Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,081 Year: 5,338/9,624 Month: 363/323 Week: 3/204 Day: 3/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Identifying false religions.
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 97 of 479 (566463)
06-24-2010 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by RAZD
06-24-2010 6:10 PM


Re: false beliefs - do they add up to false religion?
RAZD writes:
The earth is very old - any belief that the world is not very old is falsified by evidence that proves it is a false belief.
That's a very odd statement coming from someone who claims to be a "completely impartial agnostic" on the age of the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2010 6:10 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 108 of 479 (566552)
06-25-2010 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by RAZD
06-24-2010 9:16 PM


Re: false beliefs - do they add up to false religion?
RAZD writes:
Perhaps you can pay more attention to my position than bluegenes has ...
I paid very good attention to the sentence that I quoted. Here's my post again.
bluegenes writes:
RAZD writes:
The earth is very old - any belief that the world is not very old is falsified by evidence that proves it is a false belief.
That's a very odd statement coming from someone who claims to be a "completely impartial agnostic" on the age of the earth.
That's the only comment I've made on this thread.
Now, are you paying attention?
Are you disagreeing with the point that your statement would be very odd coming from someone who claims to be a "completely impartial agnostic" on the age of the earth?
If not, in what way am I not paying attention? I've addressed no points that you've made here. I merely stated a fact which no rational person could disagree with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 06-24-2010 9:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2010 7:47 PM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 112 of 479 (566681)
06-25-2010 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by RAZD
06-25-2010 7:47 PM


Re: failed old arguments are still failed old arguments
Once again:
bluegenes writes:
Are you disagreeing with the point that your statement [that the earth is definitely very old] would be very odd coming from someone who claims to be a "completely impartial agnostic" on the age of the earth?
It's easy to type "yes" or "no".
RAZD writes:
It is fascinating to see the behavior of people that run into cognitive dissonance.
Exactly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2010 7:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 113 of 479 (566683)
06-25-2010 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by RAZD
06-25-2010 7:47 PM


Suspect?
RAZD writes:
Do you agree that any belief that is falsified makes the religion that depends on such a belief suspect?
All religions are "suspect".
If one contained a falsified belief on top of that, I'd use words like "ludicrous" or "ridiculous", rather than merely suspect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2010 7:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 116 of 479 (566714)
06-26-2010 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by RAZD
06-25-2010 8:51 PM


Falsifiable?
Mr. X believes that his god created a universe with a flat planet earth at the centre of it 6,000 years ago.
He believes that Satan rules the minds of unbelievers, and that all appearances that contradict his cosmology are illusions contrived by Satan to lead men away from god.
Falsify his beliefs, bearing in mind your claims:
RAZD writes:
I would start with false beliefs.
The world is not flat - any belief that the world is flat is falsified by evidence that proves it is a false belief.
The world is not the center of the universe - any belief that the world is center of the universe is countered by evidence that shows that the earth orbits the sun, and the sun orbits the center of this galaxy, and the galaxy is moving in space, showing that this is a false belief.
The earth is very old - any belief that the world is not very old is falsified by evidence that proves it is a false belief.
The universe is even older - any belief that the universe is not extremely old is falsified by evidence that proves it is a false belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 06-25-2010 8:51 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 126 of 479 (567175)
06-29-2010 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by RAZD
06-29-2010 9:28 PM


Re: Almost there - now apply it to the topic ...
RAZD writes:
Now explain this point to Straggler and bluegenes, and anyone else that believes that there is a higher likelihood that the atheist position is true.
Let me introduce you to the concept of the random hypothesis.
Cosmologists tell us there is dark matter in the universe. Assuming they're correct, we don't know what that dark matter is at present. So, it is reasonable to be agnostic on the question of what it is.
Hypothesis: Dark matter is composed of quadrillions of small dark demons who have manifested themselves in the universe.
That is a random explanatory hypothesis of dark matter. It is random because it is completely baseless, and has no scrap of positive evidence to support it.
Like all such hypotheses, it is very unlikely to be true, as it would only be so by sheer chance.
We do not have an explanation of the universe, what it ultimately is and, if it wasn't always there in some state, how it came to be. So, it is very reasonable to be agnostic on the questions "what is the universe and why is it there?".
Hypothesis: A god did it.
That is a random explanatory hypothesis of the universe. It is random because it is completely baseless, and has no scrap of positive evidence to support it.
Atheists are people who see no reason to believe in that particular random hypothesis, just as they would think the "dark demons" hypothesis very unlikely.
Do you see the difference between being agnostic about what the universe is and why it is there, and not believing in one particular random hypothesis put forward to explain it? Millions of such baseless hypotheses can be made.
The "atheist position", as you put it has no explanation for the universe.
This atheist would consider any particular baseless hypothesis purporting to explain the universe as very unlikely.
On the topic, any individual religion can be considered to be very unlikely to be true. They are all random baseless hypotheses about the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 06-29-2010 9:28 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by RAZD, posted 06-30-2010 9:00 PM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 143 of 479 (567681)
07-02-2010 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by RAZD
06-30-2010 9:00 PM


Re: And still no test on this issue ...
RAZD writes:
Hypothesis: No god did it.
That is a random explanatory hypothesis of the universe. It is random because it is completely baseless, and has no scrap of positive evidence to support it.
"No god did it" is not an explanatory hypothesis of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by RAZD, posted 06-30-2010 9:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by RAZD, posted 07-02-2010 8:36 PM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 147 of 479 (567892)
07-03-2010 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by RAZD
07-02-2010 8:36 PM


Special privilege for celestial cows?
RAZD writes:
ah, bluegenes,
then you are left with god did it of one kind or another eh?
No. "No god did it" is not an explanatory hypothesis because it leaves the universe unexplained.
Random explanatory hypothesis: The universe was created by the fart of a celestial cow.
Like the god hypothesis, this is random because there's no positive evidence to support it.
What you're trying to do is give one random hypothesis that explains the universe special privilege. Does it make sense to you that the celestial cow hypothesis becomes likely merely because it can't be conclusively disproved?
This is where you get into trouble. I described the religion of Mr. X further up the thread. Because it cannot be conclusively disproved, then, by your own arguments, you are uncommitted on Mr. X's god, and therefore the age of the earth, and everything else in science, because you are uncommitted on the role of a devil who sows illusions in your mind.
I dismiss Mr. X's god and his satan primarily because there's no positive evidence to support their existence, to which I can add the evidence that our species has a proven tendency to invent such things (there are many "one true gods").
So, I can post on science threads without contradiction, but you can't, and you should be retracting any definite statements you've made on the age of the earth and anything else in science if you want to continue arguing that you are uncommitted on Mr. X's god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by RAZD, posted 07-02-2010 8:36 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 07-03-2010 12:15 PM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 155 of 479 (568419)
07-05-2010 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by RAZD
07-03-2010 12:15 PM


Consistency, please.
RAZD writes:
Actually what I have said time and again is that as god/s have not been invalidated that they remain a possibility.
We both say that.
No one single random hypothesis is chosen in the process.
We can propose many different types of flatulent celestial cows creating the universe as individuals or in herds of different numbers, but it's simpler to regard all hypotheses involving flatulent cows as one general hypothesis. There's no reason to consider the cows ahead of universe making machines, colliding five dimensional rocks, or any other completely baseless hypotheses, I'm sure you'll agree.
RAZD writes:
We can agree that the probability that one specific ticket will win is small,.....
Well done. You finally agree that one random hypothesis out of many that can be made is very unlikely to hit the nail on the head.
The question is whether or not the lottery will be won by any ticket.
Of course there can be a winner if there's an ultimate explanation of the universe and everything to be had. But whether we humans can "buy" the winning lottery ticket by merely making up random hypotheses is questionable, however many billions we make up.
The answer may well involve unknown things we've never thought of, in the same way that we wouldn't have thought of quarks, the Higgs boson, or the "strings" of string theory 120 years ago when the investigation into the sub-atomic world was just beginning.
On posting on science.
What I mean here is that if you pretend to be completely uncommitted on random supernatural hypotheses that cannot be falsified, it is impossible to make any definite statements about the world.
For example, some creationists put forward an hypothesis to explain why "evolutionists" refuse to accept their view which goes a bit like this:
"Satan is manipulating the minds of scientists and evolutionists and deceiving them into perceiving a false illusion of reality which leads them away from seeing the truth of God's creation".
Now, that can't be falsified by its nature.
All of your arguments have been that it is "logical" or "rational" to be uncommitted on that kind of proposition, because one cannot know whether it is true or false. However, when you make any definite statement concerning the real world, you are automatically dismissing that proposition, and contradicting yourself.
For me, however, not being able to know whether such a proposition is true or false doesn't matter. It can be dismissed as very improbable merely on the basis that it is a random baseless hypothesis, like "trolls built the mountains" or "evil spirits cause diseases" or "quadrillions of little manifested demons make up dark matter", or "god/s created the universe".
There's no need to consider such things when we're seriously exploring reality.
As to your point about different opinions, of course we have different opinions, I'm glad to say. I'm consistent in dismissing all baseless supernatural propositions as "very improbable", whereas you seem thoroughly confused.
Incidentally, you couldn't be more wrong than when you claim that things cannot be described as "very improbable" or "very probable" when the actual probabilities are impossible to calculate. See your comment on the specific lottery ticket, for example, when we only know that there are many tickets, but not how many.
Also, as I've said to you before on the subject, read scientific papers and you'll see plenty of such "very probable/very improbable" type judgements made in relation to observations for very good reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 07-03-2010 12:15 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2010 9:28 PM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 161 of 479 (568440)
07-05-2010 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by RAZD
07-05-2010 8:13 PM


Strong theory to be falsified.
RAZD writes:
ALL you have is an agreement that WHERE you can actually show human invention in a specific case, that THEN you have evidence of human invention in that specific case.
We witness a tiny fraction of the births of animals into this world, yet we can infer beyond all reasonable doubt that all animals are born from other animals, and we have never found exceptions to falsify the theory.
We need only establish that some supernatural beings are born of the human imagination to establish an equally strong theory that all supernatural beings are born from the human imagination, and we have never found exceptions to falsify this theory.
Why would someone accept one theory but not the other?
Establish that just one animal has popped into existence by magic and was not born from another, and you falsify the first theory.
Establish the real existence of just one supernatural being, and you can falsify the second theory.
This is a Very High Confidence theory. Level IV.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2010 8:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2010 10:44 PM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 163 of 479 (568449)
07-05-2010 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by RAZD
07-05-2010 9:28 PM


Re: understand the argument first
RAZD writes:
My argument has never been that one specific hypothesis is correct, but that all that is necessary for god/s to exist is for ANY hypothesis to be correct, because any one being correct invalidates your position. THUS you must confront ALL the hypothesis as a whole in order to make your pseudo-probability "calculation" whether god/s exist or not -- understand?
Read my post again. I understand that you can split your random cow/s hypothesis into millions of different cow hypotheses. The same can be done for all other general random hypotheses. That still doesn't make a winner coming from the set of cow hypotheses any more likely. There is still no reason to consider cows of any description in any quantities as likely explanations of the universe.
The set of random hypotheses that doesn't involve cows is always far greater than the set that does.
Why cows? That's the point. Why not rocks or branes or any other word you care to think of?
RAZD writes:
Golly, gee, whillikers
That sounds like the base for as good a random hypothesis as any other. "The universe is explained by golly, gee, and whillikers combining in the 9th dimension."
It has as much support as any other belief.
Edited by bluegenes, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2010 9:28 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 168 of 479 (568545)
07-06-2010 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by RAZD
07-05-2010 10:44 PM


Analogy?!!!
RAZD writes:
Still missing it bluegenes.
I have over 500 science fiction books in my library, therefore it is reasonable to believe that all books in my library are science fiction.
Are you looking for a prize for bad analogies? If there was no evidence of non-science fiction books existing, then the analogy might be apt. Try thinking before you type.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
This is a Very High Confidence theory. Level IV.
In your opinion
Of course it's my opinion, and a very well thought out opinion it is. What follows in your post is exactly like the efforts made by creationists when they can't falsify the theory of evolution. It's waffle.
Ancient random hypotheses:
All of the magical beings in these stories (and there are hundreds) are demonstrably figments of the human imagination. If you don't understand why, I'll explain.
Now, I'm waiting for one example of a real supernatural being, which is all it takes to falsify the theory.
I have plenty more evidence of false ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2010 10:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 07-18-2010 5:20 PM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 206 of 479 (568962)
07-19-2010 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by RAZD
07-18-2010 5:20 PM


Re: Analogy?!!!
RAZD writes:
You keep proposing science fiction books as evidence that non-science fiction books are not likely to exist in my library.
No, I don't. I am not proposing that something that is well known to commonly exist in a certain kind of place doesn't exist in one of those places because something else that is well known to exist in that kind of place does exist in that one place.
RAZD writes:
There can be whole shelves of science fiction stories about flatulent cows, but this does not address the issue of whether or not a non-science fiction book exists in my library.
Anyone should see that this is poor logic.
Well, you made it up, so any poor logic is hardly surprising. Observation tells us that science-fiction books frequently exist alongside non-science fiction books, and that books in general are real and common things. Which is why no-one else has made up any silly theories about books of any genre not being on your shelves.
Observations are the base of scientific theories.
This is the theory you can't falsify:
All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination.
It is not falsified by pointing out that the existence of imaginary supernatural beings does not prove that real supernatural beings don't exist. The theory that all animals are born from other animals does not prove that there are not individual animals who pop into existence by magic, but it is accepted because the only confirmed source of animals is other animals.
The only confirmed source of supernatural being concepts is the human imagination.
Someone who accepts the theory that all animals are born from other animals as a strong theory, but does not accept the theory that all supernatural beings are born of the human imagination as a strong theory, is someone who is being inconsistent and irrational.
RAZD writes:
However, all I see is poor logic, confirmation bias, begging the question, conflict avoidance, and other symptoms of cognitive dissonance.
You seem to spend a lot of time reading your own posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 07-18-2010 5:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by jar, posted 07-19-2010 10:08 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 208 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2010 10:14 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 223 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2010 8:41 PM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 209 of 479 (568973)
07-19-2010 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by jar
07-19-2010 10:08 AM


Re: Analogy?!!!
jar writes:
Okay.
That is a fair statement.
What is the problem with being inconsistent and irrational at times?
For those who honestly admit their inconsistency and irrationality, and understand that to be the case, I see no serious problems. Such people are unlikely to be forceful and political in their supernatural beliefs, and would not seek to impose them on others.
On the other hand, it could be argued, on observation, that the less inconsistency and irrationality there is in human cultures, the better off the people are in those cultures. If you sign a cheque for aid to a foreign country, it'll be headed somewhere where the rate of supernaturalism is very high.
And welcome back to the argument factory, if I haven't already said it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by jar, posted 07-19-2010 10:08 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by jar, posted 07-19-2010 10:48 AM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 211 of 479 (568975)
07-19-2010 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by New Cat's Eye
07-19-2010 10:14 AM


I agree.
Catholic Scientist writes:
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.
Same here. Exactly. It would require positive evidence for the proposition, but if there was some, then I'd take it on board and assess it.
Same with supernatural beings actually existing outside our heads! I wouldn't actually mind my theory being falsified. It would be about the most exciting moment in human history, when you think about it.
What!!!!!. There really are leprechauns?
It would certainly make the world even more interesting than it already is, but I don't think it's going to happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2010 10:14 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2010 11:05 AM bluegenes has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024