Conquer Club

Mor(m)ons

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Mormons

Postby GreecePwns on Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:09 am

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.
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.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: Mormons

Postby john9blue on Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:03 pm

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.


i'm part of "everyone else".

and you're pretty clueless if you think i have a claim to the mysteries of the universe... because what makes me more perceptive than most people is that i DON'T have a claim to many mysteries of the universe because i realize that i don't know them yet.

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.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Mormons

Postby Haggis_McMutton on Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:31 pm

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.

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.


Show us one of these talks you find particularly compelling then. There's hundreds of them on youtube.

However your implications for illogical are rather silly.
"Not much thought behind it" Not at all, there's plenty of thought put behind things like astrology, numerology, palm reading et. al.
"Easily disproven" This criteria makes sense only if the theory is scientific and lends itself to falsifiability. Once more, astrology. As soon as you start digging on how many completely different people share the same sign they'll retort with "ah, but you see, there's more to it than that. The position of mars and the orientation of this and that and so on all play a part"

Rather I think illogical has more to do with the foundation of the belief. No matter how much changing of rules and particular cases they throw at you, the foundation of astrology is that big balls of dirt and nebulous galaxies somehow predetermine the minutiae of my life. Untill sufficient evidence or reasoning is provided in support of this rather outrageous claim, it is illogical to base belief systems on it, no matter how shiny and complex those belief systems might be.
Highest score: 3063; Highest position: 67;
Winner of {World War II tournament, -team 2010 Skilled Diversity, [FuN||Chewy]-[XII] USA};
8-3-7
User avatar
Major Haggis_McMutton
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:32 am

Re: Mormons

Postby Woodruff on Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:01 pm

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.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Mormons

Postby Lootifer on Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:29 pm

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
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Mormons

Postby natty dread on Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:14 pm

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.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class natty dread
 
Posts: 12877
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked

Re: Mormons

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:02 am

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.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Mormons

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:37 am

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.

You show a complete LACK of logic and utter bias in the above.

Logic has two parts. You "get" the A=B, B=C, therefore A=C part. You utterly skip the A could be D,E,F,G,H,I, J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q, R, S, T, U,V, W,X,Y and Z bit... not to mention the D might include A and therefore B and C as well), even if A does not equal D... etc, etc, etc,

Namely, logic is not just about what IS proven, it is about what is not yet proven OR disproven and therefore is completely possible... dismissing the possible is one of the most serious and debilitating logical errors of humanity.

Sorry to see you fall into the small minded spectrum of the utterly illogical AND completely unscientific bias of "if I don't understand it... it isn't real". Feel happy to be joining the minds of those who were convinced the Earth is flat, that blacks and Native Americans were inferior species, etc, etc, etc. You are making the exact error all of them have made. Namely, you have "answers" that please you, so you feel it is appropriate to not just believe those answers, but to insist that no other answer is even possible.

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.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Mormons

Postby chang50 on Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:01 am

john9blue wrote:belief in no gods isn't really a religion, it's just a belief. religions are more complex and complete worldviews


So if all disbelief,I presume here you aren't limiting this to religion only,is belief,then the words are for all practical purposes interchangeable would you say?I always thought a belief was a more positive affirmation of the existence of whatever it is,as opposed to a more negative lack of belief in its existence.If you are correct you have multiplied greatly the number of things people can and do believe,almost infinitely.
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

Re: Mormons

Postby natty dread on Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:43 am

PLAYER57832 wrote:You show a complete LACK of logic and utter bias in the above.


Ok, convince me. How is theology a real science?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class natty dread
 
Posts: 12877
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked

Re: Mormons

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:40 pm

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?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Mormons

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:12 pm

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?

Never said it was. I said it isn't illogical.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Mormons

Postby GreecePwns on Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:17 pm

Unfalsifiablity isn't a fallacy, but a testable theory is more acceptable than one that isn't. In pretty much all cases.
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.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: Mormons

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:23 pm

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. I strongly disagree... and always will.

Belief in God is very much logical, as is faith. To deny they are logical is plain closed minded...and VERY unscientific, as is denying many things which are difficult to accept (or that I might personally not believe). Denying these things is to say absolutely they cannot happen, it is to shut off possible thinking and investigation. It is precisely what Natty in particular has accused the church of doing (it has at times, but they have in those instances not claimed to be any different.. natty claims to be using science).

If no one bothered to question the "known fact" that the earth is flat, based on the evidence these people saw and experienced, then our history would be very different. If a few scientists had not bothered to "stupidly" insist that bacteria were causing ulcers... then a nobel prize would have gone to someone else. You cannot say that God, definitively doesn't exist or that theology is utterly illogical.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Mormons

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:24 pm

GreecePwns wrote:Unfalsifiablity isn't a fallacy, but a testable theory is more acceptable than one that isn't. In pretty much all cases.

IN "pretty much all cases", sure..b ut that is not the same as saying in ALL cases, and that is a very, very big difference!
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Mormons

Postby Woodruff on Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:35 pm

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.


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".

The rest of your post is completely irrelevant to my point, and simply filled with things you made up to argue with me about.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Mormons

Postby john9blue on Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:04 pm

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
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Mormons

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:17 pm

Well put, john
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Mormons

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:20 pm

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".

I don't believe that was "clearly stated" at all, but I am glad you were not trying to say what I thought you were.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Mormons

Postby Lootifer on Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:25 pm

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


YOUR MOM
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Mormons

Postby GreecePwns on Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:26 pm

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.
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.

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).
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.

Bee tee dubs, I'm arguing from an agnostic perspective. Atheism is just as faith-based as religion.
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.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: Mormons

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:33 pm

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.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Mormons

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:46 pm

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.

No, but nice try.

1) Is partially true. When something doesn't work how we expect, whether in religion or science, we try to figure out why.

2) IF you can provide evidence beyond a highly certain doubt.. then you have something real, essentially scientificaly proven. Like many scientific claims or theories, it could possibly be wrong, but most people will wind up going with the claim. A few doubters will come up with many, many more excuses than those you provide, including the excuses in #1

3) in the case of most theology, there is a complete lack of the certainty you describe in #2. However, there is a segment of militant atheists that try to claim their ideas have certainty or, worse, that becuase the evidence shown is not to their personal liking/does not meet certain special requirements they have decided must be met (note.. the exact reverse of #1 -- if it works, there is another reason why, always....), the idea if God is just false, utterly illogical.
These militant atheists are no more logical than many of the extreme religious individuals they chastize and belittle. BUT, they are worse because the faith based don't claim to be other than faith-based, but the militant atheist actually claims to use science.

4) Most believers and most scientists hold to their own ideas based on the evidence they see and understand through various ways. Most also acknowledge that as much as they BELIEVE these things to be true -- sometimes a very, very strong belief indeed! -- they cannot necessarily truly prove these things to someone else infallibly. They may still try, though as much to see if they can defend their position as because they actually think they can convince the other person (or maybe they just like to debate ;) ).
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Mormons

Postby natty dread on Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:16 am

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?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class natty dread
 
Posts: 12877
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked

Re: Mormons

Postby comic boy on Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:45 am

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?


Actually such a project was conducted by the Templeton Foundation , it did not produce the results that they hoped for.
Im a TOFU miSfit
User avatar
Brigadier comic boy
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users