Identifying false religions.

How do you know this? Or is this another one of your "beliefs" which is illogical and unreasonable?I think I can speak for most of us that in the context of identifying false religions you can keep your personal, illogical, unreasonable, undesired beliefs to yourself. Proposing them as a method of identifying false religions is worthless and confusing to the issue.

By definition. I defined GOD, God and god so that you and others would know what it was I was talking about. Maybe you missed all those posts. Sheesh.I explained that when it comes to identifying false religions I was NOT dealing with illogical, unreasonable or irrational evidence but rather the evidence in the stories themselves as well as the evidence found in reality.

---

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

How could you conclude all religions are to some extent false, when many of them claim the existence of gods which do not provide evidence of their existence?

Such as ...? Which religion are you talking about? If you tell me which one or ones you are talking about then I may be able to reply.

---

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

You tell me, it seems like you are painting with a fairly broad brush. Considering you have probably not considered every religion individually, I assumed you were speaking of some broader criteria which allowed you to rule out all religions simultaneously.

I am speaking from the religions I know of and I have not found one (other than Deism) where there is a claim that there is NO available evidence.Norse myths offer evidence, Greek, Roman, Assyrian, Egyptian, Chinese, Amerind myths, Animist, Wicca, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Hindu, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, the African religious myths I'm aware of, those from Polynesia and Australia, all offer evidence that can be examined and a reasonable, rational decision made about whether someone believes it is a false religion or not.Again, I may well be wrong and if you can point to something I've missed then I can take a look at that.

---

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

Staggler Straggler StragglerThere you go jumping to concussions again. Empiical evidence showed that the modern santa clause is a product of fiction where a number of people are documented embellishing the original folk tale, and the original folk tale was shown by empirical evidence to have a likely source in an actual historical figure.You have not done this for the easter bunny yet, that I am aware, so you cannot claim results you have not demonstrated. I showed you how this process of using empirical evidence to show embellishment of old folk tales into modern myths could be done.I also said that you need to do this for every case you wish to discuss, as you cannot assume that what applies in one case must apply in another.Further, I am on record as saying that these entities are totally irrelevant to the issue of whether god/s exist or not: showing that santa clause is an embellished folk tale does not address whether god/s exist, as santa clause has never been considered a god per se, and certainly not one involved in the (possible) creation of the universe.Nattering on about these entities is not addressing the issue of the existence of god/s that could be involved in the creation of the universe. No, your logic is faulty again. That would be the old all a is b, b: therefore a logical fallacy that you seem to love so well.You don't know that god/s are necessarily undetectable or imperceptible, so you are assuming the consequent.And even for your precious empirically imperceptible entity, lack of information about it does not mean that it does not exist, just that you lack information about it.One could consider the question of whether god/s exist, and what one would expect to see if that were the case. If those expectations are met, one could say that the existence of god/s can be logically deduced. curiously, I have refuted your false logic several times, but it seems to make no dent on your preconceptions.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, Amusingly, it doesn't come close to my position, but perhaps we should stay focused on bigfoot for now, before you add misinterpretation to misrepresentation to misunderstanding, and end up with more posts about correcting you, than building on understanding (like Straggler). Correct it is active denial, while lacking belief is passive. But you still focus on only one side of the issue. If what you claim is valid, then "believing" encompasses everthing that is not number 3; that means that 1 and 2, and any additional options we happen to dream up later.This means that the 2 position can involve both belief and disbelief at the same time. This is indeed possible within agnosticism, with low (confidence) levels of belief\disbelief.The real problem with your black and white approach, however, is that belief is a spectrum and disbelief is a spectrum and there is a lot of overlapping possibilities. There is no line between belief and disbelief, but a spectrum of positions.Look at Message 344, for there are a number of different levels of belief\disbelief:

quote:

---

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

---

Those are 3 different levels of belief that X(a) is true.We can also look at the similar converse positions:

quote:

---

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

​

...
Now consider the others:

​

• any Y with no contradictory evidence is absolutely true
• Y(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ Y(a) is absolutely true

​

...
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

---

Those are 3 different levels of belief that X(a) is false.These cover the spectrum of possible beliefs and disbeliefs: One can adopt some multiple positions as well Of course the latter two positions require evidence to substantiate the (extraordinary?) claim to known the likelihood of one versus the other, or it is just unsubstantiated opinion and belief in an non-rational conclusion Wrong again.I believe that it is possible that bigfoot exists, and I also believe it is possible that bigfoot does not exist, but neither of these beliefs are strong enough to form a formal opinion at this time, due to a lack of sufficient evidence. In your opinion, but sadly (for your) this is not a logical conclusion. The logical conclusion is to be agnostic.The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but only evidence of an absence of evidence. Logical fallacies are insufficient by definition.If there is actual evidence is sufficient for the formation of a valid logical conclusion, then it needs to be presented to show that the conclusion is valid and must follow from the evidence.But we both know that there is no such convincing evidence, as there have been literally thousands of posts on this issue, and evidence has yet to be presented that is actual empirical evidence that god/s do not in fact exist: all we have seen is confirmation bias coupled with wishful thinking and logical fallacies. Wrong again.See? you haven't settled the bigfoot issue and already you are making false claims based on your misinterpretation and misrepresentation due to misunderstanding.Agnosticism is not the same as atheist, and this is self evidence by all the atheists (including you) arguing against the agnostic position. As a deist I believe that god/s exist, and logically conclude from the available evidence that it is indeed possible that god/s exist: I don't consider that the standard of evidence required to invalidate such a claim has been met.This belief that god/s do exist is not rational (ie based on logic and evidence) nor irrational (contrary to logic and evidence), per se, rather it is non-rational. It is opinion, based on my personal worldview, experiences and biases, which I freely recognize as opinion, and do not expect anyone to accept in any way.The belief that god/s may exist, however is rational, as it is a valid logical conclusion (see Message 344 for proof) that is not contradicted by contrary evidence. I do expect (at least some) people to understand that this is a logically valid conclusion, even if they do not agree with it. Which is my point: it is rational to consider that god/s may exist. The only difference is which side of the 'coin' we think ends up on top: either is possible, but I call heads and you call tails. For now, though, the coin is in the air, so we don't really know.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 crashfrog, welcome back.You've missed out on a long and drawn out discussion, so we are likely to repeat stuff that has been covered before. Your opinion is that god/s do not exist.My opinion is that god/s do exist.Opinion is like belief:

quote:

---

Opinion Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
opinion -n.
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" (Elizabeth Drew). ...
The American Heritage Dictionary 2009

---

Neither of these opinions is contradicted by currently available evidence (that I am aware of), and so they are both valid opinions: we just don't know which one is true at this time. That's your opinion, which you are entitled to, however opinion -on it's own- has proven curiously incapable of affecting reality.Contradicted by evidence? Please present your evidence, for you are making an extraordinary claim.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 DevilsAdvocate, The burden of proof is born by anyone claiming knowledge that something exists or is likely to exist AND by anyone claiming knowledge that something does not exist or is not likely to exist.The burden of proof is born by anyone asserting that you must believe or consider the validity of a claim.Conversely, I can say that I like chocolate ice cream, but that doesn't mean I need to prove it. Only if I claim that chocolate ice cream is the best flavor, and that you must like it as well, would I need to provide evidence that this is so.Curiously, if someone claims that my liking for chocolate ice cream is irrational\delusional\insane, then they are making a claim that needs to be supported by objective empirical evidence.If someone claims to know absolutely that X is true, then they need to provide objective empirical evidence that this is so.If someone claims to know enough to have an informed opinion that X is likely true, then they need to provide the objective empirical evidence that informs that opinion, and evidence that shows that a substantial proportion of all conceivable possibilities are known. Short answer: no. We can be apathetic to many concepts, and we can form opinions about others, based on our world view, experiences and biases, as long as those opinions are not contradicted by known evidence.Long answer: consider why any decision on such matters is in any way critical. Amusingly, I can put dragons, faries, teapots, etc. in category (C) and wait for other people to sort it out.Fascinatingly, many people often feel that they must make a decision even though there is insufficient evidence to reach an (A) conclusion, and end up in (D).Now if some person asserts that I must make a decision on something that they claim could be true (dragons, faries, teapots, etc.), then aren't they making a claim that should be substantiated with evidence that such concepts are actually worth considering?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : messed up again by new board html coding ban .....Edited by RAZD, : mre

---

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) • • •

I would correct you and say that my position is that gods don't exist, and your position is that one does. Opinions are subjective, but if God exists he must do so objectively. If God is an actually real thing he's objectively, not subjectively real. For instance, the existence of evil contradicts the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent God. This would seem to be an unassailable basis from which to assert any old nonsense: "the sky is blue." "That's your opinion; mine is that it's green." "Evolution is substantiated by the evidence." "That's your opinion; mine is that creationism is true."If you can't draw a distinction between opinions and positions, if everything is an opinion, then we're in a situation where none of your positions are falsifiable - because you can simply be of the opinion that they haven't been falsified, regardless of what evidence you're shown. That wouldn't be on topic in this thread and I've laid out the evidentiary case against God many times in the past.

Sure, but that is because the term "atheism" only speaks about one side of the issue. I don't know of a term to describe not-positive-claim-that-gods-are-non-existent, but presumably an agnostic would fall within that term should it exist. No, it does not. Number 1 is belief in the existence of Bigfoot, to the point that they consider it a real being. Number 2 is uncertainty, or reservation of judgment. With #2, someone would not be comfortable considering Bigfoot to be a real being. Other additional options wouldn't include the belief that Bigfoot exists, otherwise they would be option #1."Believing" means "to have confidence or faith in the truth of" whatever. Someone who does not know, or does not care, or does not think they have adequate information to make a decision at this time, obviously does not have confidence or faith in the truth of the claim. No, it cannot. Someone cannot simultaneously believe that something both exists and does not exist at the same time, at least not reasonably. They may be uncertain, or alternating between two answers, but they cannot hold the two at the same time. They are very clearly mutually exclusive positions. Sure, there can be a smooth range of belief about the existence of Bigfoot. One way of expressing it is probabilities; they could range from nearly zero all the way up to nearly 100% certainty. However we are not talking about the confidence of the individual about the issue, we are talking about their decision.The question is: "Does Bigfoot exist?" Someone might consider it a 60% chance that Bigfoot exists but be unwilling to make a positive claim. This means they are in position #2. Another person might assess the probability exactly the same and yet be willing to make the positive claim that Bigfoot exists. They would be in position #1. The acceptance of the possibility of Bigfoot existing/not existing is not the same as actually believing that Bigfoot exists/does not exist. Since you don't hold a formal opinion at this time, for whatever reason, you are firmly in position #2. This means that you are neither in position #1 nor position #3.This means you don't believe Bigfoot exists. You might allow that it is *possible*, but you are not prepared to conclude that it does exist. Therefore, you lack that belief. The only way to come to an agnostic position in response to a claim is to consider that claim as unreliable. Were you to consider the claim reliable, you would believe it and therefore not be agnostic toward the claim.Considering the claim as unreliably representing the truth is not a decision on the actual state of whatever the claim was about, it is simply the decision to lack confidence in the claim's reliability. Such a decision is, in essence, agnostic. Exactly, and nobody claimed that it was. However, evidence is required in order to consider the claim reliable in representing the truth. Lacking the evidence, it is reasonable to consider the claim unreliable.Let me put it in plain English: If someone claims Bigfoot exists, but has no evidence to back it up, I will consider the claim unreliable. The claimant's lack of evidence to back up their claim does not mean that their claim is false, and I didn't conclude that it was. I only decided that the claim shouldn't be considered reliably true. I would still be open to the possibility that Bigfoot exists, but I simply wouldn't believe that particular claim. Exactly, and so it is quite reasonable to dismiss those claims as unreliable. Not false, not making any decision regarding the existence of god whatsoever, simply deciding not to trust the truth of the claims. What you consider as "self-evident" does not follow. Agnosticism is an atheistic position. However, many atheists here do not consider complete agnosticism to be a reasonable position.Remember, everything that isn't Theism is atheism; thats a very broad definition. Someone who believes that aliens created humans and placed them on Earth would be argued against by most atheists on this board, and yet that does not mean the alien position isn't atheistic as well. Similarly completely impartial agnosticism being unreasonable by the standards of other atheists does not make it Theistic. You are going at it backwards. Beliefs should meet a standard of evidence to be considered true, not a standard of evidence to be considered false.But even more tellingly, you are not actually agnostic. You are theistic, because you believe that god/s exist. You admit that it is a non-rational opinion, yet you do believe that a god or gods exist.

Again I disagree. Science does not place equal footing for the burden of proof on both the claim of knowledge that "something exists or is likely to exist" and "something does not exist or is not likely to exist". Please show me where in science that it does so. Again, if you place equal burden of proof for both than we have to accept all the pseudoscientific claims as they cannot be adequately disproven through science. In fact nothing can be 100% disproven as science always speaks in terms of probability, including the probability of existance.Napoleon stated once to French mathematician and astronomer Pierre-Simon Laplace: How can this be! You made the system of the world, you explain the laws of all creation, but in all your book you speak not once of the existence of God.In response Laplace aptly replied: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis.Laplace also stated the following: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness".Or as Carl Sagan restates: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Here is the catch. Science begins at the foundation of the non-existance of phenomena. It is up to the scientist or group of scientists to show evidence for the validity that certain physical phenomena to exist. Not the other way around. We don't automatically assume something exists in science, we must show evidence of its existance whether it be biological cells, viruses, atoms, electrons, quarks, 1-dimensional strings, gravitons, or any other proposed physical phenomena.We must start somewhere in the scientific search and that somewhere is the non-existance of phenomena whether that be gravitons or God.Have to run to work, will continue later.

---

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Too, "Not disbelieving" in Bigfoot encompasses everything that isn't number 3; that means 1 and 2...But that can't be right, because then position 2 encompasses both believing and not believing and that's nonsensical, so there must be something wrong with your classification. But you also lack disbelief. But that classifaction confuses the issue. And leads to the contradiction above. So why use it?Its better to keep things clear by having 1 be theism, 2 be agnosticism, and 3 be atheism. If you simply lack a belief in god, but don't take the position that god does not exist, then your not an atheist but an agnostic.But that doesn't happen with people like you, presumably, because you want to call yourself an atheist, even if you don't want to take the position that god does not exist. Why is that?**Personally, I think its for the shock value. You get a reaction from people when you claim atheism that you don't get from agnosticism. And its totally ghey to fall back onto: "Well, I don't believe that god doesn't exist, I just don't believe that he does." Shallow and pedantic. I don't think that's correct.

quote:

---

The dictionary says that the definition of atheism is the belief that there is no god.

​

People on this forum have said that this is incorrect. They’ve said that atheist are ‘without a belief in god’ but are not ‘with a belief in no god’. The claim is as follows:

​

A-: without
Theism: a belief in god.

​

I couldn’t argue with that because I didn’t really know where the word came from and that claim seemed pretty good.

​

Then, I saw the following line in the dictionary under the definition of atheism:

​

quote:

---

{< Gk athe(os) godless + -ISM}

---

from The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, The Unabridged Edition, Published in New York by Random House, Inc. 1983 page 93

​

This says, to me, that the claim that atheism means ‘without a belief in god’ but not ‘with a belief in no god’ is wrong. The word is greek in origin and is actually a belief that god doesn’t exist.

---

That's from Message 1, from back in 2005 Damn! 5 years ago...** that might be a better question to answer in the other thread linked just above.

There are two major problems with your thought here. The first is your terminology: "Disbelief" is rejection or lack of belief. That is not the same as belief that Bigfoot does not exist, and does not equate with position 3.The second problem is that you completely missed the significance of the word "not". Position 2 is included in both not believing to exist and not believing to not exist and that's just reasonable. Disbelief is not the same as believing to be false. Agnostics have disbelief. Perhaps because thats not what the words mean? Or because there is a wider range of beliefs than that?Someone who claims that there are no gods (which you seem to have confused with atheism for some reason) would indeed be #3. An agnostic would indeed be #2. A theist would be #1. The issue is that the term "atheist" literally means "not-theist", so you cannot simply label #3 as "the atheist position". It simply isn't the case. On the flip side, theists claim that they *know* gods exist for the power and control this offers, as well as social gain. Only when pressed will people like jar or RAZD or even you admit that their belief is personal, unprovable, and not absolutely certain. Merely acceptable to them for personal reasons.Far more than shallow and pedantic, I consider such behavior dishonest and unethical. Now if you are done throwing insults and measuring your dick, how about you get back on topic? "athe(os) godless""Theos" is Greek for "deity" or "god". Atheos is then the lack of a deity or god... which means godless.Someone who does not believe a god exists obviously is "godless", so that fits nicely. However that does not imply a positive claim that gods don't exist.