Identifying false religions.

Why does it fall or stand as one piece?What does the Flud being a myth have to do with the veracity of Jesus' philosphy?And which "one piece" are you referring to?.. there's a lot of different canons. Is one particular canon even really "one piece"?Does the fact that species do change over time really contradict the Bible? Isn't the Theory of Evolution a really good explanation of that fact that we see?

That all makes sense except for this part: How's that follow?

Oh, seems like I'd have to assume that the supernatural could not have happened.

To each his own, I guess."Observation" suggests to me that there's data... something observed... showing that the supernatural could not have happened.At best, I'd say you could get an induction, based on your standard of observing never seeing the supernatural... but I don't think that necessarily follows.So it seems to me to be closer to an assumption than an observation.

Not really, although, I'm not so sure that all violations of natural law have been ruled out. There's plenty of unanswered paranormal mysteries out there. One possibility, or that something has changed over time. But these are just possibilities that remove the conclusion from being a necessity, not something that we have observed. Nah. I'd rather better understand what leads you to this:

quote:

---

If part of the Bible is false, then the Bible's claims must be evaluated piecemeal in order to separate the falsehoods/exaggerations/myths/etc from the truth. Theists know that if they were to honestly do this, all of the supernatural elements of the Bible would be swept aside and they would be left with a book of moral teachings and poorly recorded history.

---

I think you saying that since every past supernatural explanation has been replaced by a natural one, then that means that we can conclude that the supernatural does not exist, so therefore an honest examination of the Bible would be without anything supernatural, right?

I don't think its ever been in dispute that a belief in god is irrational. I think I might have argued that it can be rational.The root of the argument is atheism being rational.Straggler's probability argument is pretty good, but I don't think his physical probability follows from the induced one. Him thinking that its more likely that god does not exist is insufficient to come to a rational conclusion of god not existing.There's a paper called The Concept of Inductive Probability that explains:

quote:

---

As an illustration of the difference between these two concepts,
suppose you have been told that a coin is either two-headed or two-tailed
but you have no information about which it is. The coin is about to be
tossed. What is the probability that it will land heads? There are two
natural answers to this question:

​

(i) 1/2.
(ii) Either 0 or 1 but I do not know which.

​

Answer (i) is natural if the question is taken to be about inductive
probability, while (ii) is the natural answer if the question is taken to
be about physical probability.

---

I don't think you can get the physical probability from the inductive one and I think that's what Straggler is trying to do.

For me, I don't have any reason to think that any animal wasn't born from other animals. If I did, then I'd accept that it might be true. Depending on the reason, I might even believe it happened.

So then, one could accept your animal theory while not accepting your supernatural one without being inconsistent and irrational.

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.

Sure it does. If you disbelieve Bigfoot, then you believe that it doesn't exist. Perhaps the disclaimer of 'positive' disbelief is in order to reduce the ambiguity. Sure, but with your classification, Position 2 also encompasses both believing and not believing. That is what's nonsensical. I disagree. Agnostics don't believe nor disbelieve. They're neutral. Disbelief is believing to be false, especially with the qualifier of positive disbelief. But that is what the words mean. Or at least, what they did mean until some agnostics decided that they wanted to call themselves athiests. Because that's what atheism means... the belief that god doesn't exist. Not originally... that's what the agnostics who want to be atheists have changed the meaning to be. I don't understand the point in that. According to the proper definition of atheism, that is exactly the case. Maybe some do but I don't. Myself, RAZD and jar have all been upfront about ourselves recognizing that our theism is irrational. We didn't have to be pressed. Like I said, your reply would have been better in the other thread I linked to. No. The greek origin is not for simply not being with god, it is for being without god. It isn't simply lacking a belief in god, it is believing that there is no god. Not necessarily... they could be agnostic. I don't think so. Yeah, now that people are using the wrod differently. But its suppose to and that is the meaning the word came from.I'm still lost on why the agnostics want to call themselves atheists so bad

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.ABE:You weren't talking about a claim when I jumped in:From Message 320:

quote:

---

Disbelief is not the same thing as lacking belief. There are in general three answers to the question of belief in Bigfoot's existence:

​

1) I believe Bigfoot exists.
2) I don't know/care/etc.
3) I believe Bigfoot does not exist.

​

Completely impartial agnosticism, your position, is number 2. Number 1 is belief in Bigfoot. "Not believing" in Bigfoot encompasses everything that isn't number 1; that means 2 and 3, and any additional options we happen to dream up later.

---

I think I've shown why you're wrong. But you're wrong...as I showed in Message 374:

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.

---

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

You must've missed my edit. My bad.You were not talking about a claim when I jumped in...From Message 320:

quote:

---

Disbelief is not the same thing as lacking belief. There are in general three answers to the question of belief in Bigfoot's existence:

​

1) I believe Bigfoot exists.
2) I don't know/care/etc.
3) I believe Bigfoot does not exist.

​

Completely impartial agnosticism, your position, is number 2. Number 1 is belief in Bigfoot. "Not believing" in Bigfoot encompasses everything that isn't number 1; that means 2 and 3, and any additional options we happen to dream up later.

---

I think I've shown why you're wrong. I've outlined your error and showed where you're wrong. So yeah, that was my intention. I don't think so. The definition has changed.I still don't understand why agnostics want to call themselves atheists.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

So, per the topic of this thread...Say we have a religion that believes in god.How would you identify it as false?Or do you have links to the times in the past?

Of course What was I thinking?Have a nice day.ABE:Although. that makes me wonder just what the fuck you were talking about when you said this:

quote:

---

That wouldn't be on topic in this thread and I've laid out the evidentiary case against God many times in the past.

---

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Or, you could define it in your argument.Or, you can just use whatever you were when you said:

quote:

---

I've laid out the evidentiary case against God many times in the past.

---

If you said you had a case against vampires, and then I asked you for it, why wouldn't you just assume we're talking about whatever vampires you meant in the first place?