The real religion?

[Simon Moon]

[quote='Irrational' pid='1366061' dateline='1471401780']
[/hide]
Too bad that "data" doesn't get rigorously tested in theology, just presumed as true.

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.

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.

Shall we examine that with evolution?

Please don't.

We are getting kind of tired of your misunderstanding of biology.

[RoadRunner79]

I'm not trying to refute any scientific claims here.... I think these are bad arguments and premises.  Do you think they make good arguments against science?  I don't, and I don't assume that because I haven't personally experienced something, that it is false.

Read my last two posts. Show the evidence or step away from the podium.

We are talking about evidence (in principle).... what evidence do you want for this (it's really more logic based)? What evidence are you providing, for your claims here, so that I may have some context for my answer?

[Jesster]

Read my last two posts. Show the evidence or step away from the podium.

We are talking about evidence (in principle).... what evidence do you want for this (it's really more logic based)?    What evidence are you providing, for your claims here, so that I may have some context for my answer?

As I thought. You aren't bringing anything to the table here. I asked three times and got nothing. If you're going to keep spinning, I have a reasonable expectation of where this conversation is going.

[RoadRunner79]

Why do you claim that they are impossible.

Okay, fine, I'll play your game.  They may not be impossible.  But they violate everything we know about how the universe works.  So, as a shorthand so I don't have to waste everyone's time, I'll stick with the "impossible" label.  It may not be as precise as you want, but, well, tough shit. 

Even with that caveat, there's no reason to believe those things happened, precisely because they violate everything we know about how the universe works. 

So then, if they where empirically observed, then it may follow, that either A) an unknown process is at work or B)  They where caused by something outside of the mechanics of the universe.  Would you agree?

"But the messiah, by definition, can break the rules!"  Okay, now prove he's the messiah.  "The bible!"  No, the bible is the claim.  Where's the proof?  "The NT!  It's different accounts from different people!"  No, they're a coordinated set of documents that tell the same tale.  Written by his followers, who had a vested interest in building a religion.

What evidence, do you have for this claim of "vested interest"  And I don't think that there is a "proof", "proof" is for math and logic.  I don't understand you logic here.   I could say that those who study evolution have a "vested interest" and are sometimes coordinated.   How should I handle this?   Also, are you claiming that scripture is a conspiracy theory?

I can write a short story about a real person doing amazing/impossible things.  Those things aren't more likely to be true than not because they're amazing.  Indeed, it's the opposite.  They're less likely to be true because they don't conform to what we know of the universe.  And thinking Jesus is somehow different/special/immune to skepticism or logic or anything else due to wish casting is ridiculous.  

I find it unlikely to be able to invent a story, and gather followers from the area where the story allegedly took place, who devoutly believe that story in the face of persecution, and little to gain by it.  

A preacher named Jesus may have existed.  I'll grant that he did for the sake of argument.  But his magical aspects are incredibly unlikely.  And without multiple, independent sources describing his magic (or, at the very least, a single neutral observer rather than his devout followers), I see no compelling reason to believe those aspects of his tale.  Everything else - letters and documents written by his followers, the popularity of the early church - is merely a distraction, and a weak one at that.

So you made up your minds made up before applying logic and reason.


(edited for formatting... forgot to open a quote)

[RoadRunner79]

We are talking about evidence (in principle).... what evidence do you want for this (it's really more logic based)?    What evidence are you providing, for your claims here, so that I may have some context for my answer?

As I thought. You aren't bringing anything to the table here. I asked three times and got nothing. If you're going to keep spinning, I have a reasonable expectation of where this conversation is going.

I asked a number of questions, and keep getting answers such as above. You don't seem to want to talk about if the principles being described here can be used consistently. I didn't answer your questions, because it was a change of topic, and I'm trying to stay focused on having a valid (and consistent) epistemology, before we start trying to apply it.

This is what I came in with from the beginning, if you expected it to go somewhere else, then I fail to see how it is my fault.

[The Grand Nudger]

If someone asked you to go get them a kit kat, you'd be on it.  Someone asks for evidence and the first thing you do is babble on about epistemology.  

Sounds like this god shit is real evident.

[bennyboy]

RoadRunner

Who says you can't test evolution? You test it by drawing inferences about "missing link" species based on what fossils you can dig up. If you later find the species you're looking for, it confirms that your inferences were correct. Happens all the time.

See, you don't understand what "testing" is. It doesn't necessarily mean guys in lab coats sticking electrodes up monkey's asses or whatever. It means you are actively looking for data, ideas, or really any way to demonstrate that a theory is false. And that's where your testimony fails-- it doesn't actively seek contradiction; it is part of a tradition where the suspension of disbelief is considered a virtue, and the seeking of contradiction is considered heretical. This is not a good environment in which to seek truth about the real world. It's also, in my opinion, an anti-theist position-- because if you think God is REAL, then you will seek to understand his universe as perfectly as possible. Instead, you fixate on the authority of 2000 year-old testimony from uneducated desert dwellers. If God is real, he must think that's incredibly stupid, and maybe a bit insulting.

Evolution has the advantage of being useful. It explains things we can see, and is not currently challenged by any other theory of why animals are the way they are. Unless, that is, you consider the 6-day creation story a useful and water-tight theory. But if you do think that, be prepared for the derisive laughter of anyone who doesn't share your preferred cultural mythology.

[robvalue]

OMFG evolution again.

Still irrelevant to the OP. I can grant you the bible is 150% accurate and you're still left with demonstrating being a Christian has any benefit whatsoever that isn't easily explained.

[LadyForCamus]

Okay, fine, I'll play your game.  They may not be impossible.  But they violate everything we know about how the universe works.  So, as a shorthand so I don't have to waste everyone's time, I'll stick with the "impossible" label.  It may not be as precise as you want, but, well, tough shit. 

Even with that caveat, there's no reason to believe those things happened, precisely because they violate everything we know about how the universe works. 

So then, if they where empirically observed, then it may follow, that either A) an unknown process is at work or B)  They where caused by something outside of the mechanics of the universe.  Would you agree?

"But the messiah, by definition, can break the rules!"  Okay, now prove he's the messiah.  "The bible!"  No, the bible is the claim.  Where's the proof?  "The NT!  It's different accounts from different people!"  No, they're a coordinated set of documents that tell the same tale.  Written by his followers, who had a vested interest in building a religion.

What evidence, do you have for this claim of "vested interest"  And I don't think that there is a "proof", "proof" is for math and logic.  I don't understand you logic here.   I could say that those who study evolution have a "vested interest" and are sometimes coordinated.   How should I handle this?   Also, are you claiming that scripture is a conspiracy theory?

I can write a short story about a real person doing amazing/impossible things.  Those things aren't more likely to be true than not because they're amazing.  Indeed, it's the opposite.  They're less likely to be true because they don't conform to what we know of the universe.  And thinking Jesus is somehow different/special/immune to skepticism or logic or anything else due to wish casting is ridiculous.  

I find it unlikely to be able to invent a story, and gather followers from the area where the story allegedly took place, who devoutly believe that story in the face of persecution, and little to gain by it.  

A preacher named Jesus may have existed.  I'll grant that he did for the sake of argument.  But his magical aspects are incredibly unlikely.  And without multiple, independent sources describing his magic (or, at the very least, a single neutral observer rather than his devout followers), I see no compelling reason to believe those aspects of his tale.  Everything else - letters and documents written by his followers, the popularity of the early church - is merely a distraction, and a weak one at that.

So you made up your minds made up before applying logic and reason.


(edited for formatting... forgot to open a quote)

RR,

You can conflate science and religion; data and scripture all day long. You can do it with your thumb up your ass while singing Yankee Doodle for all I care. It's still a logically fallacious argument

It was a bad argument the last six times you tried it, and if you left and came back here in ten years, guess what?! It would still be a BAD fucking argument. Science and religion are different. That's why one is called "science" and the other is called "religion". They are not synonyms.

I'm done wasting my time arguing against fallacies. This is the problem with you guys. People get so fed up with the willful ignorance that they say, "fuck this assclown, I'm done," and the Christian walks away Feeling as though they've accomplished something.

Congratulations, you've accomplished making yourself look like a stupid asshole for five pages. I'll get started on your trophy.

[LadyForCamus]

Please...not the evolution thing again, RR.  PLEASE.  RocketSurgeon spent a lot of time with you on this, including providing you with educational material, and inviting you to PM him if you were interested in actually learning about the field of evolutionary biology.   If you choose to be willfully ignorant on the subject, that's your own personal issue.  It does not concern the theory of evolution in any way.

However the premise that writings and claims do not count as evidence apply right?   If so, then no one has met the burden of proof, in regards to evolution, and presenting evidence to believe in it.

I do know a fair bit, about many of the claims regarding evolutionary theory, and it's many variations.   This is not about that....

Science doesn't deal in "writings" and "claims," RR.  Science deals with Hypotheses, tests, data collecting/interpretation, and predictive models.  But by all means...I know you'll keep on with it...