Identifying false religions.

Did you see the additions I made (while you were posting I fear)?The answer to this latest question is that I would be very doubtful about that. I would have a high degree of confidence that you do not have an 80 year old oak tree growing out of your ear.But I've been wrong before.

---

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

I did not, but not to worry. As I said, I'm not playing gotcha, looking for inconsistencies that I can then wave in the air and claim victory. I'm exploring parameters. Okay, so why agnostic about Russell's teapot but skeptical about subbie's oak tree?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Wait, you're conflating concepts.I can be unsure but skeptical.I can say I'm more doubtful about your oak tree than Russell's Tea pot; there can be a whole range of positions between absolute surety, likely, unlikely and absolute denial. Edited by jar, : No reason given.

---

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

Hi Rahvin (et al) If it is a logically valid concept that isn't falsified by empirical evidence, then it can't really be irrational (no matter how much you may want it to be), basically by definition:

quote:

---

Rational Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
The American Heritage Dictionary 2009

---

What's been "rankling Straggler for months now" is that he cannot demonstrate that the agnostic position is irrational, while I have demonstrated that his position fails the test of logical analysis. As has been amply demonstrated (except that I wouldn't say total), for any concept where there is not sufficient evidence for, nor sufficient evidence against, the concept for the formation of a logical conclusion. Specifically WHEN there is an absence of contrary evidence that would invalidate or falsify the opinion. OR to disbelieve in god/s (as atheists are fond of doing) based on one's own opinion. Curious that you keep ignoring this part.When there is not sufficient evidence for, nor sufficient evidence against, a concept for the formation of a logical conclusion, THEN the only basis one has for making a decision is opinion (based on personal worldview, experiences and biases). This is true whether you decide to believe or disbelieve a concept.There is no functional difference between an atheist belief or a theist belief in this regard, so if you allow the atheist beleif to be rational then you allow the similar theist belief to be rational, or one is guilty of special pleading etc. And yet, curiously, all you have is opinion. You and Straggler and bluegenes etc can all have a high opinion of your own opinion/s, but somehow that fails to amount to anything more than confirmation bias towards your own opinions (something everyone is guilty of, and thus proves nothing).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) • • •

Hi Phage0070, thanks for the amusing post ... Amusingly, I am agnostic - totally agnostic - on the question of bigfoot, as pointed out: So my "personal cult of insanity" has forced me to take "the only reasonable position" on the issue of bigfoot?Perhaps you don't understand the difference ... it's also like lacking an opinion. Keep in mind that deciding not to disbelieve a claim is not the same as deciding that the claim is true.Keep in mind that deciding not to decide until there is more evidence is not the same as having an opinion\belief\etc that the concept is either true OR false.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) • • •

Perhaps I'm reading too much into what you're saying. I assumed that when you said, "I don't know," that meant completely no position on the matter. Not likely, not unlikely, not even slightly more likely that not. I assumed it meant no opinion whatsoever on likelihood.How do you feel about Sagan's famous aphorism, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?"

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

That's a very definite statement coming from someone who is completely uncommitted on whether or not Satan is manipulating his mind. It would certainly be irrational behaviour for such a person to express any opinions on anything.But, to explain your behaviour as being the result of a mind manipulating Satan would be explaining it with a random baseless explanatory hypothesis, wouldn't it? And smart people who rate their opinions highly know that such hypotheses are always very unlikely to be correct.

The term "know" is one that I use pretty carefully. "Know" tends to be pretty emphatic, an end. It would make a nice bumper sticker.But again, I try not to make extraordinary claims.

---

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

So when you say, "I don't know," you mean that you lack absolute or near absolute certainty about the matter, although you may have a belief about the likelihood of the matter. Do I have it right? It probably does. The gist of my question, however, was whether you agree with it.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Bigger range then that. "I don't know" can be anything from near absolute certainty something is likely to near absolute certainty something is unlikely. The problem is that an "extraordinary claim" depends on the individual considering it. What YOU might think extraordinary I might consider very ordinary.

---

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

So when you say that could include you believing that it's nearly absolutely certain to be so, but not 100% certain.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

I hope you understand this isn't contradictory to my statement that "you don't believe Bigfoot exists", right? It would be a shame if you still didn't understand agnosticism to the existence of something implied lack of belief in its existence. No, your "personal cult of insanity" has prevented you from phrasing the reasonable position in a particular manner. Keep in mind that deciding to disbelieve a claim is not the same as deciding the claim is false. Keep in mind that lacking an opinion that the concept is either true or false implies lack of belief that the concept is true or false.Thus, agnosticism toward the concept implies lack of belief (and lack of disbelief).

I think we need to step back a ways here.What I suggest is that we move through how I go about identifying false religions (although IMHO all religions including the one I practice could be called false). It will be a slow journey and as in the Grand Canyon thread I'd like to keep it step by step and make sure we agree on each layer before going further.If that is okay then we could do it here, or in another thread if you prefer.

---

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

On what evidential basis? Yet your belief in God or god is not? What is the evidential difference? Be specific. So how are God or god evidentially different to GOD such that atheism is not also rationally justified towards these differently "spelt" entities? Yet it is rational to conclude that any unevidenced entity is improbable is it not? And how is your un-evidenced belief any different from mere personal preference?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But neither fat jolly magically undetectable Santa Claus nor the empirically undetectable Easter Bunny have been empirically falsified. They cannot, by definition, be empirically falsified. Yet you quite sensibly accept that the actual existence of these entities has been refuted as the product of human invention in all all but the most pointless and pedantic of philosophical senses.The same must apply to any empirically imperceptible entity as there is no means by which it's human conception can have been arrived at but by the internal workings of the human mind.This is the fact you refuse to confront.