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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Identifying false religions.
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2213 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 19 of 479 (564200)
06-08-2010 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by killinghurts
06-08-2010 10:44 PM


What do we end up with?
We can see that "'my' conception of God" cannot be evaluated against reality... correct?
To then take something that cannot be evaluated against reality and then evaluate it against another claim that cannot be evaluated against reality (i.e. another religion), what do we end up with?
A bit of a muddled head if you ask me!
We end up with some 4,000 extant world religions, and some 40,000 different sects, denominations, and flavors of Christianity alone.
If there is no way to differentiate among the various claims using empirical evidence, any disagreement is liable to just result in a schism. Both groups will go on their merry ways feeling that each has the ultimate trvth.
Result: 40,000 different interpretations of Christianity alone.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by killinghurts, posted 06-08-2010 10:44 PM killinghurts has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2213 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 21 of 479 (564208)
06-09-2010 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
06-08-2010 11:31 PM


Re: Corroborating Evidence
Corroborating evidence that it is supernatural.
Don't forget contradictory evidence. It takes very little contradictory evidence to disprove an idea or belief -- or a theory.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 06-08-2010 11:31 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2010 8:56 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2213 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 22 of 479 (564209)
06-09-2010 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
06-08-2010 11:31 PM


Re: Corroborating Evidence
4. How old is it? If it's true, it should have been around from the beginning of recorded human history having some established doctrine.
5. It should not be a Johnny come lately takeoff from an old established doctrine, contradictory to the original. ...
You're Jewish?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 06-08-2010 11:31 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2010 7:22 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2213 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 32 of 479 (564265)
06-09-2010 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Buzsaw
06-09-2010 8:56 AM


Re: Corroborating Evidence
Coyote writes:
Don't forget contradictory evidence. It takes very little contradictory evidence to disprove an idea or belief -- or a theory.
Of course, you do mean the debatable evidence, debatable relative to the thesis premise which determines the application of that evidence.
No, I mean contradictory evidence. The fact that you are willing to debate anything you disagree with has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.
Face it, various religious tenets can be falsified with very little contradictory evidence, but the contradictory evidence for many is overwhelming. Just look at the young earth belief and belief in a recent global flood. Those two ideas have been disproved by the contradictory evidence. Debate all you want, but that's the bottom line.
The more corroborating non-contradictory evidence supportive to a given religion, the more ligitimate it becomes.
And to get that state of "ligitimacy" [sic] you simply ignore, deny, or misrepresent all of the contradictory evidence. That might make for good apologetics (e.g., creation "science"), but it is both dishonest and the antithesis of actual science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2010 8:56 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2213 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 38 of 479 (564320)
06-09-2010 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Buzsaw
06-09-2010 8:13 PM


Re: Buzsaw, meet Bayes.
Relative to the OP of this topic, religions which deny evidence like this supportive to the Biblical record, including some ultra-liberal Christian religions can be assumed to be false.
I'm still waiting for a realistic answer to my point that there are many things in the bible flatly contradicted by scientific evidence. Young earth and the global flood about 4,350 years ago are two examples.
Do these examples, disproved by empirical evidence, not mean anything to you?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 06-09-2010 8:13 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by hooah212002, posted 06-09-2010 9:36 PM Coyote has 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