IS RELIGION/THEOLOGY USELESS AT BEST?

This is my first attempt to deal with the solid responses I received when I called for some rational discourse. Let me get one matter out of the way from the get-go. I know how negative, destructive and inhuman religion has often been. Don't tell me your horror stories. I probably know more of them than most of you. I have described many of them in one of my books. The inquisition, apartheid, slavery and segregation, the Salem witch trials---on and on and on. Like any very powerful human endeavor, religion is subject to the worst about human nature. So it is not a matter of right or wrong, but of the tremendous power invested in any profound set of ideas.

If religion has been seen supporting terribly evil social movements, by far the predominant motivation has been on behalf of human good. Consider just the relationship between Christian expressions of life in the history of the Western world. The first hospitals were really set up by Christians monks to provide shelter and help to wayfarers. Higher education in the West has always been the product of thoughtful religious leaders. Take the religious motivation out of the founding of Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Princeton etc., and there would be little higher education in our earlier history. Slavery was only successfully attacked when the church took an active stand. Just go back and look at the history. The same is true of the end of segregation. Remember ML King was Baptist minister. Go back and look at the leadership of most everyone in the Civil Rights movement and you will discover it was essentially funded and staffed by the church. I was in the Senate gallery he day the Voting Rights law was passed. In the cloakroom Sen. Russell from Georgia remarked, "We would not have his thing except for those damn Christians!" This week marks the 50th anniversary of the Freedom Riders. Who were on the buses? Take a look. Pull religiously motivated people out of that and most other progressive movements in American history and you will have gutted them. None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith.

We could talk about music, art, poetry, architecture, philosophy and even science. Most of the early scientific labs were staffed and funded by religiously motivated people--often Monks and priests.

Well, that's enough for a first effort to dialogue with many who have responded to my earlier bit.
thats my opinion

and then you never respond to any of the replies. I find that very disturbing.

'None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith.'
You assume that ethics and empathy somehow has to come from religion. I think you would have a hard time proving that.

It is my opinion after being on this forum for some time that it is not people that believe in a god that people have a problem with, it is the ones that try to force their religious views on others and try to make them live that way. In regards to the catholic church trying to force birth control and abortion views onto others.

I do not know if I am one of them, I have my doubts
:hi:

I have my doubts about this guy. It seems he has never had a discussion with someone that disagrees with him. Or does not know how to have one. He is kinda like the person that wants to go to war and then lets everyone else fight and die.

and we do not agree on everything. Not by a long shot. I would describe myself as agnostic with atheistic tendencies, yet I espouse most Christian principles like do unto others, help those in need, humility etc.. Beyond that, I do not believe that Jesus was a Messiah, the only Son of God. Nor do I believe that he died for our sins, was resurrected or any other nonsense associated with him. For me he was just a cool guy who rocked the boat, got himself killed for it and exploited centuries later by tyrants and loonies from Popes to Pat Robertson. However,
I have known this poster for over five years and have the utmost respect for him. He is the antithesis of what most of us have come to associate with being "Christian". There is not a bigoted bone in his body, nor an ounce of arrogance. He is a theologian and scholar and a man who devotes much of his life to the betterment of mankind, not by preaching and talking, but by doing. I'm not trying to defend or rescue him from the onslaught he has been subjected to here, for he is more than capable of defending himself. But I would ask for a smidgen of patience and forbearance while he gets up to speed with how things work around here. He is in his eighties and still a very busy man. Computers, internet and DU are all very new.

could you suggest if he posts an OP
he sticks around and engages in the discussion.......
It is only polite

Oh, in my world there are two kinds of Christians
It seems many are small minded 'christians'
Not saying that about your friend, but it is hard to know him
when there is no feedback

one of those socky thingies. Just maybe.

In fact I would say most are small minded, but I don't consider them to be true "Christians" in terms of the teachings of Jesus, who I think was an honorable man whose teachings have been horribly distorted by the "hell and damnation" rapture loving crowd of bible thumping nutjobs. Personally, I have a problem with the word "Christ", meaning messiah, which I don't believe for one minute, Jesus claimed to be.
I have told my friend how important it is to tend his OP. Patience is a true virtue and if he stays around here there will be some excellent discussion.

I know I was way off.

I try to respond to much of what I hear. But frankly the response is overwhelming. I am posting in three places. All of them filled with comments I find useful.

You started one thread, then another to say that you had read the responses, and a third to give a blanket response.

You could have simply responded to the comments on your first post rather than playing hit-and-run on two consecutive posts and lamenting having to read comments on three seperate posts.

makes them "Christian" principles? Virtues like that were espoused for centuries, if not millenia, before Christianity came on the scene.

There is not a bigoted bone in his body, nor an ounce of arrogance.

And yet he said that he was sure none of us wanted to live in a world where morality wasn't based in religion. That is bigotry, plain and simple, against non-believers. You may want to reconsider your assessment of him.

But they were endorsed and reinforced by Jesus of Nazareth. It is not important who invented the wheel, but how it is used.
I have had this very discussion with him and the fact that we disagree does not lessen my respect for him, nor his for me. I judge a man by his actions and deeds, rather than his words and beliefs. This is someone who has marched in the front lines and fought for civil rights here and abroad for over half a century and continues to do so. The fact that he has maintained his faith and that I have not, in no way detracts from our mutual respect for one another. That you would judge someone based on an aspect of their faith, may want you to reconsider your assessment of your own prejudices.

You called them "Christian principles." They aren't.

And I repeat: he was sure none of us wanted to live in a world where morality wasn't based in religion. That is bigotry against non-believers, plain and simple. It says that non-believers can't be as moral as believers. No different than saying homosexuals or blacks can't be as moral as heterosexuals or whites. I'm not judging him on his faith, I'm judging him on the bigoted thing he said.

As a non-believer, I can vouch for his integrity and lack of bigotry, despite his choice of words. I cannot and have no interest in arguing for him.

"I espouse most Christian principles like..."

And then you went on to name a few of these so-called "Christian principles." You specifically called them Christian principles. If they weren't exclusive to Christianity, why not just call them moral principles or human principles or something else? Deny it all you want, your exact words are right there.

And pardon me for not accepting your vouching of your friend. He said a bigoted thing, and has not even bothered apologizing for it. If you don't want to argue for him, you should probably stop defending him.

in Sunday school and believed them to be Christian. Nobody suggested to me that these values were unique to Christianity, but just the building blocks. I do call them moral and human principles, but I was talking in context of someone raised with so-called "Christian values". Just because established religion in general peddles garbage, doesn't mean the founding principles were invalid. They may have been co-opted and used to manipulate the masses for nefarious reasons, but the principles stand up, no matter what you want to call them.
I have no interest in defending a church or religion that I hold little or no respect for and Charles has no need for me to defend him here. What he said came across as bigoted, I admit. But I can only say that is not how I know him to be. I'm sure he'll address it once he gets the hang of things around here, which can be quite overwhelming at first.

It most certainly is.

Any ideology that posits that it alone has all the truth is dangerous.
That is true of politcs and religion--and all other ideological based notions---including science.

Hmm...you're beginning to sound familiar.

makes me wonder who we're really dealing with here.

though ideological disputes can occur in science.

"None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith."

I'm not sure I et your point

Yes, useless at best for scientific work.
Yes, useless at best for making political decisions.

But for individuals' and groups' search to understand their lives, where they fit in the universe, and so on -- that depends on the individuals and the groups.

I grew up in the Presbyterian Church, and it and my parents (Methodists) instilled a great sense of values in me, but then, so did the Girl Scouts and public schools I attended.

The problem for me was that I grew up and older, I could no longer bring myself to believe in doctrine and dogma. I gave up on organized religion in favor of spirituality, belief in a specific god in favor of a more encompassing secular humanism/Universal consciousness/reverence for Mother Earth.

For me, dropping the attempts at pleasing some authoritarian god figure was very liberating. I like the the Golden Rule, and believe it transcends everything else. I also like the idea of treating others well with no expectation of some type of eternal reward, but just because it's the right thing (for me) to do. When I do something good for someone else, I no longer have to justify my motivation. I also no longer feel "less than" because there was no way I could ever measure up to the impossible standards dictated by religion.

Am I glad I grew up in a church? Yes and no. There were many rewards, but there were also quite a few drawbacks, and lots of conflicts about what I "should" believe and what I actually do believe.

I think religions and their attending beliefs are great sources of good, but also great sources of evil (when misused). I have a live and let live attitude until it comes to Zealots,who want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. There is, imo, no difference between Zealots, regardless of sect/demonination/etc. They are all authoritarian control freaks, and that's where I draw my line in the sand.

Good. Dogma is the enemy of faith. Religious absolutism is the enemy of truth.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and then you attempt to validate religion based only on the good done by religious people.

If I'm going to discuss biology I don't want creationists junk on the table. I've got no time for that either.

that it's laughable. You yourself admitted that the horror stories of evil motivated by religion are real and true. The claims of creationists have been discredited as thoroughly as can be imagined.

Sorry, but I'm calling BS on you, your alleged background and your claimed desire for "thoughtful discussion". You're no thinker, no scholar, and no theologian.

If you think judging religion based on all the evils it has caused isn't a valid approach, then judging it based only on the good it has caused sure as hell isn't either.

Nice try at building credibility by using the biology example by the way.

You list the actions of believers. That isn't theology.

Of course, I have no idea why I'm asking you a question as I'm sure you won't ever come back to respond.

he'll start a new thread WITH CAPS LOCK to answer you.

Really. I don't see how you can divorce theology and action. Nor can you divorce science from what scientists do. Over time I'll file some longer stuff about your question.

One can state what they believe and have no intention of living that belief.
That is the difference between a Christian and a 'christian', two very different beings

MLK would have just been a giant douchebag that did nothing? That's how you divorce it. What, uniquely, is theology responsible for? Good people do good things absent theology.

Thanks for the response.

and therefore it can't be possible? Did nothing in your extensive education acquaint you with the (fallacious) Argument from Personal Incredulity? In fact, you spent a good part of your very first post attempting to divorce theology and religion from the actions of religious people that you know reflect badly.

And more ridiculous false equivalence. Science IS what scientists do, and the body of knowledge they produce by doing it. But you can, in fact divorce knowledge from how it is used.

What is the point of religion if God does not exist. If I may speak for others, those of us who are atheist find all the activity around religion a waste of time and a fruitless endeavor since it is based on an untruth.

Also, ENOUGH WITH THE ALL CAPS in the titles!

+1

:D

"a waste of time and a fruitless endeavor."

rather than curse the darkness.

there is a supernatural existence (god or something) or there is not. There is no in between. Also, there is NO objective proof for nor against such supernatural existence.

is a great deal of objective evidence against any of the claimed deity or deities that people believe in. And zero evidence for them.
But then again you always discount the idea that "objective".

existence, being(s), God or gods do not exist?

has been either unsupported or officially debunked.

Tell me about ghosts and goblins, telepathy and telekinesis, angels and demons, gods and devils, and all the other things that go bump in the night. Then tell me where you found any supporting evidence for these things.

But for you to say that ALL are unsupported or debunked is BUNK. The best you can do with some of it is to say "I don't know." There in fact is much "supporting" evidence for much of the Bible. Whether you agree or not is not my concern. You do all of your reasoning from one POV - "If it can't be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or physically touched - then it cannot or probably doesn't or does not exist." Very narrow minded indeed.

supported with subjective evidence such as witnesses. You see, just saying something "ain't so" doesn't make it so. you are STILL using that very narrow epistemology to determine EVERYTHING and you are demanding that others do the same. You have every right to see the world as you like, but that does not eliminate the fact that others see things differently. And don't ever make the claim that you support free thinking.

Obviously you couldn't prove any supernatural claims in a laboratory. Could you prove them in court, where "subjective" evidence is allowed? Are those "witnesses" testimonies corroborating? Can you prove that such corroboration hasn't been preconditioned or agreed upon? Do you have any physical evidence for your supernatural claims? Given a jury of skeptics in our moot court, could you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any supernatural phenomenon X had actually occurred?

New way to dodge.

Care to try again?

You really should take a break. Having your ass handed to you over and over MUST get tiresome, no?

I'm still waiting...

The best you or I can do is to accept proof as subjective. Existence to me is enough proof that a creator exists. But that of course is a subjective interpretation. Your view on the other hand is directly opposed to such a claim to the extent that what you see is all there is and that there is not a shread of evidence for any god.

but of course there's no reason to assume that design is necessary for our existence. No reason whatsoever.

Of course, once again, you dodged the question above. Go back to 81 and 85. I'm not asking you to prove the existence of God. I'm asking you to prove, with any evidence you can muster, just one claim of a supernatural phenomenon affecting the natural world. Now can you, or not?

is if you decide to ignore every other argument that you don't agree with. That only serves to further prove the severe limitations of atheistic thought. It called a vacuous argument and providing a magnificent example.
Post 108 says it all and no, that is not the argument from design. It is based on observation of the natural world around us.

Over and over again I have PROVEN that your POV is "If it cannot be seen, smelled, heard, tasted, or touched - it probably doesn't or cannot exist." You obfuscate, you dodge and you demand proof of something that logical empiricism was not designed to even address. I know that you do not realize that fact but those ARE the rules established by secular thinkers long ago. And they were very wise to do so.

I'll take it that the answer to my previous question is "not"?

More like hearsay.

after your "argument" got thoroughly owned and destroyed by multiple people in the other thread.

The laughs keep coming from that one.

by more disciplines than your logical empiricism, which is realized as far too limited. That "if I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch something then it probably doesn't exist or can't exist" line isn't bought by most people.

Examples?

Of course, I don't expect a reply.

From Wiki:
"Echos of the "positivist" and "antipositivist" debate persist today, though this conflict is hard to define. Authors writing in different epistemological perspectives do not phrase their disagreements in the same terms and rarely actually speak directly to each other. To complicate the issues further, few practicing scholars explicitly state their epistemological commitments, and their epistemological position thus has to be guessed from other sources such as choice of methodology or theory. However, no perfect correspondence between these categories exists,<33> and many scholars critiqued as "positivists" actually hold postpositivist views."

"Postpositivism is an amendment to positivism that recognizes these and other critiques against logical positivism. It is not a rejection of the scientific method, but rather its reformation to meet these critiques. It preserves the basic assumptions of positivism: ontological realism, the possibility and desirability of objective truth, and the use of experimental methodology."

not copy and pastes off of Wikipedia.

The wiki articles illustrate it quite well. All use an adapted form of the Scientific Method.

Please tell me how engineering uses anything besides what you label "logical empiricism".

what logical empiricism (Logical Positivism) is?

now point me to an instance where the field of engineering was advanced by your "other ways of knowing". That is, advances made not based on empirical data or objective proof.

Now where did I ever say that "other ways of knowing" didn't utilize empirical data or objective proof? I made no such claim. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Depends on the application. Usually they are referred to as epistemologies. Logical Empiricism is one type and the Scientific Method is the prime example of it. It (Logical Positivism, not the SM) has certain limitations that have caused it to slowly lose favor.

You didn't even read "Postpositivism is an amendment to positivism that recognizes these and other critiques against logical positivism. It is not a rejection of the scientific method, but rather its reformation to meet these critiques. It preserves the basic assumptions of positivism: ontological realism, the possibility and desirability of objective truth, and the use of experimental methodology."

It's nothing more than finding better or different methods of accomplishing something or better ways to do things. Only two "disciplines" that I know of can be said to be 100% objective (theoretically)- science and math. Others use varying degrees of objectivity vs. subjectivity. Now are you telling me that engineering doesn't use standard methods or axioms, and that sometimes new ideas and methods are introduced that challenge old ideas?

*What is an example of that?

Also I read all of what you posted, but I just don't see what your endgame is.

It was never said that the existence of god could be disproven/proven based on empirical evidence. That is not even my problem, the burden of proof has always rested on you. Until there is some sort of objective proof (which is YOUR responsibility to provide me), god is on the same level as the tooth fairy.

I think your reply will be that since I'm seeking objective proof, I'm subscribing to the limited world view of logical empiricism. *However, WITHOUT objective proof, how does one judge the credibility of an explanation or argument?

Please be sure to answer the starred questions in my post.

belief does not rely solely on the knowledge obtained through observations of the physical world. When someone claims that the world around them represents the creation of God or something to that effect, that is a subjective opinion. Likewise, when someone observes the same physical world and interprets it as "proof" of no diety, this too is a subjective interpretation. Neither the believer nor the non-believer can claim objective proof. If one applies logical positivism to this scenario, hypotheses can be formulated, tested, and observations made for expected results. But there are specific criteria for using LP. On the inductive side of the process, certain things are considered to be "non-sensical" and are not allowed to be considered, i.e. anything metaphysical, intuitive, or a priori, etc., and data is limited solely to that which can be sensed and observed. There nothing wrong with the method, but it can applied only to the physical environment, period.

*So what is an example that doesn't use empirical or objective observation as "proof"? Different disciplines use different degrees of objective and subjective interpretation. If a linear scale represented the most objective to the most subjective, math and "hard" science would be at the objective end and something like history would be somewhere in the middle. Law would be in the middle, too (legal positivism). At the opposite end would be theology and religion, which use the highest degree of subjective inquiry as "proof." What is considered "proof" in metaphysics or theology is not the same as "proof" in math or science.

Ontology and teleology are considered both as epistemologies and as methods. These are specifically ignored when Logical Empiricism is being used, but "ontological realism", for example is now applied when post positivism is the chosen "way of knowing." Ontological inquiry used in this way has no element of religion or theology. It is still limited to only material considerations. These are examples of other "ways of knowing."

"*However, WITHOUT objective proof, how does one judge the credibility of an explanation or argument?" In short, disciplines such as philosophy and religion rely on several things, but never solely on objective proof. Even if some one has a religious experience or witnesses something "supernatural", it of course is only subjectively proven to them alone. It could only be considered objective if all doubt in the minds of non-witnesses was eliminated.

But there are other elements to religious belief: intuition, a priori knowledge, methods of regression, historical documents, and the use of established scientific laws such as Newton's laws of motion, etc. So, if you are looking for verifiable objective proof, you probably won't find it. Nevertheless, religious believers do reason using empiricism, rationalism, and some of the other elements I have mentioned and more.

You spin harder than an old-fashioned granary, and you have about as much use. In response to your spin, I have three separate things to say.

1. Your first paragraph, aside from using a straw man of someone claiming actual proof of non-existence of a deity (no one has ever done that), relies on the "prove me wrong" defense. You're saying that no one can prove to you that God doesn't exist, so that leaves room for your opinion. The problem is, that still leaves your God in the same category as the Tooth Fairy.

2. You've twisted the word "proof" beyond all meaning. There are two accepted meanings of proof in the context of verification as you're using it here. One is formal and mathematical. The other involves facts. Facts, not inferences or opinions that come about from "subjective interpretation." But since you have no facts, and since you certainly have no mathematical concept to prove, you use the word incorrectly in a repeated fashion in order to strip it of all meaning. Of course it doesn't change the fact that when asked for that "proof", even when it's "subjective", you refuse to come up with it and sputter on about how there are different kinds of proof, relying on circular argumentation to cloak the fact that you have no support for your POV.

3. Ontology and teleology have absolutely nothing to do with knowledge. The ontological and teleological arguments for God, or for anything else, are at best suppositions that do not actually increase anyone's knowledge. And don't tell me that there are different ways of knowing something, because that completely ignores the concept of what it means to "know," namely that you possess an unequivocal certainty about some particular item that you can support with facts which will allow other people to possess that certainty as well. Knowledge is bred from certainty, and ontology and teleology provide neither.

But don't let those facts get in the way of your Big Lie. Tell us again about how everyone who thinks you can't prove God is a "Logical Positivist". If you repeat it enough, maybe someone will believe you...maybe...:rofl:

some of the stuff you do is beyond me, especially when you are so easily debunked.

You said no one has ever claimed "actual proof of non-existence of a deity (no one has ever done that). If I find just one strong atheist who has made that claim, then who is making the BIG LIE.

You also claim that teleology and ontology don't produce knowledge But there are many scholars who say otherwise, Karl Popper being one of them. Whenever a scientist or anyone theorizes about being or purpose, then these are being implemented.

As stated earlier on postpositivism, another "way of knowing":"Postpositivism is an amendment to positivism that recognizes these and other critiques against logical positivism. It is not a rejection of the scientific method, but rather its reformation to meet these critiques. It preserves the basic assumptions of positivism: ONTOLOGICAL realism, the possibility and desirability of objective truth, and the use of experimental methodology. Postpositivism of this type is common in the social sciences (especially sociology) for both practical and conceptual reasons."

Show me someone who has claimed that they have actual proof that there is no God.

I'll wait.

The rest is an argument from authority and worthy of nothing.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

Chances are pretty slim that he is alone. I have also heard Hitchens make the same claim.

You said it, now back it up.

he claims proof for the opposite. But by the mere admission that there is no god, not maybe, not probably, THERE IS NO GOD. Pretty much says it all.

It's simple really. You made the claim, now back it up. Post a quote. Unless of course you were using a straw man...

doesn't make a definitive statement without proving to himself what he believes.

You made the claim. If you can't back it up it simply proves it for what it was: a straw man.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You also dodge every meaningful point offered to you and continue to spew your circular logic even in the face of it being answered six ways from Sunday. Tell us all again how fallacies aren't fallacies, or how it's actually just fine to use fallacies, or how "proof" means whatever you want it to mean, or how knowledge doesn't require any form of certainty, or how atheists are responsible for the most atrocious things in history, or how religion is valid because ancient society tells us so...

You make baby Jesus cry. (I should know, I saw him being nursed by the Tooth Fairy just last week...)

But if Poe ever reads this, he'll laugh his ruddy ass off.

Where's a quote from anyone who isn't an internet troll? If you have to link to the equivalent of youtube, where every unbalanced, unmedicated maniac with a webcam can post a rant to find a statement, you've already lost the argument. Don't go moving the goalposts, and don't use things you yourself could have created, show me a quote.

I answered. BTW, what's the difference between claiming "proof" and claiming "actual proof?"

You gave me a link to a video website where hyperbole rules the day and people say they have proof for every damn thing under the sun. In other words, they misuse the word proof as much as you do.

I'm looking for someone who says, as you pointed to in the earlier post, "I have actual proof that God doesn't exist, and here it is." They need to making a claim to have facts, as you originally stated, and not making a statement of opinion.

Let me see if I can make this easy for you:

"God doesn't exist and I have proof! No intelligent designer would ever do X with the human body!"
Hyperbolic bullshit, and a misuse just like yours of the word "proof".

"I have actual proof that God does not exist. Here are the facts..."
Give me a quote, and I'll believe you. Don't send me to videos of people who, in one way or another, haven't made it out of middle school. Time and again you have claimed that prominent atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Gillette, and many more have claimed proof that there is no god. Time and again you use this claim to misrepresent the position of all atheists who dare to speak about their atheism. It is the very definition of a straw man, and until and unless you can provide an actual quote claiming "actual proof of no god" as you did in your oringal argument by any of those people, you're just spewing bullshit as fast as you can and hoping that someone, anyone, will believe you if you get the last word.

"...someone claiming actual proof of non-existence of a deity (no one has ever done that)."

Has definitely been debunked. Now you can start "changing the goal posts" again.

And obviously if you answer just one tiny point, you answer the whole post no matter how many other points were brought up, huh?

Where did you learn to debate, the Bush League Summer Camp for Toddlers?

"when someone observes the same physical world and interprets it as "proof" of no diety"

Why do you keep ignoring that the burden of proof is on you? you made the claim of god's existence, YOU show me sufficient proof. Until then your claim remains dismissed! I'm not interpreting anything as proof of no diety. I don't NEED to, I don't need to do ANYTHING to dismiss your claim. I don't know if you're purposefully being obtuse or if you really don't get this. If it is the latter, I am sincerely sorry for you.

"Different disciplines use different degrees of objective and subjective interpretation"

I specifically asked for an example in the engineering discipline (as you allowed me to pick any field). An instance when that field was advanced based on non objective proof. You said sometimes this is the case in that specific field. Provide an example please.

The rest of what you wrote remains a moot point until you address these two KEY issues.

never have. I have been straight with you. It's your choice whether to accept or not, I honestly don't care. That's your prerogative. How you believe is totally up to you. But, I do consider atheistic thought to be very narrow and limited, and most definitely not associated with the concept of "free thinking" that is so often purported.

As far as this statement, "Different disciplines use different degrees of objective and subjective interpretation" - it's pretty self explanatory. The way the legal system operates is one example. How an historian interprets amcient data is another.

You haven't given me any proof. God remains in the company of the tooth fairy.

Have a good night, sir.

thousands who were willing to give up their lives in the name of the tooth fairy. As far as I know no one ever claimed to have met the tooth fairy. But yes, you do not have to accept. On the other hand many of us have seen enough "proof" to believe. I can do nothing else. Good Night.

You never did read all of your guide on http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html">how to cheat in debate, did you?

Here, I'll quote the relevant sections here:
So, humblebum, one of your own references clearly points out that it doesn't matter how many people believe something or how long they have believed it. I wonder if you could construct an argument that doesn't contain any fallacies.

And, as a matter of fact, I have met the tooth fairy. I sent her a card recently. I invite you to prove me wrong.

can you tell her to pass on a good word for me to god. The next time they're hangin' out that is.

But don't you have your own personal tooth fairy?

my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal Tooth Fairy and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.

which I do not. I base my argument on the evidence that people actually did give their lives in several different ages and that there were many of them and those facts are recorded in several places. If your reasoning was correct then ten people witnessing a crime would not stand as evidence because a defence would be based on numbers or Argumentum ad numerum. Instead the evidence is based on overwhelming testimony. Huge difference.

Seriously, humblebum. Overwhelming testimony?

For hundreds of thousands of years, the personal experience of every single human being led them to believe that the Earth was flat and stationary. By your own reasoning, the notion that the Earth is both flat and stationary is vastly more supported than your god.

After all, who are you to say that the experience of billions of people over hundreds of thousands of years is any less valid the "evidence" for your god? (By the way, some of what I'm sure you consider "evidence" also supports the idea that the Earth is flat and stationary.)

I'll repeat what your economics professor says on the matter. Since the previous two times didn't seem to take, maybe the third time's the charm:

But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right.

a murder are less likely to be telling the truth than the word of one person who witnesses a murder. Your reasoning is skewed. If I write a thesis listing 20 primary source references, then would it be less likely to be as accurate as if I only had listed 2? We are talking probabilities here, not numbers. There is no fallacy.

I salute you. :patriot:

You know all too well he didn't say that a single witness is more likely to tell the truth than a dozen witnesses. If that twisted misrepresentation of logic is the only thing you can come up with to defend your use of fallacy, then you're toast.

Very common around here.

You have already shown us that you have read up on fallacies and specifically that you have thoroughly read a website dedicated to defending the use of fallacy in debate. Don't act now like you don't know what a straw man is, and certainly don't expect that anyone here is ignorant enough to believe that showing your use of fallacy as fallacious is a straw man in itself. You used a fallacy, it's indefensible, and none of the plays from your precious defense website will change that, because there's no clock to run out in this forum.

Nice straw man, by the way.

But my claim was not based on numbers and I said it increased probability, which it certainly does. When you accuse someone of something you must pay attention to details. So in this case, your argument is nothing more than a straw man.

You clearly cited the millenia-old tradition of lots of people believing in your god as "evidence." This invokes two fallacies. To deny making that argument is a to make a deliberate falsehood.

How many times have you argued that a straw man is a legitimate type of argument when caught using it? Now you insist that my "argument" (which is really just a response to your own argument) is illegitimate because it's a straw man (even though it isn't). This is blatant hypocrisy.

It's amusing that when cornered, you couldn't come up with anything other than deliberate falsehoods and blatant hypocrisy.

by sneaking "probably" in there. Where did that come from, I wonder?

who dismiss "probably."

"probably" is missing.

Damn, that was a tight circle you ran there. Did you hurt yourself?

since post 122.

Sheesh. Does it ever get tired of being so transparently dishonest?

"Probably" simply widens the scope of inclusion. There's no getting around it. It clearly demonstrates the simplicity of atheistic logic.

Notice how I said logical conclusion, not definitive answer.

Now, If you think that there IS a supernatural existence, then show some fucking proof. Some REAL proof, not some made-up, bullshit "subjective" nonsense or worn-out, tired and debunked "argument" for it. Put up or shut up.

That "I say it's true,therefore it's true and that settles it" answer is anything but logic. Empirical logic can take you no farther than the evidence permits. Simply put, that is your limitation. Any claim made beyond that point is mere speculation. IOW, what you are saying is "If I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch/feel it, it doesnt or probably doesn't exist.

But wait a minute, if I use ontological or teleological enquiry utilizing principles such as Newton's laws of motion, then your declaration of non-existence is seriously in jeopardy and your objective claim goes up in flames. Just because you say it's so, don't make it so, bubba. And just becaus you say your logic is the only logic that can be used, doesn't make it so either, bubba. Your logical conclusion is bunk!

You are advocating nothing but controlled thinking. Kinda blows the free-thinking claim to pieces, huh?

Ontological: The argument from intuition
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#ObjOntArg

Teleological: The argument from design:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/

And guess what! Neither of those arguments (note: arguments, not "enquiries") is worth a damn outside the circular logic of the faith. They were answered quite satisfactorily long before either of us were born.

Teleology deals with the question of purpose and ontology deals with questions of being and both are widely used today. The logical empiricism that you are touting has gone out of favor in most disciplines. You are still guilty of trying to restrict free thought and that does not change the FACT that your method can take no farther than the evidence allows and its limitations are your physical senses and any data gained by them. That's a FACT.

how science and critical thinking actually work. And even less of reality.
In the end all the two dollar words just say "God exists because I know he does". No proof, no evidence, nothing.

Nor have I claimed it here. Believers cannot claim objective proof of God. And as far as you claiming that I know very little about "how science and critical thinking actually work. And even less of reality" - you are merely confirming my points. You have not adequately defined "reality", simply your own version of it. And your "proof" only extends to what your physical senses allow. As a matter of fact, your entire epistemology is no longer the most commonly used because most disciplines have realized its severe limitations.

that don't deal with reality.
There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dealt with in your PHILOSOPHY. Emphasis on 'philosophy', not 'your'

"That's MY line!"

"Where you see contradiction, I see confirmation."




:rofl:

That NEVER ceases to be funny.

Yes, those can be called enquiries and are still very much in use today - by scientists even.

And BTW: Methods of inquiry ask questions, more often than not original ones, and then provide answers. These widely recognized arguments provide no answers, and ask only one very old question.

the same conclusions are not always reached. Hawking used these forms when he assessed that it was not necessary for the existence of a god to create the universe. Being the positivist he is, he excluded anything considered to be "non-sensical" such as metaphysics, etc.

You are showing me that you have little knowledge of anything beyond empirical enquiry. Part of the reasoning used in assessing the subject of being, for instance, is to applying recognized ideas such as Newtonian laws of motion. You can drag this out forever, but the fact remains that these are recognized epistemologies and regardless of whether or not YOU recognize does not mean that they do not exist. Personally I am not content to limit my thinking to the 5 senses. Logical positivism, as you are trying to solely use is no longer accepted as the only epistemology by most disciplines. It is outdated because it is so limited. I use it often, but not solely.

These well recognized and centuries-old arguments, as illustrated in the links I provided above to Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, are not epistemologies, nor are they inquiries. They are formal arguments for the existence of God, nothing more, and they have been answered time and again since their origination.

If anyone here is "limited", it's the one who can't get away from arguments that originated before the Renaissance.

If you cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch something then it cannot or probably doesn't exist. Any thing that is a priori, intuitive, metaphysical, etc. is automatically rejected. It's called logical empiricism. And if you knew anything at all about philosophy, you would know that ontology and teleology are indeed epistemologies (some consider them closely related but slightly different as related to their relation to knowledge) and methods of inquiry. They are not arguments, but ways of arguing and they are not restricted to arguments of religion and theology. And they can very easily be used in conjunction with empiricism to promote a broader understanding.

More of the same.



Boring.

trot out your "broken record" coping mechanism. It's usually either "militant atheist,militant atheist,militant atheist,militant atheist... !" or "strawman!" or "broken record...." LOL!

Go back and look at his posting history if you don't believe me.

do use those coping mechanisms.

and what it means when it's different?

you, and no one else. Just you. Not someone, or anybody, just you.

Your post stands as a stark illustration of the simplistic mindset of many believers.

The fallacy in this one is strong, it is.

than a yes or no to the existence of diety, then indeed you are privileged to have such access to the secrets of the universe.

So quit wasting your time responding to it. Or maybe that's just your opinion, not an eternal declaration of Truth. The latter would make you just another sort of fundamentalist.

why don't you just say what's on your mind?

By the way, often scientists used to be (past tense) monks and priests because they were among the few who were literate and had free time to spend on scientific questions. Also, in those days one either had to depend on either the nobility or the clergy for funding. Much has been discovered despite religion, not because of it.

WHY ARE WE YELLING!!!!

don't you know.

:puke:

Your comments are always so insightful and eloquent.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Compelling commentary, I'm sure.

It seems many-not here-have no intellectual moral underpinnings-or cannot explain their ethics-other than through a religious lens. Watch debates online(Hitchens, Harris, DeSousa(sp?)---this is a major topic. I personally find religion distasteful if not offensive. But it seems that it is the nature of many to need this foundation on which to build their reasoning for not doing bad things. If religion stops this percentage of people from doing harm-from fear or otherwise-it seems this is OK. But generally, it appears that it is an excuse to do harm, a reason for unreasonable ideas, and an excuse to ignore reality.

Better take a closer look at Western history, art, music, literature, architecture, poetry, hospitals, schools, compassion for the poor, acts of justice for the nobodies. If you don't see them it is either because you don't want to or haven't looked.

That was in the past. What does it hope to bring us in the future?

Short of new revelations from a new prophet, what new things can religion/theology bring to the table to help us with modern-day and future problems?

It just seems that as time goes on, current religion/theology is less and less useful and necessary to solve our problems.

Of course, I will never rule out a new religious movement rising up and displacing the old...

After 80+ years, you're still dishing out the same tired, discredited arguments? And you start off by rather foolishly conflating religion and the actions of believers with theology.

To simply say, as you essentially have, "If you'll all please just not consider all of the evil that has been motivated by religion, then religion has been overwhelmingly a force for good" Well, duh...I'm sure you'd like everyone to think that way, but an honest assessment of the role of religion in history has to consider both good and evil, as well as whether the good could not have been managed but for religion. Are you seriously leading off with such an intellectually dishonest position?

see my response about this above

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to understand why yours was grossly inadequate.

has done some good things, but let’s not confuse religiosity with piety. Organized religion is big business, and big business knows that demonstrating magnanimity from time to time is good policy.

Yes, organized religion is a business, and it has a product to peddle; namely, everlasting life.

If Wal-Mart, like the church, could sell us the promise of life after death, maybe Mike Duke would be pope. Selling tickets to some conjured-up fictional afterlife is a valuable commodity. Religion remains a powerful entity because many people, rather than facing reality, cling desperately to religion’s pie-in-the-sky empty promises of a heaven.

You claim that any evil in which religion has been involved over the centuries has been motivated by religion's desire to do good. Oh, please. And Pat Boone's heart was in the right place when he was spanking the bare bottoms of his daughters, a practice he continued until his daughters were in their twenties. As regards slavery, some bishops in America during the Civil War era continued owning black slaves until abolition, when they were forced to give them up. Even Pope Pius IX proclaimed that slavery wasn't against divine law.

If you want to sing the praise of religion, please try to be at least as well informed as casual Wiki-clickies such as I.

Hey, rough crowd, right?

I think you're going to do fine. That is, once we round off the rough edges. :)

Here's a starter: are you at all surprised that in a preponderantly Christian country, most of the actions are done by Christians?

do consider a crowd that demands evidence and valid arguments, and has no patience for those which are long discredited, to be rough. Surprise, surprise.

To state otherwise actually is religious intolerance, and when you understand that you may have learned something important.

That's what it means.

Now explain Father Damien.

summed up theology rather well, I think.

"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion"

They are as useful or useless as the motivations of the people they inspire.

:toast:

...theology is just one big circular argument based on guessing and largely false assumptions. Until someone can point to concrete evidence that anything theologians say is factually true, the whole exercise is a distracting waste of time.

According to you, in the absence of religion there is no such thing as ethics. You don't have to even TAKE a single class on ethics to understand would silly this statement is. You seem to have a shaky grasp on the human condition... at best.

For many, religious imagery serves as an icon by which followers can work out their own personal problems, psychology and balance the elements of one's persona and sense of self.

It isn't the only way to do that, but it has been effective for some people.

Besides, without Theology there would be no Paul Tillich - one of my favorite Theologians. His argument for 'God above God' is of special interest to us Atheists, and gives a philosophical road to the idea of 'Einstein's God' or the God of the Sciences.

And self-abasement because they believe the bullshit that they are a sinner because they are breathing, according to the evil and pernicious and soul-destroying argument of Original Sin.

:wtf: Original Sin has destroyed thousands of souls and lives and made people devoid of purpose, unaware of their talents, and paralyzed with fear and unable to use their abilities to help themselves and others.

Ignorance, now....that's another question. You might want to read the post before responding, not only the header. Just a suggestion, of course.

that good people will use religion for good, and bad people will use it for evil. And there have been plenty of examples of both in history!

The same applies to many other ideologies.