Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,476 Year: 6,733/9,624 Month: 73/238 Week: 73/22 Day: 14/14 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Identifying false religions.
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 357 of 479 (570748)
07-28-2010 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by jar
07-28-2010 1:33 PM


Re: On belief
jar writes:
First, as I have said many times at EvC, all religions are at least partly false in my opinion.
...
All religions are but maps, they are not the territory. They are caricatures, efforts by humans to imagine and describe what is unimaginable.
If you consider "GOD" to be unimaginable and incomprehensible by humans, then I assume that you cannot fully imagine or comprehend "GOD". What is it then, about your state of non-understanding of "GOD" that leads you to conclude those who claim a more complete understanding are wrong?
It seems to me to be the height of arrogance for one who does not know something to claim that it *cannot* be known. Your position, so far as I can understand, is that "GOD" cannot be fully understood and so all religions are to some extent false. However that claim is made with the admission that you don't really understand "GOD" at all... so how would you really know?
Your criteria for distinguishing false religions seems to be based on extending your inability to understand "GOD" to everyone else, and that is simply poor reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by jar, posted 07-28-2010 1:33 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by jar, posted 07-28-2010 4:09 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 359 of 479 (570752)
07-28-2010 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by jar
07-28-2010 4:09 PM


Re: On belief
jar writes:
HUH? Well, there I may be able to show you some reasoned position. Any critter that is able to create all that is, seen and unseen, is a being far beyond my meager capabilities.
Exactly, beyond *your* capabilities. Now how exactly do you get from there to it being beyond the capabilities of anyone else, including those who claim to have been personally visited, entered, and altered by that being?
Your inability to understand "GOD" is only indicative of your shortcomings, not of "GOD" being universally incomprehensible.
jar writes:
It may well be that you are smarter than I and so can imagine or know such a critter.
Ok, so taking that into account how can you conclude that all religions are to some extent false?
jar writes:
My criteria for identifying false religions has nothing to do with GOD, rather it concerns God(s) and god(s).
jar writes:
First, as I have said many times at EvC, all religions are at least partly false in my opinion. My reasoning on this is that a GOD that could create all that is, seen and unseen, is something beyond what any human could understand and that we would have as much chance of having a true relationship with such a being as pond scum having a true relationship with a human.
Perhaps then you could modify the statement of your reasoning so that it does not include the term "GOD", which you say it has nothing to do with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by jar, posted 07-28-2010 4:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by jar, posted 07-28-2010 4:40 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 361 of 479 (570757)
07-28-2010 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by jar
07-28-2010 4:40 PM


Re: On belief
jar writes:
In my belief religions do not deal with GOD, but rather God(s) or god(s).
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by jar, posted 07-28-2010 4:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by jar, posted 07-28-2010 5:09 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 363 of 479 (570766)
07-28-2010 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by jar
07-28-2010 5:09 PM


Re: On belief
jar writes:
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by jar, posted 07-28-2010 5:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by jar, posted 07-28-2010 6:59 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 365 of 479 (570773)
07-28-2010 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by jar
07-28-2010 6:59 PM


Re: On belief
jar writes:
Such as ...? Which religion are you talking about?
jar writes:
First, as I have said many times at EvC, all religions are at least partly false in my opinion.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by jar, posted 07-28-2010 6:59 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by jar, posted 07-28-2010 7:35 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 372 of 479 (570833)
07-29-2010 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by RAZD
07-28-2010 11:01 PM


Re: It is really quite simple.
RAZD writes:
Correct it is active denial, while lacking belief is passive. But you still focus on only one side of the issue.
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.
RAZD writes:
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.
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.
RAZD writes:
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.
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.
RAZD writes:
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.
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.
RAZD writes:
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.
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.
RAZD writes:
In your opinion, but sadly (for your) this is not a logical conclusion. The logical conclusion is to be agnostic.
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.
RAZD writes:
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but only evidence of an absence of evidence.
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.
RAZD writes:
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.
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.
RAZD writes:
Agnosticism is not the same as atheist, and this is self evidence by all the atheists (including you) arguing against the agnostic position.
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.
RAZD writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2010 11:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2010 11:26 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 375 of 479 (570931)
07-29-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2010 10:54 AM


Re: confusing the issue
Catholic Scientist writes:
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.
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.
Catholic Scientist writes:
But you also lack disbelief.
Disbelief is not the same as believing to be false. Agnostics have disbelief.
Catholic Scientist writes:
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.
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.
Catholic Scientist writes:
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?**
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?
Catholic Scientist writes:
I don't think that's correct.
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 10:54 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by jar, posted 07-29-2010 12:43 PM Phage0070 has not replied
 Message 380 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 1:37 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 384 of 479 (570982)
07-29-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2010 1:37 PM


Re: confusing the issue
Catholic Scientist writes:
Sure it does. If you disbelieve Bigfoot, then you believe that it doesn't exist.
You have to go back there quite a bit, but you will find that we were discussing a *claim* of Bigfoot's existence. Disbelief in that claim does not imply a belief that Bigfoot does not exist.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Sure, but with your classification, Position 2 also encompasses both believing and not believing.
No, it does not. If you believe the claim you are position 1. If you believe that the claim is definitely false then you are position 3. Lack of position 1 is 2 or 3. Lack of position 3 is 1 or 2.
At no point does position 2 encompass both believing and not believing the claim. Those are mutually exclusive concepts.
(I will admit that the scale does not work if someone is actually insane, but thats the least of their problems.)
Catholic Scientist writes:
disagree. Agnostics don't believe nor disbelieve. They're neutral.
If they believe the claim, they would be theists. In order to be anything else they must disbelieve the claim. Remember, we are talking about claims here.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Because that's what atheism means... the belief that god doesn't exist.
No, it is lack of belief in god. A subtle, but important distinction.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Not originally...
Yes, that is its original meaning. You can see this in other words with Greek roots: For instance, gnostic and agnostic. A gnostic claims to *know* (the Greek word "Gnosis" means knowledge) while an agnostic does *lack* knowledge.
This is the exact same linguistic term used in theism and atheism from the Greek root of "Theos", meaning "deity or god". Theos - theism is the jump from "deity or god" to "belief in deity or god". Similarly the jump from atheos to atheism is the jump from "lack of deity or god" to "lack of belief in deity or god".
It really is that simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 1:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 3:45 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 386 of 479 (570992)
07-29-2010 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2010 3:45 PM


Re: confusing the issue
Catholic Scientist writes:
I don't care about a position on a *claim*... I'll take your retreat as being unable to show where I'm wrong in what I'm actually saying.
It isn't a retreat, it is simply what we were talking about from the start. You are just rambling on your own tangent, and if my unwillingness to follow you makes you claim victory, that is up to you.
Catholic Scientist writes:
But you're wrong...
World English Dictionary:
n
rejection of belief in God or gods
[C16: from French athisme, from Greek atheos godless, from a- 1 + theos god]
Your linguistic interpretation is false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 3:45 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 3:54 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 388 of 479 (570999)
07-29-2010 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2010 3:54 PM


Re: confusing the issue
Catholic Scientist writes:
I don't think so. The definition has changed.
I still don't understand why agnostics want to call themselves atheists.
Then perhaps you don't understand why the term is applying the way it does because you consider the term to have changed when it has not.
The term originally meant the same thing that I and many others use it as meaning. You think the term means something else now, but lots of people disagree with your new meaning.
It seems pretty clear to me that you are wrong.
But anyways, back to the topic....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 3:54 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 407 of 479 (571073)
07-30-2010 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by RAZD
07-29-2010 11:26 PM


Re: It is really quite simple.
RAZD writes:
Someone else - me as an example - can believe that it is possible that bigfoot does exist, AND believe that it is possible that bigfoot does not exist.
Belief in the possibility of something is not the same as belief in the reality of something. I believe that it is *possible* for me to win the lottery. I don't believe that I *will* win the lottery.
Being open to the possibility of god/s existing or not existing is not the same as believing *that* god/s exist or do not exist.
It is true that there is a spectrum of confidence levels when considering a conclusion; one can be very sure something exists or not sure at all. However, everyone has a "credulity level" at which they believe the conclusion. This often varies depending on the importance/commonality of the claim: For instance I would be willing to take the word of a waiter that the clear fluid handed to me in a glass is water, but not so willing to take their word for them having Bigfoot locked in the freezer.
My point is that there is a dividing line where someone switches from believing something is *possible* to believing that something *is* (similarly, there is a divide between *possibly not* and *not*). Where this dividing line lies differs between different people and may be the subject of great debate, but that is what the three positions addresses.
Someone who only believes Bigfoot may possibly exist is a number 2. Someone who believes that Bigfoot *does* exist is a number 1. Conversely, someone who believes that Bigfoot may possibly not exist is a number 2, and one who believes that Bigfoot does not exist is a number 3.
RAZD writes:
Are you equally skeptical if someone claims Bigfoot does not exist, but has no evidence to back it up -- do you consider that claim unreliable as well?
Of course. Without any data how can they authoritatively speak about what does not exist out there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2010 11:26 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 2:56 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 444 of 479 (571407)
07-31-2010 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by RAZD
07-31-2010 2:56 PM


Re: It is really quite simple.
RAZD writes:
So the range of confidence you have is based on your subjective opinion in the concept being true, not on any actual calculation of probabilities.
No, my level of credulity is based on my subjective expectation of the concept being true. The calculation of probabilities still occurs, admittedly in a cursory manner, it is just that my credulity is so high regarding the glass of possibly-water that I am virtually never going to question it.
RAZD writes:
Something previously in your experience is counted as likely, while something not previously in your experience is counted as unlikely - is that a fair statement of your position?
That may also be the case, but no it is not the point of my position here. Something that has occurred many times previously in my experience will likely be considered with great credulity, while something that has not will be considered with less.
RAZD writes:
So someone with different life experiences, say your someone that believes they saw a bigfoot, is entirely rational to have a different subjective perception of the likelihood of the concept being true?
While not exactly my point, I would agree that not only might they measure the probability of the concept being true as higher, but also regard it with more credulity.
RAZD writes:
So do you now (as it appears) agree that 2 is not the same as 3 and that it is not disbelief in the concept? Then we are making progress.
Your utter lack of reading comprehension continues to astound. 1 is not the same as 2. 2 is not the same as 3. 1 is not the same as 3. They are all distinct positions.
HOWEVER, the category of "not 1" includes both 2 *and* 3. This has consistently been my point, and your failure to understand it is trying my patience.
1 is belief in the claim. 2 and 3, not being belief in the claim, are not belief. Depending on your use of the term it may be "disbelief" or not, it is really irrelevant to my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 2:56 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 4:17 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 447 of 479 (571413)
07-31-2010 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 445 by RAZD
07-31-2010 4:17 PM


Re: It is really quite simple.
RAZD writes:
And the category of "not 2" includes both 1 *and* 3 while the category of "not 3" includes both 2 *and* 3 ...
Correct.
RAZD writes:
Which only proves that such "measures" are purely subjective, and not actual calculations of actual probabilities.
Sure? We are talking about what people *believe*. If you can point out how that could be anything but subjective I am all ears.
Their method of getting there can be, and in some cases should be, as non-subjective as possible, but their belief or non-belief itself is going to be "subjective".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 4:17 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 6:29 PM Phage0070 has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 449 of 479 (571444)
07-31-2010 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 448 by RAZD
07-31-2010 6:29 PM


Re: It is really quite simple.
RAZD writes:
Then I think we agree.
Probably not.
RAZD writes:
Are we done?
I really hope so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 6:29 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024