Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What is a religion?

gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The question is pretty clear. What must be incorporated in a set of beliefs to make it a religion? (Apart from having a lot of followers)

And then, Do you believe Hinduism is a religion?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 12:10:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Religion is a lot like nationalism towards a state, or loyalty to a football team.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 12:19:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
The question is pretty clear. What must be incorporated in a set of beliefs to make it a religion? (Apart from having a lot of followers)

And then, Do you believe Hinduism is a religion?

For something to be considered a religion, it needs to do 2 things. 1) make a large number of claims about the universe. And 2) try to get as many of them wrong. If you f-up step two then it's just considered science.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 12:31:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
The question is pretty clear. What must be incorporated in a set of beliefs to make it a religion? (Apart from having a lot of followers)

And then, Do you believe Hinduism is a religion?

To respond more directly to your question: Falsehoods must be incorporated (through the relaxation of the normal human capacity to evaluate claims in the light of reason and evidence) into a set of beliefs to make it a religion.

Hinduism is a religion to extent that it incorporates falsehoods into its system through relaxing the normal standards for evaluating claims.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 4:22:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 12:31:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
The question is pretty clear. What must be incorporated in a set of beliefs to make it a religion? (Apart from having a lot of followers)

And then, Do you believe Hinduism is a religion?

To respond more directly to your question: Falsehoods must be incorporated (through the relaxation of the normal human capacity to evaluate claims in the light of reason and evidence) into a set of beliefs to make it a religion.

Hinduism is a religion to extent that it incorporates falsehoods into its system through relaxing the normal standards for evaluating claims.

The only problems is that any judgement of it's information as falsehoods is only a biased belief itself and is subject to the same type of judgement. You cannot accurately say something is false unless it is unquestionably so. This you cannot do, so any judgement is an inaccurate bias of personal belief. Which makes it no better than thing you are judging.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 4:36:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 4:22:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 12:31:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
The question is pretty clear. What must be incorporated in a set of beliefs to make it a religion? (Apart from having a lot of followers)

And then, Do you believe Hinduism is a religion?

To respond more directly to your question: Falsehoods must be incorporated (through the relaxation of the normal human capacity to evaluate claims in the light of reason and evidence) into a set of beliefs to make it a religion.

Hinduism is a religion to extent that it incorporates falsehoods into its system through relaxing the normal standards for evaluating claims.

The only problems is that any judgement of it's information as falsehoods is only a biased belief itself and is subject to the same type of judgement. You cannot accurately say something is false unless it is unquestionably so.

Correct. One can't prove a negative. However, one can and should deliniate between the highly unlikely and everything else or one can't progress. For example, biologists should say "unicorns don't exist but horses do" if they are to make progress. One isn't bias in denying the existence of unicorns.

This you cannot do, so any judgement is an inaccurate bias of personal belief. Which makes it no better than thing you are judging.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 5:02:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 4:36:52 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:22:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 12:31:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
The question is pretty clear. What must be incorporated in a set of beliefs to make it a religion? (Apart from having a lot of followers)

And then, Do you believe Hinduism is a religion?

To respond more directly to your question: Falsehoods must be incorporated (through the relaxation of the normal human capacity to evaluate claims in the light of reason and evidence) into a set of beliefs to make it a religion.

Hinduism is a religion to extent that it incorporates falsehoods into its system through relaxing the normal standards for evaluating claims.

The only problems is that any judgement of it's information as falsehoods is only a biased belief itself and is subject to the same type of judgement. You cannot accurately say something is false unless it is unquestionably so.

Correct. One can't prove a negative. However, one can and should deliniate between the highly unlikely and everything else or one can't progress. For example, biologists should say "unicorns don't exist but horses do" if they are to make progress. One isn't bias in denying the existence of unicorns.

This you cannot do, so any judgement is an inaccurate bias of personal belief. Which makes it no better than thing you are judging.

What is judged as unlikely is still bias. Even with you ridiculous example I can prove this. In another galaxy there could be another animal which is similar to a horse, but that does have a horn. The horn could have been an evolutionary mutation developed for defense and/or other reasons. The point is that it cannot be ruled out as nonsense as there are logical explanations for the concept. It is logical to conclude in my opinion that Unicorns do not exist on the planet Earth however. Though even this conclusion is biased.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 6:09:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 5:02:58 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:36:52 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:22:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 12:31:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
The question is pretty clear. What must be incorporated in a set of beliefs to make it a religion? (Apart from having a lot of followers)

And then, Do you believe Hinduism is a religion?

To respond more directly to your question: Falsehoods must be incorporated (through the relaxation of the normal human capacity to evaluate claims in the light of reason and evidence) into a set of beliefs to make it a religion.

Hinduism is a religion to extent that it incorporates falsehoods into its system through relaxing the normal standards for evaluating claims.

The only problems is that any judgement of it's information as falsehoods is only a biased belief itself and is subject to the same type of judgement. You cannot accurately say something is false unless it is unquestionably so.

Correct. One can't prove a negative. However, one can and should deliniate between the highly unlikely and everything else or one can't progress. For example, biologists should say "unicorns don't exist but horses do" if they are to make progress. One isn't bias in denying the existence of unicorns.

This you cannot do, so any judgement is an inaccurate bias of personal belief. Which makes it no better than thing you are judging.

What is judged as unlikely is still bias. Even with you ridiculous example I can prove this. In another galaxy there could be another animal which is similar to a horse, but that does have a horn. The horn could have been an evolutionary mutation developed for defense and/or other reasons. The point is that it cannot be ruled out as nonsense as there are logical explanations for the concept. It is logical to conclude in my opinion that Unicorns do not exist on the planet Earth however. Though even this conclusion is biased.

Right. I didn't say there was a 100% chance that unicorns don't exist. I opened with "one can't prove a negative". That's what I meant. I was making the point that it is not a bias (or fallacious reasoning, (assuming that's what you mean by bias)) to proceed in life as if unicorns don't exist. This seems like a wierd point to have to make, but, we are in the religion forum after all.

Consider that someone gave you a magic carpet and said you could get to your destination (some other countrie) in five minutes using said carpet. All you have to do is sit on it and count to a thousand. You also have a plane ticket. But a plane would take 12 hours. You're a reasonable person so you dismiss the carpet out-of-hand. The carpet may have come from the future, given to you by a time-traveller. (In the future, everyone gets around on a magic carpet.) You know the basic epistimic nature of all this. Therefore you know you are still justified in dismissing the carpet out-of-hand because of the extreme likelyhood that the "time-traveller" is a trickster, just trying to make a fool of you. This is all I'm saying.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 6:16:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 6:09:07 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:02:58 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:36:52 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:22:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 12:31:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
The question is pretty clear. What must be incorporated in a set of beliefs to make it a religion? (Apart from having a lot of followers)

And then, Do you believe Hinduism is a religion?

To respond more directly to your question: Falsehoods must be incorporated (through the relaxation of the normal human capacity to evaluate claims in the light of reason and evidence) into a set of beliefs to make it a religion.

Hinduism is a religion to extent that it incorporates falsehoods into its system through relaxing the normal standards for evaluating claims.

The only problems is that any judgement of it's information as falsehoods is only a biased belief itself and is subject to the same type of judgement. You cannot accurately say something is false unless it is unquestionably so.

Correct. One can't prove a negative. However, one can and should deliniate between the highly unlikely and everything else or one can't progress. For example, biologists should say "unicorns don't exist but horses do" if they are to make progress. One isn't bias in denying the existence of unicorns.

This you cannot do, so any judgement is an inaccurate bias of personal belief. Which makes it no better than thing you are judging.

What is judged as unlikely is still bias. Even with you ridiculous example I can prove this. In another galaxy there could be another animal which is similar to a horse, but that does have a horn. The horn could have been an evolutionary mutation developed for defense and/or other reasons. The point is that it cannot be ruled out as nonsense as there are logical explanations for the concept. It is logical to conclude in my opinion that Unicorns do not exist on the planet Earth however. Though even this conclusion is biased.

Right. I didn't say there was a 100% chance that unicorns don't exist. I opened with "one can't prove a negative". That's what I meant. I was making the point that it is not a bias (or fallacious reasoning, (assuming that's what you mean by bias)) to proceed in life as if unicorns don't exist. This seems like a wierd point to have to make, but, we are in the religion forum after all.

Consider that someone gave you a magic carpet and said you could get to your destination (some other countrie) in five minutes using said carpet. All you have to do is sit on it and count to a thousand. You also have a plane ticket. But a plane would take 12 hours. You're a reasonable person so you dismiss the carpet out-of-hand. The carpet may have come from the future, given to you by a time-traveller. (In the future, everyone gets around on a magic carpet.) You know the basic epistimic nature of all this. Therefore you know you are still justified in dismissing the carpet out-of-hand because of the extreme likelyhood that the "time-traveller" is a trickster, just trying to make a fool of you. This is all I'm saying.

Fair enough, for the point your making at least.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 6:39:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 6:16:44 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:09:07 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:02:58 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:36:52 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:22:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 12:31:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
The question is pretty clear. What must be incorporated in a set of beliefs to make it a religion? (Apart from having a lot of followers)

And then, Do you believe Hinduism is a religion?

To respond more directly to your question: Falsehoods must be incorporated (through the relaxation of the normal human capacity to evaluate claims in the light of reason and evidence) into a set of beliefs to make it a religion.

Hinduism is a religion to extent that it incorporates falsehoods into its system through relaxing the normal standards for evaluating claims.

The only problems is that any judgement of it's information as falsehoods is only a biased belief itself and is subject to the same type of judgement. You cannot accurately say something is false unless it is unquestionably so.

Correct. One can't prove a negative. However, one can and should deliniate between the highly unlikely and everything else or one can't progress. For example, biologists should say "unicorns don't exist but horses do" if they are to make progress. One isn't bias in denying the existence of unicorns.

This you cannot do, so any judgement is an inaccurate bias of personal belief. Which makes it no better than thing you are judging.

What is judged as unlikely is still bias. Even with you ridiculous example I can prove this. In another galaxy there could be another animal which is similar to a horse, but that does have a horn. The horn could have been an evolutionary mutation developed for defense and/or other reasons. The point is that it cannot be ruled out as nonsense as there are logical explanations for the concept. It is logical to conclude in my opinion that Unicorns do not exist on the planet Earth however. Though even this conclusion is biased.

Right. I didn't say there was a 100% chance that unicorns don't exist. I opened with "one can't prove a negative". That's what I meant. I was making the point that it is not a bias (or fallacious reasoning, (assuming that's what you mean by bias)) to proceed in life as if unicorns don't exist. This seems like a wierd point to have to make, but, we are in the religion forum after all.

Consider that someone gave you a magic carpet and said you could get to your destination (some other countrie) in five minutes using said carpet. All you have to do is sit on it and count to a thousand. You also have a plane ticket. But a plane would take 12 hours. You're a reasonable person so you dismiss the carpet out-of-hand. The carpet may have come from the future, given to you by a time-traveller. (In the future, everyone gets around on a magic carpet.) You know the basic epistimic nature of all this. Therefore you know you are still justified in dismissing the carpet out-of-hand because of the extreme likelyhood that the "time-traveller" is a trickster, just trying to make a fool of you. This is all I'm saying.

Fair enough, for the point your making at least.

Right. And, to bring the discussion back to the OP a bit, what I said about magic carpets and unicorns applies, with equal force, to religious claims. Reincarnation (since Hinduism was brought up) may be true, but since the evidence is so scant, we are justified in disbelieving it. We can consider it a false description of the way the world works, and thus, it falls under the catagory of religion, as it requires (like I said above) a relaxation of the normal standards we use for evaluating claims, in order to be accepted, i.e., it requires a religious mind for its acceptance.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 6:54:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 6:39:54 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:16:44 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:09:07 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:02:58 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:36:52 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:22:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 12:31:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
The question is pretty clear. What must be incorporated in a set of beliefs to make it a religion? (Apart from having a lot of followers)

And then, Do you believe Hinduism is a religion?

To respond more directly to your question: Falsehoods must be incorporated (through the relaxation of the normal human capacity to evaluate claims in the light of reason and evidence) into a set of beliefs to make it a religion.

Hinduism is a religion to extent that it incorporates falsehoods into its system through relaxing the normal standards for evaluating claims.

The only problems is that any judgement of it's information as falsehoods is only a biased belief itself and is subject to the same type of judgement. You cannot accurately say something is false unless it is unquestionably so.

Correct. One can't prove a negative. However, one can and should deliniate between the highly unlikely and everything else or one can't progress. For example, biologists should say "unicorns don't exist but horses do" if they are to make progress. One isn't bias in denying the existence of unicorns.

This you cannot do, so any judgement is an inaccurate bias of personal belief. Which makes it no better than thing you are judging.

What is judged as unlikely is still bias. Even with you ridiculous example I can prove this. In another galaxy there could be another animal which is similar to a horse, but that does have a horn. The horn could have been an evolutionary mutation developed for defense and/or other reasons. The point is that it cannot be ruled out as nonsense as there are logical explanations for the concept. It is logical to conclude in my opinion that Unicorns do not exist on the planet Earth however. Though even this conclusion is biased.

Right. I didn't say there was a 100% chance that unicorns don't exist. I opened with "one can't prove a negative". That's what I meant. I was making the point that it is not a bias (or fallacious reasoning, (assuming that's what you mean by bias)) to proceed in life as if unicorns don't exist. This seems like a wierd point to have to make, but, we are in the religion forum after all.

Consider that someone gave you a magic carpet and said you could get to your destination (some other countrie) in five minutes using said carpet. All you have to do is sit on it and count to a thousand. You also have a plane ticket. But a plane would take 12 hours. You're a reasonable person so you dismiss the carpet out-of-hand. The carpet may have come from the future, given to you by a time-traveller. (In the future, everyone gets around on a magic carpet.) You know the basic epistimic nature of all this. Therefore you know you are still justified in dismissing the carpet out-of-hand because of the extreme likelyhood that the "time-traveller" is a trickster, just trying to make a fool of you. This is all I'm saying.

Fair enough, for the point your making at least.

Right. And, to bring the discussion back to the OP a bit, what I said about magic carpets and unicorns applies, with equal force, to religious claims. Reincarnation (since Hinduism was brought up) may be true, but since the evidence is so scant, we are justified in disbelieving it. We can consider it a false description of the way the world works, and thus, it falls under the catagory of religion, as it requires (like I said above) a relaxation of the normal standards we use for evaluating claims, in order to be accepted, i.e., it requires a religious mind for its acceptance.

Not true. Again, there is evidence to support reincarnation. People have memories of their past lives all over the world. To discard this as something else other than what is claimed is no better than discarding anything with circumstantial evidence to support it. To do this is bias. What evidence is there to support an opposition to reincarnation? All you can prove is that the body dies. This is not refuted by Hinduism, so your point against it would hold no weight. All religions and science know that the body dies. Anything beyond this is not understood. Any claims about what happens are only as strong as any evidence which supports it (be it mental logic or physical data/object), any claims against it are only as good as any evidence to support that (be it mental logic or physical data/object). Both are on equal ground for proving their position, yet neither can give an unquestionable answer. This makes any claim just as true or false as any other. Lack of evidence proves nothing to be false, nor true for that matter. Lack of evidence is just that, a lack of evidence.

In my opinion, intellectual logic is the best tool for determining probable possibilities, truths, and falsehoods. Even without physical data/objects, humans always have the intellectual tool of logic. Biased logic is where science and religion battle each other. Neither has the unquestionable truth.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 7:08:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
We've certainly been over the subject of reincarnation.

The evidence that is presented for reincarnation could be used to support any number of different claims. It is not definitive evidence. Someone is indeed justified in not believing in reincarnation.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 7:17:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 7:08:56 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
We've certainly been over the subject of reincarnation.

The evidence that is presented for reincarnation could be used to support any number of different claims. It is not definitive evidence. Someone is indeed justified in not believing in reincarnation.

I didn't say that there weren't other possible explanations. Only that the evidence could be used to support all or any of those claims. Someone is not justified in not believing in reincarnation just because the evidence can be used for other explanations. This is because it still can be used to support reincarnation, which given all explanations is the more logical and probable explanation. Even if you say it could be spiritual demons... Then you must admit that spiritual demons and/or reincarnation possibly exist if those are your only two logical explanations. Though given those two explanations demon possession wouldn't be very probable given the known bias for what possession actually is. The cases claiming reincarnation show qualities quite different from anything ever considered as possession in the past. Though I would still be open to hearing both positions. For and against, before I personally decided which seems more logically probable.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 7:18:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 6:54:37 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:39:54 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:16:44 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:09:07 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:02:58 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:36:52 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:22:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 12:31:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
The question is pretty clear. What must be incorporated in a set of beliefs to make it a religion? (Apart from having a lot of followers)

And then, Do you believe Hinduism is a religion?

To respond more directly to your question: Falsehoods must be incorporated (through the relaxation of the normal human capacity to evaluate claims in the light of reason and evidence) into a set of beliefs to make it a religion.

Hinduism is a religion to extent that it incorporates falsehoods into its system through relaxing the normal standards for evaluating claims.

The only problems is that any judgement of it's information as falsehoods is only a biased belief itself and is subject to the same type of judgement. You cannot accurately say something is false unless it is unquestionably so.

Correct. One can't prove a negative. However, one can and should deliniate between the highly unlikely and everything else or one can't progress. For example, biologists should say "unicorns don't exist but horses do" if they are to make progress. One isn't bias in denying the existence of unicorns.

This you cannot do, so any judgement is an inaccurate bias of personal belief. Which makes it no better than thing you are judging.

What is judged as unlikely is still bias. Even with you ridiculous example I can prove this. In another galaxy there could be another animal which is similar to a horse, but that does have a horn. The horn could have been an evolutionary mutation developed for defense and/or other reasons. The point is that it cannot be ruled out as nonsense as there are logical explanations for the concept. It is logical to conclude in my opinion that Unicorns do not exist on the planet Earth however. Though even this conclusion is biased.

Right. I didn't say there was a 100% chance that unicorns don't exist. I opened with "one can't prove a negative". That's what I meant. I was making the point that it is not a bias (or fallacious reasoning, (assuming that's what you mean by bias)) to proceed in life as if unicorns don't exist. This seems like a wierd point to have to make, but, we are in the religion forum after all.

Consider that someone gave you a magic carpet and said you could get to your destination (some other countrie) in five minutes using said carpet. All you have to do is sit on it and count to a thousand. You also have a plane ticket. But a plane would take 12 hours. You're a reasonable person so you dismiss the carpet out-of-hand. The carpet may have come from the future, given to you by a time-traveller. (In the future, everyone gets around on a magic carpet.) You know the basic epistimic nature of all this. Therefore you know you are still justified in dismissing the carpet out-of-hand because of the extreme likelyhood that the "time-traveller" is a trickster, just trying to make a fool of you. This is all I'm saying.

Fair enough, for the point your making at least.

Right. And, to bring the discussion back to the OP a bit, what I said about magic carpets and unicorns applies, with equal force, to religious claims. Reincarnation (since Hinduism was brought up) may be true, but since the evidence is so scant, we are justified in disbelieving it. We can consider it a false description of the way the world works, and thus, it falls under the catagory of religion, as it requires (like I said above) a relaxation of the normal standards we use for evaluating claims, in order to be accepted, i.e., it requires a religious mind for its acceptance.

Not true. Again, there is evidence to support reincarnation. People have memories of their past lives all over the world. To discard this as something else other than what is claimed is no better than discarding anything with circumstantial evidence to support it. To do this is bias. What evidence is there to support an opposition to reincarnation? All you can prove is that the body dies. This is not refuted by Hinduism, so your point against it would hold no weight. All religions and science know that the body dies. Anything beyond this is not understood. Any claims about what happens are only as strong as any evidence which supports it (be it mental logic or physical data/object), any claims against it are only as good as any evidence to support that (be it mental logic or physical data/object). Both are on equal ground for proving their position, yet neither can give an unquestionable answer. This makes any claim just as true or false as any other. Lack of evidence proves nothing to be false, nor true for that matter. Lack of evidence is just that, a lack of evidence.

In my opinion, intellectual logic is the best tool for determining probable possibilities, truths, and falsehoods. Even without physical data/objects, humans always have the intellectual tool of logic. Biased logic is where science and religion battle each other. Neither has the unquestionable truth.

Tiel, are there any other supernatural ways to earn knowledge of past lives?

How is reincarnation the only explanation for your "evidence"? Did you not read any of the responses to Stevenson's books, or his own?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 7:28:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 7:18:37 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:54:37 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:39:54 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:16:44 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:09:07 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:02:58 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:36:52 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:22:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 12:31:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
The question is pretty clear. What must be incorporated in a set of beliefs to make it a religion? (Apart from having a lot of followers)

And then, Do you believe Hinduism is a religion?

To respond more directly to your question: Falsehoods must be incorporated (through the relaxation of the normal human capacity to evaluate claims in the light of reason and evidence) into a set of beliefs to make it a religion.

Hinduism is a religion to extent that it incorporates falsehoods into its system through relaxing the normal standards for evaluating claims.

The only problems is that any judgement of it's information as falsehoods is only a biased belief itself and is subject to the same type of judgement. You cannot accurately say something is false unless it is unquestionably so.

Correct. One can't prove a negative. However, one can and should deliniate between the highly unlikely and everything else or one can't progress. For example, biologists should say "unicorns don't exist but horses do" if they are to make progress. One isn't bias in denying the existence of unicorns.

This you cannot do, so any judgement is an inaccurate bias of personal belief. Which makes it no better than thing you are judging.

What is judged as unlikely is still bias. Even with you ridiculous example I can prove this. In another galaxy there could be another animal which is similar to a horse, but that does have a horn. The horn could have been an evolutionary mutation developed for defense and/or other reasons. The point is that it cannot be ruled out as nonsense as there are logical explanations for the concept. It is logical to conclude in my opinion that Unicorns do not exist on the planet Earth however. Though even this conclusion is biased.

Right. I didn't say there was a 100% chance that unicorns don't exist. I opened with "one can't prove a negative". That's what I meant. I was making the point that it is not a bias (or fallacious reasoning, (assuming that's what you mean by bias)) to proceed in life as if unicorns don't exist. This seems like a wierd point to have to make, but, we are in the religion forum after all.

Consider that someone gave you a magic carpet and said you could get to your destination (some other countrie) in five minutes using said carpet. All you have to do is sit on it and count to a thousand. You also have a plane ticket. But a plane would take 12 hours. You're a reasonable person so you dismiss the carpet out-of-hand. The carpet may have come from the future, given to you by a time-traveller. (In the future, everyone gets around on a magic carpet.) You know the basic epistimic nature of all this. Therefore you know you are still justified in dismissing the carpet out-of-hand because of the extreme likelyhood that the "time-traveller" is a trickster, just trying to make a fool of you. This is all I'm saying.

Fair enough, for the point your making at least.

Right. And, to bring the discussion back to the OP a bit, what I said about magic carpets and unicorns applies, with equal force, to religious claims. Reincarnation (since Hinduism was brought up) may be true, but since the evidence is so scant, we are justified in disbelieving it. We can consider it a false description of the way the world works, and thus, it falls under the catagory of religion, as it requires (like I said above) a relaxation of the normal standards we use for evaluating claims, in order to be accepted, i.e., it requires a religious mind for its acceptance.

Not true. Again, there is evidence to support reincarnation. People have memories of their past lives all over the world. To discard this as something else other than what is claimed is no better than discarding anything with circumstantial evidence to support it. To do this is bias. What evidence is there to support an opposition to reincarnation? All you can prove is that the body dies. This is not refuted by Hinduism, so your point against it would hold no weight. All religions and science know that the body dies. Anything beyond this is not understood. Any claims about what happens are only as strong as any evidence which supports it (be it mental logic or physical data/object), any claims against it are only as good as any evidence to support that (be it mental logic or physical data/object). Both are on equal ground for proving their position, yet neither can give an unquestionable answer. This makes any claim just as true or false as any other. Lack of evidence proves nothing to be false, nor true for that matter. Lack of evidence is just that, a lack of evidence.

In my opinion, intellectual logic is the best tool for determining probable possibilities, truths, and falsehoods. Even without physical data/objects, humans always have the intellectual tool of logic. Biased logic is where science and religion battle each other. Neither has the unquestionable truth.

Tiel, are there any other supernatural ways to earn knowledge of past lives?

How is reincarnation the only explanation for your "evidence"? Did you not read any of the responses to Stevenson's books, or his own?

I have read all about it kid. The responses don't mean anything. Stevenson said himself that no matter how much evidence he has to support reincarnation it won't be accepted by mainstream science until a scientist can find a soul and control it in an experiment. This cannot be done with current technology any more than you can suck my consciousness into a test tube for examination and manipulation. It's absurd. The evidence is strong enough for me to make a logical conclusion as to it being more probable than not.

Also, I never said that it was the only explanation. I said that it is a possible explanation and in MY opinion the most logically probable. Don't twist my words.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 7:29:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 6:54:37 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:39:54 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:16:44 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:09:07 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:02:58 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:36:52 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:22:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 12:31:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
The question is pretty clear. What must be incorporated in a set of beliefs to make it a religion? (Apart from having a lot of followers)

And then, Do you believe Hinduism is a religion?

To respond more directly to your question: Falsehoods must be incorporated (through the relaxation of the normal human capacity to evaluate claims in the light of reason and evidence) into a set of beliefs to make it a religion.

Hinduism is a religion to extent that it incorporates falsehoods into its system through relaxing the normal standards for evaluating claims.

The only problems is that any judgement of it's information as falsehoods is only a biased belief itself and is subject to the same type of judgement. You cannot accurately say something is false unless it is unquestionably so.

Correct. One can't prove a negative. However, one can and should deliniate between the highly unlikely and everything else or one can't progress. For example, biologists should say "unicorns don't exist but horses do" if they are to make progress. One isn't bias in denying the existence of unicorns.

This you cannot do, so any judgement is an inaccurate bias of personal belief. Which makes it no better than thing you are judging.

What is judged as unlikely is still bias. Even with you ridiculous example I can prove this. In another galaxy there could be another animal which is similar to a horse, but that does have a horn. The horn could have been an evolutionary mutation developed for defense and/or other reasons. The point is that it cannot be ruled out as nonsense as there are logical explanations for the concept. It is logical to conclude in my opinion that Unicorns do not exist on the planet Earth however. Though even this conclusion is biased.

Right. I didn't say there was a 100% chance that unicorns don't exist. I opened with "one can't prove a negative". That's what I meant. I was making the point that it is not a bias (or fallacious reasoning, (assuming that's what you mean by bias)) to proceed in life as if unicorns don't exist. This seems like a wierd point to have to make, but, we are in the religion forum after all.

Consider that someone gave you a magic carpet and said you could get to your destination (some other countrie) in five minutes using said carpet. All you have to do is sit on it and count to a thousand. You also have a plane ticket. But a plane would take 12 hours. You're a reasonable person so you dismiss the carpet out-of-hand. The carpet may have come from the future, given to you by a time-traveller. (In the future, everyone gets around on a magic carpet.) You know the basic epistimic nature of all this. Therefore you know you are still justified in dismissing the carpet out-of-hand because of the extreme likelyhood that the "time-traveller" is a trickster, just trying to make a fool of you. This is all I'm saying.

Fair enough, for the point your making at least.

Right. And, to bring the discussion back to the OP a bit, what I said about magic carpets and unicorns applies, with equal force, to religious claims. Reincarnation (since Hinduism was brought up) may be true, but since the evidence is so scant, we are justified in disbelieving it. We can consider it a false description of the way the world works, and thus, it falls under the catagory of religion, as it requires (like I said above) a relaxation of the normal standards we use for evaluating claims, in order to be accepted, i.e., it requires a religious mind for its acceptance.

Not true. Again, there is evidence to support reincarnation. People have memories of their past lives all over the world. To discard this as something else other than what is claimed is no better than discarding anything with circumstantial evidence to support it. To do this is bias. What evidence is there to support an opposition to reincarnation?

To the extent that reincarnation is supported by evidence it can be regarded as factual. That's to say, it leaves the domain of religion and enters that of science. If ancient Indians really discovered reincarnation to be a fact, then they did it in a scientific/non-religious fashion. That's to say, that they would have discovered *evidence* for it (as you would have it) through observing the world (collecting evidence of other people's reported memories, etc...). It is possible that this good science could have been incorporated into Hinduism and thus took on the appearance of religion. That would not make it religious. It would just be an unfortunate coincidence of history.

I want to be clear that I don't necessarily think that reincarnation is the product of scientific thinking got mixed up with religion. There has been so much interest in Hinduism by scientific thinkers going back severaral centuries that claims about reicarnation, were they true, would have been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt to the world and, the scientific community, though it can be relucant and bias at times, would have been forced to accept it by now. My point above was to assert that, were reincarnation evidence-based, it would be science-based and it wouldn't be correct to call it religious, since religion, as I stated in my first post, is by definition a set of false beliefs.

All you can prove is that the body dies. This is not refuted by Hinduism, so your point against it would hold no weight. All religions and science know that the body dies. Anything beyond this is not understood. Any claims about what happens are only as strong as any evidence which supports it (be it mental logic or physical data/object), any claims against it are only as good as any evidence to support that (be it mental logic or physical data/object). Both are on equal ground for proving their position, yet neither can give an unquestionable answer. This makes any claim just as true or false as any other. Lack of evidence proves nothing to be false, nor true for that matter. Lack of evidence is just that, a lack of evidence.

In my opinion, intellectual logic is the best tool for determining probable possibilities, truths, and falsehoods. Even without physical data/objects, humans always have the intellectual tool of logic. Biased logic is where science and religion battle each other. Neither has the unquestionable truth.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 7:30:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 7:28:56 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 7:18:37 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:54:37 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:39:54 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:16:44 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:09:07 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:02:58 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:36:52 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:22:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 12:31:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
The question is pretty clear. What must be incorporated in a set of beliefs to make it a religion? (Apart from having a lot of followers)

And then, Do you believe Hinduism is a religion?

To respond more directly to your question: Falsehoods must be incorporated (through the relaxation of the normal human capacity to evaluate claims in the light of reason and evidence) into a set of beliefs to make it a religion.

Hinduism is a religion to extent that it incorporates falsehoods into its system through relaxing the normal standards for evaluating claims.

The only problems is that any judgement of it's information as falsehoods is only a biased belief itself and is subject to the same type of judgement. You cannot accurately say something is false unless it is unquestionably so.

Correct. One can't prove a negative. However, one can and should deliniate between the highly unlikely and everything else or one can't progress. For example, biologists should say "unicorns don't exist but horses do" if they are to make progress. One isn't bias in denying the existence of unicorns.

This you cannot do, so any judgement is an inaccurate bias of personal belief. Which makes it no better than thing you are judging.

What is judged as unlikely is still bias. Even with you ridiculous example I can prove this. In another galaxy there could be another animal which is similar to a horse, but that does have a horn. The horn could have been an evolutionary mutation developed for defense and/or other reasons. The point is that it cannot be ruled out as nonsense as there are logical explanations for the concept. It is logical to conclude in my opinion that Unicorns do not exist on the planet Earth however. Though even this conclusion is biased.

Right. I didn't say there was a 100% chance that unicorns don't exist. I opened with "one can't prove a negative". That's what I meant. I was making the point that it is not a bias (or fallacious reasoning, (assuming that's what you mean by bias)) to proceed in life as if unicorns don't exist. This seems like a wierd point to have to make, but, we are in the religion forum after all.

Consider that someone gave you a magic carpet and said you could get to your destination (some other countrie) in five minutes using said carpet. All you have to do is sit on it and count to a thousand. You also have a plane ticket. But a plane would take 12 hours. You're a reasonable person so you dismiss the carpet out-of-hand. The carpet may have come from the future, given to you by a time-traveller. (In the future, everyone gets around on a magic carpet.) You know the basic epistimic nature of all this. Therefore you know you are still justified in dismissing the carpet out-of-hand because of the extreme likelyhood that the "time-traveller" is a trickster, just trying to make a fool of you. This is all I'm saying.

Fair enough, for the point your making at least.

Right. And, to bring the discussion back to the OP a bit, what I said about magic carpets and unicorns applies, with equal force, to religious claims. Reincarnation (since Hinduism was brought up) may be true, but since the evidence is so scant, we are justified in disbelieving it. We can consider it a false description of the way the world works, and thus, it falls under the catagory of religion, as it requires (like I said above) a relaxation of the normal standards we use for evaluating claims, in order to be accepted, i.e., it requires a religious mind for its acceptance.

Not true. Again, there is evidence to support reincarnation. People have memories of their past lives all over the world. To discard this as something else other than what is claimed is no better than discarding anything with circumstantial evidence to support it. To do this is bias. What evidence is there to support an opposition to reincarnation? All you can prove is that the body dies. This is not refuted by Hinduism, so your point against it would hold no weight. All religions and science know that the body dies. Anything beyond this is not understood. Any claims about what happens are only as strong as any evidence which supports it (be it mental logic or physical data/object), any claims against it are only as good as any evidence to support that (be it mental logic or physical data/object). Both are on equal ground for proving their position, yet neither can give an unquestionable answer. This makes any claim just as true or false as any other. Lack of evidence proves nothing to be false, nor true for that matter. Lack of evidence is just that, a lack of evidence.

In my opinion, intellectual logic is the best tool for determining probable possibilities, truths, and falsehoods. Even without physical data/objects, humans always have the intellectual tool of logic. Biased logic is where science and religion battle each other. Neither has the unquestionable truth.

Tiel, are there any other supernatural ways to earn knowledge of past lives?

How is reincarnation the only explanation for your "evidence"? Did you not read any of the responses to Stevenson's books, or his own?

I have read all about it kid. The responses don't mean anything. Stevenson said himself that no matter how much evidence he has to support reincarnation it won't be accepted by mainstream science until a scientist can find a soul and control it in an experiment. This cannot be done with current technology any more than you can suck my consciousness into a test tube for examination and manipulation. It's absurd. The evidence is strong enough for me to make a logical conclusion as to it being more probable than not.

Also, I never said that it was the only explanation. I said that it is a possible explanation and in MY opinion the most logically probable. Don't twist my words.

Preposterous. So you somehow inferred that this evidence was support for reincarnation? You never considered the valid problems in Stevenson's methology or techniques in collecting data?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 7:31:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I may resume this later. My weekend is just getting started. Thanks for the chat.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 7:37:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 7:17:32 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 7:08:56 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
We've certainly been over the subject of reincarnation.

The evidence that is presented for reincarnation could be used to support any number of different claims. It is not definitive evidence. Someone is indeed justified in not believing in reincarnation.

Even if you say it could be spiritual demons... Then you must admit that spiritual demons and/or reincarnation possibly exist if those are your only two logical explanations.

That's not what I was saying, I was saying that the evidence you presented could just as easily be used as evidence for possession. This does not mean that I subscribe to either view.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 7:39:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 7:29:08 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:54:37 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:39:54 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:16:44 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:09:07 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:02:58 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:36:52 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:22:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 12:31:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
The question is pretty clear. What must be incorporated in a set of beliefs to make it a religion? (Apart from having a lot of followers)

And then, Do you believe Hinduism is a religion?

To respond more directly to your question: Falsehoods must be incorporated (through the relaxation of the normal human capacity to evaluate claims in the light of reason and evidence) into a set of beliefs to make it a religion.

Hinduism is a religion to extent that it incorporates falsehoods into its system through relaxing the normal standards for evaluating claims.

The only problems is that any judgement of it's information as falsehoods is only a biased belief itself and is subject to the same type of judgement. You cannot accurately say something is false unless it is unquestionably so.

Correct. One can't prove a negative. However, one can and should deliniate between the highly unlikely and everything else or one can't progress. For example, biologists should say "unicorns don't exist but horses do" if they are to make progress. One isn't bias in denying the existence of unicorns.

This you cannot do, so any judgement is an inaccurate bias of personal belief. Which makes it no better than thing you are judging.

What is judged as unlikely is still bias. Even with you ridiculous example I can prove this. In another galaxy there could be another animal which is similar to a horse, but that does have a horn. The horn could have been an evolutionary mutation developed for defense and/or other reasons. The point is that it cannot be ruled out as nonsense as there are logical explanations for the concept. It is logical to conclude in my opinion that Unicorns do not exist on the planet Earth however. Though even this conclusion is biased.

Right. I didn't say there was a 100% chance that unicorns don't exist. I opened with "one can't prove a negative". That's what I meant. I was making the point that it is not a bias (or fallacious reasoning, (assuming that's what you mean by bias)) to proceed in life as if unicorns don't exist. This seems like a wierd point to have to make, but, we are in the religion forum after all.

Consider that someone gave you a magic carpet and said you could get to your destination (some other countrie) in five minutes using said carpet. All you have to do is sit on it and count to a thousand. You also have a plane ticket. But a plane would take 12 hours. You're a reasonable person so you dismiss the carpet out-of-hand. The carpet may have come from the future, given to you by a time-traveller. (In the future, everyone gets around on a magic carpet.) You know the basic epistimic nature of all this. Therefore you know you are still justified in dismissing the carpet out-of-hand because of the extreme likelyhood that the "time-traveller" is a trickster, just trying to make a fool of you. This is all I'm saying.

Fair enough, for the point your making at least.

Right. And, to bring the discussion back to the OP a bit, what I said about magic carpets and unicorns applies, with equal force, to religious claims. Reincarnation (since Hinduism was brought up) may be true, but since the evidence is so scant, we are justified in disbelieving it. We can consider it a false description of the way the world works, and thus, it falls under the catagory of religion, as it requires (like I said above) a relaxation of the normal standards we use for evaluating claims, in order to be accepted, i.e., it requires a religious mind for its acceptance.

Not true. Again, there is evidence to support reincarnation. People have memories of their past lives all over the world. To discard this as something else other than what is claimed is no better than discarding anything with circumstantial evidence to support it. To do this is bias. What evidence is there to support an opposition to reincarnation?

To the extent that reincarnation is supported by evidence it can be regarded as factual. That's to say, it leaves the domain of religion and enters that of science. If ancient Indians really discovered reincarnation to be a fact, then they did it in a scientific/non-religious fashion. That's to say, that they would have discovered *evidence* for it (as you would have it) through observing the world (collecting evidence of other people's reported memories, etc...). It is possible that this good science could have been incorporated into Hinduism and thus took on the appearance of religion. That would not make it religious. It would just be an unfortunate coincidence of history.

I want to be clear that I don't necessarily think that reincarnation is the product of scientific thinking got mixed up with religion. There has been so much interest in Hinduism by scientific thinkers going back severaral centuries that claims about reicarnation, were they true, would have been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt to the world and, the scientific community, though it can be relucant and bias at times, would have been forced to accept it by now. My point above was to assert that, were reincarnation evidence-based, it would be science-based and it wouldn't be correct to call it religious, since religion, as I stated in my first post, is by definition a set of false beliefs.

No. That may be your version of what a religion is. A religion is a set of beliefs. That's it. Not a set of false beliefs, as you can't objectively determine if the belief is false.


All you can prove is that the body dies. This is not refuted by Hinduism, so your point against it would hold no weight. All religions and science know that the body dies. Anything beyond this is not understood. Any claims about what happens are only as strong as any evidence which supports it (be it mental logic or physical data/object), any claims against it are only as good as any evidence to support that (be it mental logic or physical data/object). Both are on equal ground for proving their position, yet neither can give an unquestionable answer. This makes any claim just as true or false as any other. Lack of evidence proves nothing to be false, nor true for that matter. Lack of evidence is just that, a lack of evidence.

In my opinion, intellectual logic is the best tool for determining probable possibilities, truths, and falsehoods. Even without physical data/objects, humans always have the intellectual tool of logic. Biased logic is where science and religion battle each other. Neither has the unquestionable truth.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 7:39:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To the OP:

Religion: A set of beliefs.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 7:40:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 7:37:08 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 9/16/2011 7:17:32 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 7:08:56 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
We've certainly been over the subject of reincarnation.

The evidence that is presented for reincarnation could be used to support any number of different claims. It is not definitive evidence. Someone is indeed justified in not believing in reincarnation.

Even if you say it could be spiritual demons... Then you must admit that spiritual demons and/or reincarnation possibly exist if those are your only two logical explanations.

That's not what I was saying, I was saying that the evidence you presented could just as easily be used as evidence for possession. This does not mean that I subscribe to either view.

I know. I understand your position. I did not mean to imply that you believe either.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 7:41:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Tiel, you still haven't answered my question...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 7:47:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
The question is pretty clear. What must be incorporated in a set of beliefs to make it a religion? (Apart from having a lot of followers)

And then, Do you believe Hinduism is a religion?

To respond more directly to your question: Falsehoods must be incorporated (through the relaxation of the normal human capacity to evaluate claims in the light of reason and evidence) into a set of beliefs to make it a religion.

Hinduism is a religion to extent that it incorporates falsehoods into its system through relaxing the normal standards for evaluating claims.

The only problems is that any judgement of it's information as falsehoods is only a biased belief itself and is subject to the same type of judgement. You cannot accurately say something is false unless it is unquestionably so.

Correct. One can't prove a negative. However, one can and should deliniate between the highly unlikely and everything else or one can't progress. For example, biologists should say "unicorns don't exist but horses do" if they are to make progress. One isn't bias in denying the existence of unicorns.

This you cannot do, so any judgement is an inaccurate bias of personal belief. Which makes it no better than thing you are judging.

What is judged as unlikely is still bias. Even with you ridiculous example I can prove this. In another galaxy there could be another animal which is similar to a horse, but that does have a horn. The horn could have been an evolutionary mutation developed for defense and/or other reasons. The point is that it cannot be ruled out as nonsense as there are logical explanations for the concept. It is logical to conclude in my opinion that Unicorns do not exist on the planet Earth however. Though even this conclusion is biased.

Right. I didn't say there was a 100% chance that unicorns don't exist. I opened with "one can't prove a negative". That's what I meant. I was making the point that it is not a bias (or fallacious reasoning, (assuming that's what you mean by bias)) to proceed in life as if unicorns don't exist. This seems like a wierd point to have to make, but, we are in the religion forum after all.

Consider that someone gave you a magic carpet and said you could get to your destination (some other countrie) in five minutes using said carpet. All you have to do is sit on it and count to a thousand. You also have a plane ticket. But a plane would take 12 hours. You're a reasonable person so you dismiss the carpet out-of-hand. The carpet may have come from the future, given to you by a time-traveller. (In the future, everyone gets around on a magic carpet.) You know the basic epistimic nature of all this. Therefore you know you are still justified in dismissing the carpet out-of-hand because of the extreme likelyhood that the "time-traveller" is a trickster, just trying to make a fool of you. This is all I'm saying.

Fair enough, for the point your making at least.

Right. And, to bring the discussion back to the OP a bit, what I said about magic carpets and unicorns applies, with equal force, to religious claims. Reincarnation (since Hinduism was brought up) may be true, but since the evidence is so scant, we are justified in disbelieving it. We can consider it a false description of the way the world works, and thus, it falls under the catagory of religion, as it requires (like I said above) a relaxation of the normal standards we use for evaluating claims, in order to be accepted, i.e., it requires a religious mind for its acceptance.

Not true. Again, there is evidence to support reincarnation. People have memories of their past lives all over the world. To discard this as something else other than what is claimed is no better than discarding anything with circumstantial evidence to support it. To do this is bias. What evidence is there to support an opposition to reincarnation? All you can prove is that the body dies. This is not refuted by Hinduism, so your point against it would hold no weight. All religions and science know that the body dies. Anything beyond this is not understood. Any claims about what happens are only as strong as any evidence which supports it (be it mental logic or physical data/object), any claims against it are only as good as any evidence to support that (be it mental logic or physical data/object). Both are on equal ground for proving their position, yet neither can give an unquestionable answer. This makes any claim just as true or false as any other. Lack of evidence proves nothing to be false, nor true for that matter. Lack of evidence is just that, a lack of evidence.

In my opinion, intellectual logic is the best tool for determining probable possibilities, truths, and falsehoods. Even without physical data/objects, humans always have the intellectual tool of logic. Biased logic is where science and religion battle each other. Neither has the unquestionable truth.

Tiel, are there any other supernatural ways to earn knowledge of past lives?

How is reincarnation the only explanation for your "evidence"? Did you not read any of the responses to Stevenson's books, or his own?

I have read all about it kid. The responses don't mean anything. Stevenson said himself that no matter how much evidence he has to support reincarnation it won't be accepted by mainstream science until a scientist can find a soul and control it in an experiment. This cannot be done with current technology any more than you can suck my consciousness into a test tube for examination and manipulation. It's absurd. The evidence is strong enough for me to make a logical conclusion as to it being more probable than not.

Also, I never said that it was the only explanation. I said that it is a possible explanation and in MY opinion the most logically probable. Don't twist my words.

Preposterous. So you somehow inferred that this evidence was support for reincarnation? You never considered the valid problems in Stevenson's methology or techniques in collecting data?

1.) I said that there is evidence to support reincarnation. It's a simple statement to understand.

2.) I have considered all proposed problems with Stevenson's methodology and I find none of them valid in refuting his data. His methods were sound in my opinion and many other people's opinions. Even scientists who don't agree with him say that his methods were scientifically sound and that if there is any scientific data to seriously support reincarnation, it is from Stevenson. The man was still respected, even though people did not necessarily agree with him or his data.

The bigger question is why did you feel it so important to deny the possibility? Do you think it makes you more intelligent or more adult-like to learn and accept the mainstream scientific bias as fact?

I don't deny outright that the mainstream theories could be true... I only entertain other theories as being possibly true as well.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 7:57:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 7:47:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
The question is pretty clear. What must be incorporated in a set of beliefs to make it a religion? (Apart from having a lot of followers)

And then, Do you believe Hinduism is a religion?

To respond more directly to your question: Falsehoods must be incorporated (through the relaxation of the normal human capacity to evaluate claims in the light of reason and evidence) into a set of beliefs to make it a religion.

Hinduism is a religion to extent that it incorporates falsehoods into its system through relaxing the normal standards for evaluating claims.

The only problems is that any judgement of it's information as falsehoods is only a biased belief itself and is subject to the same type of judgement. You cannot accurately say something is false unless it is unquestionably so.

Correct. One can't prove a negative. However, one can and should deliniate between the highly unlikely and everything else or one can't progress. For example, biologists should say "unicorns don't exist but horses do" if they are to make progress. One isn't bias in denying the existence of unicorns.

This you cannot do, so any judgement is an inaccurate bias of personal belief. Which makes it no better than thing you are judging.

What is judged as unlikely is still bias. Even with you ridiculous example I can prove this. In another galaxy there could be another animal which is similar to a horse, but that does have a horn. The horn could have been an evolutionary mutation developed for defense and/or other reasons. The point is that it cannot be ruled out as nonsense as there are logical explanations for the concept. It is logical to conclude in my opinion that Unicorns do not exist on the planet Earth however. Though even this conclusion is biased.

Right. I didn't say there was a 100% chance that unicorns don't exist. I opened with "one can't prove a negative". That's what I meant. I was making the point that it is not a bias (or fallacious reasoning, (assuming that's what you mean by bias)) to proceed in life as if unicorns don't exist. This seems like a wierd point to have to make, but, we are in the religion forum after all.

Consider that someone gave you a magic carpet and said you could get to your destination (some other countrie) in five minutes using said carpet. All you have to do is sit on it and count to a thousand. You also have a plane ticket. But a plane would take 12 hours. You're a reasonable person so you dismiss the carpet out-of-hand. The carpet may have come from the future, given to you by a time-traveller. (In the future, everyone gets around on a magic carpet.) You know the basic epistimic nature of all this. Therefore you know you are still justified in dismissing the carpet out-of-hand because of the extreme likelyhood that the "time-traveller" is a trickster, just trying to make a fool of you. This is all I'm saying.

Fair enough, for the point your making at least.

Right. And, to bring the discussion back to the OP a bit, what I said about magic carpets and unicorns applies, with equal force, to religious claims. Reincarnation (since Hinduism was brought up) may be true, but since the evidence is so scant, we are justified in disbelieving it. We can consider it a false description of the way the world works, and thus, it falls under the catagory of religion, as it requires (like I said above) a relaxation of the normal standards we use for evaluating claims, in order to be accepted, i.e., it requires a religious mind for its acceptance.

Not true. Again, there is evidence to support reincarnation. People have memories of their past lives all over the world. To discard this as something else other than what is claimed is no better than discarding anything with circumstantial evidence to support it. To do this is bias. What evidence is there to support an opposition to reincarnation? All you can prove is that the body dies. This is not refuted by Hinduism, so your point against it would hold no weight. All religions and science know that the body dies. Anything beyond this is not understood. Any claims about what happens are only as strong as any evidence which supports it (be it mental logic or physical data/object), any claims against it are only as good as any evidence to support that (be it mental logic or physical data/object). Both are on equal ground for proving their position, yet neither can give an unquestionable answer. This makes any claim just as true or false as any other. Lack of evidence proves nothing to be false, nor true for that matter. Lack of evidence is just that, a lack of evidence.

In my opinion, intellectual logic is the best tool for determining probable possibilities, truths, and falsehoods. Even without physical data/objects, humans always have the intellectual tool of logic. Biased logic is where science and religion battle each other. Neither has the unquestionable truth.

Tiel, are there any other supernatural ways to earn knowledge of past lives?

How is reincarnation the only explanation for your "evidence"? Did you not read any of the responses to Stevenson's books, or his own?

I have read all about it kid. The responses don't mean anything. Stevenson said himself that no matter how much evidence he has to support reincarnation it won't be accepted by mainstream science until a scientist can find a soul and control it in an experiment. This cannot be done with current technology any more than you can suck my consciousness into a test tube for examination and manipulation. It's absurd. The evidence is strong enough for me to make a logical conclusion as to it being more probable than not.

Also, I never said that it was the only explanation. I said that it is a possible explanation and in MY opinion the most logically probable. Don't twist my words.

Preposterous. So you somehow inferred that this evidence was support for reincarnation? You never considered the valid problems in Stevenson's methology or techniques in collecting data?

1.) I said that there is evidence to support reincarnation. It's a simple statement to understand.
I am disputing whether or not there is evidence to support reincarnation at the present..It is a simple statement to understand.

2.) I have considered all proposed problems with Stevenson's methodology and I find none of them valid in refuting his data. His methods were sound in my opinion and many other people's opinions. Even scientists who don't agree with him say that his methods were scientifically sound and that if there is any scientific data to seriously support reincarnation, it is from Stevenson. The man was still respected, even though people did not necessarily agree with him or his data.
Really?
So how was the possible factor that Stevenson was reviewing cases in cultures that believed in reincarnation not an agent of influence on his work?


The bigger question is why did you feel it so important to deny the possibility? Do you think it makes you more intelligent or more adult-like to learn and accept the mainstream scientific bias as fact?
You do realize that I was criticizing Stevenson's research, but not the prospect of the existence of reincarnation...?

I don't deny outright that the mainstream theories could be true... I only entertain ot
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 10:36:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To Man-is-Good: If you know anything about Stevenson's work, than you know that he has evidence from all over the globe. Not just cultures that believe in reincarnation. Research his work more thoroughly if you want to make a strong case against it.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 1:33:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 7:39:02 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 7:29:08 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:54:37 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:39:54 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:16:44 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:09:07 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:02:58 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:36:52 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:22:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 12:31:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:

==REMOVED FOR SPACE==

Not true. Again, there is evidence to support reincarnation. People have memories of their past lives all over the world. To discard this as something else other than what is claimed is no better than discarding anything with circumstantial evidence to support it. To do this is bias. What evidence is there to support an opposition to reincarnation?

To the extent that reincarnation is supported by evidence it can be regarded as factual. That's to say, it leaves the domain of religion and enters that of science. If ancient Indians really discovered reincarnation to be a fact, then they did it in a scientific/non-religious fashion. That's to say, that they would have discovered *evidence* for it (as you would have it) through observing the world (collecting evidence of other people's reported memories, etc...). It is possible that this good science could have been incorporated into Hinduism and thus took on the appearance of religion. That would not make it religious. It would just be an unfortunate coincidence of history.

I want to be clear that I don't necessarily think that reincarnation is the product of scientific thinking got mixed up with religion. There has been so much interest in Hinduism by scientific thinkers going back severaral centuries that claims about reicarnation, were they true, would have been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt to the world and, the scientific community, though it can be relucant and bias at times, would have been forced to accept it by now. My point above was to assert that, were reincarnation evidence-based, it would be science-based and it wouldn't be correct to call it religious, since religion, as I stated in my first post, is by definition a set of false beliefs.

No. That may be your version of what a religion is. A religion is a set of beliefs. That's it. Not a set of false beliefs, as you can't objectively determine if the belief is false.

Most religious beliefs have been objectively determined to be false. Nothing distinguishes religious beliefs from other types of beliefs more that that they are consistently found to be false - and in the highest degree.

Religious claims are devised through a need to offer an explanation where one doesn't exist. Religious claims are preserved in ancient books characterized by mistranslations, fairy tales (talking snakes, elephant gods, etc...) and attempts to mystify with miracles (magic tricks). It's beliefs are mandated through childhood indoctrination, theocratic governments, the inculcation of shame and the fear of eternal torture for not believing the claims, actual torture for not believing the claims and death for apostasy (Islam). It's characterized by an opposition to science (Galileo, evolution, big bang), the justification of unethical behavior (pedophilia, slavery, circumcision, anti-homosexuality), a proclivity for inspiring sexism, racism, xenophobia, human and animal sacrifices, tribal divisiveness, pogroms and war and martyrdom (kamikazes, suicide bombers, 9/11).

This is the character and flavor of religion. Religion is when people are wrong.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 3:57:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 1:33:51 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 7:39:02 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 7:29:08 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:54:37 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:39:54 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:16:44 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:09:07 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:02:58 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:36:52 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:22:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 12:31:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:

==REMOVED FOR SPACE==

Not true. Again, there is evidence to support reincarnation. People have memories of their past lives all over the world. To discard this as something else other than what is claimed is no better than discarding anything with circumstantial evidence to support it. To do this is bias. What evidence is there to support an opposition to reincarnation?

To the extent that reincarnation is supported by evidence it can be regarded as factual. That's to say, it leaves the domain of religion and enters that of science. If ancient Indians really discovered reincarnation to be a fact, then they did it in a scientific/non-religious fashion. That's to say, that they would have discovered *evidence* for it (as you would have it) through observing the world (collecting evidence of other people's reported memories, etc...). It is possible that this good science could have been incorporated into Hinduism and thus took on the appearance of religion. That would not make it religious. It would just be an unfortunate coincidence of history.

I want to be clear that I don't necessarily think that reincarnation is the product of scientific thinking got mixed up with religion. There has been so much interest in Hinduism by scientific thinkers going back severaral centuries that claims about reicarnation, were they true, would have been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt to the world and, the scientific community, though it can be relucant and bias at times, would have been forced to accept it by now. My point above was to assert that, were reincarnation evidence-based, it would be science-based and it wouldn't be correct to call it religious, since religion, as I stated in my first post, is by definition a set of false beliefs.

No. That may be your version of what a religion is. A religion is a set of beliefs. That's it. Not a set of false beliefs, as you can't objectively determine if the belief is false.

Most religious beliefs have been objectively determined to be false. Nothing distinguishes religious beliefs from other types of beliefs more that that they are consistently found to be false - and in the highest degree.

Religious claims are devised through a need to offer an explanation where one doesn't exist. Religious claims are preserved in ancient books characterized by mistranslations, fairy tales (talking snakes, elephant gods, etc...) and attempts to mystify with miracles (magic tricks). It's beliefs are mandated through childhood indoctrination, theocratic governments, the inculcation of shame and the fear of eternal torture for not believing the claims, actual torture for not believing the claims and death for apostasy (Islam). It's characterized by an opposition to science (Galileo, evolution, big bang), the justification of unethical behavior (pedophilia, slavery, circumcision, anti-homosexuality), a proclivity for inspiring sexism, racism, xenophobia, human and animal sacrifices, tribal divisiveness, pogroms and war and martyrdom (kamikazes, suicide bombers, 9/11).

This is the character and flavor of religion. Religion is when people are wrong.

Who is the judge over what is false? You? if the answer is not known as true or false, then it is cannot be justifiably labeled as false. Your own judgments hold no weight. Also, there is no objective judgment. Objective judgment is impossible to exist... For the very act of judging is of the mind and all minds are subjective.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 7:10:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 3:57:35 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/17/2011 1:33:51 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 7:39:02 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 7:29:08 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:54:37 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:39:54 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:16:44 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:09:07 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:02:58 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:36:52 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:22:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 12:31:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:

==REMOVED FOR SPACE==

Not true. Again, there is evidence to support reincarnation. People have memories of their past lives all over the world. To discard this as something else other than what is claimed is no better than discarding anything with circumstantial evidence to support it. To do this is bias. What evidence is there to support an opposition to reincarnation?

To the extent that reincarnation is supported by evidence it can be regarded as factual. That's to say, it leaves the domain of religion and enters that of science. If ancient Indians really discovered reincarnation to be a fact, then they did it in a scientific/non-religious fashion. That's to say, that they would have discovered *evidence* for it (as you would have it) through observing the world (collecting evidence of other people's reported memories, etc...). It is possible that this good science could have been incorporated into Hinduism and thus took on the appearance of religion. That would not make it religious. It would just be an unfortunate coincidence of history.

I want to be clear that I don't necessarily think that reincarnation is the product of scientific thinking got mixed up with religion. There has been so much interest in Hinduism by scientific thinkers going back severaral centuries that claims about reicarnation, were they true, would have been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt to the world and, the scientific community, though it can be relucant and bias at times, would have been forced to accept it by now. My point above was to assert that, were reincarnation evidence-based, it would be science-based and it wouldn't be correct to call it religious, since religion, as I stated in my first post, is by definition a set of false beliefs.

No. That may be your version of what a religion is. A religion is a set of beliefs. That's it. Not a set of false beliefs, as you can't objectively determine if the belief is false.

Most religious beliefs have been objectively determined to be false. Nothing distinguishes religious beliefs from other types of beliefs more that that they are consistently found to be false - and in the highest degree.

Religious claims are devised through a need to offer an explanation where one doesn't exist. Religious claims are preserved in ancient books characterized by mistranslations, fairy tales (talking snakes, elephant gods, etc...) and attempts to mystify with miracles (magic tricks). It's beliefs are mandated through childhood indoctrination, theocratic governments, the inculcation of shame and the fear of eternal torture for not believing the claims, actual torture for not believing the claims and death for apostasy (Islam). It's characterized by an opposition to science (Galileo, evolution, big bang), the justification of unethical behavior (pedophilia, slavery, circumcision, anti-homosexuality), a proclivity for inspiring sexism, racism, xenophobia, human and animal sacrifices, tribal divisiveness, pogroms and war and martyrdom (kamikazes, suicide bombers, 9/11).

This is the character and flavor of religion. Religion is when people are wrong.

Who is the judge over what is false? You? if the answer is not known as true or false, then it is cannot be justifiably labeled as false.

Humans have the faculty of judgment. So I, as a human, am a judge over what is false. We've already been over the epistemology of unknown things.

Your own judgments hold no weight. Also, there is no objective judgment. Objective judgment is impossible to exist... For the very act of judging is of the mind and all minds are subjective.

Here's the deal. You've got to call some things bullsh!t. Religious cliams are bullsh!t. Magic carpets won't get you to your destination. Unicorns almost certainly don't exist on earth. Humans don't have the power to say anything is *absolutely* true or false. Yet, we need to discriminate between true and false claims - at least tentatively - if we are to function.

There is a demon named Saeth who live in Ptweenu next to the river Rene'atuni'i on planet Yonetha. He and I have been friends since I was in first grade. He told me that you and I would have this conversation one day and that he would be directly above you, flying over your house, when you read this. All you have to do is go outside, look up, and see one of the most impressive creatures of your life. He also said he would stop by Baskin Robbins because he knew you liked ice cream.

I may be correct in this (as you know) because one can't prove a negative. So technically, you don't know if all this is true or false. So you can't say I'm a liar, by your own logic. By your logic, if you said I made up Saeth, then you judgement would hold no weight. Am I correct? Because there are no "objective judgements". "For the very act of judging is of the mind and all minds are subjective". Your own logic prevents you from denying Saeth's existence. Say "hi" to him for me.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 8:26:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 7:10:25 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/17/2011 3:57:35 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/17/2011 1:33:51 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 7:39:02 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 7:29:08 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:54:37 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:39:54 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:16:44 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 6:09:07 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 5:02:58 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:36:52 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 4:22:18 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/16/2011 12:31:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/16/2011 8:47:46 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:

==REMOVED FOR SPACE==

Not true. Again, there is evidence to support reincarnation. People have memories of their past lives all over the world. To discard this as something else other than what is claimed is no better than discarding anything with circumstantial evidence to support it. To do this is bias. What evidence is there to support an opposition to reincarnation?

To the extent that reincarnation is supported by evidence it can be regarded as factual. That's to say, it leaves the domain of religion and enters that of science. If ancient Indians really discovered reincarnation to be a fact, then they did it in a scientific/non-religious fashion. That's to say, that they would have discovered *evidence* for it (as you would have it) through observing the world (collecting evidence of other people's reported memories, etc...). It is possible that this good science could have been incorporated into Hinduism and thus took on the appearance of religion. That would not make it religious. It would just be an unfortunate coincidence of history.

I want to be clear that I don't necessarily think that reincarnation is the product of scientific thinking got mixed up with religion. There has been so much interest in Hinduism by scientific thinkers going back severaral centuries that claims about reicarnation, were they true, would have been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt to the world and, the scientific community, though it can be relucant and bias at times, would have been forced to accept it by now. My point above was to assert that, were reincarnation evidence-based, it would be science-based and it wouldn't be correct to call it religious, since religion, as I stated in my first post, is by definition a set of false beliefs.

No. That may be your version of what a religion is. A religion is a set of beliefs. That's it. Not a set of false beliefs, as you can't objectively determine if the belief is false.

Most religious beliefs have been objectively determined to be false. Nothing distinguishes religious beliefs from other types of beliefs more that that they are consistently found to be false - and in the highest degree.

Religious claims are devised through a need to offer an explanation where one doesn't exist. Religious claims are preserved in ancient books characterized by mistranslations, fairy tales (talking snakes, elephant gods, etc...) and attempts to mystify with miracles (magic tricks). It's beliefs are mandated through childhood indoctrination, theocratic governments, the inculcation of shame and the fear of eternal torture for not believing the claims, actual torture for not believing the claims and death for apostasy (Islam). It's characterized by an opposition to science (Galileo, evolution, big bang), the justification of unethical behavior (pedophilia, slavery, circumcision, anti-homosexuality), a proclivity for inspiring sexism, racism, xenophobia, human and animal sacrifices, tribal divisiveness, pogroms and war and martyrdom (kamikazes, suicide bombers, 9/11).

This is the character and flavor of religion. Religion is when people are wrong.

Who is the judge over what is false? You? if the answer is not known as true or false, then it is cannot be justifiably labeled as false.

Humans have the faculty of judgment. So I, as a human, am a judge over what is false. We've already been over the epistemology of unknown things.

Your own judgments hold no weight. Also, there is no objective judgment. Objective judgment is impossible to exist... For the very act of judging is of the mind and all minds are subjective.

Here's the deal. You've got to call some things bullsh!t. Religious cliams are bullsh!t. Magic carpets won't get you to your destination. Unicorns almost certainly don't exist on earth. Humans don't have the power to say anything is *absolutely* true or false. Yet, we need to discriminate between true and false claims - at least tentatively - if we are to function.

There is a demon named Saeth who live in Ptweenu next to the river Rene'atuni'i on planet Yonetha. He and I have been friends since I was in first grade. He told me that you and I would have this conversation one day and that he would be directly above you, flying over your house, when you read this. All you have to do is go outside, look up, and see one of the most impressive creatures of your life. He also said he would stop by Baskin Robbins because he knew you liked ice cream.

I may be correct in this (as you know) because one can't prove a negative. So technically, you don't know if all this is true or false. So you can't say I'm a liar, by your own logic. By your logic, if you said I made up Saeth, then you judgement would hold no weight. Am I correct? Because there are no "objective judgements". "For the very act of judging is of the mind and all minds are subjective". Your own logic prevents you from denying Saeth's existence. Say "hi" to him for me.

No, my own logic denies Saeth existence in my reality until further notice. My judgement is not objective, it's subjective, as are all judgments.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."