An appeal for the logic of religious belief

[yossarian22]

I don't worry about what some know-it-all teenager who's never been anywhere and never done anything thinks.
It's not like you've ever done anything except make it to level 10 in some video game.

Amusing.
This shows a few things.
You act in a condescending manner towards ideas that are not yours and call others close minded. Then when the sheer stupidity and arrogance of your position is called out, you respond with an ad hominem attack. At least, that is how I believe you meant your last remark to mean, because it fails in even that regard.

Your response can mean one of two things. It is either correct and you show disdain for answering it, or it is nothing more than a number either you or somebody else dreamed up.
Money is on the latter due to how you responded.
1/7th huh? Luck number that denominator.

You also claim to know somebody. To have some idea of what their life is like, what their beliefs are like, why they think what they do. Supremely arrogant because you gave what amounts to an empty series of characteristics which could apply to virtually anybody yet you act like they matter. Cold reading. Extremely uninteresting cold reading as well. It also amounts to nothing but an appeal to emotion, signifying that your position is not rationally defensible.

 

[Rioku]

Amusing.
This shows a few things.
You act in a condescending manner towards ideas that are not yours and call others close minded.

I have to agree, belittling only hurts his position. To put it simply if someone is not convinced by what you are saying then you are not saying it the best way it could be said.

 

[Willamena]

Adamant in that until evidence comes arrogant to change my mine, I stick to logic.

What is the difference, then, between you and the person who finds it logical to kill in the name of god?

 

[Sola'lor]

Rioku, I would still like to see a list of the evidence you say proves there is no God. Please give me a list of at least ten pieces of evidence. If you have already listed this evidence previously then please refer me to the post where you have listed them

 

[Quath]

Rioku, I would still like to see a list of the evidence you say proves there is no God. Please give me a list of at least ten pieces of evidence. If you have already listed this evidence previously then please refer me to the post where you have listed them

This can not be done because you can change the definition of God faster than someone can disprove it. For example, I could show the Bible false, all prophets lieing, and a room that does not hold God and you can claim that the Bible is really true to real believers; prophets tell the truth in a mystical manner; and God is in the room but he is unseen.

I think the real trick for religious people is to prove their God real without proving every other god real. For example, can you prove Thor is not real? If so do you believe he is real? Probably not, so you are in agreement with most atheists. The only difference is that atheists hold the same standard of proof you do about Thor to your god.

 

[Sola'lor]

This can not be done because you can change the definition of God faster than someone can disprove it. For example, I could show the Bible false, all prophets lieing, and a room that does not hold God and you can claim that the Bible is really true to real believers; prophets tell the truth in a mystical manner; and God is in the room but he is unseen.

So what you are saying is that any evidence you present could be denied by me simply because it doesn't fit within my beliefs. If this is what you mean then I say it can go both ways. Any evidence I present could be denied by you simply because it doesn't fit within your beliefs.

This takes us to the next point that any evidence any of us present can simply be denied by the other. This means that the only thing the can prove anything is our personal experiences. But then again this still can't prove anything becuase the other will deny it.

So I can't prove to you the God exists but I can prove to myself. You can't prove to me that God doesn't exist but you can prove it to yourself. Rioku was of course saying that there is evidence that is irrefutable. He keeps saying why do I belive in something there is no evidence for. But for me there IS evidence. So what is Rioku's evidence.

 

[Rioku]

Rioku was of course saying that there is evidence that is irrefutable.

Again you are incorrect, there is no evidence that is irrefutable, hence the need for the scientific method. What I did say was that there is vast evidence for the erroneous nature of the human mind, and there is no evidence for divine experiences. So when someone claims to have divine experiences, I choose to assume the side with more evidence as opposed to the side with none. In the end I do similar with god, I take the notion that there is no evidence for god.

 

[Rioku]

Rioku, I would still like to see a list of the evidence you say proves there is no God. Please give me a list of at least ten pieces of evidence. If you have already listed this evidence previously then please refer me to the post where you have listed them

I point you to this, thread.

 

[Rioku]

What is the difference, then, between you and the person who finds it logical to kill in the name of god?

I think a better question would be, What is the difference, then, between you killing and the person who finds it logical to kill in the name of god?

In this case the action is the same but the reason is not. For if I kill I take responsibility, where as the person killing in the name of god takes none.

 

[YmirGF]

Alright, what verifiable evidence do you have that divine experiences are erroneous? You can't just assume that because the mind plays tricks sometimes, it's always worng.

True, one should not automatically just assume, however there is that annoying data set that the mind does have a way of tricking people into believing their own pet theories. Prudence would dictate that one should NEVER ignore the possibility that ones thinking is just that -- warm and fuzzy speculation borne out of repression.

What I've been saying all along is that neither position has the support of verifiable evidence.

That does rather underscore the absurdity of arguing the point, doesn't it? If the conversation was about the reality of pixie dust, I would expect that discussion would be somewhat short and pointed. However, when one invokes so-called "divinity" there is this strange "ohhh, ahhh" quality that supposedly trumps any naysayers as the discussion is about something beyond their timid intellectual capacity. Curiously, it is always the naysayers who are judged as not "getting it" or having the unseemly temerity of using logic in the arguments. Why is it that the pro-Divinity camp never sees itself in the same light?

How do I know there is even anything in the box? I opened it.

*Watches Super_Universe opening Pandora's box -- yet again*
*shivers and begins giggling*

really funny...HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?

Silly wabbit; that is for him to know and for you to find out -- apparently.

Incorrect it is moronic, anyway you look at it a 'challenge' (as you word it) that 'challenges' someone to prove something false when there is no evidence for it in the first place is moronic.

In the words of Forest Grump, "Moronic is, as moronic does."

And that you should keep doing because my peers are laughing at me for responding to you.

Well I am one peer that is laughing. Silly wabbit. Surely you understand the impossibility of arguing against illusions, but, for what it is worth, you aren't doing too badly. You do understand that in the context of the discussion that your sentiments are not wanted. Correct? You are being used to further ludicrous thinking and by entertaining responses to ludicrous thinking you lend unnecessary support TO that ludicrous thinking. You do understand that, right?
Don't get me too wrong, as I am on your side of this equation.

What is the difference, then, between you and the person who finds it logical to kill in the name of god?

I thought exactly the same thing. Rioku is falling obliviously into his own web by boxing the conversation in in this way.
*gives Rioku a demerit point*

Again you are incorrect, there is no evidence that is irrefutable, hence the need for the scientific method. What I did say was that there is vast evidence for the erroneous nature of the human mind, and there is no evidence for divine experiences. So when someone claims to have divine experiences, I choose to assume the side with more evidence as opposed to the side with none. In the end I do similar with god, I take the notion that there is no evidence for god.

Hmmm. You have made a logical faux pas here, my friend. It is NOT true to say there is no evidence for divine experiences. If scientists could trot around Jesus, Buddha or Krsna, they might well be presented with things that they cannot explain. IF you had stated that in MOST cases where "divinity" is invoked, one could analyze the data and conclude that the person was in fact indulging their "warm 'n' fuzzy" ideals, I would wholeheartedly agree. It is unwise to make a categoric statement however even if the odds are stacked in your favor.

 

[Quath]

So what you are saying is that any evidence you present could be denied by me simply because it doesn't fit within my beliefs. If this is what you mean then I say it can go both ways. Any evidence I present could be denied by you simply because it doesn't fit within your beliefs.

I completely agree. Part of training to be a scientist is to understand human bias. It is very easy to bias an experiment. It is so easy, that we have to do all sorts of stuff to try to overcome our bias. For example, I saw one paper that described a technique to obscure data as it is being analysized so the experimenter would not throw away data that disagreed with what was expected.

I think most of our brain power goes into justifying decisions and beliefs, not in making the decisions and beliefs.

This takes us to the next point that any evidence any of us present can simply be denied by the other. This means that the only thing the can prove anything is our personal experiences. But then again this still can't prove anything becuase the other will deny it.

Not entirely. It means that each of us should really take a look at ourselves and see if we are being biased. We have to play devil's advocate with our own beliefs and see if we can remove our biases.

So I can't prove to you the God exists but I can prove to myself. You can't prove to me that God doesn't exist but you can prove it to yourself. Rioku was of course saying that there is evidence that is irrefutable. He keeps saying why do I belive in something there is no evidence for. But for me there IS evidence. So what is Rioku's evidence.

Well, I only say that I have no evidence of God, so I have no belief he exists.

So I try to use Occam's Razor and come up with the simpliest explanation for what I see. (This may not give the correct answer, but it is a pretty successful strategy overall.)

I talked to someone who had personal experience that the goddess Diana was real. She said that Diana would meet her at night sometimes. Do you think Diana is a real goddess? Probably not. But you are discounting her personal experience as probably a mistaken one in which she wanted it to be true and imagined it somehow (like a dream). But are you willing to look at your personal experience just as critically as you can look at someone elses?

 

[Willamena]

I think a better question would be, What is the difference, then, between you killing and the person who finds it logical to kill in the name of god?

In this case the action is the same but the reason is not. For if I kill I take responsibility, where as the person killing in the name of god takes none.

No, actually, I meant what I asked. You had implied that "people who kill in the name of god" were subject to their personal beliefs, just as you have expressed yourself to be.

 

[Super Universe]

Amusing.
This shows a few things.
You act in a condescending manner towards ideas that are not yours and call others close minded. Then when the sheer stupidity and arrogance of your position is called out, you respond with an ad hominem attack. At least, that is how I believe you meant your last remark to mean, because it fails in even that regard.

Your response can mean one of two things. It is either correct and you show disdain for answering it, or it is nothing more than a number either you or somebody else dreamed up.
Money is on the latter due to how you responded.
1/7th huh? Luck number that denominator.

You also claim to know somebody. To have some idea of what their life is like, what their beliefs are like, why they think what they do. Supremely arrogant because you gave what amounts to an empty series of characteristics which could apply to virtually anybody yet you act like they matter. Cold reading. Extremely uninteresting cold reading as well. It also amounts to nothing but an appeal to emotion, signifying that your position is not rationally defensible.

Do you think I'm some religious flower child who loves everyone even those who purposely post distracting off topic Ad Hominem attacks? I'm not here to throw flowers. What did the tiger do when the three boys teased him?

Basically, you are threatened by my ideas. So... If you can't handle them then don't read my posts.

Made it to level 11 Star Warrior yet?

 

[Autodidact]

Sorry, Super, you're too annoying. I'm done talking with you.

 

[Storm]

True, one should not automatically just assume, however there is that annoying data set that the mind does have a way of tricking people into believing their own pet theories. Prudence would dictate that one should NEVER ignore the possibility that ones thinking is just that -- warm and fuzzy speculation borne out of repression.

Which is entirely irrelevant in cases like mine, where the experience shattered my pet theory, which at the time was atheism. Indeed, I think such cases by their very existence contradict the assumption that such experiences are illusory, which was unfounded to begin with.

That does rather underscore the absurdity of arguing the point, doesn't it? If the conversation was about the reality of pixie dust, I would expect that discussion would be somewhat short and pointed. However, when one invokes so-called "divinity" there is this strange "ohhh, ahhh" quality that supposedly trumps any naysayers as the discussion is about something beyond their timid intellectual capacity. Curiously, it is always the naysayers who are judged as not "getting it" or having the unseemly temerity of using logic in the arguments. Why is it that the pro-Divinity camp never sees itself in the same light?

I suggest you review the discussion, as you seem to have me confused with Rioku. He's the one claiming irrefutable evidence, I'm saying no such thing exists for either side.

 

[YmirGF]

Which is entirely irrelevant in cases like mine, where the experience shattered my pet theory, which at the time was atheism. Indeed, I think such cases by their very existence contradict the assumption that such experiences are illusory, which was unfounded to begin with.

Yes, yes. I could say the same thing. What I am saying is that even in light of that one should NOT let themselves get too carried away with their suppositions. For example, when I first got into this shtick 30+ years ago, I was entranced by the concept of divinity and it is only after repeated experiences and understanding that my concept of "divinity" did not actually discern reality very well. In those terms, you could say that I have moved a few light years beyond simple "god" concepts and no longer find the concept of "god" to be particularly meaningful. Note: I am not saying "god" does not exist, but I am saying that the conceptual renderings of "god" as we know "it" are pretty sad excuses for the reality itself.

I suggest you review the discussion, as you seem to have me confused with Rioku. He's the one claiming irrefutable evidence, I'm saying no such thing exists for either side.

My dear Storm, I wrote my comments AS I was reading the thread and so my observations are spot on rather than off the mark. Perhaps it is not me who should be reviewing things. I maintain that since the topic cannot be appreciably resolved by open dialogues then there is little point in blathering on about the subject now is there. Perhaps I am missing whatever meaningless point is being made.

 

[rojse]

I didn't say that God was only gravity. The universe is much, much, bigger than you think it is. Even so, the universe is only about a seventh of All That Is.

Indeed. How do you have such a figure, and what makes you say that, instead of seven-fiftieths, or indeed, ninety-nine percent of the universe?

The equipment used to detect God does not depend on nebulous concepts, what concept are you using when you open your eyes or listen, or touch someone, taste, and smell?

If you say that you "smell" God, for example, how do I know what that smell is? If you say that God smells like apples, how do I know that the smell isn't because I cut up an apple for a snack? What if I could not smell apple, but said that I think it smells like honey instead?

However, if someone says that gravity has a wavelength of 3 kilometres and creates a device that measures for this wavelength, I know that any wavelength of three kilometres in length could (it does not follow that it is) be the effects of gravity at work, providing that the person is correct about their theory as to the wavelength of gravity.

Nonetheless, there cannot be a debate as to what is perceived in this instance (a wavelength of three kilometres).

How do I know there is even anything in the box? I opened it.

Without trying to be rude, I only have your word that you opened it, and your word as to what the object is inside. You could be telling me the truth, but you could also be telling me a falsehood. How would I be able to know what the case is in this circumstance?

 

[rojse]

I don't worry about what some know-it-all teenager who's never been anywhere and never done anything thinks.

It's not like you've ever done anything except make it to level 10 in some video game.

How can you really "know" someone when you have only chatted to them over an internet forum? You have never seen yossarian22, never talked to him, except over an internet forum, where he can carefully screen whatever information he (do we even know that yossarian is a male in real life?) decides to give.

For all you know, yossarian22 could be an elderly man, a middle-aged lady with five kids, or a late-twenties university student. Indeed, he could have any real-life personality that you do not know about that does not come close to his internet-based persona.

An apology to yossarian22 for any possible insult that I may have given, but I thought this was worth arguing about.

 

[yossarian22]

Do you think I'm some religious flower child who loves everyone even those who purposely post distracting off topic Ad Hominem attacks?

No. I think you are a nut. An arrogant nut at that.

I'm not here to throw flowers. What did the tiger do when the three boys teased him?

So my question, as insulting as it was (insults have great shock value as you have demonstrated, at least when done properly), still had a point. You only saw the insult.

Basically, you are threatened by my ideas. So... If you can't handle them then don't read my posts.

I am not threatened by your ideas; I am insulted by the arrogance behind them.

Made it to level 11 Star Warrior yet?

If at first you don't succeed, keep screaming till you do?

 

[Don Penguinoini]

SU, maybe the age jokes arent all that worth it. Im 13, just TRY rip on me.