|
Author
|
Topic: Identifying false religions.
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: On belief
Phage0070 writes: How do you know this? Or is this another one of your "beliefs" which is illogical and unreasonable? 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.
Phage0070 writes: 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. 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!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 361 by Phage0070, posted 07-28-2010 4:57 PM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: On belief
Phage0070 writes: 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!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 363 by Phage0070, posted 07-28-2010 6:43 PM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: On belief
Phage0070 writes: 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!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 365 by Phage0070, posted 07-28-2010 7:03 PM | | Phage0070 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 376 of 479 (570934)
07-29-2010 12:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 375 by Phage0070
07-29-2010 12:35 PM
|
|
Re: confusing the issue
Phage writes: 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. I can not speak for RAZD but you certainly misrepresent what I say and do. I have always stated that my belief in GOD is irrational and unreasonable and that I may be wrong. It takes no pressure to get me to admit that, rather it would take a lot of pressure to get me to assert otherwise.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 375 by Phage0070, posted 07-29-2010 12:35 PM | | Phage0070 has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: SOURCE vs Content
As I suspected, it appears you and I have different ideas about what is evidence. I consider the writings themselves to be evidence. Do you?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 378 by Straggler, posted 07-29-2010 1:15 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: SOURCE vs Content
Straggler writes: Is a Deist God "empirically unevidenced"? Is a Deist God thus "highly improbable"? No, it is not "empirically unevidenced" and No not highly improbable (even if that was relevant).
Straggler writes: I consider them to be evidence of belief in that which is being written about. Nothing more. Is that rationally or logically unreasonable? No, that is not rationally or logically unreasonable. I can certainly understand how you take that position and see no problems with you holding that position. However, we are talking about beliefs. I believe that it is also rational and reasonable to consider that many may see what is written as MORE than simply a statement of belief. If you read what I have said though I said that I consider the Deist God or the God described in Genesis 1 as more likely than the God described in Genesis 2&3. Those happen to be my beliefs. If you hold different beliefs, that's fine with me. I am not here trying to convince you my beliefs are correct.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 382 by Straggler, posted 07-29-2010 1:47 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: SOURCE vs Content
Straggler writes: Huh? How on Earth is the definition of a deistic god I provided you with anything but empirically un-evidenced? Because as I explained in my posts I used MY definition of a Deist where I said I used the evidence of what was written about that God. You don't like that? Tough.
Straggler writes: Except that by your very own self procliamed consistent criteria it is both rational to consider any empirically un-evidenced entity to be "highly improbable" AND irrational to deny this improbability. Except, if you read my posts you will see I specified that I considered stories written about that God as evidence. You don't like that? Tough.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 396 by Straggler, posted 07-29-2010 7:10 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: SOURCE vs Content
Because we moved on in the discussion, I am not RAZD and I defined what Deist God I was talking about.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 398 by Straggler, posted 07-29-2010 7:43 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 401 of 479 (571054)
07-29-2010 8:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 399 by Rahvin
07-29-2010 7:56 PM
|
|
Re: SOURCE vs Content
Rahvin writes: Evidence is not subjective. Evidence is an observation that alters the probability that a hypothesis is true. An observation cannot positively affect the probability of a hypothesis for one person, and negatively affect or be neutral to the probability of that hypothesis for another person at the same time - one of them is wrong. Evidence is not a matter of equally-valid opinion. Evidence is a matter of fact. A written story that makes assertions does not significantly affect the probability that those assertions are true. Not ever. Your use of the word "tough" does not lend strength to your argument - rather, it betrays the fact that you simply intend to stubbornly hold to an objectively false position. Except we are not talking about whether the entity really exists but rather whether a belief in an entity can be held rationally. And of course, evidence can be subjective. Some people give greater weight to certain pieces of evidence than others do. I have never tried to assert that any GOD, God or god exists. What I have said is that the more details that are given about a particular concept, the more data is available to make a decision. I happen to believe in a GOD where the most I can say about the critter is that it is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen. I willingly admit that my belief is unreasonable, irrational, illogical. BUT...it is what I believe. The issue of belief in a Deist God came up when I said that I personally found it more likely that if a God existed it would be similar to the Deist concept or the God described in Genesis 1 then the God described in Genesis 2&3. I said that I find the Deist God as described in all I have read about the concept to be more convincing to me than the description of the God in Genesis 2&3. Again, no where am I asserting that any such critter in fact exists. This is only a discussion about beliefs. I have said that while my beliefs about GOD are unreasonable, irrational and illogical, beliefs about God(s) or god(s) can be reasoned, rational and logical. Those beliefs (either in favor of the existence or non-existence or the likelihood or unlikelihood of the particular GOD(s) or god(s) ) would be based on the available evidence, stories, accounts, personal experiences. The person making the belief judgment may well be wrong, but the process they use can be reasonable, logical, rational.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 399 by Rahvin, posted 07-29-2010 7:56 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: SOURCE vs Content
If it will make you happy then yes "something which has been defined to be unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s is anything other than empirically un-evidenced".
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 408 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2010 8:16 AM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 413 of 479 (571130)
07-30-2010 12:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 412 by Straggler
07-30-2010 12:21 PM
|
|
Re: Final Clarification
Don't bother.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 412 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2010 12:21 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: SOURCE vs Content
Straggler writes: Is it rational and reasonable to consider the existence of hobbits as evidenced based on the 'Lord of the Rings' text? If not why not? Be specific. Of course it is rational and reasonable to consider the existence of Hobbits as evidenced based on the 'Lord of the Rings' text. What conclusion you reach will be based on how much the evidence convinces you.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 415 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2010 1:50 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: SOURCE vs Content
Hard to speak of a whole group, but I would say that some are rational and reasonable. I believe, no, make that know, that their conclusions are wrong but that does not mean they are not rational or reasonable.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 417 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2010 2:04 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: SOURCE vs Content
Straggler writes: Well which ones are and which ones are not? What is the defining difference between the two? Again, hard to say. I would say that the Biblical Creationist that claim to be scientists are reasonable and rational, just dishonest.
Straggler writes: So you are essentially claiming to know something that they (the rational creationists) do not? If so - What is it that you know but that they do not? Much. Some accurate information about the Theory of Evolution is one example. Perhaps some actually experience personally finding fossils, exploring the geography of the US, maybe a little more actual scientific background, in many cases somewhat more knowledge of the Bible then they seem to have. As mentioned above, some of them might even have the information I have but for financial or other reasons simply disregard the info. Disregarding the information because it might adversely effect your revenue stream is a perfectly reasonable and rational act.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 419 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2010 2:21 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: SOURCE vs Content
Straggle writes: jar writes: Again, hard to say. I would say that the Biblical Creationist that claim to be scientists are reasonable and rational, just dishonest. Even if they believe themselves to be honest? Yes.
Straggler writes: jar writes: Disregarding the information because it might adversely effect your revenue stream is a perfectly reasonable and rational act. So basically you consider it reasonable and rational to accept things on the basis of personal need even if they contradict objective forms of evidence? Reasonable and rational? Yes. Correct, not always.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 425 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2010 2:36 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2