|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,811 Year: 4,068/9,624 Month: 939/974 Week: 266/286 Day: 27/46 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Identifying false religions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Phage0070, a lot of agreement here ...
... but a couple of issues.
... 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. 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.
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. 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.
Keep in mind that deciding not to believe a claim is not the same as deciding that the claim is false. 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.
Those who base their interpretation of what exists in reality on personal opinion alone are in my opinion engaging in unsound thinking practices. 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. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
RAZD writes: Said person is of the opinion that they saw bigfoot. 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.
RAZD writes: 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. 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.
RAZD writes: It is still making a decision based on an absence of evidence, rather than just not making a decision. 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.
RAZD writes: 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. And by doing so you lack belief in Bigfoot's existence, correct?
RAZD writes: And you are free to have that opinion. Curiously, it will have little effect on whether the opinions of others are true or not. Sure. Someone being insane does not directly effect the reality of their beliefs, but it does tend to result in them holding wrong beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
RAZD writes: bluegenes writes: This is the theory you can't falsify: All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination. This is the theory that you can't falsify: A supernatural being can exist that is not a figment of the human imagination.. 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?
RAZD writes: Yes, but (amusingly) you are still incapable calculating the probability\likelihood that a non-science fiction book exists in my library. Epic fail. Enjoy. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: You can of course internally define your internal concept of GOD in any way you find personally appealing. However your concept of GOD - This immaterial and undetectable "creator of all that is, seen and unseen" - is necessarily a product of your own internal mind. It has not been perceived. It can not have been perceived. So it's conception must be the product of internal imagination alone. Just as is the case with any other undetectable concept. Yes - It is philosophically possible that it may actually exist. It is philosophically possible that your imagination may have hit upon some great truth of reality by virtue of random chance alone. But there is no more reason to suppose that this GOD does actually exist than there is any other un-evidenced and un-falsifiable concept the human mind can concoct. jar writes: Huh? Or it might actually exist. 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.
jar writes: Please read what I write. Same to you.
Straggler writes: Why worship or oppose any concept that we know must have been made-up? jar writes: Beliefs whether factual or fantasy effect how people behave. Indeed. So, if you are going to bother opposing anything, oppose the belief. Not the invented god concept.
jar writes: Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped! 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Straggler writes: Straggler writes: You can of course internally define your internal concept of GOD in any way you find personally appealing. However your concept of GOD - This immaterial and undetectable "creator of all that is, seen and unseen" - is necessarily a product of your own internal mind. It has not been perceived. It can not have been perceived. So it's conception must be the product of internal imagination alone. Just as is the case with any other undetectable concept. Yes - It is philosophically possible that it may actually exist. It is philosophically possible that your imagination may have hit upon some great truth of reality by virtue of random chance alone. But there is no more reason to suppose that this GOD does actually exist than there is any other un-evidenced and un-falsifiable concept the human mind can concoct. jar writes: Huh? Or it might actually exist. 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. Huh? Unless or until it is detected.
Straggler writes: jar writes: Please read what I write. Same to you.
Straggler writes: Why worship or oppose any concept that we know must have been made-up? jar writes: Beliefs whether factual or fantasy effect how people behave. Indeed. So, if you are going to bother opposing anything, oppose the belief. Not the invented god concept. 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.
Straggler writes: jar writes: Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped! 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. 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: 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. Huh? Unless or until it is detected. 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?
jar writes: I don't see any reason to oppose beliefs. I do see reasons to oppose behaviors at times. Beliefs lie behind behaviours. Subtle difference. But other than that - OK I agree.
jar writes: However if you read back you will see that I spoke of opposing even more than just actions but rather the very god. 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?
jar writes: 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. 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.
jar writes: 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. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Straggler writes: jar writes: Straggler writes: 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. Huh? Unless or until it is detected. And how might this detection occur? No idea. Dying might be one.
Straggler writes: 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? Of course.
Straggler writes: jar writes: However if you read back you will see that I spoke of opposing even more than just actions but rather the very god. 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? 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.
Straggler writes: jar writes: 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. 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. Whatever. But that is of course unrelated to anything I said.
Straggler writes: jar writes: 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. 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? 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Dying might be one. I think we can all see why many might find that belief personally appealing.
Straggler writes: 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? Of course. Then I see little disagreement between us. Maybe you could try explaining the reasons for this to RAZ.
Straggler writes: 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? Of course not. I have said several times that it is not an evidential matter but rather one of definition. And would you also agree that ones definition is derived from what one finds personally appealing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Straggler writes: jar writes: Straggler writes: 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? Of course not. I have said several times that it is not an evidential matter but rather one of definition. 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: And would you also agree that ones definition is derived from what one finds personally appealing? Of course not. Then what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: You're failure to understand is stunning. 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?
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? and if it isn't? Then it is empirically detectable and able to be investigated empirically.
RAZD writes: Whether you can identify actual tests that show that actual beliefs are false is the issue of this thread. And how we go about this will very much depend on whether or not you are talking about empirically detectable gods or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Straggler writes: Straggler writes: And would you also agree that ones definition is derived from what one finds personally appealing? Of course not. Then what? 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Something doesn't have to make you warm and fuzzy to meet the very human need to feel that there is "something more".
jar writes: 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. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Straggler writes: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: My point is I cannot really say anything much about GOD But you have said quite a lot.
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024