Moderator: Community Team
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
Symmetry wrote:john9blue wrote:Symmetry wrote:john9blue wrote:belief in no gods isn't really a religion, it's just a belief. religions are more complex and complete worldviews
If by "more complete", you mean all the gaps are filled in with saying "God can explain that", perhaps.
religion does explain things, and many explanations are far more rational than you'd like to believe.
but feel free to keep reducing anything that you disagree with to a ridiculously simplified statement in order to straw-man your way out of any actual debate or critical thought. works for everyone else.
I sort of feel that you didn't apply any degree of critical thought to your post, and were attacking a straw man. Have you ever thought that it might be a little bit odd that "a ridiculously simplified statement i order to staw-man your way out of any debate or critical thought" seems to be something that "works for everyone else".
Dude, you ain't the Messiah, beyond everyone else, much as you seem to hold your own peculiar claim to the mysteries of life, the universe, and everything.
GreecePwns wrote:If one's end is simply having an answer to unprovable questions, substituting one in when it cannot be found, then I guess its rational.
But rationality relies on provable means. Religion answers unprovable questions with the unprovable answer, "God did it." This is not rational.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:my guess is that most of you have never heard any christian theologians/apologists talk. unless you can take these guys in a religious debate (hint: you can't), then you have no business calling their position illogical. you can consider it slightly more improbable than another system of beliefs, but "illogical" implies that there is no thought behind it and that it's easily disproven, which it isn't.
john9blue wrote:GreecePwns wrote:If one's end is simply having an answer to unprovable questions, substituting one in when it cannot be found, then I guess its rational.
But rationality relies on provable means. Religion answers unprovable questions with the unprovable answer, "God did it." This is not rational.
something is rational if it draws conclusions logically from evidence.
my guess is that most of you have never heard any christian theologians/apologists talk. unless you can take these guys in a religious debate (hint: you can't), then you have no business calling their position illogical. you can consider it slightly more improbable than another system of beliefs, but "illogical" implies that there is no thought behind it and that it's easily disproven, which it isn't.
Woodruff wrote:john9blue wrote:GreecePwns wrote:If one's end is simply having an answer to unprovable questions, substituting one in when it cannot be found, then I guess its rational.
But rationality relies on provable means. Religion answers unprovable questions with the unprovable answer, "God did it." This is not rational.
something is rational if it draws conclusions logically from evidence.
my guess is that most of you have never heard any christian theologians/apologists talk. unless you can take these guys in a religious debate (hint: you can't), then you have no business calling their position illogical. you can consider it slightly more improbable than another system of beliefs, but "illogical" implies that there is no thought behind it and that it's easily disproven, which it isn't.
This isn't funny, but it is laughable. Of course it can't be disproven, because it's impossible to prove a negative. That in no way makes it logical or rational.
john9blue wrote:something is rational if it draws conclusions logically from evidence.
my guess is that most of you have never heard any christian theologians/apologists talk. unless you can take these guys in a religious debate (hint: you can't), then you have no business calling their position illogical. you can consider it slightly more improbable than another system of beliefs, but "illogical" implies that there is no thought behind it and that it's easily disproven, which it isn't.
Lootifer wrote:Woodruff wrote:john9blue wrote:GreecePwns wrote:If one's end is simply having an answer to unprovable questions, substituting one in when it cannot be found, then I guess its rational.
But rationality relies on provable means. Religion answers unprovable questions with the unprovable answer, "God did it." This is not rational.
something is rational if it draws conclusions logically from evidence.
my guess is that most of you have never heard any christian theologians/apologists talk. unless you can take these guys in a religious debate (hint: you can't), then you have no business calling their position illogical. you can consider it slightly more improbable than another system of beliefs, but "illogical" implies that there is no thought behind it and that it's easily disproven, which it isn't.
This isn't funny, but it is laughable. Of course it can't be disproven, because it's impossible to prove a negative. That in no way makes it logical or rational.
But I think his point is that it doesnt make it irrational or illogical either.
Iunno. /shrug
natty dread wrote:john9blue wrote:something is rational if it draws conclusions logically from evidence.
my guess is that most of you have never heard any christian theologians/apologists talk. unless you can take these guys in a religious debate (hint: you can't), then you have no business calling their position illogical. you can consider it slightly more improbable than another system of beliefs, but "illogical" implies that there is no thought behind it and that it's easily disproven, which it isn't.
Firstly, someone who is great at debating can well defend an illogical position against a logical one argued by someone who is bad at debating. Debating skill is not proof of logic.
Secondly, theologians are just christians who go to greater lengths to rationalize their delusions. Theology is not even a real science, it's basically just a bunch of people making shit up and writing bible fanfic.
Woodruff wrote:A point with which I would personally strongly disagree.
john9blue wrote:belief in no gods isn't really a religion, it's just a belief. religions are more complex and complete worldviews
PLAYER57832 wrote:You show a complete LACK of logic and utter bias in the above.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Woodruff wrote:A point with which I would personally strongly disagree.
see above The fact that something is unprovable very much DOES make it logical to believe it might be true.
natty dread wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:You show a complete LACK of logic and utter bias in the above.
Ok, convince me. How is theology a real science?
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
Woodruff wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Woodruff wrote:A point with which I would personally strongly disagree.
see above The fact that something is unprovable very much DOES make it logical to believe it might be true.
This is a stupid response, given that it doesn't at all take into account what I was ACTUALLY responding to. Sorry, but I don't see any other way to say it. Perhaps you should go back and look at what I was responding to?
Woodruff wrote:Lootifer wrote:Woodruff wrote:john9blue wrote:GreecePwns wrote:If one's end is simply having an answer to unprovable questions, substituting one in when it cannot be found, then I guess its rational.
But rationality relies on provable means. Religion answers unprovable questions with the unprovable answer, "God did it." This is not rational.
something is rational if it draws conclusions logically from evidence.
my guess is that most of you have never heard any christian theologians/apologists talk. unless you can take these guys in a religious debate (hint: you can't), then you have no business calling their position illogical. you can consider it slightly more improbable than another system of beliefs, but "illogical" implies that there is no thought behind it and that it's easily disproven, which it isn't.
This isn't funny, but it is laughable. Of course it can't be disproven, because it's impossible to prove a negative. That in no way makes it logical or rational.
But I think his point is that it doesnt make it irrational or illogical either.
Iunno. /shrug
A point with which I would personally strongly disagree.
GreecePwns wrote:Unfalsifiablity isn't a fallacy, but a testable theory is more acceptable than one that isn't. In pretty much all cases.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Woodruff wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Woodruff wrote:A point with which I would personally strongly disagree.
see above The fact that something is unprovable very much DOES make it logical to believe it might be true.
This is a stupid response, given that it doesn't at all take into account what I was ACTUALLY responding to. Sorry, but I don't see any other way to say it. Perhaps you should go back and look at what I was responding to?
OK, here it is:Woodruff wrote:Lootifer wrote:Woodruff wrote:john9blue wrote:GreecePwns wrote:If one's end is simply having an answer to unprovable questions, substituting one in when it cannot be found, then I guess its rational.
But rationality relies on provable means. Religion answers unprovable questions with the unprovable answer, "God did it." This is not rational.
something is rational if it draws conclusions logically from evidence.
my guess is that most of you have never heard any christian theologians/apologists talk. unless you can take these guys in a religious debate (hint: you can't), then you have no business calling their position illogical. you can consider it slightly more improbable than another system of beliefs, but "illogical" implies that there is no thought behind it and that it's easily disproven, which it isn't.
This isn't funny, but it is laughable. Of course it can't be disproven, because it's impossible to prove a negative. That in no way makes it logical or rational.
But I think his point is that it doesnt make it irrational or illogical either.
Iunno. /shrug
A point with which I would personally strongly disagree.
OK, a short synopse of the above
Greenspwn -- "God did it" is not rational
John -- it can be, or at least is not illogical , its not readily disproven
Woodruff-- Of course you cannot disprove it, you cannot prove a negative, that doesn't make it logical or rational.
Lootifer -- but it doesn't make it irrational, either.
Finally -- Woodruff "A point with which I would personally strongly disagree".
Your statement is a negative to Lootifers, so you are saying that it does make God/theology illogical.
Haggis_McMutton wrote:Your claim to ignorance regarding the universe is good, and one that I share (though you may disagree cause I don't use the particular labels you use).
Your constant claims to intellectual superiority, not so good.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Woodruff wrote: Not at all. You're trying to force your biases on it. I am clearly stating that it is not logical nor rational to expect someone to prove a negative with the argument of "you can't disprove it".
john9blue wrote:there seem to be a few differences in my beliefs and the beliefs of most people here that prevent meaningful discussion from taking place.
you say "religion is unfalsifiable"
i think that religion is falsifiable. there is no reason to believe that the cause of our universe will always and forever be a mystery to the human race. particularly, religions that make claims like "thunder is caused by a deity living on top of mt. olympus" are very obviously falsifiable, so there is no reason to think that other claims made my any religion are so "special" as to be unfalsifiable.
to believe that something is "unfalsifiable", you have to believe that either:
it has no truth value, or
its truth value cannot be determined,
both of which (aside from being beliefs themselves) are being thought true for fewer and fewer things, as our science progresses further and further.
also, you say that something is a fact if and only if it's "logical" or "rational", as if you have to prove something deductively to make it a fact.
i say that that's not how science works. the scientific method (accumulation of evidence and drawing conclusions from that evidence) is an inductive process rather than a deductive process. something is only a "fact" to someone if that person deems there to be enough evidence in favor of that proposition. when you guys say that theologians are "irrational", you're implying that they have no evidence in favor of their beliefs, which isn't true (otherwise they wouldn't be able to write books and hold debates about their faith). and i find this funny coming from a group that claims to not require proof for their belief that god doesn't exist (btw, there is evidence in favor of atheism, which is why people believe it, but the evidence is definitely not conclusive).Haggis_McMutton wrote:Your claim to ignorance regarding the universe is good, and one that I share (though you may disagree cause I don't use the particular labels you use).
Your constant claims to intellectual superiority, not so good.
intellectual superiority? you're talking to a guy who makes fewer claims to god-related knowledge than almost anyone on this forum, lol
Currently, there is no way to prove whether or not a supernatural being that lives outside of this universe exists, and that said being apparently manifested himself as a human being and said and did whatever is in the Bible. That applies to other religions that claim something outside of this universe. Right now, they are unfalsifiable. We cannot assume we'll eventually find out a way to test this hypothesis, because such a claim is also unfalsifiable. But if we were too, then religious would be a falsifiable claims, which would certainly be tested as soon as such a capability is discovered. We really wouldn't have discussions on the falsifiability of such claims in such a situation. I know if If could test it I would do so right away.john9blue wrote:there seem to be a few differences in my beliefs and the beliefs of most people here that prevent meaningful discussion from taking place.
you say "religion is unfalsifiable"
i think that religion is falsifiable. there is no reason to believe that the cause of our universe will always and forever be a mystery to the human race. particularly, religions that make claims like "thunder is caused by a deity living on top of mt. olympus" are very obviously falsifiable, so there is no reason to think that other claims made my any religion are so "special" as to be unfalsifiable.
to believe that something is "unfalsifiable", you have to believe that either:
it has no truth value, or
its truth value cannot be determined,
both of which (aside from being beliefs themselves) are being thought true for fewer and fewer things, as our science progresses further and further.
Unfalsifiability as I've defined it above is not a logical fallacy, but a claim that is testable by current technology and scientific knowledge is more acceptable in logical debate than one that isn't. Occam's razor and whatnot.also, you say that something is a fact if and only if it's "logical" or "rational", as if you have to prove something deductively to make it a fact.
i say that that's not how science works. the scientific method (accumulation of evidence and drawing conclusions from that evidence) is an inductive process rather than a deductive process. something is only a "fact" to someone if that person deems there to be enough evidence in favor of that proposition. when you guys say that theologians are "irrational", you're implying that they have no evidence in favor of their beliefs, which isn't true (otherwise they wouldn't be able to write books and hold debates about their faith). and i find this funny coming from a group that claims to not require proof for their belief that god doesn't exist (btw, there is evidence in favor of atheism, which is why people believe it, but the evidence is definitely not conclusive).
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I believe that whenever I do my anti-rain dance, it will stop raining because of the rain gods.
(1) I do my dance, the rain continues. I could always say, "the anti-rain dance wasn't good enough," and that claim can't be disproven--unless of course I failed to carry out the ritual perfectly. Theoretically, the acceptable duration of anti-rain dancing for that particular circumstance could've been 12 hours instead of 12 minutes.
Or, we could engage in SCIENCE! and namely STATISTICS!, in order to show that the anti-rain dance extremely likely does not cause the rain to cease. This approach is performed empirically, and we have our evidence which can disprove the causal connection (beyond a highly certain doubt). However, excuses can be made by me:
(a) the rain gods just weren't impressed.
(b) the rain gods wanted more rain anyway
(c) the rain gods work in mysterious ways sometimes
The above claims are unfalsfiable because they can't be tested scientifically. John is saying that they are falsifiable--just not yet, which is also an unfalsifiable claim.
PLAYER57832 wrote:When something doesn't work how we expect, whether in religion or science, we try to figure out why.
natty dread wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:When something doesn't work how we expect, whether in religion or science, we try to figure out why.
Excuse me - when was the last time the pope has ordered a large-scale scientific investigation to find out why prayer doesn't work?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users