Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Identifying false religions.
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 376 of 479 (570934)
07-29-2010 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Phage0070
07-29-2010 12:35 PM


Re: confusing the issue
Phage writes:
Only when pressed will people like jar or RAZD or even you admit that their belief is personal, unprovable, and not absolutely certain. Merely acceptable to them for personal reasons.
I can not speak for RAZD but you certainly misrepresent what I say and do.
I have always stated that my belief in GOD is irrational and unreasonable and that I may be wrong. It takes no pressure to get me to admit that, rather it would take a lot of pressure to get me to assert otherwise.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Phage0070, posted 07-29-2010 12:35 PM Phage0070 has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 178 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 377 of 479 (570937)
07-29-2010 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by RAZD
07-28-2010 9:11 PM


Re: more logical fallacies
RAZ writes:
Empiical evidence showed that the modern santa clause is a product of fiction where a number of people are documented embellishing the original folk tale, and the original folk tale was shown by empirical evidence to have a likely source in an actual historical figure.
Yes the evidence favouring that fat jolly magically undetectable Santa is the product of the human mind rather than an entity that actually exists is overwhelming and compelling. Thus making the empirical falsification of this empirically un-falsifiable concept irrelevant to all practical intents and purposes.
RAZ writes:
And even for your precious empirically imperceptible entity, lack of information about it does not mean that it does not exist, just that you lack information about it.
Are you genuinely incapable of distinguishing between someone pointing out the fact that the conception of any empirically imperceptible entity is necessarily solely a product of the internal human mind and someone absolutely denying that the empirically imperceptible entity in question can possibly exist?
The imperceptible products of your imagination might exist. This is philosophically possible. They remain unfalsified. To the same extent that jolly magically undetectable Santa remains unfalisfied. But we know that, like Santa, these concepts have been arrived at NOT by means of perceiving external reality. But by the internal workings of the human mind. How can it possibly be otherwise?
With regard to the likelihood of you having chanced upon some great imperceptible truth of nature - Which part of blind random chance do you not understand?
RAZ writes:
You don't know that god/s are necessarily undetectable or imperceptible, so you are assuming the consequent.
Can you explain how the deistic notion of god as previously described by you - "Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s, or is off doing other things" Message 225 - Can possibly be empirically perceptible?
RAZ writes:
You have not done this for the easter bunny yet, that I am aware, so you cannot claim results you have not demonstrated
Which of course means that your arguments necessarily require the same degree of agnosticism towards the pink fluffy buck toothed empirically imperceptible Easter Bunny as they do the existence of god(s). Go figure.
RAZ writes:
No, your logic is faulty again. That would be the old all a is b, b: therefore a logical fallacy that you seem to love so well.
Can you either quote me (in full context) as to where you think I have ever actually deployed any such statement of logical certitude? Or desist from relentlessly asserting that I have.
RAZ writes:
curiously, I have refuted your false logic several times, but it seems to make no dent on your preconceptions.
Curiously ALL of your so called refutations refute the notion that gods have been falsified as impossible. Given that not a single person here, including myself, is advocating that position your refutation has been exposed as a giant straw-man and thus is itself refuted. Again.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2010 9:11 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2010 12:26 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 178 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 378 of 479 (570944)
07-29-2010 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by jar
07-28-2010 2:30 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
jar writes:
Once again, you misrepresent my position.
I am basing your position solely on what you have said your position is in this thread.
jar writes:
Let's look at the Deist God.
Yes let's. You quite clearly stated that you deemed it both rational and logical to consider the actual existence of any empirically unevidenced entity to be "highly improbable".
Message 317 and Message 321
jar writes:
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.
Is a Deist God "empirically unevidenced"?
Is a Deist God thus "highly improbable"?
jar writes:
I imagine the communication problem is that you do not consider what I consider to be evidence as evidence.
Is the form of evidence you speak of able to be demonstrated as leading to conclusions which can be verified as superior to the results obtained by blind random chance?
If so can you give an example?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by jar, posted 07-28-2010 2:30 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by jar, posted 07-29-2010 1:18 PM Straggler has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 379 of 479 (570945)
07-29-2010 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Straggler
07-29-2010 1:15 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
As I suspected, it appears you and I have different ideas about what is evidence. I consider the writings themselves to be evidence. Do you?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Straggler, posted 07-29-2010 1:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Straggler, posted 07-29-2010 1:47 PM jar has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 380 of 479 (570948)
07-29-2010 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Phage0070
07-29-2010 12:35 PM


Re: confusing the issue
There are two major problems with your thought here. The first is your terminology: "Disbelief" is rejection or lack of belief. That is not the same as belief that Bigfoot does not exist, and does not equate with position 3.
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.
The second problem is that you completely missed the significance of the word "not". Position 2 is included in both not believing to exist and not believing to not exist and that's just reasonable.
Sure, but with your classification, Position 2 also encompasses both believing and not believing. That is what's nonsensical.
Disbelief is not the same as believing to be false. Agnostics have disbelief.
I disagree. Agnostics don't believe nor disbelieve. They're neutral. Disbelief is believing to be false, especially with the qualifier of positive disbelief.
Perhaps because thats not what the words mean? Or because there is a wider range of beliefs than that?
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.
Someone who claims that there are no gods (which you seem to have confused with atheism for some reason)
Because that's what atheism means... the belief that god doesn't exist.
The issue is that the term "atheist" literally means "not-theist",
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.
so you cannot simply label #3 as "the atheist position". It simply isn't the case.
According to the proper definition of atheism, that is exactly the case.
On the flip side, theists claim that they *know* gods exist for the power and control this offers, as well as social gain.
Maybe some do but I don't.
Only when pressed will people like jar or RAZD or even you admit that their belief is personal, unprovable, and not absolutely certain. Merely acceptable to them for personal reasons.
Myself, RAZD and jar have all been upfront about ourselves recognizing that our theism is irrational. We didn't have to be pressed.
Far more than shallow and pedantic, I consider such behavior dishonest and unethical. Now if you are done throwing insults and measuring your dick, how about you get back on topic?
Like I said, your reply would have been better in the other thread I linked to.
"athe(os) godless"
"Theos" is Greek for "deity" or "god". Atheos is then the lack of a deity or god... which means godless.
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.
Someone who does not believe a god exists obviously is "godless"
Not necessarily... they could be agnostic.
so that fits nicely.
I don't think so.
However that does not imply a positive claim that gods don't exist.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Phage0070, posted 07-29-2010 12:35 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Phage0070, posted 07-29-2010 3:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 178 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 381 of 479 (570950)
07-29-2010 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by RAZD
07-27-2010 10:54 PM


Re: Gosh, a direct question instead of pretending (again) to know?
RAZ writes:
The conclusion that it "is highly improbable\probable" is what makes these conclusions irrational, as they are not supported by anything other than personal opinion, confirmation bias, and wishful thinking. This was proven, and the proof has been posted several times.
You have (apparently) proven that no un-evidenced and un-falsified conclusion can be rationally considered to be improbable.
The conclusion that the God of biblical Christianity is soon to invoke Judgement Day and having done so will reveal why it is that the 9,000 year old Earth appears to be so much older is one such un-evidenced and unfalsified conclusion.
So you have proven that considering this scenario to be improbable is irrational.
Which means that you have proven that it is irrational to conclude that the Earth is almost certainly billions of years old. Because it cannot be almost certainly billions of years old without it simultaneously being the case that the 9.000 year old scenario is highly improbable.
We can apply the same sort of un-evidenced and unfalsifiable alternative to every single scientific conclusion you can name. Which means that you have (apparently) proven we can never actually know anything with any degree of certainty that surpasses anything you class as mere opinion. No matter how well evidenced it may appear to be.
Because there is always an un-evidenced and unfalsified alternative available. And we can never rationally deem any of these to be improbable.
As you have proved......(apparently)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by RAZD, posted 07-27-2010 10:54 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 178 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 382 of 479 (570951)
07-29-2010 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by jar
07-29-2010 1:18 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
You have accused me of misrepresenting your position. In order to clear this up could you answer the questions asked of you? I shall repeat them again here before answering your latest question at the bottom of this post.
jar writes:
Let's look at the Deist God.
Yes let's. You quite clearly stated that you deemed it both rational and logical to consider the actual existence of any empirically unevidenced entity to be "highly improbable".
Message 317 and Message 321
jar writes:
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.
Is a Deist God "empirically unevidenced"?
Is a Deist God thus "highly improbable"?
jar writes:
As I suspected, it appears you and I have different ideas about what is evidence. I consider the writings themselves to be evidence. Do you?
I consider them to be evidence of belief in that which is being written about. Nothing more.
Is that rationally or logically unreasonable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by jar, posted 07-29-2010 1:18 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by jar, posted 07-29-2010 2:03 PM Straggler has replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
(1)
Message 383 of 479 (570955)
07-29-2010 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by Straggler
07-29-2010 1:47 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
Straggler writes:
Is a Deist God "empirically unevidenced"?
Is a Deist God thus "highly improbable"?
No, it is not "empirically unevidenced"
and No not highly improbable (even if that was relevant).
Straggler writes:
I consider them to be evidence of belief in that which is being written about. Nothing more.
Is that rationally or logically unreasonable?
No, that is not rationally or logically unreasonable. I can certainly understand how you take that position and see no problems with you holding that position.
However, we are talking about beliefs.
I believe that it is also rational and reasonable to consider that many may see what is written as MORE than simply a statement of belief.
If you read what I have said though I said that I consider the Deist God or the God described in Genesis 1 as more likely than the God described in Genesis 2&3.
Those happen to be my beliefs. If you hold different beliefs, that's fine with me. I am not here trying to convince you my beliefs are correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Straggler, posted 07-29-2010 1:47 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Straggler, posted 07-29-2010 7:10 PM jar has replied
 Message 415 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2010 1:50 PM jar has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 384 of 479 (570982)
07-29-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2010 1:37 PM


Re: confusing the issue
Catholic Scientist writes:
Sure it does. If you disbelieve Bigfoot, then you believe that it doesn't exist.
You have to go back there quite a bit, but you will find that we were discussing a *claim* of Bigfoot's existence. Disbelief in that claim does not imply a belief that Bigfoot does not exist.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Sure, but with your classification, Position 2 also encompasses both believing and not believing.
No, it does not. If you believe the claim you are position 1. If you believe that the claim is definitely false then you are position 3. Lack of position 1 is 2 or 3. Lack of position 3 is 1 or 2.
At no point does position 2 encompass both believing and not believing the claim. Those are mutually exclusive concepts.
(I will admit that the scale does not work if someone is actually insane, but thats the least of their problems.)
Catholic Scientist writes:
disagree. Agnostics don't believe nor disbelieve. They're neutral.
If they believe the claim, they would be theists. In order to be anything else they must disbelieve the claim. Remember, we are talking about claims here.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Because that's what atheism means... the belief that god doesn't exist.
No, it is lack of belief in god. A subtle, but important distinction.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Not originally...
Yes, that is its original meaning. You can see this in other words with Greek roots: For instance, gnostic and agnostic. A gnostic claims to *know* (the Greek word "Gnosis" means knowledge) while an agnostic does *lack* knowledge.
This is the exact same linguistic term used in theism and atheism from the Greek root of "Theos", meaning "deity or god". Theos - theism is the jump from "deity or god" to "belief in deity or god". Similarly the jump from atheos to atheism is the jump from "lack of deity or god" to "lack of belief in deity or god".
It really is that simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 1:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 3:45 PM Phage0070 has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
(1)
Message 385 of 479 (570990)
07-29-2010 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Phage0070
07-29-2010 3:29 PM


Re: confusing the issue
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.
Yes, that is its original meaning. You can see this in other words with Greek roots: For instance, gnostic and agnostic. A gnostic claims to *know* (the Greek word "Gnosis" means knowledge) while an agnostic does *lack* knowledge.
This is the exact same linguistic term used in theism and atheism from the Greek root of "Theos", meaning "deity or god". Theos - theism is the jump from "deity or god" to "belief in deity or god". Similarly the jump from atheos to atheism is the jump from "lack of deity or god" to "lack of belief in deity or god".
It really is that simple.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Phage0070, posted 07-29-2010 3:29 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Phage0070, posted 07-29-2010 3:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 386 of 479 (570992)
07-29-2010 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2010 3:45 PM


Re: confusing the issue
Catholic Scientist writes:
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.
It isn't a retreat, it is simply what we were talking about from the start. You are just rambling on your own tangent, and if my unwillingness to follow you makes you claim victory, that is up to you.
Catholic Scientist writes:
But you're wrong...
World English Dictionary:
n
rejection of belief in God or gods
[C16: from French athisme, from Greek atheos godless, from a- 1 + theos god]
Your linguistic interpretation is false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 3:45 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 3:54 PM Phage0070 has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
(1)
Message 387 of 479 (570993)
07-29-2010 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by Phage0070
07-29-2010 3:49 PM


Re: confusing the issue
It isn't a retreat, it is simply what we were talking about from the start.
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.
You are just rambling on your own tangent, and if my unwillingness to follow you makes you claim victory, that is up to you.
I've outlined your error and showed where you're wrong. So yeah, that was my intention.
World English Dictionary:
n
rejection of belief in God or gods
[C16: from French athisme, from Greek atheos godless, from a- 1 + theos god]
Your linguistic interpretation is false.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Phage0070, posted 07-29-2010 3:49 PM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Phage0070, posted 07-29-2010 4:11 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 388 of 479 (570999)
07-29-2010 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2010 3:54 PM


Re: confusing the issue
Catholic Scientist writes:
I don't think so. The definition has changed.
I still don't understand why agnostics want to call themselves atheists.
Then perhaps you don't understand why the term is applying the way it does because you consider the term to have changed when it has not.
The term originally meant the same thing that I and many others use it as meaning. You think the term means something else now, but lots of people disagree with your new meaning.
It seems pretty clear to me that you are wrong.
But anyways, back to the topic....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 3:54 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 389 of 479 (571003)
07-29-2010 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by crashfrog
07-29-2010 2:26 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2010 2:26 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2010 5:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 393 by Rahvin, posted 07-29-2010 6:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1579 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 390 of 479 (571026)
07-29-2010 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by New Cat's Eye
07-29-2010 4:23 PM


Say we have a religion that believes in god.
I'm sorry, believes in what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 4:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2010 5:47 PM crashfrog 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