Men, Women, Religion, and Arguments

[kentington]

The first part was yet another dig at tgd. He's used to it by now. The last part was a commentary on the futility of humanity. And another dig at tgd.

Maybe I just don't do silly right.

Nah you did silly right. I just didn't understand your tone. I now notice the word you used "disturbing" which he had used and I should have picked up on it. Tone is hard to read sometimes and it takes time to get used to each posters tone.

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS, Your whole previous post was based on the false premise that I was claiming to prove the truth of my beliefs in my post. I specifically and categorically stated otherwise.

How do I explain it? Now remember, I'm not claiming to prove any of this at this point; you asked for how I explain it, and this, grossly oversimplified, is it:

Since you insisted that what I had said previously was irrelevant to your question, in this post I restricted myself to literally and specifically answering your question: "How do you explain the similarities...?" and the implication that those similarities were inconsistent with my beliefs, and therefore a rationale for believing that it was all made up.

I set out to show that the existence of various "god(s) stories" and other religious traditions throughout the world, with various similarities, was entirely consistent with belief in the God of the Bible, nothing more. Your statement that my post did not prove that my beliefs, rather than something else (Islam, spaghetti monster, etc) are indeed the truth, is irrelevant; I never claimed or intended to prove that with what I said there.

You continue to prove your point by giving as your argument a scenario based on the premise that there is no God and that there is not one truth that he is trying to communicate to us. Now I, quite openly, was doing the same thing: expounding a scenario based on the premise that both those things do exist. The difference between us is that I am not trying to pretend that it is something else. My goal was to answer your specific question. One thing at a time.

You can't show that god himself did it. It could be anything which would be as unfalsifiable. That's a big problem with your argument., so it's a weak explanation that isn't even testable, nor is it a priori true. I'm not proving that god doesn't exist. I'm showing how arbitrary your faith-based claim is. If you can't differentiate the ultimate causes of the similarly perceived "truth," then you'll arbitrarily settle with God because that's where your faith has guided you. We may as well believe in Ra, or Shiva, or Ramut, cuz he's cooler, but with you, nope! You're stuck with what you've bought.

Mine makes sense because simply put more savvier people make it up. Their intentions may differ; they may Feel that they are divinely inspired, or they may look for a low-cost means of social control. Either way, it's human beings at the steering wheel, and the only way you can "falsify" this argument, is with a faith-based claim: "God did it." (But, there's the problem of differentiating among the other possible causes like FSM, Ra, etc.). So that's a weak counter-argument. Sorry.

It doesn't matter if there is or is not a God; you don't just know, which can be uncomfortable. I can show the process by which people develop the religion, and my argument can be tested. Yours can't be tested. It's not falsifiable; therefore, it's a faith-based claim--a faith which was generated within the market of religions.

[BigBallinStalin]

I simply do not understand the vitriol against religion in this forum. I really don't. It's rather disturbing.

I take it you don't take kindly to the market of religions argument?

[nietzsche]

Who knew Freud wrote so fluent in English?

Ok, but what about the bicameral theory? Is it still of bad taste between thinkers?

Also, religion could be explained from an evolutionary point of view in a more cold manner. Freud kind of wanted to find deepness and obscurity in everything.

I'd like to think that religion was born like many things by inertia and has survived for the calm that provides to the minds of many.

But also we have to take into account that it survives also because many find power over the masses in it and make sure it survives.

There's an optimism in some atheist that i don't understand, they claim that when we have left behind religion and we live in a secular mind world we would be happier, better, yeah right, like men can live on reason only. Reason! The whore!

[BigBallinStalin]

This all supposes that God hasn't created a desire to search Him out. Thus, it can't be argued that it would exist without Him.

If we're born with the desire to search for God, then how can we say that we have free will?

But even your position can't be falsified, you may as well substitute "God" for "Flying Gnomes," and it still holds unfalsifiable. Its validity can't be verified, nor is the statement even a priori true.

Wouldn't my position be falsified if it were proven that God didn't exist? I
Your statement depends on either of two statements:
1) God doesn't exist currently.
2) God does exist and has not given mankind a desire to know Him and search Him out.
If God exists then your statement is unfalsifiable - we can not know what would happen with out Him.
If God doesn't exist, then your statement is true, but relies on the fact that God doesn't exist.
My statement relies on :
1) God exists currently

So if God exists currently then your statement is unfalsifiable. If God doesn't exist, then my statement is false and your statement is true.
(Insert any creation deity or deity that can affect human emotion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion, hypothesis or theory is the logical possibility that it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it.

For example, the assertion that "all swans are white" is falsifiable, because it is empirically verifiable that there are swans that are not white. However, not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice.[1] For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.

The concept was made popular by Karl Popper, who, in his philosophical criticism of the popular positivist view of the scientific method, concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory talks about the observable only if it is falsifiable.

Free will. Do you ever want something but decide not to get it? Do you ever get angry, but decide not to act on it? That is free will. If you weren't able to overcome your desires, then you wouldn't have free will. Since you are able to overcome them God putting a desire in our heart does not remove free will.

You have a weird definition of free will. What you're describing is the logic of choice. If an individual can't overcome some desire, then that could be a disorder or some deficiency. It doesn't follow that a person doesn't have free will because he or she is unable to overcome a desire. That person still has the choice of seeking help, whether it's through god, a psychologist, or from within. If a person had no free will, then he wouldn't have that range of choices. He would be geared toward selecting a pre-determined path.

With regard to religion/theology, to me free will is the lack of some deterministic force implemented by God. Him causing you to search for him isn't free will; that's god planting something in your brain to say, "Catch me if you can." That's not free will because God is forcing you to behave in a certain manner.

Searching for God in all things is something like confirmation bias. Your brain is geared toward making "sense" of reality as it is perceived. If you're a strong supporter within some market of religion, then you'll definitely be geared toward doing this. You're driving yourself while many others egg you on (with good intentions), which to you could confirm God working "mysterious" ways through you, or could confirm various expressions of God's attempt to communicate with you.

Now, there's nothing wrong with anything that. You're just responding to the incentives which are provided by a religion and its supporters.

[BigBallinStalin]

I also find the fact that religious people still get so bent out of shape by what atheists say to be a little disturbing.

It's the 21st motherfucking century dudes. Just ignore us and you win. Seriously. Works on atheists. Works on theists. Works on terrorists. Works on trolls.


But you fuckers can't do it. Just like we can't in return. We crave the conflict.

Really? You think atheists don't get bent out of shape by what religious people say? Atheists are the modicum of calm?

Generally, I don't mind what religious people say--until they deny people certain freedoms, or when they advocate for harming a certain group.

I just view it as some supporter of a religious product. Hey, another satisfied customer in the market of religions! That's just how it goes. <shrugs>

[thegreekdog]

The first part was yet another dig at tgd. He's used to it by now. The last part was a commentary on the futility of humanity. And another dig at tgd.

Maybe I just don't do silly right.

You did it right. I used to ignore the religious threads (because I figured there would be all sorts of crap in them). I just can't help myself any more.

[thegreekdog]

I simply do not understand the vitriol against religion in this forum. I really don't. It's rather disturbing.

I take it you don't take kindly to the market of religions argument?

Well, there's criticism of religion and there's virtiol-fueled hatred. I can deal with criticism and debate and whatnot. I don't deal well with rage and hate. Seems counterproductive.

Anyway, if there were no religions, would people create religion to answer questions they couldn't answer? No.

Exhibits A and B - BBS and Neoteny. There are questions you can't answer. You haven't turned to religion.

/THREAD.

[Neoteny]

Religious people are poopy-heads.

[daddy1gringo]

Religious people are poopy-heads.

I'm rubber you're glue...nyah nyah nyah.

[Neoteny]

Rubber people are poopy-heads too, though that explains why I always feel... sticky...

[BigBallinStalin]

I simply do not understand the vitriol against religion in this forum. I really don't. It's rather disturbing.

I take it you don't take kindly to the market of religions argument?

Well, there's criticism of religion and there's virtiol-fueled hatred. I can deal with criticism and debate and whatnot. I don't deal well with rage and hate. Seems counterproductive.

Anyway, if there were no religions, would people create religion to answer questions they couldn't answer? No.

Exhibits A and B - BBS and Neoteny. There are questions you can't answer. You haven't turned to religion.

/THREAD.

Haha, well, during the "BBS and Neoteny" Era, there are substitutes for religion, e.g. more sophisticated science and philosophy (especially epistemology). BBS and Neoteny have opted toward science. In an Era when these substitutes were insufficient or were unavailable, then we'd very likely opt toward religion. Don't you agree?

[thegreekdog]

I simply do not understand the vitriol against religion in this forum. I really don't. It's rather disturbing.

I take it you don't take kindly to the market of religions argument?

Well, there's criticism of religion and there's virtiol-fueled hatred. I can deal with criticism and debate and whatnot. I don't deal well with rage and hate. Seems counterproductive.

Anyway, if there were no religions, would people create religion to answer questions they couldn't answer? No.

Exhibits A and B - BBS and Neoteny. There are questions you can't answer. You haven't turned to religion.

/THREAD.

Haha, well, during the "BBS and Neoteny" Era, there are substitutes for religion, e.g. more sophisticated science and philosophy (especially epistemology). BBS and Neoteny have opted toward science. In an Era when these substitutes were insufficient or were unavailable, then we'd very likely opt toward religion. Don't you agree?

I don't agree that there is more sophisticated philosophy or science.

Let me give you a fine example - Greeks were not keen on religion and had a lot of "science" and philosophy backing up their beliefs about the natural world. They were incorrect about a lot of their beliefs about the natural world (at least in terms of how modern science has worked). That was roughly 2500 years ago, before Christianity and Islam were created.

2500 years later, there are a whole lot of unanswered questions that could be answered with something other than science or philosophy (i.e. religion). There may be more susbsitutes now than there were 2500 years ago, but there were definitely substitutes when religions were being created.

[bedub1]

there are a whole lot of unanswered questions that could be answered with something other than science or philosophy (i.e. religion). There may be more susbsitutes now than there were 2500 years ago, but there were definitely substitutes when religions were being created.

Religions can't answer anything, because answers have to be able to be proved, and nothing can be proved with religion. That's why it's called religion, not science. If religion could prove something, then it stops being religion and starts being science.

2500 years ago science was in it's infancy. Our knowledge of the world was small.
People wanted answer, and religions claimed to have the answers. Over the past 2500 years, science has grown from it's infancy, and has been proving answers for years. Religion hasn't grown because it can't grow. It's static based upon 2500 year old books. It's even more backwards today than it was then. It's just that back then it seemed plausible when science was young. But now with 2500 years of education under our feet, we realize religion is silly.

When somebody says "what happens after I die" and science says "we don't know" ---- that's the correct answer. We don't know. Every Religion comes along and says "yes we do". But they can't prove it. They are just making it up and guessing. They delude people with their lies. They fight battles over their lies and because people have offended their imaging friends. Religion is like cancer, it eats away at the brain, leaving brainwashed people behind. Science is the cure, it removes ignorance.

[BigBallinStalin]

I simply do not understand the vitriol against religion in this forum. I really don't. It's rather disturbing.

I take it you don't take kindly to the market of religions argument?

Well, there's criticism of religion and there's virtiol-fueled hatred. I can deal with criticism and debate and whatnot. I don't deal well with rage and hate. Seems counterproductive.

Anyway, if there were no religions, would people create religion to answer questions they couldn't answer? No.

Exhibits A and B - BBS and Neoteny. There are questions you can't answer. You haven't turned to religion.

/THREAD.

Haha, well, during the "BBS and Neoteny" Era, there are substitutes for religion, e.g. more sophisticated science and philosophy (especially epistemology). BBS and Neoteny have opted toward science. In an Era when these substitutes were insufficient or were unavailable, then we'd very likely opt toward religion. Don't you agree?

I don't agree that there is more sophisticated philosophy or science.

Let me give you a fine example - Greeks were not keen on religion and had a lot of "science" and philosophy backing up their beliefs about the natural world. They were incorrect about a lot of their beliefs about the natural world (at least in terms of how modern science has worked). That was roughly 2500 years ago, before Christianity and Islam were created.

2500 years later, there are a whole lot of unanswered questions that could be answered with something other than science or philosophy (i.e. religion). There may be more susbsitutes now than there were 2500 years ago, but there were definitely substitutes when religions were being created.

When Mises wrote Human Action in 1949, he solved Kant's problem regarding the discovery of true synthetic a prior propositions. That's an advancement.

Over the centuries, religious explanations have been discarded with the rise of more sophisticated sciences and philosophies. Religion has slowly retreated into the realm of the unfalsifiable, or faith-based claims. It used to cover much more. More people took the Book literally, but not so much these days. For a long time, people believed the world was 6000 years old, but today not as many believe that. This is due to advances in non-religious fields. That can't be denied, can it? If you agree, then you'd have to admit that philosophy and science have become more sophisticated .

RE: underlined, sure, but not as many unanswered questions. Religion has largely been eased into the region of faith and the unfalsifiable.

...which explains why people like Neoteny and I are going to opt for the non-religious substitutes. Back in the day, we'd be much less likely to, given the significantly lower quality of the non-religious substitutes.

[thegreekdog]

there are a whole lot of unanswered questions that could be answered with something other than science or philosophy (i.e. religion). There may be more susbsitutes now than there were 2500 years ago, but there were definitely substitutes when religions were being created.

Religions can't answer anything, because answers have to be able to be proved, and nothing can be proved with religion. That's why it's called religion, not science. If religion could prove something, then it stops being religion and starts being science.

2500 years ago science was in it's infancy. Our knowledge of the world was small.
People wanted answer, and religions claimed to have the answers. Over the past 2500 years, science has grown from it's infancy, and has been proving answers for years. Religion hasn't grown because it can't grow. It's static based upon 2500 year old books. It's even more backwards today than it was then. It's just that back then it seemed plausible when science was young. But now with 2500 years of education under our feet, we realize religion is silly.

When somebody says "what happens after I die" and science says "we don't know" ---- that's the correct answer. We don't know. Every Religion comes along and says "yes we do". But they can't prove it. They are just making it up and guessing. They delude people with their lies. They fight battles over their lies and because people have offended their imaging friends. Religion is like cancer, it eats away at the brain, leaving brainwashed people behind. Science is the cure, it removes ignorance.

Yes, yes, we're all extremely stupid and brainwashed. Although, apparently, I do know more than science does since I know what happens when we die. Just a hint - our bodies decompose.

BBS's premise (and I suppose others') is that religion was created to answer questions to which the answer was "we don't know." Since "we don't know" remains the answer to many questions, including the biggest question ("How was the universe created?"), the science is the cure now is, in my opinion, not a relevant argument.

[thegreekdog]

Over the centuries, religious explanations have been discarded with the rise of more sophisticated sciences and philosophies. Religion has slowly retreated into the realm of the unfalsifiable, or faith-based claims. It used to cover much more. More people took the Book literally, but not so much these days. For a long time, people believed the world was 6000 years old, but today not as many believe that. This is due to advances in non-religious fields. That can't be denied, can it? If you agree, then you'd have to admit that philosophy and science have become more sophisticated .

RE: underlined, sure, but not as many unanswered questions. Religion has largely been eased into the region of faith and the unfalsifiable.

...which explains why people like Neoteny and I are going to opt for the non-religious substitutes. Back in the day, we'd be much less likely to, given the significantly lower quality of the non-religious substitutes.

Okay, let's say I agree (because I do agree and have agreed all along).

This goes back to the question of whether people are religious to help explain the unexplainable or whether they are religious for other reasons. As I've contended in other threads, I think people are religious for other reasons. I also contend that most religions do not (generally) ignore science, especially in the modern area. So one can have their unanswered questions answered by science and still be religious. I know one example off the top of my head - me.

[Neoteny]

I'm not going to decompose when I die. I'm going to ask some Egyptologists mummify me and hide me somewhere to ensure that future archaeologists have something to do in a few thousand years or so.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not going to decompose when I die. I'm going to ask some Egyptologists mummify me and hide me somewhere to ensure that future archaeologists have something to do in a few thousand years or so.

Have them add like five feet to your height and make your skull bigger. That will really freak out the future archaeologists (who of course, will have two choices and only two choices - (1) say you are some freak of nature and product of evolution or (2) "HE WAS A GOD!")

[Neoteny]

I'm not going to decompose when I die. I'm going to ask some Egyptologists mummify me and hide me somewhere to ensure that future archaeologists have something to do in a few thousand years or so.

Have them add like five feet to your height and make your skull bigger. That will really freak out the future archaeologists (who of course, will have two choices and only two choices - (1) say you are some freak of nature and product of evolution or (2) "HE WAS A GOD!")

Ancient people were too stupid to achieve such body modifications.

Therefore, it must have been aliens.

I'm not a condescending racist. I'm just using my logic.

[kentington]

This all supposes that God hasn't created a desire to search Him out. Thus, it can't be argued that it would exist without Him.

If we're born with the desire to search for God, then how can we say that we have free will?

But even your position can't be falsified, you may as well substitute "God" for "Flying Gnomes," and it still holds unfalsifiable. Its validity can't be verified, nor is the statement even a priori true.

Wouldn't my position be falsified if it were proven that God didn't exist? I
Your statement depends on either of two statements:
1) God doesn't exist currently.
2) God does exist and has not given mankind a desire to know Him and search Him out.
If God exists then your statement is unfalsifiable - we can not know what would happen with out Him.
If God doesn't exist, then your statement is true, but relies on the fact that God doesn't exist.
My statement relies on :
1) God exists currently

So if God exists currently then your statement is unfalsifiable. If God doesn't exist, then my statement is false and your statement is true.
(Insert any creation deity or deity that can affect human emotion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion, hypothesis or theory is the logical possibility that it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it.

For example, the assertion that "all swans are white" is falsifiable, because it is empirically verifiable that there are swans that are not white. However, not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice.[1] For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.

The concept was made popular by Karl Popper, who, in his philosophical criticism of the popular positivist view of the scientific method, concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory talks about the observable only if it is falsifiable.

Free will. Do you ever want something but decide not to get it? Do you ever get angry, but decide not to act on it? That is free will. If you weren't able to overcome your desires, then you wouldn't have free will. Since you are able to overcome them God putting a desire in our heart does not remove free will.

You have a weird definition of free will. What you're describing is the logic of choice. If an individual can't overcome some desire, then that could be a disorder or some deficiency. It doesn't follow that a person doesn't have free will because he or she is unable to overcome a desire. That person still has the choice of seeking help, whether it's through god, a psychologist, or from within. If a person had no free will, then he wouldn't have that range of choices. He would be geared toward selecting a pre-determined path.

With regard to religion/theology, to me free will is the lack of some deterministic force implemented by God. Him causing you to search for him isn't free will; that's god planting something in your brain to say, "Catch me if you can." That's not free will because God is forcing you to behave in a certain manner.

Searching for God in all things is something like confirmation bias. Your brain is geared toward making "sense" of reality as it is perceived. If you're a strong supporter within some market of religion, then you'll definitely be geared toward doing this. You're driving yourself while many others egg you on (with good intentions), which to you could confirm God working "mysterious" ways through you, or could confirm various expressions of God's attempt to communicate with you.

Now, there's nothing wrong with anything that. You're just responding to the incentives which are provided by a religion and its supporters.

Ok. Read it and I still think your argument about Religion being a product is just as unfalsifiable. If a god really talked to one of these people who wrote it down then your argument would be false. Your argument is based on the premise that God or any god, doesn't exist. Since, proving God or disproving God is impossible you would have to change your argument.
You would have to say, "If there are no deities, then religion is just a product supplied for a demand to explain ..."
Or you could say "Religion is a product in some cases."

You say I have a weird definition of free will. Ok, range of choices. That still doesn't disprove my argument about God putting a desire to know Him in us. We would still have free will. My point is that you still have a choice. It is not pre-determined.

[daddy1gringo]

BBS, Your whole previous post was based on the false premise that I was claiming to prove the truth of my beliefs in my post. I specifically and categorically stated otherwise.

How do I explain it? Now remember, I'm not claiming to prove any of this at this point; you asked for how I explain it, and this, grossly oversimplified, is it:

Since you insisted that what I had said previously was irrelevant to your question, in this post I restricted myself to literally and specifically answering your question: "How do you explain the similarities...?" and the implication that those similarities were inconsistent with my beliefs, and therefore a rationale for believing that it was all made up.

I set out to show that the existence of various "god(s) stories" and other religious traditions throughout the world, with various similarities, was entirely consistent with belief in the God of the Bible, nothing more. Your statement that my post did not prove that my beliefs, rather than something else (Islam, spaghetti monster, etc) are indeed the truth, is irrelevant; I never claimed or intended to prove that with what I said there.

You continue to prove your point by giving as your argument a scenario based on the premise that there is no God and that there is not one truth that he is trying to communicate to us. Now I, quite openly, was doing the same thing: expounding a scenario based on the premise that both those things do exist. The difference between us is that I am not trying to pretend that it is something else. My goal was to answer your specific question. One thing at a time.

You can't show that god himself did it. It could be anything which would be as unfalsifiable. That's a big problem with your argument., so it's a weak explanation that isn't even testable, nor is it a priori true. I'm not proving that god doesn't exist. I'm showing how arbitrary your faith-based claim is. If you can't differentiate the ultimate causes of the similarly perceived "truth," then you'll arbitrarily settle with God because that's where your faith has guided you. We may as well believe in Ra, or Shiva, or Ramut, cuz he's cooler, but with you, nope! You're stuck with what you've bought.

Mine makes sense because simply put more savvier people make it up. Their intentions may differ; they may Feel that they are divinely inspired, or they may look for a low-cost means of social control. Either way, it's human beings at the steering wheel, and the only way you can "falsify" this argument, is with a faith-based claim: "God did it." (But, there's the problem of differentiating among the other possible causes like FSM, Ra, etc.). So that's a weak counter-argument. Sorry.

It doesn't matter if there is or is not a God; you don't just know, which can be uncomfortable. I can show the process by which people develop the religion, and my argument can be tested. Yours can't be tested. It's not falsifiable; therefore, it's a faith-based claim--a faith which was generated within the market of religions.

*Sigh* You keep missing the point, Iosif. I agree with you that what I have written is not falsifiable, and fails to prove the existence of God, veracity of the Bible, that this particular scenario I present is true, or not arbitrary, that it couldn’t be applied as well to the spaghetti monster, or that your scenario is false, or anything else that you keep saying I haven't proven. I'm not trying to prove anything, or at least anything like that. I am just dealing with one specific objection that you raise, namely that the existence of, and similarities in, the other religious traditions is inconsistent with, or creates a problem for, my beliefs -- for, like, the 100th time.

You keep refusing to deal with the issue at hand by sloshing a lot of other questions in with it. You keep avoiding dealing with this logically, one thing at a time.

But since you insist on bringing up this separate issue of the relative falsifiability of our statements, let me make sure I understand you correctly. By saying that your statement is falsifiable, and that you can test it, are you saying that you can prove that what I believe (I’m not talking about just any teaching ever invented and called “Christian” by its inventor) is invented by human beings as opposed to being actual truth given by an actually-existing God?

[BigBallinStalin]

Do you pray to God?

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS, Your whole previous post was based on the false premise that I was claiming to prove the truth of my beliefs in my post. I specifically and categorically stated otherwise.

How do I explain it? Now remember, I'm not claiming to prove any of this at this point; you asked for how I explain it, and this, grossly oversimplified, is it:

Since you insisted that what I had said previously was irrelevant to your question, in this post I restricted myself to literally and specifically answering your question: "How do you explain the similarities...?" and the implication that those similarities were inconsistent with my beliefs, and therefore a rationale for believing that it was all made up.

I set out to show that the existence of various "god(s) stories" and other religious traditions throughout the world, with various similarities, was entirely consistent with belief in the God of the Bible, nothing more. Your statement that my post did not prove that my beliefs, rather than something else (Islam, spaghetti monster, etc) are indeed the truth, is irrelevant; I never claimed or intended to prove that with what I said there.

You continue to prove your point by giving as your argument a scenario based on the premise that there is no God and that there is not one truth that he is trying to communicate to us. Now I, quite openly, was doing the same thing: expounding a scenario based on the premise that both those things do exist. The difference between us is that I am not trying to pretend that it is something else. My goal was to answer your specific question. One thing at a time.

You can't show that god himself did it. It could be anything which would be as unfalsifiable. That's a big problem with your argument., so it's a weak explanation that isn't even testable, nor is it a priori true. I'm not proving that god doesn't exist. I'm showing how arbitrary your faith-based claim is. If you can't differentiate the ultimate causes of the similarly perceived "truth," then you'll arbitrarily settle with God because that's where your faith has guided you. We may as well believe in Ra, or Shiva, or Ramut, cuz he's cooler, but with you, nope! You're stuck with what you've bought.

Mine makes sense because simply put more savvier people make it up. Their intentions may differ; they may Feel that they are divinely inspired, or they may look for a low-cost means of social control. Either way, it's human beings at the steering wheel, and the only way you can "falsify" this argument, is with a faith-based claim: "God did it." (But, there's the problem of differentiating among the other possible causes like FSM, Ra, etc.). So that's a weak counter-argument. Sorry.

It doesn't matter if there is or is not a God; you don't just know, which can be uncomfortable. I can show the process by which people develop the religion, and my argument can be tested. Yours can't be tested. It's not falsifiable; therefore, it's a faith-based claim--a faith which was generated within the market of religions.

*Sigh* You keep missing the point, Iosif. I agree with you that what I have written is not falsifiable, and fails to prove the existence of God, veracity of the Bible, that this particular scenario I present is true, or not arbitrary, that it couldn’t be applied as well to the spaghetti monster, or that your scenario is false, or anything else that you keep saying I haven't proven. I'm not trying to prove anything, or at least anything like that. I am just dealing with one specific objection that you raise, namely that the existence of, and similarities in, the other religious traditions is inconsistent with, or creates a problem for, my beliefs -- for, like, the 100th time.

You keep refusing to deal with the issue at hand by sloshing a lot of other questions in with it. You keep avoiding dealing with this logically, one thing at a time.

But since you insist on bringing up this separate issue of the relative falsifiability of our statements, let me make sure I understand you correctly. By saying that your statement is falsifiable, and that you can test it, are you saying that you can prove that what I believe (I’m not talking about just any teaching ever invented and called “Christian” by its inventor) is invented by human beings as opposed to being actual truth given by an actually-existing God?

I'm describing the production process and logic of choice regarding religion, baby.

You can insert the "because God" claim as a given. Let's jam that baby into the "before the beginning of time" input. Sure, that can't be verified, which to me is pointless to pursue, so we'll stick with the logic of choice by examining people's incentives to produce and accept a religion.

[BigBallinStalin]

This all supposes that God hasn't created a desire to search Him out. Thus, it can't be argued that it would exist without Him.

If we're born with the desire to search for God, then how can we say that we have free will?

But even your position can't be falsified, you may as well substitute "God" for "Flying Gnomes," and it still holds unfalsifiable. Its validity can't be verified, nor is the statement even a priori true.

Wouldn't my position be falsified if it were proven that God didn't exist? I
Your statement depends on either of two statements:
1) God doesn't exist currently.
2) God does exist and has not given mankind a desire to know Him and search Him out.
If God exists then your statement is unfalsifiable - we can not know what would happen with out Him.
If God doesn't exist, then your statement is true, but relies on the fact that God doesn't exist.
My statement relies on :
1) God exists currently

So if God exists currently then your statement is unfalsifiable. If God doesn't exist, then my statement is false and your statement is true.
(Insert any creation deity or deity that can affect human emotion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion, hypothesis or theory is the logical possibility that it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it.

For example, the assertion that "all swans are white" is falsifiable, because it is empirically verifiable that there are swans that are not white. However, not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice.[1] For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.

The concept was made popular by Karl Popper, who, in his philosophical criticism of the popular positivist view of the scientific method, concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory talks about the observable only if it is falsifiable.

Free will. Do you ever want something but decide not to get it? Do you ever get angry, but decide not to act on it? That is free will. If you weren't able to overcome your desires, then you wouldn't have free will. Since you are able to overcome them God putting a desire in our heart does not remove free will.

You have a weird definition of free will. What you're describing is the logic of choice. If an individual can't overcome some desire, then that could be a disorder or some deficiency. It doesn't follow that a person doesn't have free will because he or she is unable to overcome a desire. That person still has the choice of seeking help, whether it's through god, a psychologist, or from within. If a person had no free will, then he wouldn't have that range of choices. He would be geared toward selecting a pre-determined path.

With regard to religion/theology, to me free will is the lack of some deterministic force implemented by God. Him causing you to search for him isn't free will; that's god planting something in your brain to say, "Catch me if you can." That's not free will because God is forcing you to behave in a certain manner.

Searching for God in all things is something like confirmation bias. Your brain is geared toward making "sense" of reality as it is perceived. If you're a strong supporter within some market of religion, then you'll definitely be geared toward doing this. You're driving yourself while many others egg you on (with good intentions), which to you could confirm God working "mysterious" ways through you, or could confirm various expressions of God's attempt to communicate with you.

Now, there's nothing wrong with anything that. You're just responding to the incentives which are provided by a religion and its supporters.

Ok. Read it and I still think your argument about Religion being a product is just as unfalsifiable. If a god really talked to one of these people who wrote it down then your argument would be false. Your argument is based on the premise that God or any god, doesn't exist. Since, proving God or disproving God is impossible you would have to change your argument.
You would have to say, "If there are no deities, then religion is just a product supplied for a demand to explain ..."
Or you could say "Religion is a product in some cases."

Well, that's what I've been saying IIRC. If god didn't exist, then we'd just make him up. Then I explain the market of religion and how that works. Then some people got upset because I describe religion as a "good," or as a product of human creativity.

To me, the original source doesn't matter. Let's call it a given: "the ultimate god-input." People perceive the ultimate god-input as true, thus heightening the value of that religion. Sure, we'll accept that as given.

Still, at one point in the production process, people wrote down the Bible. If you claim that God transcribed it through their hands, then that can't be shown (thus is unfalsifiable). However, what can be shown in this actual world is that people write religious texts or produce religious explanations with their mouths. They claim "divine inspiration" which makes their products unfalsifiable. Are you starting to get it?

You say I have a weird definition of free will. Ok, range of choices. That still doesn't disprove my argument about God putting a desire to know Him in us. We would still have free will. My point is that you still have a choice. It is not pre-determined.

Yes, we have free will regardless of the thoughts God puts into our heads. That doesn't make sense. If I put into your head, the desire to lick linoleum floors whenever you see them, is my act granting you free will? Or have I forced you to behave a certain way?