News1 min ago
Why Be Interested In Other Religions?
184 Answers
Regardless of where you live, you have no doubt seen for yourself how religion affects the lives of millions of people.
Answers
Hypognosis; To say that someone who believes the sum total of religion is a belief in "sky fairies" is lacking in the IQ department, is not the same as saying that all atheists are stupid. This is something I have never said (and naomi, not even of Dawkins). What I have said in my classifying of various positions, is to distinguish between different types; those...
16:13 Wed 30th Mar 2016
Hypognosis - "Applicable how (here), birdie? [“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” ― Mark Twain ]"
The wonderful Mark Twain quote is submitted as a belated truism to reinforce my earlier assertion, "... In fact there is considerable evidence to suggest that people with a high IQ are more susceptible to a belief in god as they consider themselves to be too clever to be wrong...".
Khandro seems to think it is significant that some very clever people also believe in God. I do not. In fact, I see very little correlation between the two states.
Khandro is a living, breathing proponent of the logic fallacy known as the "appeal to authority" with a side helping of "personal incredulity". He has nothing to offer on this matter other than banal whimsical statements and thinly veiled insults. He is entertaining though. As most fools are.
https:/
The wonderful Mark Twain quote is submitted as a belated truism to reinforce my earlier assertion, "... In fact there is considerable evidence to suggest that people with a high IQ are more susceptible to a belief in god as they consider themselves to be too clever to be wrong...".
Khandro seems to think it is significant that some very clever people also believe in God. I do not. In fact, I see very little correlation between the two states.
Khandro is a living, breathing proponent of the logic fallacy known as the "appeal to authority" with a side helping of "personal incredulity". He has nothing to offer on this matter other than banal whimsical statements and thinly veiled insults. He is entertaining though. As most fools are.
https:/
birdie; I can see the appeal to you of your website, - a sort of 'bluffers guide', of readily available quotes, where by exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate, something you carefully avoid. Chuck in a quote from a cracker-barrel humorist-philosopher for emphasis and the simple-minded might think you are really smart - and all from one claiming a disdain of those "quoting very clever people".
@Khandro (and, obliquely, @Birdie)
What amused me most about sites like yourlogicalfallacyis is that its construction was, I can imagine, inspired by the endless exchanges, dating back to USENET newsgroups, between scientists and the likes of creationists, intelligent design adherents, UFO spotters and all manner of fringe stuff.
Basically, some of us are sufficiently middle-aged to have heard most of the usual lines of (theist) argument dozens of times before, are tired of typing responses to it and just want a boilerplate reply on hand to post a link to.
If I re-branded "appeal to authority" as "celebrity endorsement" then what you offered is just advertising copy. One wonders if someone's going to buy into the product (religion) on the basis of what you wrote?
In the meantime, scientists who persist in believing in god, as *you* might imagine _do_ bother me. One: they are hedging their bets, paying the mortgage by pursuing a science career (even one which is corrosive to the beliefs of fellow theists) while, all the while trying to keep in god's good books by professing their belief on a regular basis (aka sucking up). Two: they give "ammunition" to debaters, of your kind. Three: they debase science by saying "god did it and here's how he did it", whilst large tranches of science go on to show that the universe works quite well without any *need* for sentient intervention, whatsoever.
What amused me most about sites like yourlogicalfallacyis is that its construction was, I can imagine, inspired by the endless exchanges, dating back to USENET newsgroups, between scientists and the likes of creationists, intelligent design adherents, UFO spotters and all manner of fringe stuff.
Basically, some of us are sufficiently middle-aged to have heard most of the usual lines of (theist) argument dozens of times before, are tired of typing responses to it and just want a boilerplate reply on hand to post a link to.
If I re-branded "appeal to authority" as "celebrity endorsement" then what you offered is just advertising copy. One wonders if someone's going to buy into the product (religion) on the basis of what you wrote?
In the meantime, scientists who persist in believing in god, as *you* might imagine _do_ bother me. One: they are hedging their bets, paying the mortgage by pursuing a science career (even one which is corrosive to the beliefs of fellow theists) while, all the while trying to keep in god's good books by professing their belief on a regular basis (aka sucking up). Two: they give "ammunition" to debaters, of your kind. Three: they debase science by saying "god did it and here's how he did it", whilst large tranches of science go on to show that the universe works quite well without any *need* for sentient intervention, whatsoever.
Khandro "... birdie; I can see the appeal to you of your website..."
It's not "my" website. I posted a link to it. Nothing more.
Khandro - "... [https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ is ] a sort of 'bluffers guide', of readily available quotes, where by exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument..."
No it isn't - as you well know. It's a list of "logical fallacies". A concept that you clearly don't, or can't understand. You disingenuously describe the website I linked as a "bluffers guide". What a shabby attempt to ridicule a perfectly good website. I find it hard to find polite words to describe someone who would describe such a thing as a "bluffers guide" when it is, in fact, a website predicated on the foundation upon what all logical reasoning is founded. Without defined logical argument, all other forms of argument descend into illogical, irreconcilable, circular nonsense.
Khandro - "... It's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate..."
Dishonesty? Where is the dishonesty? What are you talking about?
Khandro, dear boy. You have nothing. Nada. Zip. You have nothing - not even the wherewithal to form a coherent argument about what constitutes a logical argument. You attack a perfectly good website that lists and examples numerous logical fallacies and you call it a 'buffers guide'. Deary me. You really demonstrate your desperation and illegitimacy when you resort to this level of dishonesty.
It's not "my" website. I posted a link to it. Nothing more.
Khandro - "... [https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ is ] a sort of 'bluffers guide', of readily available quotes, where by exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument..."
No it isn't - as you well know. It's a list of "logical fallacies". A concept that you clearly don't, or can't understand. You disingenuously describe the website I linked as a "bluffers guide". What a shabby attempt to ridicule a perfectly good website. I find it hard to find polite words to describe someone who would describe such a thing as a "bluffers guide" when it is, in fact, a website predicated on the foundation upon what all logical reasoning is founded. Without defined logical argument, all other forms of argument descend into illogical, irreconcilable, circular nonsense.
Khandro - "... It's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate..."
Dishonesty? Where is the dishonesty? What are you talking about?
Khandro, dear boy. You have nothing. Nada. Zip. You have nothing - not even the wherewithal to form a coherent argument about what constitutes a logical argument. You attack a perfectly good website that lists and examples numerous logical fallacies and you call it a 'buffers guide'. Deary me. You really demonstrate your desperation and illegitimacy when you resort to this level of dishonesty.
birdie; Beware of all you read on internet websites, if you really had an understanding of the subject of logic, you and the anonymous perpetrators of the site should know that the term 'logical fallacy' is itself a contradiction, - an oxymoron.
I have tried to broach the subject of logic before. It is not possible to either prove or disprove the existence of God by logic.
If a statement is as true as it is false, then it has no value in the realm of logic, serves no purpose in discourse and is essentially meaningless because of this.
I have tried to broach the subject of logic before. It is not possible to either prove or disprove the existence of God by logic.
If a statement is as true as it is false, then it has no value in the realm of logic, serves no purpose in discourse and is essentially meaningless because of this.
Khandro - "... birdie; Beware of all you read on internet websites, if you really had an understanding of the subject of logic, you and the anonymous perpetrators of the site should know that the term 'logical fallacy' is itself a contradiction, - an oxymoron."
Really? An oxymoron you say? Pray tell how the exact term "logical fallacy" is an oxymoron. I look forward to your reply.
Khandro - "... It is not possible to either prove or disprove the existence of God by logic..."
How true. That statement is a testament to the ludicrousness of belief. Thank you for making it. By your very own words, a belief in 'God' is illogical. If it were not so, 'God' could be proved by logical argument. The fact that 'He' cannot be proved by any logical argument just goes to demonstrate 'His' improbability and highlight your own gullibility.
By all means, believe (in sky fairies) if you must. But don't try and justify your own delusions by accusing others of a failure of logic.
Really? An oxymoron you say? Pray tell how the exact term "logical fallacy" is an oxymoron. I look forward to your reply.
Khandro - "... It is not possible to either prove or disprove the existence of God by logic..."
How true. That statement is a testament to the ludicrousness of belief. Thank you for making it. By your very own words, a belief in 'God' is illogical. If it were not so, 'God' could be proved by logical argument. The fact that 'He' cannot be proved by any logical argument just goes to demonstrate 'His' improbability and highlight your own gullibility.
By all means, believe (in sky fairies) if you must. But don't try and justify your own delusions by accusing others of a failure of logic.
Khando "... birdie; I can see the appeal to you of your website, - a sort of 'bluffers guide', of readily available quotes, where by exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate, something you carefully avoid...."
I see that you have addressed not one of my objections / criticisms to your above post. Not a single one of your absurd accusations is true. Not one.
You accuse me of 'undermining honest, rational debate'. How dare you? This is dishonestly of the highest order. Your post is a despicable rant without one shred of logic. Yours is a vile, vindictive post and one which I previously thought would be beneath you. Apparently not.
Thank you. If nothing else, you have educated me on where the 'bar' is set.
From your post, it is lower than I expected.
I see that you have addressed not one of my objections / criticisms to your above post. Not a single one of your absurd accusations is true. Not one.
You accuse me of 'undermining honest, rational debate'. How dare you? This is dishonestly of the highest order. Your post is a despicable rant without one shred of logic. Yours is a vile, vindictive post and one which I previously thought would be beneath you. Apparently not.
Thank you. If nothing else, you have educated me on where the 'bar' is set.
From your post, it is lower than I expected.
birdie; // Pray tell how the exact term "logical fallacy" is an oxymoron. I look forward to your reply.//
Avec plaisir, mon ami! A proposition may be logically fallacious (unsound) but it cannot be a logical fallacy, it is like saying something is a "true lie".
You quote me thus; //"... It is not possible to either prove or disprove the existence of God by logic..." //, without grasping that I said "prove or DISPROVE", and your claim that this somehow demonstrates " a belief in 'God' is illogical" is not what I am saying; 'belief' is outside of the realm of logic.
To recap, what I say is that both these following statements are illogical - but this has nothing to do with either personal belief or truth.
"God exists".
"God does not exist".
Either of these statements cannot be proven, however just because they have not been proven true, it does not mean that they are false and equally, just because they have not been proven false it does not mean that they are true: therefore, a stalemate. Such statements which are likely to be true as false, lack all truth value and therefore such statements are meaningless.
Avec plaisir, mon ami! A proposition may be logically fallacious (unsound) but it cannot be a logical fallacy, it is like saying something is a "true lie".
You quote me thus; //"... It is not possible to either prove or disprove the existence of God by logic..." //, without grasping that I said "prove or DISPROVE", and your claim that this somehow demonstrates " a belief in 'God' is illogical" is not what I am saying; 'belief' is outside of the realm of logic.
To recap, what I say is that both these following statements are illogical - but this has nothing to do with either personal belief or truth.
"God exists".
"God does not exist".
Either of these statements cannot be proven, however just because they have not been proven true, it does not mean that they are false and equally, just because they have not been proven false it does not mean that they are true: therefore, a stalemate. Such statements which are likely to be true as false, lack all truth value and therefore such statements are meaningless.
@Khandro
//
"God exists".
"God does not exist".
//
Two logical opposites, as far as some of us are concerned ("it's a binary situation").
Also, a neat example of what "null hypothesis" means. Experimental design seeks firm data with which to disprove the null hypothesis (to 90% confidence level) and thus support adoption of the 'actual' hypothesis.
Mind you, try defining parameters for disproving a deity and see if you can satisfy *anyone*, without squabbling.
Some theists decline to accept most of biology, particularly in its support for the hypothesis of evolution, whereas many scientists take the sum total of the fossil record, comparative biology, behavioural studies, genetic analysis of hard-to-split confuseable species and molecular biology as *way* above their threshold for the stance (offensively described by some as "a belief") that a deity does not exist.
We can do things and make predictions with hypotheses and theories; with god we can't do anything useful or practical, like predicting behaviour. All we can do is pray that the unpredictable creature does not spot us or harm us.
Note: prayer will always give the appearance of working but that's only because those who prayed but died anyway are not around to report their findings. There are a tragic number of prayerful types at the bottom of the Med, just now. (I'd give med crab a miss for the next year or three).
//
"God exists".
"God does not exist".
//
Two logical opposites, as far as some of us are concerned ("it's a binary situation").
Also, a neat example of what "null hypothesis" means. Experimental design seeks firm data with which to disprove the null hypothesis (to 90% confidence level) and thus support adoption of the 'actual' hypothesis.
Mind you, try defining parameters for disproving a deity and see if you can satisfy *anyone*, without squabbling.
Some theists decline to accept most of biology, particularly in its support for the hypothesis of evolution, whereas many scientists take the sum total of the fossil record, comparative biology, behavioural studies, genetic analysis of hard-to-split confuseable species and molecular biology as *way* above their threshold for the stance (offensively described by some as "a belief") that a deity does not exist.
We can do things and make predictions with hypotheses and theories; with god we can't do anything useful or practical, like predicting behaviour. All we can do is pray that the unpredictable creature does not spot us or harm us.
Note: prayer will always give the appearance of working but that's only because those who prayed but died anyway are not around to report their findings. There are a tragic number of prayerful types at the bottom of the Med, just now. (I'd give med crab a miss for the next year or three).
Khandro
"You quote me thus; //"... It is not possible to either prove or disprove the existence of God by logic..." //, without grasping that I said "prove or DISPROVE", and your claim that this somehow demonstrates " a belief in 'God' is illogical" is not what I am saying; 'belief' is outside of the realm of logic.
To recap, what I say is that both these following statements are illogical - but this has nothing to do with either personal belief or truth.
"God exists".
"God does not exist".
Either of these statements cannot be proven, however just because they have not been proven true, it does not mean that they are false and equally, just because they have not been proven false it does not mean that they are true: therefore, a stalemate. Such statements which are likely to be true as false, lack all truth value and therefore such statements are meaningless."
Wow. Just wow.
What utter gibberish. You've outdone yourself there Khandro. What a steaming pile of nonsense that is. If this is a demonstration of how your mind works then you have my heartfelt sympathies.
"You quote me thus; //"... It is not possible to either prove or disprove the existence of God by logic..." //, without grasping that I said "prove or DISPROVE", and your claim that this somehow demonstrates " a belief in 'God' is illogical" is not what I am saying; 'belief' is outside of the realm of logic.
To recap, what I say is that both these following statements are illogical - but this has nothing to do with either personal belief or truth.
"God exists".
"God does not exist".
Either of these statements cannot be proven, however just because they have not been proven true, it does not mean that they are false and equally, just because they have not been proven false it does not mean that they are true: therefore, a stalemate. Such statements which are likely to be true as false, lack all truth value and therefore such statements are meaningless."
Wow. Just wow.
What utter gibberish. You've outdone yourself there Khandro. What a steaming pile of nonsense that is. If this is a demonstration of how your mind works then you have my heartfelt sympathies.
I lean towards the idea that total absolutes are a human construct and that in reality everything is shades of grey. Black is really very dark grey and white is very light grey. This reasoning allows for the existence of god ...but a very small one who hasn't done very much and almost certainly not all the things claimed for him/her . Then we come to(thanks to another thread) the question of which toilets god uses (If god made mankind in his image then was he/she/it a hermaphrodite)...but the answer to that question is for others to ponder.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Jokes5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Crosswords15 mins ago