RE: The real religion?
August 16, 2016 at 11:10 pm
(This post was last modified: August 16, 2016 at 11:16 pm by Simon Moon.)
(August 16, 2016 at 10:52 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: [quote='Irrational' pid='1366061' dateline='1471401780']
[/hide]
Too bad that "data" doesn't get rigorously tested in theology, just presumed as true.
Quote:What do you have in mind for rigorous testing in this context?
Coming up with a method that would eliminate confirmation bias, would try to discover demonstrable evidence, would not produce arguments that contain common fallacies for a start.
Example: have a Jew, a Muslim, a Christian, a Hindu all do an experiment to measure the speed of light and despite their different belief systems, they will all get the same results.
Now ask each one to find their god, and they will all come up with different answers, all based confirmation bias, similar lack of demonstrable evidence, similar fallacious arguments. And for us non-theists, no method to tell which one, if any, are right.
Quote:Are you saying, that if I can't rigorously test something, then I should presume it to be false?
No.
But it does mean there is rational reason to believe it. The default position on unsupported claims, is not to believe they are false. It is to not accept them as being true. Not until they meet their burden of proof. And then, to only believe them on a provisional basis, in case future evidence shows they were probably incorrect.
Quote:Shall we examine that with evolution?
Please don't.
We are getting kind of tired of your misunderstanding of biology.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.