(July 7, 2018 at 4:59 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(July 6, 2018 at 8:29 am)SteveII Wrote: I think the list I made seeks to identify four tests that, if a religion were to fail them, they have a big gaping hole that would be hard to overcome--from a rational-belief perspective. Perhaps #3 is weaker than the others.

Beyond the point noted, the first three of your criteria detail what men do in response to knowledge of the gods.  How exactly that is a question of the truth claims of a religious experience, or even of the religion, is something I don't fully understand.  The gods may be real and yet men may react to them differently.  The difference in cultures and theological assumptions explain the latter without impugning the former.  So the first three criteria aren't really questions about the truth claims, but rather about how men have responded to revelations, with the clear implication that a Western, analytical tradition is superior.  Coming from a Hindu background myself, I recognize that the differences between the theology of the west and that of India are largely products of cultural differences.  That's a clear bias, as noted before.  Religion in India was fundamentally pluralistic, whereas religion in the Christian tradition was viciously exclusive.  Even if the Western analytical tradition was in some sense superior, that would not indicate that the revelations underlying those traditions were more likely true as a result.  As to your fourth criteria, I find that both Christianity and Hinduism likely fail that test.

So, as criteria for the truth of revelation, you've posited three criteria which are specifically friendly to Christianity, yet generally irrelevant to the revelations themselves, and a fourth which doesn't really distinguish the two.   It may be true that you've pointed out weaknesses in the religion as a religion, but we're not interested in the virtues of the religion as a religion but rather the likely truth or falsity of the underlying truth claims.  With the possible exception of #4, which Christianity also does poorly on, none of your criteria are appropriately aimed.

For reference:

1. Is Hinduism theology internally consistent?
2. Does it have a coherent understanding of reality?
3. Is there some sort of body of natural theology that support the tenent of the faith?
4. Are the facts of Krishna's life believable (as a god)? (demons, killing, war, wives, children, died of an arrow wound)

I think some of your points are correct. Here is a more generic list that I think avoids your charges:

Assumption: For any religion x, any interpretations of revelations and inferences made from those revelations is an attempt to derive a true belief.
1. Can the revelations and inferences of religion x be systematized into a framework that is internally consistent? In other words, do the revelations fit together so as not to contradict each other? Contradictory or ad hoc beliefs suggests an internal problem that needs to be resolved to increase likelihood of deriving a true belief.
2. Does the revelations and inferences of religion x square with science, cause/effect, our observations of our reality, and our intuitions? Contradictions need to be reconciled or they undercut the likelihood of a set of true beliefs.
3. Every religion has a narrative. Whether the narrative is pre-history or historical, is it metaphysically possible: cause/effect, logically possible, and tells us something about the nature of existence and objects and their properties? Is it actually possible: is their historical evidence or contradictions that need to be considered? The less these questions are addressed, the less likely that the narrative is a true belief. 
Conclusion: For any religion x, you can establish criteria aimed at ascertaining whether the religion is more or less likely to consist of true beliefs. Such criteria is also relevant in comparing religions against each other.

Quote:I think the list I made seeks to identify four tests that, if a religion were to fail them, they have a big gaping hole that would be hard to overcome--from a rational-belief perspective. Perhaps #3 is weaker than the others.

Your criteria is horseshit built to try and an artificial distinction between your fairy tales and others and then filled with excuses to force your nonsense to fit it  . Sorry no one here is  buying it .

(July 7, 2018 at 12:37 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:

(July 6, 2018 at 10:10 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: You're only picky about what objection you hide from because can't give a good or even antiquate answer to.So drop your pretentious bullshit your not half a smart as you like to believe yourself .

I must admit that, IMO, Steve's "peanut gallery" comments do come off as negative and insulting.  Out of curiosity, when people refer to their opponents in this negative way, have they considered that their opponents may see them in a similar way? How can reasonable, meaningful dialog occur under such circumstances?

If you look at what is constantly said to Christians here, the attacking of the person, calling them stupid and delusional, assuming motives, rejecting anything that doesn’t come from the atheism echo chamber. Constantly disrespecting our beliefs (not just disagreeing with them). When you look at the intolerance and hate. I don’t think that “peanut gallery” is all that bad. I respect Steve’s patience, and wish I was that strong at times. Sometimes it’s tiring just to try and have a conversation and discuss ideas, to ignore those who are uncivil and not interested in truth or rational ideas.

---

And just to note K.S. I’m not saying that you do these things, or that everyone does. It’s just a little surprising that amongst everything else, you find the comment of “peanut gallery” so harsh and in need of correction.

Quote:If you look at what is constantly said to Christians here, the attacking of the person, calling them stupid and delusional, assuming motives, rejecting anything that doesn’t come from the atheism echo chamber. Constantly disrespecting our beliefs (not just disagreeing with them). When you look at the intolerance and hate. I don’t think that “peanut gallery” is all that bad. I respect Steve’s patience, and wish I was that strong at times. Sometimes it’s tiring just to try and have a conversation and discuss ideas, to ignore those who are uncivil and not interested in truth or rational ideas.

---

And just to note K.S. I’m not saying that you do these things, or that everyone does. It’s just a little surprising that amongst everything else, you find the comment of “peanut gallery” so harsh and in need of correction.

And this is a steaming pile

Essentially this is long whiny rant about how we don't give apologist bullshit respect it does not deserve and those peddling even less and scream "INTOLERANCE " Your beliefs are not entitled to any respect . As for patience we given you and Steve's nonsense more patience it deserves . So save your persecution complex for a Christian forum.

Quote:Constantly disrespecting our beliefs (not just disagreeing with them).

You deserve to have your beliefs disrespected.  They are stupid.  It's the 21st century, man.  Not the 8th.  There are no fucking miracles.  The problem with xtians is that for centuries, while you had the power to do so, you would routinely murder those who disputed your bullshit.  I get that you look upon them as the good old days but those days are gone.  If you can't produce evidence to support your claims - and you never have - then you are simply shit out of luck.  Stop whining.

(July 7, 2018 at 10:14 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 7, 2018 at 12:37 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: I must admit that, IMO, Steve's "peanut gallery" comments do come off as negative and insulting.  Out of curiosity, when people refer to their opponents in this negative way, have they considered that their opponents may see them in a similar way? How can reasonable, meaningful dialog occur under such circumstances?

If you look at what is constantly said to Christians here, the attacking of the person, calling them stupid and delusional, assuming motives, rejecting anything that doesn’t come from the atheism echo chamber. Constantly disrespecting our beliefs (not just disagreeing with them).  When you look at the intolerance and hate.   I don’t think that “peanut gallery” is all that bad. I respect Steve’s patience, and wish I was that strong at times. Sometimes it’s tiring just to try and have a conversation and discuss ideas, to ignore those who are uncivil and not interested in truth or rational ideas.

---

And just to note K.S.   I’m not saying that you do these things, or that everyone does.  It’s just a little surprising that amongst everything else, you find the comment of “peanut gallery” so harsh and in need of correction.

@ Steve and Roadrunner

I apologize if my post came off as correcting and ignoring negative commentary/behavior by other posters here.  I'd agree that there are plenty of posters here (regardless of label, starting points, etc.) who could improve the manner in which they discuss topics that have the tendency to be  
divisive.  I should have omitted the part of my post about Steve and left the rest, which was really my main point of the post: how can there be reasonable/rational dialog between differing/conflicting sides of an issue if each side sees the other in a negative way, and as a result of that negative perception, engages the other in a negative manner?

Regarding negative behavior on these forums, IMO, it is not my place to police others: I'm responsible for policing my own actions and to ensure that I contribute to these boards in a constructive way.  If others want to follow that example, then that is wonderful; and should they choose not to follow this example and it is in violation of the forum rules, then IMO,  it is up to the forum leadership (not my personal opinion, thoughts, truths, etc.)   to handle the negative behavior accordingly.

(July 7, 2018 at 2:45 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:

(July 7, 2018 at 10:14 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: If you look at what is constantly said to Christians here, the attacking of the person, calling them stupid and delusional, assuming motives, rejecting anything that doesn’t come from the atheism echo chamber. Constantly disrespecting our beliefs (not just disagreeing with them).  When you look at the intolerance and hate.   I don’t think that “peanut gallery” is all that bad. I respect Steve’s patience, and wish I was that strong at times. Sometimes it’s tiring just to try and have a conversation and discuss ideas, to ignore those who are uncivil and not interested in truth or rational ideas.

---

And just to note K.S.   I’m not saying that you do these things, or that everyone does.  It’s just a little surprising that amongst everything else, you find the comment of “peanut gallery” so harsh and in need of correction.

@ Steve and Roadrunner

I apologize if my post came off as correcting and ignoring negative commentary/behavior by other posters here.  I'd agree that there are plenty of posters here (regardless of label, starting points, etc.) who could improve the manner in which they discuss topics that have the tendency to be  
divisive.  I should have omitted the part of my post about Steve and left the rest, which was really my main point of the post: how can there be reasonable/rational dialog between differing/conflicting sides of an issue if each side sees the other in a negative way, and as a result of that negative perception, engages the other in a negative manner?

Regarding negative behavior on these forums, IMO, it is not my place to police others: I'm responsible for policing my own actions and to ensure that I contribute to these boards in a constructive way.  If others want to follow that example, then that is wonderful; and should they choose not to follow this example and it is in violation of the forum rules, then IMO,  it is up to the forum leadership (not my personal opinion, thoughts, truths, etc.)   to handle the negative behavior accordingly.

I think that it is OK, to point out poor behavior, to show that it is not acceptable and not rational.  I also think that it is respectable to show a certain amount of grace (which I think that Steve shows remarkable restraint; which I wish I could repeat at times).     And when things get heated, in discussion, as they sometimes do, occasionally emotions get the better of us. I don't put too much into a one off comment (unless it is particularly nasty)   I do agree that we shouldn't have a negative view of those who oppose our ideas.   And sometimes we make take more exception because we have a greater respect and expectation for someone.   But we are all human.   And sometimes it is difficult when you are trying to have a discussion, and others are spouting hate and intolerance, trying to derail that discussion.   Sometimes it's difficult to ignore.

Also KS. I’m not trying to say that you where necessarily wrong, I think I was surprised that “peanut gallery “ would even merit mention in comparison to some of the other stuff that is constantly being said