Identifying false religions.

No idea.AbE:That's not quite true.Looking at those two examples there are several very definite differences. The Lord of the Rings is actually a specific tome, written by one author, but there is no such thing as "The Bible", it was written by many unknown authors, then redacted by many unknown redactors, then edited by yet more unknown editors and the contents decided by an unknown number of committees made up of unknown numbers of unknown members.Edited by jar, : add some differences.

---

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

Are those who believe that the Lord Jeus born from a virgin, son of God who is himself God, able to perform miracles and facilitate ones passage to Heaven "deluded"?Are those who believe in the actual existence of Middle Earth hobbits "deluded"?Are those who believe themselves to be Napoleon Bonaparte based on feelings of conviction etc. as previously described "deluded"?What, if any, is the difference betwen the three examples?

Possibly.Edited by jar, : change wording

---

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

Well that is kinda ambiguous. Nobody here is gonna deny any possibilities. So where does that leave us?Can you elaborate on your answer beyond simple possibility (which nobody denies anyway)?Are all three beliefs equally delusional? Is belief in some possibilities more delusional than others?

Fear I can't help you any more than I have. Sorry.

---

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

Because you have (apparently) proven that we cannot rationally consider ANY unfalsified notion as unlikely, improbable or anything else short of absolute agnosticism.

So you can't say why someone who believes that Jeus Christ, their Lord and Saviour, born from a virgin, son of God who is himself God, able to perform miracles and facilitate ones passage to Heaven is any less "deluded" than he who believes himself to be Napoleon Bonaparte?Fair enough.

Or more deluded or deluded at all.

---

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

Well how do we decide who is deluded and who isn't?Why are you so sure that our Napoleon Bonaparte wannabe is "almost certainly" deluded?Is our 'Christ as Lord and Saviour' (as mentioned previously) believer in an evidentially different position?

I'm not sure we can measure delusion with any degree of accuracy.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

No idea. Does it matter?

---

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

Hi DevilsAdvocate Because I don't "give special credance to the existance of one supposed supernatural being, God" -- you are mistaken.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)

I think I've shown how it's not. I do know which one, actually. Correct. But that doesn't make it a matter of opinion. It's still a position to (eventually) be settled by evidence. Hrm, my memory is that I've long demonstrated it. Perhaps you'd like to open a thread on this subject, I'd hate to be a part of us continuing off-topic. Anyway others are certainly giving you a run for your money on the "existence of God" issue; it seems to be you who's having trouble finding evidence for your position. Since that expectation would be met if God existed, the unmet expectation is evidence for the non-existence of God. Incorrect. I have no particular opinion on what "God would be like", but the proponents of the God-exists position have defined the character and properties of God. Under almost all of those definitions its trivial to demonstrate the contradiction with reality. And, of course, for the dishonest theists such as yourself who insist on defending God-as-cypher, it's sufficient to note that there's nothing to refute - your position that "God exists" is a meaningless utterance if you refuse to be tied down to any definition of the word "God." No, I'm just curious how it is you come to be so completely unaware that there's a difference between matters of fact and matters of opinion. That's true - you don't know. Unless it's a weighted coin. When the likelihood of heads is, say, 90%, suddenly it becomes much more reasonable to say "Heads is the likely outcome." Not, "I know it will be heads", but to arrive at the provisional, if non-conclusive, position that heads will be the result of the coin toss. You'll be right 90% of the time, after all, and that's pretty good.The evidence between the existence of God and the non-existence of God is not equally weighted. The preponderance falls on the side of non-existence. That's what makes provisional acceptance of the Strong Atheist position so logical and reasonable.Those who assert the existence of a teapot in orbit of Alpha Cenauri do not have the same amount of evidence on their side as those who assert the nonexistence of such a teapot, despite there being no evidence for either proposition. Those propositions are not equally likely despite the absence of evidence for both, hence it's reasonable to come to the provisional conclusion that such a teapot is not present. And continuing to assert that I'm wrong, or that I've attacked you personally, or that an absence of evidence supports existence or non-existence equally, simply doesn't make it so. Abundantly you do, and have, when you assert that what is properly considered a matter of fact is an "opinion." Why wouldn't I be? Not in the slightest. I'm merely suggesting that someone who holds delusions should be careful about calling skepticism of those delusions a "delusion."

The OP had a very simple question: What steps would you take to identify a false religion?I see more flotsam from previous discussions that don't really pertain to the topic.I'm closing this thread so all participants can read this Admnistrative Message. If anyone feels they actually want to address the topic and would like the thread reopened, please make your request in the Thread Reopen Requests 2 thread. Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.Thank you
AdminPD
.