Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why Religion is false.

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 8:38:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Do you really think this skit, humorous though it was, accurately depicts all religion?

However to be perfectly honest I have not found a convincing enough argument for it to make me actually say "yeah, that sounds perfectlly logical. Screw science."

Yeah, screw science. That's the aim of religion. Sure.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 8:40:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 8:38:13 PM, phantom wrote:
Do you really think this skit, humorous though it was, accurately depicts all religion?

However to be perfectly honest I have not found a convincing enough argument for it to make me actually say "yeah, that sounds perfectlly logical. Screw science."

Yeah, screw science. That's the aim of religion. Sure.

What's the difference between "screw science" and "I submit to the factual authority of the Bible because my mommy told me that I should"?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
TUF
Posts: 23,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 8:52:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 8:38:13 PM, phantom wrote:
Do you really think this skit, humorous though it was, accurately depicts all religion?

Not at all. I stated the thread name just to draw attention to this skit. The skit actually is aimed at evangelism.

However to be perfectly honest I have not found a convincing enough argument for it to make me actually say "yeah, that sounds perfectlly logical. Screw science."

Yeah, screw science. That's the aim of religion. Sure.

certain arguments of science can't Coexist with religion.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 9:05:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 8:40:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/5/2013 8:38:13 PM, phantom wrote:
Do you really think this skit, humorous though it was, accurately depicts all religion?

However to be perfectly honest I have not found a convincing enough argument for it to make me actually say "yeah, that sounds perfectlly logical. Screw science."

Yeah, screw science. That's the aim of religion. Sure.

What's the difference between "screw science" and "I submit to the factual authority of the Bible because my mommy told me that I should"?

Is that your view of religion? First, being born into it has nothing to do with science. I'm sure plenty of religious parents teach actual science to their kids along with religion. Making it your aim to disregard science on religious grounds is also worse than being born into religious belief. Second, while being born into it is a huge reason for religiosity, it would be a misconception to say that's the sole reason people are. Kids accept religion because "their mommy tells them so." It would be absurd to say that's why mature people believe. Obviously, after becoming more rational, people question their beliefs and require more validity than before. Some, like me, start disbelieving. Others continue with their faith. They make a decision. I wouldn't deny that their upbringing had an effect on the decision, but no adult simply believes because he was told it was true by his parents.

You're also, quite obviously, generalizing. You couldn't possibly argue that all religious people were conditioned into belief by their parents. That's an extreme generalization. And as stated, inheriting belief has nothing to do with science and religion being at conflict.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 9:09:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 8:52:57 PM, TUF wrote:
At 5/5/2013 8:38:13 PM, phantom wrote:
Do you really think this skit, humorous though it was, accurately depicts all religion?

Not at all. I stated the thread name just to draw attention to this skit. The skit actually is aimed at evangelism.

So you agree it does nothing to disprove religion? You're inevitably going to get some backlash using a title like that when your post doesn't actual support it.

However to be perfectly honest I have not found a convincing enough argument for it to make me actually say "yeah, that sounds perfectlly logical. Screw science."

Yeah, screw science. That's the aim of religion. Sure.

certain arguments of science can't Coexist with religion.

I think you mean certain scientific facts can't coexist with religion. I highly doubt that. Could you give examples?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
TUF
Posts: 23,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 9:20:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 9:09:57 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/5/2013 8:52:57 PM, TUF wrote:
At 5/5/2013 8:38:13 PM, phantom wrote:
Do you really think this skit, humorous though it was, accurately depicts all religion?

Not at all. I stated the thread name just to draw attention to this skit. The skit actually is aimed at evangelism.

So you agree it does nothing to disprove religion?

Disproving religion wasn't the point of the thread.

You're inevitably going to get some backlash using a title like that when your post doesn't actual support it.

That's why you should read the first line of the OP, call me a troll, and then GTFO.

However to be perfectly honest I have not found a convincing enough argument for it to make me actually say "yeah, that sounds perfectlly logical. Screw science."

Yeah, screw science. That's the aim of religion. Sure.

certain arguments of science can't Coexist with religion.

I think you mean certain scientific facts can't coexist with religion. I highly doubt that. Could you give examples?

Evolution/creationism.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 9:26:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 9:20:57 PM, TUF wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:09:57 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/5/2013 8:52:57 PM, TUF wrote:
At 5/5/2013 8:38:13 PM, phantom wrote:
Do you really think this skit, humorous though it was, accurately depicts all religion?

Not at all. I stated the thread name just to draw attention to this skit. The skit actually is aimed at evangelism.

So you agree it does nothing to disprove religion?

Disproving religion wasn't the point of the thread.

You're inevitably going to get some backlash using a title like that when your post doesn't actual support it.

That's why you should read the first line of the OP, call me a troll, and then GTFO.

If you say so.


However to be perfectly honest I have not found a convincing enough argument for it to make me actually say "yeah, that sounds perfectlly logical. Screw science."

Yeah, screw science. That's the aim of religion. Sure.

certain arguments of science can't Coexist with religion.

I think you mean certain scientific facts can't coexist with religion. I highly doubt that. Could you give examples?

Evolution/creationism.

Evolution is indeed a fact. However, there are plenty of theistic evolutionists around.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 9:27:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 9:05:01 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/5/2013 8:40:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/5/2013 8:38:13 PM, phantom wrote:
Do you really think this skit, humorous though it was, accurately depicts all religion?

However to be perfectly honest I have not found a convincing enough argument for it to make me actually say "yeah, that sounds perfectlly logical. Screw science."

Yeah, screw science. That's the aim of religion. Sure.

What's the difference between "screw science" and "I submit to the factual authority of the Bible because my mommy told me that I should"?

Is that your view of religion? First, being born into it has nothing to do with science. I'm sure plenty of religious parents teach actual science to their kids along with religion. Making it your aim to disregard science on religious grounds is also worse than being born into religious belief. Second, while being born into it is a huge reason for religiosity, it would be a misconception to say that's the sole reason people are. Kids accept religion because "their mommy tells them so." It would be absurd to say that's why mature people believe. Obviously, after becoming more rational, people question their beliefs and require more validity than before. Some, like me, start disbelieving. Others continue with their faith. They make a decision. I wouldn't deny that their upbringing had an effect on the decision, but no adult simply believes because he was told it was true by his parents.

You're also, quite obviously, generalizing. You couldn't possibly argue that all religious people were conditioned into belief by their parents. That's an extreme generalization. And as stated, inheriting belief has nothing to do with science and religion being at conflict.

It seems to me that you're implying that there might be some independent and mature reasoning behind religiosity, but as clean and moderate as that sounds, you're completely mistaken. Religion derives its perpetuity from the manipulation of social ethics. Orthodox Christian upbringing does not allow for intellectual experimentation; once one's parents introduce to him the "model of behavior and belief" and the child sees no reason to rebel, he adopts it himself, never seriously considering the alternative - and in MANY cases conceiving of the alternative as evil, heretic, or sacrilegious. My deterministic view of the world prevents me from truly blaming these people, but I will hold that their beliefs ALMOST NEVER arrive from pure and unfettered reasoning. The only exception I might hold is for those few who debate the issue often like PCP, but even then I suspect there are complex and inscrutable factors which make their theological alignment inevitable.

So, long story short. I see Christians as indoctrinated people who's philosophical inquiry was greatly restrained by the boundaries of Christian ethics and the hereditary transfer of their parents' beliefs.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 9:36:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:
The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Your vague language is the only thing making this statement not seem as absurd as it actually is. When we assess the truth of "religion" what exactly are we assessing? Religion is not a single claim but a set of claims, each of which has propositional truth value. Each such claim can be evaluated, proven, and disproven.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 9:38:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 9:36:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:
The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Your vague language is the only thing making this statement not seem as absurd as it actually is. When we assess the truth of "religion" what exactly are we assessing? Religion is not a single claim but a set of claims, each of which has propositional truth value. Each such claim can be evaluated, proven, and disproven.

When you get to university, you will learn (I hope) about kinds of claims. You will learn what kinds of claims can be proven, and how. You will learn how some kinds of claims are not provable, and why. But you will learn all of this then. I am far to drunk tonight to teach it to you now.
Dogknox
Posts: 6,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 9:38:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:
The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

WHAT???
Faith can't be proven.. Religion can be!
Is there a Buidest Religion? Yes or no!
Is there a Hindu Religion? Yes or No!
OberHerr
Posts: 12,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 9:38:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 9:27:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:05:01 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/5/2013 8:40:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/5/2013 8:38:13 PM, phantom wrote:
Do you really think this skit, humorous though it was, accurately depicts all religion?

However to be perfectly honest I have not found a convincing enough argument for it to make me actually say "yeah, that sounds perfectlly logical. Screw science."

Yeah, screw science. That's the aim of religion. Sure.

What's the difference between "screw science" and "I submit to the factual authority of the Bible because my mommy told me that I should"?

Is that your view of religion? First, being born into it has nothing to do with science. I'm sure plenty of religious parents teach actual science to their kids along with religion. Making it your aim to disregard science on religious grounds is also worse than being born into religious belief. Second, while being born into it is a huge reason for religiosity, it would be a misconception to say that's the sole reason people are. Kids accept religion because "their mommy tells them so." It would be absurd to say that's why mature people believe. Obviously, after becoming more rational, people question their beliefs and require more validity than before. Some, like me, start disbelieving. Others continue with their faith. They make a decision. I wouldn't deny that their upbringing had an effect on the decision, but no adult simply believes because he was told it was true by his parents.

You're also, quite obviously, generalizing. You couldn't possibly argue that all religious people were conditioned into belief by their parents. That's an extreme generalization. And as stated, inheriting belief has nothing to do with science and religion being at conflict.

It seems to me that you're implying that there might be some independent and mature reasoning behind religiosity, but as clean and moderate as that sounds, you're completely mistaken. Religion derives its perpetuity from the manipulation of social ethics. Orthodox Christian upbringing does not allow for intellectual experimentation; once one's parents introduce to him the "model of behavior and belief" and the child sees no reason to rebel, he adopts it himself, never seriously considering the alternative - and in MANY cases conceiving of the alternative as evil, heretic, or sacrilegious. My deterministic view of the world prevents me from truly blaming these people, but I will hold that their beliefs ALMOST NEVER arrive from pure and unfettered reasoning. The only exception I might hold is for those few who debate the issue often like PCP, but even then I suspect there are complex and inscrutable factors which make their theological alignment inevitable.

So, long story short. I see Christians as indoctrinated people who's philosophical inquiry was greatly restrained by the boundaries of Christian ethics and the hereditary transfer of their parents' beliefs.

I'm sure there are no beliefs you hold that were passed down by your culture and family.

And believe it or not, a lot of us crazy ole theists have logical reasons for believing in what we do. Maybe no logical to you, but then nothing is logical to you that could possibly contradict your obviously perfect beliefs amiright?

And I LOVE the assumption that science and religion can't coexist. Rofl.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 9:40:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 9:38:54 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:
The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

WHAT???
Faith can't be proven.. Religion can be!
Is there a Buidest Religion? Yes or no!
Is there a Hindu Religion? Yes or No!

I know you mean well, Dogknox -or at least I sincerely hope you do. But you're out of your depth here; and I think you know it.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 9:49:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 9:38:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:36:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:
The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Your vague language is the only thing making this statement not seem as absurd as it actually is. When we assess the truth of "religion" what exactly are we assessing? Religion is not a single claim but a set of claims, each of which has propositional truth value. Each such claim can be evaluated, proven, and disproven.

When you get to university, you will learn (I hope) about kinds of claims. You will learn what kinds of claims can be proven, and how. You will learn how some kinds of claims are not provable, and why. But you will learn all of this then. I am far to drunk tonight to teach it to you now.

Will you quit your posturing and address the argument that was forwarded to you?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2013 9:54:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 9:49:02 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:38:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:36:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:
The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Your vague language is the only thing making this statement not seem as absurd as it actually is. When we assess the truth of "religion" what exactly are we assessing? Religion is not a single claim but a set of claims, each of which has propositional truth value. Each such claim can be evaluated, proven, and disproven.

When you get to university, you will learn (I hope) about kinds of claims. You will learn what kinds of claims can be proven, and how. You will learn how some kinds of claims are not provable, and why. But you will learn all of this then. I am far to drunk tonight to teach it to you now.

Will you quit your posturing and address the argument that was forwarded to you?

Posturing? Bah... lol... what will be the utility of my doing so? I think that even if I spent the time typing up a five or six paragraph response, it would be to little avail. Am I wrong?

(Btw. the astute academic would, if he didn't know what terms like "normative" meant, would search for himself.)
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 12:07:15 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 9:20:57 PM, TUF wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:09:57 PM, phantom wrote:

I think you mean certain scientific facts can't coexist with religion. I highly doubt that. Could you give examples?

Evolution/creationism.

lol
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 2:53:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 9:26:20 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:20:57 PM, TUF wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:09:57 PM, phantom wrote:
At 5/5/2013 8:52:57 PM, TUF wrote:
At 5/5/2013 8:38:13 PM, phantom wrote:


Yeah, screw science. That's the aim of religion. Sure.

certain arguments of science can't Coexist with religion.

I think you mean certain scientific facts can't coexist with religion. I highly doubt that. Could you give examples?

Evolution/creationism.

Evolution is indeed a fact. However, there are plenty of theistic evolutionists around.

And their are plenty of people who say evolution can't be possible because "God" created Earth 5000 years ago. That's a contradiction.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
TUF
Posts: 23,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 4:49:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:
The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Nicely worded.
Smithereens
Posts: 8,358
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 5:17:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Do I associate you with this view?
"Your signature should not have the name of other players in the game, nor should it have the words VTL, Vote, or Unvote."
~Yraelz, 2017

Debate challenge 'Solipsism is false:' http://www.debate.org...
If God were real... http://www.debate.org...
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 6:11:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 9:38:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:36:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:
The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Your vague language is the only thing making this statement not seem as absurd as it actually is. When we assess the truth of "religion" what exactly are we assessing? Religion is not a single claim but a set of claims, each of which has propositional truth value. Each such claim can be evaluated, proven, and disproven.

When you get to university, you will learn (I hope) about kinds of claims. You will learn what kinds of claims can be proven, and how. You will learn how some kinds of claims are not provable, and why. But you will learn all of this then. I am far to drunk tonight to teach it to you now.

In the sense that nothing can be 100% certain of proof/disproof, in the sense that certain things can't be proven or disproven, or in another sense?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 6:23:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/5/2013 9:38:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:36:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:
The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Your vague language is the only thing making this statement not seem as absurd as it actually is. When we assess the truth of "religion" what exactly are we assessing? Religion is not a single claim but a set of claims, each of which has propositional truth value. Each such claim can be evaluated, proven, and disproven.

When you get to university, you will learn (I hope) about kinds of claims. You will learn what kinds of claims can be proven, and how. You will learn how some kinds of claims are not provable, and why. But you will learn all of this then. I am far to drunk tonight to teach it to you now.

That does not mean that we should not take a stance on them. Do you take stances on whether or not Bigfoot exists? Can you prove that free will exists? If not, how do you justify moral evaluations?

The default response to a question regarding the existence of something is "No". The burden of proof is on those who posit existence.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 6:27:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/6/2013 6:23:17 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

The default response to a question regarding the existence of something is "No". The burden of proof is on those who posit existence.

<3
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 6:41:07 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://www.youtube.com...
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
TUF
Posts: 23,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 4:24:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/6/2013 5:17:25 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Do I associate you with this view?

Let's put it this way; The skit is a demonstration of flawed structured religion. However, that being said, my view on the existence of a god is a bit different.
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 9:07:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/6/2013 4:49:59 AM, TUF wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:
The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Nicely worded.

Thanks. I try... sort of. I was really drunk when I wrote that last night though... so yeah.
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 9:08:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/6/2013 6:11:55 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:38:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:36:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:
The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Your vague language is the only thing making this statement not seem as absurd as it actually is. When we assess the truth of "religion" what exactly are we assessing? Religion is not a single claim but a set of claims, each of which has propositional truth value. Each such claim can be evaluated, proven, and disproven.

When you get to university, you will learn (I hope) about kinds of claims. You will learn what kinds of claims can be proven, and how. You will learn how some kinds of claims are not provable, and why. But you will learn all of this then. I am far to drunk tonight to teach it to you now.

In the sense that nothing can be 100% certain of proof/disproof, in the sense that certain things can't be proven or disproven, or in another sense?

There some (positive) kinds of claims that can be proven. Other kinds of claims (normative claims) cannot be proven. Religion is necessarily normative.
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 9:11:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/6/2013 6:23:17 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:38:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:36:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:
The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Your vague language is the only thing making this statement not seem as absurd as it actually is. When we assess the truth of "religion" what exactly are we assessing? Religion is not a single claim but a set of claims, each of which has propositional truth value. Each such claim can be evaluated, proven, and disproven.

When you get to university, you will learn (I hope) about kinds of claims. You will learn what kinds of claims can be proven, and how. You will learn how some kinds of claims are not provable, and why. But you will learn all of this then. I am far to drunk tonight to teach it to you now.

That does not mean that we should not take a stance on them.

You can have any opinion you like.

Do you take stances on whether or not Bigfoot exists?

Yes. My stance is I don't care.

Can you prove that free will exists?

I can give you my opinion, and you can give me yours. That's about all we can do.

If not, how do you justify moral evaluations?

That's a much bigger question than I can give a pithy one sentence response to. Is morality normative? Yes. Can we ground normative claims? Sure, but grounding is not proof. The difference is significant.

The default response to a question regarding the existence of something is "No". The burden of proof is on those who posit existence.

Not really, and not really.
kohadril
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 9:14:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
There some (positive) kinds of claims that can be proven. Other kinds of claims (normative claims) cannot be proven. Religion is necessarily normative.
Many religious claims are positive, however. For instance, if someone posits that Zeus will strike any oathbreaker with a thunderbolt, then we can do an empirical test. Of course, most religions have given up making such testable predictions, for precisely the reason that the Greek Pantheon did: it tends not to work out. So the wording gets changed: lightning bolts are Zeus's rage against oathbreakers, but not all oathbreakers get zapped. Or some such.

Many religious claims are empirical truth claims. The only stuff that isn't (arguably) is the moral stuff. But the existence of powerful entities, the nature of the world, how the universe came into being--these are empirical, positive claims about how the universe is, even if not all are testable.
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2013 9:27:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/6/2013 9:14:06 PM, kohadril wrote:
There some (positive) kinds of claims that can be proven. Other kinds of claims (normative claims) cannot be proven. Religion is necessarily normative.
Many religious claims are positive, however. For instance, if someone posits that Zeus will strike any oathbreaker with a thunderbolt, then we can do an empirical test. Of course, most religions have given up making such testable predictions, for precisely the reason that the Greek Pantheon did: it tends not to work out. So the wording gets changed: lightning bolts are Zeus's rage against oathbreakers, but not all oathbreakers get zapped. Or some such.

Many religious claims are empirical truth claims. The only stuff that isn't (arguably) is the moral stuff. But the existence of powerful entities, the nature of the world, how the universe came into being--these are empirical, positive claims about how the universe is, even if not all are testable.

No religious claims are positive because they are not verifiable, testable, or falsifiable. Whether the claim says what "is" or "is not" does not make it positive, but the fact that an "is" statement can be verified, tested or falsified is what makes it positive. All claims that are not verifiable/testable/falsifiable are normative, and it is that they are not verifiable/testable/falsifiable which makes them normative. For example, if I say "God exists" it is the case that I am making a claim about the conceivable world. Can I test that claim? No. Is there evidence which could prove or disprove that claim? No, and even if there were, it wouldn't be testable by repeatable methods. So, either you can believe in God or not... but I can't prove it to you, and you can't prove it to me. Is it irrational to believe in God? Yes, insomuch as it is irrational to believe in something in the absence of evidence -but it is belief in the absence of evidence which constitutes faith. So, if one is going to believe in God, then one must do so only on the basis of faith, because faith is the only sufficient means to believe in God, because there is no evidence (I'm talking about empirical evidence, btw.) whatsoever for or against God's existence.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.