Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Identifying false religions.
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 293 of 479 (569831)
07-23-2010 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by subbie
07-23-2010 10:41 PM


Re: on GOD
subbie writes:
Perhaps I'm reading too much into what you're saying. I assumed that when you said, "I don't know," that meant completely no position on the matter. Not likely, not unlikely, not even slightly more likely that not. I assumed it meant no opinion whatsoever on likelihood.
The term "know" is one that I use pretty carefully. "Know" tends to be pretty emphatic, an end.
subbie writes:
How do you feel about Sagan's famous aphorism, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?"
It would make a nice bumper sticker.
But again, I try not to make extraordinary claims.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by subbie, posted 07-23-2010 10:41 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by subbie, posted 07-23-2010 11:03 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 295 of 479 (569835)
07-23-2010 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by subbie
07-23-2010 11:03 PM


Re: on GOD
subbie writes:
So when you say, "I don't know," you mean that you lack absolute or near absolute certainty about the matter, although you may have a belief about the likelihood of the matter. Do I have it right?
Bigger range then that. "I don't know" can be anything from near absolute certainty something is likely to near absolute certainty something is unlikely.
subbie writes:
The gist of my question, however, was whether you agree with it.
The problem is that an "extraordinary claim" depends on the individual considering it. What YOU might think extraordinary I might consider very ordinary.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by subbie, posted 07-23-2010 11:03 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by subbie, posted 07-23-2010 11:21 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 298 of 479 (569860)
07-24-2010 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by subbie
07-23-2010 11:21 PM


Re: on GOD
subbie writes:
So when you say
jar writes:
Well, if there is neither evidence something exists or does not exist I would think it was rational to say..."I don't know."
that could include you believing that it's nearly absolutely certain to be so, but not 100% certain.
I think we need to step back a ways here.
What I suggest is that we move through how I go about identifying false religions (although IMHO all religions including the one I practice could be called false). It will be a slow journey and as in the Grand Canyon thread I'd like to keep it step by step and make sure we agree on each layer before going further.
If that is okay then we could do it here, or in another thread if you prefer.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by subbie, posted 07-23-2010 11:21 PM subbie has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 301 of 479 (570097)
07-25-2010 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Straggler
07-25-2010 1:51 PM


Re: on GOD
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
I would likely tell you my beliefs about God or god to be rational and logical.
On what evidential basis?
Well, the various Gods or gods are described in the different tales. I can look at the characteristics presented in the stories and make judgments about them just as I can about the likelihood of Superman or Spiderman.
The evidence is the various stories themselves.
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
Straggler writes:
Is your belief in GOD irrational?
I would certainly say so.
Yet your belief in God or god is not? What is the evidential difference? Be specific.
There is NO evidence that I can or will present in support of my belief in GOD. When it comes to God or gods though I can point to the actual tales, to the stories themselves.
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
Straggler writes:
Is atheism towards this GOD irrational?
NOTE: By atheism I don't mean absolute denial of existence. I mean the conclusion that the actual existence of this creator of "all that is seen and unseen" is highly improbable.
Not at all, in fact until evidence is presented, really strong evidence sufficient to convince you fully, I would say that it is both the rational and logical position.
So how are God or god evidentially different to GOD such that atheism is not also rationally justified towards these differently "spelt" entities?
I have never said that atheism is not a rational position about any of the GOD, God or gods.
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
Beliefs are irrelevant to the actual existence or non existence of the critter.
Yet it is rational to conclude that any unevidenced entity is improbable is it not?
Of course, highly improbable even. I have never said otherwise.
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
The answer to all of those questions is ..."My belief."
And how is your un-evidenced belief any different from mere personal preference?
Because regardless of whether I wish it were true, regardless of what I would prefer, it is what I believe is true.
I would much rather the GOD I believe in could be supported by evidence that all could see, examine and accept. Unfortunately, I see no way to do that.
I still believe that there is a GOD, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, that there will be an afterlife and that I will have to stand before that GOD to be judged based on my behavior during this life.
Edited by jar, : left out the word 'my' in based on my behavior

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 1:51 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 4:40 PM jar has replied
 Message 303 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 4:49 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 304 of 479 (570105)
07-25-2010 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Straggler
07-25-2010 4:40 PM


Re: on GOD
Straggler writes:
So belief in which Gods or gods are rational and logical - Based on which "stories" specifically?
I think you still don't get it. I think it is rational to decide whether you believe in or do not believe in a God or god based on the evidence presented.
That applies to each and EVERY story.
I think saying "I don't know" when you really don't know is ALWAYS rational.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 4:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 5:23 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 305 of 479 (570106)
07-25-2010 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Straggler
07-25-2010 4:49 PM


Re: on GOD
Straggler writes:
Regardless of the fact that I wish I liked the taste of chocolate ice cream the fact is that I don't. I prefer strawberry.
But my dislike of chocolate ice cream, whilst socially awkward and unwanted at times, remains a personal preference. No?
How is your un-evidenced belief different?
Because I believe it is true. It is not a personal preference and in fact not at all what I wished.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 4:49 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 5:14 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 307 of 479 (570110)
07-25-2010 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Straggler
07-25-2010 5:14 PM


Re: on GOD
You keep asking questions as though you thought that I could show how my belief in GOD was rational. I have already told you that it is irrational, illogical and unreasonable.
Yet it is what I believe.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 5:14 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 5:27 PM jar has not replied
 Message 311 by Phage0070, posted 07-25-2010 5:43 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 310 of 479 (570115)
07-25-2010 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Straggler
07-25-2010 5:23 PM


Re: on GOD
Straggler writes:
And I am asking you which specific god or Gods you consider your belief in as rational and on what evidential (i.e. story) basis you make this conclusion?
And I am telling you that my processes I use applies to EVERY God or god. Personally I don't believe any of them are likely to exists however I also admit that I might well be wrong. I base that belief of the evidence presented in the stories.
Straggler writes:
OK. So tell me one of these stories and the god or God that you consider it to be evidence of.
I have, but I'll go through the process yet again for you.
Consider the God in Genesis 1 and the God in Genesis 2.
The God depicted in Genesis 1 is overarching, aloof, supremely competent but separate from Her creation, impersonal.
Now look at the God of Genesis 2 & 3. This God is personal, hands on, very human, often fumbling and unsure, frightened.
Two entire different Gods, one that can be loving if demanding, the other grander, magnificent but impersonal.
Now I believe that neither is likely but the former more likely than the latter.
Straggler writes:
No atheist here claims to know. But is denying the improbability of unevidenced conclusions rational or irrational?
Irrational.
But I have always said that.
Straggler writes:
No. I am asking you how this irrational, illogical and unreasonable unevidenced belief is any different from mere personal preference.
Because I say it is different and is NOT a matter of personal preference.
Straggler writes:
And I believe that I dislike chocolate ice-cream. And this belief is entirely unchosen and entirely synonymous with my personal preference.
How is your belief in GOD different?
See above.
But on reflection, does it matter whether it is different or not?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 5:23 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 5:57 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 312 of 479 (570118)
07-25-2010 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Phage0070
07-25-2010 5:43 PM


Re: on GOD
Phage0070 writes:
Could you clarify this? You have an irrational, illogical, unreasonable belief that is contrary to your will and you would prefer to not have... and yet you don't seem to consider this to be mental illness.
I don't see how this is different from, for instance, hallucinating that there are large, hairy, terrifying spiders crawling on your bedroom walls. Surely you would seek to rid yourself of such a belief through logical reassurance and perhaps medication and psychiatric treatment. Yet you seem to be defending your belief in "GOD". Why?
Well, I don't see where my belief causes me any troubles, and I do believe that I may, note only may, get a conclusive answer after I die so I don't see any reason to get rid of it.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Phage0070, posted 07-25-2010 5:43 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Phage0070, posted 07-25-2010 11:27 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 314 of 479 (570123)
07-25-2010 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Straggler
07-25-2010 5:57 PM


Re: on GOD
Straggler writes:
OK. So you rationally and logically believe that the actual existence of any god, God or GOD is unlikely.
Is that correct?
No. I irrationally believe that the existence of GOD is certain.
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
Now I believe that neither is likely but the former more likely than the latter.
Why? Personal preference?
No, not personal preference but rather personal beliefs.
But remember, if presented with more evidence then I will likely change my beliefs.
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
Straggler writes:
No atheist here claims to know. But is denying the improbability of unevidenced conclusions rational or irrational?
Irrational.
But I have always said that.
You have also said "I would agree with RAZD." Message 263 but RAZD absolutely and vehemently denies that improbability is a remotely rationally justifiable conclusion.
Have you actually read his posts in this thread (or a multitude of others on the same subject)?
I think you still misunderstand what I or RAZD are saying or perhaps I misunderstand what RAZD is saying.
I think RAZD and I would both see "I don't know" to cover a very broad spectrum. In fact, the only thing excluded from the "I don't know" position is absolute surety.
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
But on reflection, does it matter whether it is different or not?
Well earlier I asked if your belief in GOD was derived from anything other than personal preference and you got quite uppity in insisting that it was. So obviously it matters to you.
Why is that?
Well, if you think I was uppity, I apologize. I certainly didn't mean it as uppity, more just amusement.
I really don't much care whether you think it is a matter of personal preference or not, I don't believe it is a matter of personal preference and your beliefs about my beliefs will of course not have any effect on my beliefs.
Edited by jar, : try to fix wording

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 5:57 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 6:51 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 317 of 479 (570130)
07-25-2010 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Straggler
07-25-2010 6:51 PM


Re: on GOD
Straggler writes:
Yes. I am well aware of that. But that isn't what I asked is it? What do you consider to be the rational and logical conclusion? Everything you have said here indicates that you consider it rational and logical to believe that the actual existence of any empirically unevidenced entity is highly improbable.
Is this correct? Or not?
Sheesh. Sure. I also said that I irrationally believe that GOD conclusively exists.
Straggler writes:
The endless debate with RAZD is concerned with whether or not it is rational to consider the existence of GOD/God/god as highly improbable. On this you seem to fundamentally disagree with RAZD. Despite claiming to agree with him.
Perhaps either I or you misunderstand RAZD. If he tells me I misunderstand him I'll have to re-evaluate what I believe he is saying.
I believe he is saying that it is irrational to reach a conclusion simply based on probability.
Straggler writes:
Yet again - What is the actual difference?
HUH? One is a personal preference, the other is not. Really that seems pretty clear.
Straggler writes:
Of course not. But if you cannot explain what the diefference is between unevidenced beliefs and personal preferences to anyone else on what basis do you conclude that there is a difference?
Beyond simply being unwilling to equate the two because you find that synonimity personally distasteful?
Personal belief. I honestly thought I told you that it was based on my personal belief that they are different.
I don't much care if you find them synonymous, I certainly don't find anything distasteful about the issue, it's simply a really minor point.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 6:51 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 7:19 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 321 of 479 (570134)
07-25-2010 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Straggler
07-25-2010 7:19 PM


Re: on GOD
Straggler writes:
And (just to be clear here) I am relatively uninterested in what you irrationally believe. That is your business. What I do want to know is what you consider it rational to believe. And why.
Well, beyond what I have already posted I'm not sure there is much more I can help you with. If there is some evidence then that evidence can be used to make a rational decision.
Straggler writes:
Yet you agree that it is rational to conclude that the actual existence of any empirically unevidenced entity is highly improbable. Huh?
Yes.
Straggler writes:
From where is it even possible to derive an unevidenced belief other than by means of personal preference?
Huh?
I'm not sure I even understand the question. If one of my beliefs is not what I would prefer to believe I'm not sure how it can come from personal preference.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2010 7:19 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 1:08 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 323 of 479 (570203)
07-26-2010 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Phage0070
07-25-2010 11:27 PM


Re: on GOD
Phage0070 writes:
jar writes:
I don't see where my belief causes me any troubles,...
You don't see how holding irrational, illogical, unreasonable beliefs which affect your behavior and presumably distribution of your wealth would have a down side? ... Really?
Would you be interested in buying a bridge?
You're new here aren't you.
I see no downside related to my belief in GOD or my belief in the Christian God.
Phage0070 writes:
jar writes:
I do believe that I may, note only may, get a conclusive answer after I die so I don't see any reason to get rid of it.
If you think that you may get a conclusive answer after you die, why do you have a compelling reason to keep it?
For instance, lets assume you go to church for 2 hours every week for 50 years because of your belief. Thats about 217 days of your life gone; a life that only *may* continue later. If its all the same, that seems a fairly compelling reason to get rid of the belief.
Well, your time estimates are way down. I would say a more reasonable figure might be many hours a day spent discussing, practicing and living my religion.
I get the feeling that you think I adopted or continue my religion in some hope that there is an afterlife. That's not correct. I do hope there is an afterlife but I would continue my life just as it is even if there was no such hope.
The continuation part is not even very important. As I said, I certainly can't have much of a clue about that while I'm still alive and only maybe, after I'm dead will I know if there is an afterlife.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Phage0070, posted 07-25-2010 11:27 PM Phage0070 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 325 of 479 (570448)
07-27-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Straggler
07-27-2010 1:08 PM


Re: on GOD
Okay. Well, it appears I am unable to help you understand. Sorry.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 1:08 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 1:36 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 327 of 479 (570453)
07-27-2010 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Straggler
07-27-2010 1:36 PM


Re: on GOD
Until RAZD can tell me I misunderstand his position, I guess the answer is "Kinda". I'm not sure you are the only one.
I understand that I have failed to explain my position to your satisfaction, but don't see much that I could add that will help.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 1:36 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 2:15 PM jar 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