(May 10, 2011 at 6:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Me: “Well I disagree, this is the criteria biologists use, but out of curiosity, what criteria should I be using?”

And when the question "do biologists, using this criteria, class this organism as a fish?"

You go all funny and refuse to respond with a straight answer.

Without a doubt the organism in question is a dolphin.

I have been looking around some more for definitions of religion. The trouble is that there are hundreds. Not just hundreds of opinion, but even many thesis' that are written on the subject.

Here is a paper, a bit lengthy (takes 15 minutes to read quickly) but informative. http://www.crosscurrents.org/whatisreligion.htm
It deals with the problems of how we define religion in general and how religions are studied and described. The paper does say pretty much what I think (and does note it is a common problem) - that making a classification of what a religion is, is nigh impossible. Some things that we consider religion have very little in common with the 'big three'. Where does religion stop and philosofy begin? Hard to tell. Therefor, I do take a little offense at the way you treat your description as the one true and right description of what is religion or not.

Would I come back to your fish analogy, let's replace it with a better one.
'what is life?'.
In many cases we can think of, it's obvious. In many others, it's not.
Is a robot that can self-replicate alive? If the robot is capable of human-like thought, is it alive? A virus can not multiply by itself, it needs other organisms for that. So is it even alive then?
Defining what life is, considering these things, is hard. Defining what makes a religion might even be harder.

(May 10, 2011 at 6:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I like how you tried to ride into this discussion acting like you were some pillar of diplomacy and intellect, but when I poked at you a bit and revealed you didn’t really know anything you blow up and start slinging mud.

Mud-slinging? Where did I sling mud? By pointing out that if you didn't answer my arguments it might look like you were running away? It will. That by compounding one error with another you damage your credibility, i.e. make yourself look stupid? It does. The conclusion that it hurts your credibility follows logically from the premise. If it did not, it would indeed be a form of mudslinging (ad hominem), but that is not the case. Feel free to point out my egregious mud slinging, but keep in mind that tu quoque is also a fallacy. And in the interests of charity, I will suggest that diverting the thread with side issues instead of just answering the arguments at hand is not helping your arguments or your credibility. Moreover I defy you to show where I "revealed [that I] didn’t really know anything" -- aside from in your mind. Go on. Quote where I admitted ignorance, or inability, or demonstrated either. I dare you. I double-dog dare you. Claiming somebody is ignorant and incompetent without proof, that is mud-slinging! Shame on you.

Now, that being said, I confess to having allowed myself to become a bit excited in attempting to prosecute my case. I do not feel that I did cross the line, but if you felt otherwise I apologize for any incivility of tone. However, I will ask you this, if someone claimed that your arguments were wrong because you lacked the intellectual capacity to form correct ones, wouldn't you be a bit miffed at such an ad hominem?

(May 10, 2011 at 6:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Very typical for these parts unfortunately. I will stand by my original point, if you can’t demonstrate the correct way to determine what is and is not a religion, then you have no logical basis to say the way I did it was somehow incorrect.

Since you are simply repeating the same ad hominem, I can only assume that you simply are not aware of the beam in your eye. I apologize if I was a bit strident in my objection, but I presumed that you were capable of recognizing your error. My mistake; I recognize it's easier see the flaws in others rather than in ourselves, so I will make an effort to be clearer and more patient in detailing your errors in future.

It does not follow that because one has an incapacity or defect that their arguments are therefore invalid. The validity and soundness of my arguments is wholly unrelated to any strengths or weaknesses in my intellectual faculty. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Since the strength of my argument does not depend upon any strengths of my mind -- the argument stands on its own merits -- it does not follow that any supposed inability of mine regarding the subject matter necessarily implies a corresponding lack in my argument. This is the fallacy of the non sequitur -- literally, "it does not follow" -- and this specific non sequitur has another name, ad hominem -- literally, "against the man", as you are arguing by pointing out errors and defects in the man , instead of directing them at the argument, which stands on its own, regardless of any defect in the man.

ETA: This may clarify things for you. The fact that I have not demonstrated how to identify a religion is not evidence that I cannot demonstrate how to identify a religion. Your jumping from "have not" to "cannot" is yet another error you have made, though it's hardly necessary to point this out, as your argument would not be true even if I were unable to do so. I know absolutely diddly-squat about general relativity, yet if someone were to assert that E=mc^3, I wouldn't need to demonstrate a proof of general relativity to show they were full of shit. QED.

(May 10, 2011 at 6:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I will give you another real world example since you didn’t follow my mathematics one.

You used a mathematical example, and upon discovering that you were talking to a mathematician and being boxed about the ears for your obvious ignorance of the facts concerning your example, you want to discard that example and try another? Unbelievable! Prior to posting this, I noted that your new and improved example was already being questioned, albeit not seriously. See, this is the credibility issue I've briefly alluded to. Presenting one argument and having it found deficient, you simply move on to another. Not maligning you personally, but as a theist you are seen as following in the path of other apologists, and it's a well known joke that theist apologists are notorious for handing down faulty arguments from generation to generation like they were heirlooms, either blissfully unaware that the argument has long since been refuted, or simply not caring (aka "telling lies for God"). No matter they think, if one dog won't hunt, I've got plenty more.

Now I appreciate that you feel you have a point to make (which I will address in this post), and you felt that if the math example was unclear, you would provide another. Problem is Statler, as noted, I am a mathematician; it wasn't that it was an unclear example -- it was a defective example, and I did declare my expertise in judging it so, in addition to pointing out in detail where it was in error. Simply abandoning one tool as defective and grabbing another will not do, especially seeing that you are attempting the same analogy with a different example. If your analogy is defective, it doesn't matter how many examples you use, you will still be wrong. But if you feel otherwise, feel free to defend your original example, about math, telling a mathematician that he's wrong about math.

(May 10, 2011 at 6:58 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Somebody challenges me to prove that Organism A is actually a fish. I began by showing that legally it was defined as a fish, morphologically it was built like a fish and behaviorally it behaved like a fish- therefore it is a fish. Then here you come riding into the discussion…
You: “I am sorry SW; you can’t use those criteria to prove that the organism is a fish”
Me: “Well I disagree, this is the criteria biologists use, but out of curiosity, what criteria should I be using?”
You: “Oh I never claimed to know what criteria should be used.”
…and you say that I am the one looking stupid here? Give me a break.

Did I simply say that your use of those criteria were invalid? No, I did not. Did I appeal to my judgment as an authority on the matter? No I did not. I presented reasons for my objection: reason against reason, argument for argument, evidence versus evidence. In what reverendjeremiah referred to as a "wall" of text, I explained in excruciating detail where I felt your application was defective and uncertain, giving carefully constructed and elucidated reasons. If I hadn't given reason and argument for my position, I might agree that you are justified in summarily dismissing my denial, but that's not the case. Having given substantial argument in favor of my position, you respond by arguing that my inability to construct your argument for you -- a fact still uncertain -- prevents me from forming cogent and correct argument as to your error. This does not follow: it is a 'non sequitur' (Latin for 'it does not follow'), and specifically that of ad hominem. Moreover, your continued focusing on the matter has indeed generated some light alongside the heat. If you want to rest on your claim that you are using Smart's theory correctly, you can either demonstrate it by argument, or rest your claim by appealing to your own authority as a self-proclaimed expert on the matter. Since you refuse to do the former (rational argument), I can only conclude that you are seeking refuge in the latter. What reason do we have to accept your opinion as an expert on Smart's theory or religion in general? (And do note, I am a member of a religion and once was a Christian, and both religion and philosophy [the science of knowing things] are personal interests -- lest you repeat your mistake about telling an actual authority on some matter that they are wrong. Or, are you claiming that you are a mathematician too? Claiming you are knowledgeable because you are religious won't work: a) that hardly makes you an authority, and b) according to your argument, we too are religious, so that makes us experts too! No, if you want to rest on your laurels, you must demonstrate that you have them; just as in a court of law, simply claiming to be an expert does not warrant entering your opinions into evidence as fact; you have to give just cause for being treated as an expert.)

Second, you are again attempting to imply that my pointing out that I made no claims about my abilities in this area is an admission that I am ignorant of the subject. As I think it clear... wait, actually, let me grab that text to be precise:

(May 10, 2011 at 12:13 am)apophenia Wrote: I never claimed that I could differentiate between what is and is not a religion. You on the other hand, claimed that you could demonstrate that atheism is a religion. The burden of proof lies entirely on your shoulders. You've implicitly claimed that you can tell religion from that which it is not by claiming that you can show that atheism is one.

Now that the original text is in plain view, let me help your comprehension by unrolling the text. The first two sentences are obviously an example of the standard rhetorical device of compare and contrast, (I did not do X, you on the other hand, did do X). Diagramming the text,

1. I did not claim to know how.
2. You claimed to know how.
3. (implied) "He who asserts must prove" (The burden of proof lies on the positive claim)
Conclusion:. You have a burden of proof which you must meet.

So now that I've laboriously deconstructed it for you, I hope that you can see that I never claimed nor implied that I possessed or lacked any intellectual know-how, and your launching a fallacious ad hominem argument on the back of a fact which is still unknown is doubly fallacious. I'm not going to guess as to what misshapen form you transformed this into inside your head, but your conclusions that I was trying to communicate to you that I felt incapable of ably addressing the issue is clearly at odds with my text. Indeed, claiming incompetence would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. It would be comical for me to say, "I think you're wrong, but then I don't know what I'm talking about," but that is what it appears you are claiming I said. C'mon Statler, are you serious? I expect better from you. But then, I don't know you at all well. This is my first encounter with you. For all I know, this could be par for the course. I leave it to you to show otherwise.

Before I retire your silly ad hominem for good, allow me to point out the obvious fact that I am a Taoist (explicitly mentioned earlier). As such, I stand in a no man's land between religion and irreligion. For the theist, I'm philosophical, and not religious enough. For the atheist, I am too religious, and they are wary of me for my Taoism. You on the other hand (compare/contrast again), are comfortable knowing that you belong to a religion -- you don't have to give it any thought, though you might have; you just 'know' you are religious. Same for the atheist -- they 'know' they aren't religious. Me, I actually have cause to give such matter serious thought, living as I do in the demilitarized zone between religion and secularism. While that's no guarantee that I have given the matter serious thought, or reasoned correctly about it, it would seem prima facie evidence that I have more cause than you to be familiar with the question.

Now, back to the matter at hand, this thread is not about me. It's not about my ideas, about what I do and do not think is a religion. This thread is for you, and your ideas; for you to present a case and defend it. It is an irrelevant red herring to focus upon my expertise or lack thereof, the arguments carry their own weight, just as indeed it would be irrelevant if I wear boxers or briefs, am a high school grad or possess a doctorate. Your duty is to argue against the arguments; not against the man. I will tolerate no more impugning my character and ability based on your misreading of a reply; further devotion of argument to this red herring will be interpreted as an intentional attempt to derail this thread by changing the subject (which some atheists would contend is a common theist tactic to avoid answering difficult questions; I'd say it's probably a tactic common to all men, not just the theist).

---

Now, I will summarize the unanswered arguments before you, but if there is dispute, I reserve the right to refer to my original text; if you wish to avoid confusion, I suggest you reply to those, and not this summary.

1. Legal definitions are not sufficient. The law does not 'track' truth, and many times in history, what we now regard as truth was not so according to law. Therefore, since law is not a reliable indicator of truth, and we are interested in the truth of whether atheism is a religion or not, it cannot be relied upon to decide the question's truth or falsity. (I will also point out, as an addition to my original argument, that the law makes certain rulings and standards for specific reasons -- which may not align with the properties you are attempting to prove; if common law precedent is set in the interests of justice, or cohesion of the law, consistency of statue or stare decisis, none of these reasons are useful to your demonstration.)

2. It is not clear from the descriptions of Ninian Smart's framework that I have examined that his framework is either intended as or suitable to use as an exclusionary criteria. In plainer language, Smart's seven dimensions are only valid as an argument that something is a religion if Smart's criteria are shared among religions and only shared by religions. If his criteria are not the exclusive province of religion and only religion, the criteria are useless to you, as satisfying the criteria would then only indicate that the subject may be a religion, not that it definitely is. If your yet to be demonstrated expertise says otherwise, please explain why or quote literature pertinent to the question.

3. Anthropological theories are generally descriptive, not proscriptive. An anthropological theory tells us about people, and if successful, provides some insight into their behavior. It cannot tell us what they are or are not (externally), what they should or should not do, or whether their behavior is normal or not, except with reference to their own culture. (A potent example of this is that the DSM, the manual psychiatrists use for diagnosing mental disorders, explicitly states that if a behavior is considered normal for the patient's culture, it is not to be diagnosed as a disorder.) As noted earlier, the fact that you are treating dimensions of Smart's framework which are para-historical as if they were historical appears to be a prima facie case of using his explicitly culture sensitive criteria in a culturally insensitive manner. Even if his criteria are valid when used as a diagnostic tool (at issue here), they are only valid if used correctly. However, as stated, I am no expert on Smart's theory; if you are, or can quote someone who is, to refute my concern, then do so. Failure to do so is tacit admission that you cannot, and my point then stands undisputed.

4. The question of validation against independent criteria. No theory can 'validate itself'. If Smart's theory identifies something as a religion, and other criteria contradict that hypothesis -- like the testimony of atheists -- we have a Mexican stand-off and neither side wins. If atheism is not a religion, then the criteria are invalid and cannot be used to 'prove themselves'. If Smart's criteria are valid, then they might be used to make such a case. Lacking an independent witness to the fact of the matter -- of atheism's religiosity -- it is simply not possible to determine whether the criteria are or are not valid with respect to atheism. You are free to introduce an independent measure -- properly justified -- to corroborate your contention that Smart's criteria are a reliable indicator of what is a religion, and specifically that atheism is one -- but as yet you have not done so. I might point out that if you had another indicator of atheism's religiosity that might lend corroboration to your claim of the soundness of Smart's theories, it would make the case based on Smart's criteria redundant. I can only wonder then, why you didn't introduce this other argument originally, to shore up the strength of the two arguments already given.

Now, a final comment on the red herring of whether I possess sufficient competence to argue the matter. Any concern you have about my competence, should be directed to the substance of my arguments. If I am capable of making cogent, sound and valid arguments about the matter, it will be more than sufficiently proved by my making cogent, sound and valid arguments. The proof is in the pudding, and your attentions should be directed toward judging the quality of the pudding, not making judgments about the cook's fitness or lack thereof. The pudding will decide.

Further fussing over what I do or do not know will be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to change the subject and derail the thread. If you wish to debate whether a person's competence or credibility are relevant to the question of whether their arguments are sound or valid, create a separate thread; this thread has been created for you. It is a forum for you to present your ideas, your arguments, and defend them. It is not about me. You volunteered to defend the thesis that atheism is a religion -- not once, but twice! All you've done lately is waste words impugning my character, insulting my intelligence, and making fallacious arguments (two non sequiturs and an ad hominem, three errors in three lines of text!).

But if you prefer to avoid defending your argument by focusing on red herrings and changing the subject, don't let me stop you. Just remember, God is watching.

l

Waldorf apparently has run off again...


good


bye

Waldorff isn't astute enough to run off. He is no doubt seeking signs that he is a persevering saint of his tulip calvinist theology predestined to be saved, rather than a deluded sinner predestined to burn confusedly in hell. He will come back, posturing as always. He would sprout exactly the same "arguments" barely rephrased, in the hopes that next time his god would affirm him by beveling someone else's intelligence down to below even his level, thus giving him a perception of vindication and wisdom.

I think I can say that I ran him off.. I joked him hard and the last response I remember him posting was crying to the mods.

I don't think you should take offense at all, I never said my method was the one true method. I just didn't like it when someone (the Taoist) was claiming my method was not correct when he himself didn't offer anything better. I have no beef with you and your opinions because you are actually trying to figure out what the best method is. So I have no beef with that at all. So pretty much if there is no clear way to define religion then is it safe to say Christianity is not a religion either? I mean, if we don't have a way of proving it is a religion then nobody could really argue with the assertion that it is not one right?

As to the life thing, science has a system of dimensions of life that is used to classify what is and is not living. Is this the definitive proof of what is alive? Nope, it's just man's opinion, but it is the best we have. I think some of the methods I used for defining religion were pretty solid.

---

(May 11, 2011 at 5:50 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: I think I can say that I ran him off.. I joked him hard and the last response I remember him posting was crying to the mods.

Yeah leave it to the Christian to actually want to follow the rules set forth in this forum.

(May 11, 2011 at 6:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(May 11, 2011 at 5:50 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: I think I can say that I ran him off.. I joked him hard and the last response I remember him posting was crying to the mods.

Yeah leave it to the Christian to actually want to follow the rules set forth in this forum.

LMFAO..what rules.



So Waldorf... where have you been? Are you ready for another verbal beating?


I think you are a glutton for punishment.

Perhaps you should fly away from here on "holier than thou doves wings" over to Rapture Ready.

It takes a certain kind of of intelligence to grasp the fact that one is taking a beating in an intellectual discussion. Christianity bakes that kind of intelligence out of its more devoted adherents, leaving them chanting morons. In all fairness, waldoff is probably above average as far as intelligence amongst fundamentalist christians go, but he is still inconceivably stupid by normal standards.

I've got one question for Waldorf:

Dinosaurs?