|
Author
|
Topic: Identifying false religions.
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: on GOD
Straggler writes: You do not consider any GOD/God/gods to be evidenced. No. I consider all Gods and gods to be evidenced. The evidence is the stories themselves. Based on that evidence someone can make a rational decision about whether such a critter is likely, unlikely, very likely, very unlikely. One can also make rational decisions about how they should react if it turns out such a critter did exist, no matter how improbable such existence might be.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 328 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 2:15 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: on GOD
Straggler writes: jar writes: I consider all Gods and gods to be evidenced. The evidence is the stories themselves. How can any stories about any empirically imperceptible being(s) be anything but made-up? (Blind random chance aside.) They could be real entities. According to the stories the critters are neither imperceptible or unevidenced.
Straggler writes: jar writes: Based on that evidence someone can make a rational decision about whether such a critter is likely, unlikely, very likely, very unlikely. Are there any Gods/gods which you consider to be sufficiently evidenced to be anything other than "very unlikely". Sure. I think that there is a possibility that Jesus really was God.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 330 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 2:38 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: on GOD
Straggler writes: jar writes: They could be real entities. According to the stories the critters are neither imperceptible or unevidenced. Depends which stories we are talking about. In the case of stories pertaining to entities which are wholly empirically imperceptible we can conclude that (blind random chance aside) they must be made-up. Yes? How can it be possibly be otherwise? Read what I write. "According to the stories the critters are neither imperceptible or unevidenced."
Straggler writes: jar writes: Straggler writes: Are there any Gods/gods which you consider to be sufficiently evidenced to be anything other than "very unlikely". Sure. I think that there is a possibility that Jesus really was God. No atheist here is arguing against the possibility. But on what rational evidential basis do you elevate the "Jesus as God" story to be more likely than any other? None that I am willing to share with you.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 332 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 5:07 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Contradictions? Hidden "Evidence"?
Straggler writes: In the case of this story pertaining to an entity which is wholly empirically imperceptible we can conclude that (blind random chance aside) it must be made-up. Yes? How can it be possibly be otherwise? Sorry, if you are talking about the Deist concept of God then I would have to say that's more probable then many. You can assume that it is made up but others could assume that it is real.
Straggler writes: You "don't believe any of them are likely to exists" (sic) but you don't consider Jesus as God to be unlikely? These answers seem to be contradictory. Can you explain? I am not always consistent.
Straggler writes: So are your beliefs based on stories that are available to all? Some are, for example the stories of gods and Gods are available in mythology and most religious texts. Others are not, for example my belief in GOD.
Straggler writes: Or are you citing evidence that is not in these stories? Yet again this seems contradictory. Can you explain? I'm not citing evidence not in the stories, and even told you that. I am not willing to present any of my reasoning, logic or evidence for my belief in GOD.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 334 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 6:19 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Contradictions? Hidden "Evidence"?
And you still don't seem to get it. I'll try yet again and really try to keep it simple for you. My beliefs are my own. The reasons are my own. I do not expect you to share any of my beliefs. The evidence for Jesus is acceptable enough for me to consider that Jesus is likely real. The Deist God is reasonable enough for me to consider as likely. BUT, the evidence only has to be reasonable to me and there is no reason that I should bother pointing any of it out to you that I can see. I get to decide whether I find evidence for my beliefs sufficient for me, you don't. Others get to decide whether they find the evidence for their beliefs sufficient, you don't. If I or someone else tries to convince you to believe as they believe, then, and only then do you get to look at and criticize the evidence.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 336 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 7:18 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Contradictions? Hidden "Evidence"?
Too funny.
Straggler writes: I am not debating your innate right to believe whatever you personally believe on whatever grounds you personally deem sufficient. Any more than I would debate what flavour ice-cream you should prefer. To do that would be absurd. I am asking you if it is rational to believe that a deistic god is anything other than improbable. I am asking you if it is rational to believe that "Jesus as God" is anything other than improbable. If you cannot seperate questions about what it is rational to believe from disputations of what it is you actually have a right to believe in then that says far more about the limitations of your arguments than it does mine. You also don't get to decide what I believe is rational.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 338 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 7:46 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Contradictions? Hidden "Evidence"?
Straggler writes: Surely what is or is not rational can be agreed upon by rational minds? Can creationists rightfully consider themselves as rational? Simply by asserting themslves to be so? Because that is what you have been reduced, here, to doing. Certainly they can consider themselves rational. Again, think. Have I asked you to consider me rational? You are also free to consider them irrational. Then there is the other issue. If you find a belief that you believe you can factually refute, then you can present evidence in support of your position. However, you cannot refute a belief when there is no evidence.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 340 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 7:57 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
SOURCE vs Content
Straggler writes: Well if you are going to insist on your unchallenged right to say anything regardless of how inconsistent or irrational then I guess you can justify any fucked-up wankery that springs into your mind and out of your mouth/pen/keyboard. But if persistently executed - It makes anything you say completely unworthy of further consideration does it not? Good. A very good first step. You should never accept anything I say (or anyone else for that matter) based on the fact that I (or anyone else) said it. Look at what I say, test it against YOUR knowledge, experience, beliefs, evidence and decide based on those factors.
Straggler writes: There is no such thing as a complete vacuum of all objective evidence. All human claims are necessarily, inarguably and indisputably made in the objectively evidenced context of human psychology, history and culture. But the fact that you, just as RAZD has done, are reduced to the "absence of evidence" or "you cannot prove me wrong" position tells us everything we need to know about the evidential and logical paucity of your position. Okay, that works for me as I have told you many times in this very thread.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 342 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2010 8:24 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
On belief
Phage0070 writes: Jar has already admitted that his/her beliefs about "GOD" are irrational, illogical, unreasonable, contrary to his/her will, and apparently *secret* both in formulation and content. Furthermore, he/she sees no potential problems with such beliefs. I'm sorry but parts of that statement are false. When you say "apparently *secret* both in formulation and content." you are of course wrong and you have been told that you are wrong. Over the years here at EvC I doubt that anyone's beliefs have been discussed more than mine. I suggested that you start in Columnists Corner where I have several threads that were open discussions of my beliefs. Maybe you need more help finding them so here are some links.
Belief Statement - jarOn ChristianityShould Sacred Studies be part of a general public school curriculaWho can be saved. A Christian perspective Those will do for a start. Each thread is between 140 and 300+ messages long so they may take a while for you to read through. Once you finish going through them let me know since there are quite a few more I can suggest.
Phage0070 writes: I have therefore concluded that Jar is intentionally lying to salvage an untenable faith position, seriously mentally ill, or some combination of the two. You are, of course, free to conclude most anything, however foolish it makes you look. Edited by jar, : edit sub-title
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 346 by Phage0070, posted 07-28-2010 5:23 AM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 350 of 479 (570714)
07-28-2010 12:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 349 by Phage0070
07-28-2010 12:12 PM
|
|
Re: On belief
Phage0070 writes: So it seems that you only are willing to say what you believe, not discuss the reasoning (if there is any) behind it at all. Can you distinguish your participation within this forum as anything other than 1-way communication, with a focus on proselytizing? Do you know the meaning of proselytizing? Do I ever ask anyone to believe as I do? Did you read the threads I linked you to? Do they discuss my reasoning?
Phage0070 writes: Are you familiar with a guy named "Gish"? Of course. However the threads I linked you to are directly related to what I believe and how I arrived at those beliefs. How is that related to a Gish Gallop?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 349 by Phage0070, posted 07-28-2010 12:12 PM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: On belief
Phage0070 writes: No, I didn't read them all. Please read the Library of Congress and reply to my post with that in mind. As for if they discuss your reasoning, it doesn't appear that they do. Your unwillingness to discuss your reasoning here backs that up. It appears that you are simply interested in stating what you believe, not explaining why except in an extremely general and yawn-inspiring sense. "Once upon a time I was but a young boy..." Part of the participation in a discussion forum is to discuss things, which often relies upon explaining not only your position but how you got there. Most of the time it isn't simply to get to know more about the particular individual posting. If you did not read them how do you know that they do not explain my reasoning? How I got to my present beliefs took me something over 20,000 hours of experience. I cannot explain that in one post.
Phage0070 writes: The similarity lies in the deliberate presentation of far too much material to actually formulate a decent reply. The thread is about Identifying False Religions, and you are unwilling to discuss how exactly you came to decide your religious beliefs are correct or how other religious beliefs are false. Your willingness to link to novel-length compendiums of tangentially related ramblings does not really address the topic at all. I never claimed or claim that my beliefs are correct, only that they are what I believe. I believe (but again may be wrong) that I have said that once or thrice in this very thread and know for a fact that I mention that in the threads I linked you too. I intentionally gave you a very limited number of the threads and discussion here at EvC dealing with my beliefs since you were specifically asking about my beliefs. However, if you now wish to return to the topic of this thread (thank God) I will gladly give you some of the ways I identify False Religions. First, as I have said many times at EvC, all religions are at least partly false in my opinion. My reasoning on this is that a GOD that could create all that is, seen and unseen, is something beyond what any human could understand and that we would have as much chance of having a true relationship with such a being as pond scum having a true relationship with a human. All religions are but maps, they are not the territory. They are caricatures, efforts by humans to imagine and describe what is unimaginable. Next, a belief when there is overwhelming evidence that it is factually wrong is a false religion. Examples would be a belief that there actually was a Noahic Flood, an Exodus as described in the Bible, a Conquest of Canaan as described in Joshuah, or a literal talking snake is a False Religion. Do those help you?
Phage0070 writes: Unless you are actually willing to discuss your reasoning behind your beliefs, I suggest you simply introduce yourself (as you have already done in other threads) and quit posting. We are not here simply to find out *what* you believe. Again, too funny. The threads I linked you to are SOME, just a few, of the threads where I have discussed my beliefs. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 351 by Phage0070, posted 07-28-2010 1:02 PM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: SOURCE vs Content
Straggler writes: So you clearly state your position and congratulate yourself on your consistency as you do so. But when you are asked about the improbability of un-evidenced entities which hold some personal appeal to you suddenly you throw a hissy fit about personal belief, proclaim yourself to be inconsistent and declare that whatever you believe to be rational is rational because you believe it to be so. Again, that summary of yours is not quite what I have said. What I have said is that the reasoning for SOME of my beliefs is none of your business and since it is only relevant to my personal beliefs, pretty much irrelevant anyway. Second, I have said repeatedly that many of my beliefs are irrational not rational.
Straggler writes: And now you want to patronise me by making out that this was all some sort of masterplan on your part to reveal the true nature of discovery to those of us unblessed with your insight? Wow! I never made a claim that there was any masterplan on my part but I do think it is nice to acknowledge progress when observed.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 353 by Straggler, posted 07-28-2010 1:41 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: SOURCE vs Content
Straggler writes: I really have little interest in your self confessed irrational personal beliefs. Please stop assuming that I am seeking to challenge your right to irrationally believe whatever you irrationally want. What I do dispute is your right to declare some un-evidenced beliefs as rational simply because you reserve the right believe them to be so. Once again, you misrepresent my position. The beliefs I consider rational are evidenced and as I said, the evidence is the stories written about them. I imagine the communication problem is that you do not consider what I consider to be evidence as evidence. Let's look at the Deist God. I examine the writings about a Deist God and I find the arguments personally compelling, so I say that a Deist God is more likely than some other Gods. Another example are the two gods presented in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3. I find the god in Genesis 1 more probable than the god presented in Genesis 2&3. As I have pointed out in this thread (I believe), one of the differences is in the detail and the amount of detail available in the stories. There is far more detail (evidence) in the story about the god found in Genesis 2&3 that I can use to make the rational decision that that god is less likely than the god found in Genesis 1 or in the Deist descriptions.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 355 by Straggler, posted 07-28-2010 2:08 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: On belief
Phage0070 writes: If you consider "GOD" to be unimaginable and incomprehensible by humans, then I assume that you cannot fully imagine or comprehend "GOD". What is it then, about your state of non-understanding of "GOD" that leads you to conclude those who claim a more complete understanding are wrong? HUH?
Phage0070 writes: It seems to me to be the height of arrogance for one who does not know something to claim that it *cannot* be known. Your position, so far as I can understand, is that "GOD" cannot be fully understood and so all religions are to some extent false. However that claim is made with the admission that you don't really understand "GOD" at all... so how would you really know? HUH? Well, there I may be able to show you some reasoned position. Any critter that is able to create all that is, seen and unseen, is a being far beyond my meager capabilities. I often have trouble understanding or knowing just plain old humans; many folk like cavediver and Silas and many more I have encountered here are far beyond my capability to truly 'know'. If I find it hard to really know other humans, what chance would I have to really know, to have a relationship with, the being that simply by an act of will created all that is, seen or unseen? It may well be that you are smarter than I and so can imagine or know such a critter.
Page0070 writes: Your criteria for distinguishing false religions seems to be based on extending your inability to understand "GOD" to everyone else, and that is simply poor reasoning. HUH? My criteria for identifying false religions has nothing to do with GOD, rather it concerns God(s) and god(s). When something is presented describing a God or god, for example the description found in different religious stories, the Vedas, the books of the various Bibles, the Norse or Greek or Roman mythology, the Qur'an, the Egyptian pantheon, American India religious stories, then I have something where I can make reasoned, rational decisions. BUT when it comes to GOD about all that I can say is that I believe that GOD is the creator of all that is, seen or unseen. There I simply do not have sufficient data to make a reasoned, rational decision. My belief that such a being does exist is not reasonable or rational, it is unreasonable and irrational, yet I believe it. Would I prefer that I had evidence other than my personal belief, evidence that I could present for review and criticisms? Yup. But I don't. Is it possible that my belief might be wrong? Certainly.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 357 by Phage0070, posted 07-28-2010 3:43 PM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: On belief
Phage0070 writes: Exactly, beyond *your* capabilities. Now how exactly do you get from there to it being beyond the capabilities of anyone else, including those who claim to have been personally visited, entered, and altered by that being? Your inability to understand "GOD" is only indicative of your shortcomings, not of "GOD" being universally incomprehensible. LOL Whatever. I thought you were asking me about my beliefs. If and when someone can convince me that they can really know and understand GOD then I will change my belief.
Phage0070 writes: Perhaps then you could modify the statement of your reasoning so that it does not include the term "GOD", which you say it has nothing to do with. HUH? In my belief religions do not deal with GOD, but rather God(s) or god(s). I can make reasoned and rational decisions about my belief or non-belief, about whether or not a religion is false based not on GOD but rather God(s) or god(s).
Phage0070 writes: jar writes: It may well be that you are smarter than I and so can imagine or know such a critter. Ok, so taking that into account how can you conclude that all religions are to some extent false? Because how smart you are is unrelated to my conclusions about religions. Those conclusions are based on the evidence I find in what has been written about those religions.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 359 by Phage0070, posted 07-28-2010 4:24 PM | | Phage0070 has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2