic. I understand that my God is just some caricature, some human creation of language designed to help me concentrate and think.Finally there is the term god. This is yet another level of increased detail. For example, the god found in Genesis 1 is entirely different than the God found in Genesis 2 & 3. Usually when I get to the level of god I can get far more specific then with the level of God or GOD. I can say that the god in Genesis 2&3 is very human, intimate, looks like a human, walks like a human, has human emotions, is personal, not overly bright, hands on, sometimes unsure, a tinkerer that works by trial and error, sometimes fearful. The god in Genesis 1 though is entirely different, supremely adept, overarching, able to create immediately by a simple act of will but also aloof, separate from what is created.Three totally different definitions of the generic term 'god'.

---

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

Something doesn't have to make you warm and fuzzy to meet the very human need to feel that there is "something more". Why? Why cannot "the creator of all that is, seen and unseen" be a bored depressed and perfectly emotionally comprehensible entity who invented a method of universe creation for a bit of light relief?Seriously. Why not?You seem very determined to invoke this mega incomprehensible super superior GOD being.But why that concept rather than any other?

Could well be. My point is I cannot really say anything much about GOD. I can say more about God and even more about god.

---

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

But you have said quite a lot.

You have indicated that this GOD is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable.

You have told us that GOD is "the creator of all that is, seen and unseen"

You have told us that this GOD is incomprehensible - "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."

You have told us that this GOD is completely unimaginable - "GOD by definition would be far beyond anything we can imagine"

​

So we have an incomprehensible, unimaginable, obviously very powerful, immaterial and empirically undetectable creator of all that is seen and unseen.

​

I'll grant you that you have attempted to make your GOD concept pretty vague. But not withstanding that attempted ambiguity this concept is quite clearly the product of your internal mind. As it cannot have been perceived your conception of this empirically imperceptible entity must be derived from your internal mind.

​

Philosophical possibility and blind random chance aside there is no reason to think this GOD of yours exists anywhere but in the minds of men.

​

Is there?

​

jar writes:

​

I can say more about God and even more about god.

​

So what?