"...but intelligent people believe in God" Analysis, Discussion, and Debate

[CogentPhilosopher]

I got that but you missed that my reply was to challenge the simplistic view presented by that video.

Look I don't know how to explain this to you but is a lie has a bit of truth to it, it's still a lie.

The video does not assume that religion is a ridiculous claim, it puts forward that it acts how you expect a ridiculous claim would.

You also seem to overestimate how "rebellious" people are in their teenage years. Their friends are still likely to be of their religion.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Sometimes I think people are into "skepticism" just for the fashion. I mean shouldn't a real skeptic be skeptical about everything and not just religion?

I am.

Why do you assume that I am not?

If your just here to make logical fallacies then please leave or add something useful to the conversation.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I never said rational arguments are not valuable, but actual research is valuable as well and even more so when you combine it with reason.

Btw, do you know what a strawman is?

Yeah, you just used one.

 

[bobhikes]

I would like to see people of a variety of viewpoints analyze and discuss this video by DarkMatter2525.

First off it makes no statement what the ridiculous claim is so they are open to imply anything they want without being able to challenge it.

Assuming the ridiculous claim is God they are missing the fact that God is an evolutionary advance in Humans and no matter what will always exist. Religion on the other hand is Human made probably starting when we went from nomads to communities.

Either way they make no scientific claims or facts to support or reject anything. If what they say is true you should be able to program people to believe anything is truth. That surely does seem to be the case other than God what other ridiculous claims exist.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Yeah, you just used one.

If you are just here to make logical fallacies then please leave or add something useful to the conversation.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

First off it makes no statement what the ridiculous claim is so they are open to imply anything they want without being able to challenge it.

Yes you can challenge it.

Assuming the ridiculous claim is God they are missing the fact that God is an evolutionary advance in Humans and no matter what will always exist. Religion on the other hand is Human made probably starting when we went from nomads to communities.

So? It never claims otherwise?

Either way they make no scientific claims or facts to support or reject anything. If what they say is true you should be able to program people to believe anything is truth. That surely does seem to be the case other than God what other ridiculous claims exist.

Karma, bigfoot, reptile aliens, heaven's gate, the illumanti?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

If you are just here to make logical fallacies then please leave or add something useful to the conversation.

Bye bye troll.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Yes, I did. It flashed "religious claim" at the end.

Just went backed and saw that you edited your comment to add something from the video after I questioned if you had watched it.

Really?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Just went backed and saw that you edited your comment to add something from the video after I questioned if you had watched it.

Really?

Check the time stamps on the edit and your post.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Bye bye troll.

I asked for evidence, bid deal. I do the same thing to believers.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Check the time stamps on the edit and your post.

1) The edit does not show a time stamp.

2) The quote in my comment does not have your change.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I asked for evidence, get over it. I do the same thing to believers.

You did not ask for evidence. You asked for empirical evidence. Using just empirical evidence is frankly moronic.

Prove to me empirically that reality exists.

 

[bobhikes]

Yes you can challenge it.



So? It never claims otherwise?


Karma, bigfoot, reptile aliens, heaven's gate, the illumanti?

Each Karma, Bigfoot, reptile aliens, heaven's gate, the illumant are all different and half the stuff in the video doesn't apply. You need parents to support it, neighbors to support it, the government to support it, Most of this stuff the government has no comment about it. Neighbors would be mixed about most of it.

The video is set in such a way it makes claims that can not be challenged unless you specify something. It will then be said well it wasn't specifically talking about that.

As you said it never claims otherwise. I say it never claims anything.

 

[wizanda]

Think lumping the whole topic of theology into one irrational claim, is just as bad as many individual 'ridiculous claims'.

In this world full of lies; it is far easier to establish the fallacy in a subject first, before trying to establish the truth, built upon lies.

Thus rather than the video suggests of doing away with irrational claims; why not become wiser, and understand where there are inconsistencies that make it ridiculous in the first place.

The concepts of salvation, God, life after death, NDEs, reincarnation, soul, etc, are in themselves not ridiculous, it is only the crazy things mankind comes up with that are.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Each Karma, Bigfoot, reptile aliens, heaven's gate, the illumant are all different and half the stuff in the video doesn't apply. You need parents to support it, neighbors to support it, the government to support it, Most of this stuff the government has no comment about it. Neighbors would be mixed about most of it.

The video is set in such a way it makes claims that can not be challenged unless you specify something. It will then be said well it wasn't specifically talking about that.

As you said it never claims otherwise. I say it never claims anything.

It is a thought experiment.

It shows what would happen if a ridiculous claim was in those circumstances and compares the result to religion.

I swear this is why people need to learn basic philosophy or argumentation in schools.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You did not ask for evidence. You asked for empirical evidence. Using just empirical evidence is frankly moronic.

Prove to me empirically that reality exists.

"You asked for empirical evidence. "

I would love for you to find that post of mine and show it to me.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

1) The edit does not show a time stamp.

2) The quote in my comment does not have your change.

The last seen time-stamp is the edit time-stamp.

"The quote in my comment does not have your change."

That because I changed it as you were typing. I do ninja edits all the time. That is what we net folk call them, get use to it, it is the way of the internets.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Think lumping the whole topic of theology into one irrational claim, is just as bad as many individual 'ridiculous claims'.

He compared the thought experiment to 3 religions not all of theology.

In this world full of lies; it is far easier to establish the fallacy in a subject first, before trying to establish the truth, built upon lies.

If you mean to say it is easier to tell if something is wrong than tell if something is right then yes.

Thus rather than the video suggests of doing away with irrational claims; why not become wiser, and understand where there are inconsistencies that make it ridiculous in the first place.

The video does not make any suggestions of what to do about those claims.

The concepts of salvation, God, life after death, NDEs, reincarnation, soul, etc, are in themselves not ridiculous, it is only the crazy things mankind comes up with that are.

Like the concepts of salvation, god, life after death, NDEs, reincarnation and the soul?

 

[bobhikes]

It is a thought experiment.

It shows what would happen if a ridiculous claim was in those circumstances and compares the result to religion.

I swear this is why people need to learn basic philosophy or argumentation in schools.

Its a thought experiment, so its supposed to create thinking, yet it not supposed to create contrary thinking. That would be a lousy philosophical argument even in school.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

The last seen time-stamp is the edit time-stamp.

"The quote in my comment does not have your change."

That because I changed it as you were typing. I do ninja edits all the time. That is what we net folk call them, get use to it, it is the way of the internets.

On my screen there is no edit time-stamp displayed.

I know net slang. You again assumed I did not.