Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,095 Year: 5,352/9,624 Month: 377/323 Week: 17/204 Day: 17/21 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Identifying false religions.
jar
Member
Posts: 34124
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 331 of 479 (570477)
07-27-2010 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Straggler
07-27-2010 2:38 PM


Re: on GOD
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
I consider all Gods and gods to be evidenced. The evidence is the stories themselves.
How can any stories about any empirically imperceptible being(s) be anything but made-up? (Blind random chance aside.)
They could be real entities. According to the stories the critters are neither imperceptible or unevidenced.
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
Based on that evidence someone can make a rational decision about whether such a critter is likely, unlikely, very likely, very unlikely.
Are there any Gods/gods which you consider to be sufficiently evidenced to be anything other than "very unlikely".
Sure. I think that there is a possibility that Jesus really was God.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 2:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 5:07 PM jar has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 173 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 332 of 479 (570518)
07-27-2010 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by jar
07-27-2010 2:55 PM


Re: on GOD
They could be real entities. According to the stories the critters are neither imperceptible or unevidenced.
Depends which stories we are talking about.
In the case of stories pertaining to entities which are wholly empirically imperceptible we can conclude that (blind random chance aside) they must be made-up. Yes? How can it be possibly be otherwise?
jar writes:
Straggler writes:
Are there any Gods/gods which you consider to be sufficiently evidenced to be anything other than "very unlikely".
Sure. I think that there is a possibility that Jesus really was God.
No atheist here is arguing against the possibility.
But on what rational evidential basis do you elevate the "Jesus as God" story to be more likely than any other?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 2:55 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 5:10 PM Straggler has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34124
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 333 of 479 (570519)
07-27-2010 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by Straggler
07-27-2010 5:07 PM


Re: on GOD
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
They could be real entities. According to the stories the critters are neither imperceptible or unevidenced.
Depends which stories we are talking about.
In the case of stories pertaining to entities which are wholly empirically imperceptible we can conclude that (blind random chance aside) they must be made-up. Yes? How can it be possibly be otherwise?
Read what I write. "According to the stories the critters are neither imperceptible or unevidenced."
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
Straggler writes:
Are there any Gods/gods which you consider to be sufficiently evidenced to be anything other than "very unlikely".
Sure. I think that there is a possibility that Jesus really was God.
No atheist here is arguing against the possibility.
But on what rational evidential basis do you elevate the "Jesus as God" story to be more likely than any other?
None that I am willing to share with you.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 5:07 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 334 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 6:19 PM jar has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 173 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 334 of 479 (570542)
07-27-2010 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by jar
07-27-2010 5:10 PM


Contradictions? Hidden "Evidence"?
Straggler writes:
In the case of stories pertaining to entities which are wholly empirically imperceptible we can conclude that (blind random chance aside) they must be made-up. Yes? How can it be possibly be otherwise?
jar writes:
Read what I write. "According to the stories the critters are neither imperceptible or unevidenced."
Read what I write. There are plenty of religious stories and beliefs that pertain to entities which are considered entirely empirically imperceptible. For example the following definition of a deistic god "Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s, or is off doing other things" Message 225
In the case of this story pertaining to an entity which is wholly empirically imperceptible we can conclude that (blind random chance aside) it must be made-up. Yes? How can it be possibly be otherwise?
jar writes:
Personally I don't believe any of them are likely to exists however I also admit that I might well be wrong. I base that belief of the evidence presented in the stories.
Straggler writes:
Are there any Gods/gods which you consider to be sufficiently evidenced to be anything other than "very unlikely".
jar writes:
Sure. I think that there is a possibility that Jesus really was God.
You "don't believe any of them are likely to exists" (sic) but you don't consider Jesus as God to be unlikely? These answers seem to be contradictory. Can you explain?
Straggler writes:
No atheist here is arguing against the possibility.
But on what rational evidential basis do you elevate the "Jesus as God" story to be more likely than any other?
jar writes:
None that I am willing to share with you.
jar writes:
I base that belief of the evidence presented in the stories.
So are your beliefs based on stories that are available to all?
Or are you citing evidence that is not in these stories? Yet again this seems contradictory.
Can you explain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 5:10 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 6:34 PM Straggler has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34124
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 335 of 479 (570547)
07-27-2010 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by Straggler
07-27-2010 6:19 PM


Re: Contradictions? Hidden "Evidence"?
Straggler writes:
In the case of this story pertaining to an entity which is wholly empirically imperceptible we can conclude that (blind random chance aside) it must be made-up. Yes? How can it be possibly be otherwise?
Sorry, if you are talking about the Deist concept of God then I would have to say that's more probable then many. You can assume that it is made up but others could assume that it is real.
Straggler writes:
You "don't believe any of them are likely to exists" (sic) but you don't consider Jesus as God to be unlikely? These answers seem to be contradictory. Can you explain?
I am not always consistent.
Straggler writes:
So are your beliefs based on stories that are available to all?
Some are, for example the stories of gods and Gods are available in mythology and most religious texts. Others are not, for example my belief in GOD.
Straggler writes:
Or are you citing evidence that is not in these stories? Yet again this seems contradictory.
Can you explain?
I'm not citing evidence not in the stories, and even told you that. I am not willing to present any of my reasoning, logic or evidence for my belief in GOD.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 6:19 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 7:18 PM jar has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 173 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 336 of 479 (570553)
07-27-2010 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by jar
07-27-2010 6:34 PM


Re: Contradictions? Hidden "Evidence"?
Straggler writes:
Yet it is rational to conclude that any unevidenced entity is improbable is it not?
jar writes:
Of course, highly improbable even. I have never said otherwise
jar writes:
Sorry, if you are talking about the Deist concept of God then I would have to say that's more probable then many.
Why? Is it evidenced? Is it "highly improbable"?
jar writes:
I'm not citing evidence not in the stories, and even told you that. I am not willing to present any of my reasoning, logic or evidence for my belief in GOD.
And I have told you that I am relatively uninterested in your self proclaimed irrational belief in GOD.
But you have suggested that Jesus as God is evidenced to the point that it is rational to consider Jesus as God to be a rational belief.
I am asking how this belief is evidenced such that it is rational.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 6:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 7:32 PM Straggler has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34124
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 337 of 479 (570557)
07-27-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by Straggler
07-27-2010 7:18 PM


Re: Contradictions? Hidden "Evidence"?
And you still don't seem to get it.
I'll try yet again and really try to keep it simple for you.
My beliefs are my own. The reasons are my own. I do not expect you to share any of my beliefs.
The evidence for Jesus is acceptable enough for me to consider that Jesus is likely real. The Deist God is reasonable enough for me to consider as likely.
BUT, the evidence only has to be reasonable to me and there is no reason that I should bother pointing any of it out to you that I can see.
I get to decide whether I find evidence for my beliefs sufficient for me, you don't.
Others get to decide whether they find the evidence for their beliefs sufficient, you don't.
If I or someone else tries to convince you to believe as they believe, then, and only then do you get to look at and criticize the evidence.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 7:18 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 7:46 PM jar has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 173 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 338 of 479 (570560)
07-27-2010 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 337 by jar
07-27-2010 7:32 PM


Re: Contradictions? Hidden "Evidence"?
jar writes:
I get to decide whether I find evidence for my beliefs sufficient for me, you don't.
Others get to decide whether they find the evidence for their beliefs sufficient, you don't.
I am not debating your innate right to believe whatever you personally believe on whatever grounds you personally deem sufficient. Any more than I would debate what flavour ice-cream you should prefer. To do that would be absurd.
I am asking you if it is rational to believe that a deistic god is anything other than improbable.
I am asking you if it is rational to believe that "Jesus as God" is anything other than improbable.
If you cannot seperate questions about what it is rational to believe from disputations of what it is you actually have a right to believe in then that says far more about the limitations of your arguments than it does mine.
Straggler writes:
Yet it is rational to conclude that any unevidenced entity is improbable is it not?
jar writes:
Of course, highly improbable even. I have never said otherwise
jar writes:
Sorry, if you are talking about the Deist concept of God then I would have to say that's more probable then many.
Why? Is it evidenced? Is it "highly improbable"?
Straggler writes:
Are there any Gods/gods which you consider to be sufficiently evidenced to be anything other than "very unlikely".
jar writes:
Sure. I think that there is a possibility that Jesus really was God.
You have suggested that Jesus as God is evidenced to the point that it is rational to consider Jesus as God to be a rational belief.
I am asking how this belief is evidenced such that it is rational.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 7:32 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 7:55 PM Straggler has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34124
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 339 of 479 (570564)
07-27-2010 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Straggler
07-27-2010 7:46 PM


Re: Contradictions? Hidden "Evidence"?
Too funny.
Straggler writes:
I am not debating your innate right to believe whatever you personally believe on whatever grounds you personally deem sufficient. Any more than I would debate what flavour ice-cream you should prefer. To do that would be absurd.
I am asking you if it is rational to believe that a deistic god is anything other than improbable.
I am asking you if it is rational to believe that "Jesus as God" is anything other than improbable.
If you cannot seperate questions about what it is rational to believe from disputations of what it is you actually have a right to believe in then that says far more about the limitations of your arguments than it does mine.
You also don't get to decide what I believe is rational.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 7:46 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 7:57 PM jar has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 173 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 340 of 479 (570567)
07-27-2010 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by jar
07-27-2010 7:55 PM


Re: Contradictions? Hidden "Evidence"?
You also don't get to decide what I believe is rational.
Surely what is or is not rational can be agreed upon by rational minds?
Can creationists rightfully consider themselves as rational? Simply by asserting themslves to be so?
Because that is what you have been reduced, here, to doing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 7:55 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 8:07 PM Straggler has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34124
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 341 of 479 (570569)
07-27-2010 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by Straggler
07-27-2010 7:57 PM


Re: Contradictions? Hidden "Evidence"?
Straggler writes:
Surely what is or is not rational can be agreed upon by rational minds?
Can creationists rightfully consider themselves as rational? Simply by asserting themslves to be so?
Because that is what you have been reduced, here, to doing.
Certainly they can consider themselves rational.
Again, think.
Have I asked you to consider me rational?
You are also free to consider them irrational.
Then there is the other issue. If you find a belief that you believe you can factually refute, then you can present evidence in support of your position. However, you cannot refute a belief when there is no evidence.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 7:57 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 8:24 PM jar has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 173 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 342 of 479 (570570)
07-27-2010 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by jar
07-27-2010 8:07 PM


Re: Contradictions? Hidden "Evidence"?
jar writes:
Have I asked you to consider me rational?
I have certainly asked you what the rational position on certain god/God/GOD related subjects is - And you have replied in ways that indicate that you are able to seperate these from your irrational beliefs when your personal preferences don't get in the way.
jar writes:
Have I asked you to consider me rational?
jar writes:
I am not always consistent.
Well if you are going to insist on your unchallenged right to say anything regardless of how inconsistent or irrational then I guess you can justify any fucked-up wankery that springs into your mind and out of your mouth/pen/keyboard.
But if persistently executed - It makes anything you say completely unworthy of further consideration does it not?
jar writes:
If you find a belief that you believe you can factually refute, then you can present evidence in support of your position. However, you cannot refute a belief when there is no evidence.
There is no such thing as a complete vacuum of all objective evidence. All human claims are necessarily, inarguably and indisputably made in the objectively evidenced context of human psychology, history and culture.
But the fact that you, just as RAZD has done, are reduced to the "absence of evidence" or "you cannot prove me wrong" position tells us everything we need to know about the evidential and logical paucity of your position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 8:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 8:32 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 346 by Phage0070, posted 07-28-2010 5:23 AM Straggler has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34124
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 343 of 479 (570572)
07-27-2010 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Straggler
07-27-2010 8:24 PM


SOURCE vs Content
Straggler writes:
Well if you are going to insist on your unchallenged right to say anything regardless of how inconsistent or irrational then I guess you can justify any fucked-up wankery that springs into your mind and out of your mouth/pen/keyboard.
But if persistently executed - It makes anything you say completely unworthy of further consideration does it not?
Good. A very good first step.
You should never accept anything I say (or anyone else for that matter) based on the fact that I (or anyone else) said it.
Look at what I say, test it against YOUR knowledge, experience, beliefs, evidence and decide based on those factors.
Straggler writes:
There is no such thing as a complete vacuum of all objective evidence. All human claims are necessarily, inarguably and indisputably made in the objectively evidenced context of human psychology, history and culture.
But the fact that you, just as RAZD has done, are reduced to the "absence of evidence" or "you cannot prove me wrong" position tells us everything we need to know about the evidential and logical paucity of your position.
Okay, that works for me as I have told you many times in this very thread.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 8:24 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Straggler, posted 07-28-2010 1:41 PM jar has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1513 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 344 of 479 (570600)
07-27-2010 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Straggler
07-25-2010 7:07 PM


Gosh, a direct question instead of pretending (again) to know?
Hi Straggler, you should know these answers, but it is evident that you have ignored previous posts in your obsession to misunderstand me.
1) Is your belief in your god irrational?
This has been addressed before.
My belief is a personal opinion, based on my worldview, experiences and biases, that god/s do exist.
Because it is an opinion and not a conclusion based on facts and empirical evidence, it is not a rational conclusion. No unsubstantiated opinion is.
When we talk about the logic of the position, I will tell you (again) that I am skeptical of my personal opinion, and that the best I can conclude logically is that god/s may exist.
Because this is not contradicted by facts or empirical evidence, it is not an irrational opinion to hold, while waiting for more information that could confirm or refute my opinion.
2) Is atheism towards your god irrational?
This too has been addressed before:
The conclusion that it is possible that god/s may not exist level of atheism is just as rational as the conclusion that it is possible that god/s may exist level of theism. (see below).
NOTE: By atheism I don't mean absolute denial of existence. I mean the conclusion that the actual existence of this creator of "all that is seen and unseen" is highly improbable.
The conclusion that it is "highly improbable" that god/s do not exist level of atheism is just as irrational as the conclusion that it is "highly probable" that god/s do exist level of theism.
The conclusion that it "is highly improbable\probable" is what makes these conclusions irrational, as they are not supported by anything other than personal opinion, confirmation bias, and wishful thinking.
This was proven, and the proof has been posted several times. Here it is again, fleshed out a bit to perhaps help drive the point home:
Compare:
• any X with no contradictory evidence is possibly true
• X(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ X(a) can be true
to:
• any X with no contradictory evidence is absolutely true
• X(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ X(a) is absolutely true
And to:
• any X with no contradictory evidence is more likely true than false
• X(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ X(a) is more likely true than false
NOW:
If the logical form is true for any X, then it is true for any Y, or the logical structure is invalid. This is logic 101 stuff.
Let Y = notX to test the above arguments for valid structure:
• any Y with no contradictory evidence is possibly true
• Y(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ Y(a) can be true
== notX(a) can be true ...
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) still can be true true, because these conclusions are not mutually exclusive ... thus the logic is valid, and a true conclusion is reached:
∴ X(a) can be true
∴ Y(a) can be true
Either of these conclusions is rational, being based on valid logic.
Now consider the others:
• any Y with no contradictory evidence is absolutely true
• Y(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ Y(a) is absolutely true
== notX(a) is absolutely true ...
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) must still be absolutely true ... which is a direct contradiction ... or the structure of the argument is invalid: unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true, this conclusion is invalid: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
As the second premise is the same as above, we see that it is the first premise that must be invalid, and thus the conclusion does not follow from the argument.
∴ X(a) is absolutely true
∴ Y(a) is absolutely true
Either of these conclusions is irrational, being based on invalid logic.
OR:
• any Y with no contradictory evidence is more likely true than false
• Y(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ Y(a) is more likely true than false
== notX(a) is more likely true than false ...
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) must still be more likely true than false ... which is still a contradiction ... or the structure of the argument is invalid: unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true, this conclusion is invalid: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is invalid here as well, and thus this conclusion also does not follow from the argument.
∴ X(a) is more likely true than false
∴ Y(a) is more likely true than false
Either of these conclusions is irrational, being based on invalid logic.

Now the choice is yours: rational opinion
∴ X(a) can be true
∴ Y(a) can be true
OR irrational opinion.
∴ X(a) is more likely true than false
∴ Y(a) is more likely true than false
Either way it is opinion unsupported by facts and empirical evidence.
Enjoy.
ps - it seems html code is turned off?

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 7:07 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 11:08 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 347 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-28-2010 5:44 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 381 by Straggler, posted 07-29-2010 1:40 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1574 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 345 of 479 (570605)
07-27-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by RAZD
07-27-2010 10:54 PM


Re: Gosh, a direct question instead of pretending (again) to know?
I don't see how it can be an "opinion." Opinions are valid subjectively, and differ from individual to individual. But taking a position about the existence of gods can't be an opinion - God either exists or doesn't. He can't exist for you and not exist for me; one of us must be wrong.
That's not an opinion; that's a position. You take one that is contradicted by the available evidence. That's rarely rational.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by RAZD, posted 07-27-2010 10:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2010 11:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024