|
Brainiac Five posted:Right. I disagree with the notion that religion is a mental illness or ought to be treated as such, mind. What would you call believing things that aren't real, then?
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
Avalerion posted:What would you call believing things that aren't real, then? Well, provide your disproof of the concept of religion. Tell you what, I'll even leave out the Church of Positivism and LaVeyan Satanism for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
We don't have to make it about religion - hopefully I don't have to prove Hogwarts isn't real, we can just accept that it obviously isn't, right? How would you classify someone's belief that Hogwarts is real?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:We don't have to make it about religion - hopefully I don't have to prove Hogwarts isn't real, we can just accept that it obviously isn't, right? How would you classify someone's belief that Hogwarts is real? Go ask Max Tegmark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:What would you call believing things that aren't real, then? You can't say they aren't real, just that they aren't rational positions. And being irrational isn't an illness, that's the default human response.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You can't say they aren't real, just that they aren't rational positions. And being irrational isn't an illness, that's the default human response. I did call them delusions instead, for the record. And yea I myself brought up that this is in no way limited to religion so no argument there.  That said, why can't I say god isn't real in the same way I would say horoscopes/hogwarts etc aren't real? Or are you saying I shouldn't be saying the later either?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:I did call them delusions instead, for the record. And yea I myself brought up that this is in no way limited to religion so no argument there. Nobody is telling you you can't be an atheist. I am telling you that if you want to claim religion is false you need to have proof. Just like you could claim astrology is inaccurate by proving that it relies on false positives and vagueness of horoscopes to get results, but just insisting astrology is inaccurate does not constitute such proof.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:I did call them delusions instead, for the record. And yea I myself brought up that this is in no way limited to religion so no argument there. You can absolutely say god isn't real, it's just that saying so is a positive claim and so puts the burden of proof onto you. So if you're going to say it then you shouldn't be shocked when you're asked to prove it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:religion is false you need to have proof. Just like you could claim astrology is inaccurate by proving that it relies on false positives and vagueness of horoscopes to get results, but just insisting astrology is inaccurate does not constitute such proof. Ok. The claims of young earth creationism clash with human knowledge on many points, and on every single one, YECs are wrong. For example, young earth creationists believe the earth is a few 1000 years old. A vast array of evidence indicates it is much older. Not only are the claims of YEC false, YE creationists are actively engaged in spreading falsehoods. Also did you get my explanation of why I don't believe in your claim that if you think believers are wrong, you're still not obliged to "cure" them of their delusions?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
I'm not going to try disprove "religion" because I think people much better equipped to do that have already argued the point convincingly countless times before me. I don't understand why assuming something isn't real unless proven otherwise should not be default position? Especially if being unprovable is often conveniently a trait attributed to the thing I'm being asked to disprove. I get that you are arguing that the sensible thing would be to remain agnostic, but by that argument should I also be agnostic about the already mentioned Hogwards exists statement, which seems... silly to even consider?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:I'm not going to try disprove "religion" because I think people much better equipped to do that have already argued the point convincingly countless times before me. We're trying to explain to you the difference between believing something isn't real or true and claiming to know something it's real or true. One of those claims requires a lot more rigor to support; can you guess which one?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:We're trying to explain to you the difference between believing something isn't real or true and claiming to know something it's real or true. One of those claims requires a lot more rigor to support; can you guess which one?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
I don't understand why you're using belief in the material reality of an expressly fictional artifact as equated with religion, except as an unsubtle slander against religion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
It sounds like the thread is headed down a sort of positivist track, where one should be a default agnostic through never even beginning to ask the question of if there is or isn't a god, as all present claims either way are evidently nonsensical.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Squalid posted:It sounds like the thread is headed down a sort of positivist track, where one should be a default agnostic through never even beginning to ask the question of if there is or isn't a god, as all present claims either way are evidently nonsensical. No? I am arguing against the use of science as a knock-down argument. There are plenty of good philosophical arguments for atheism, but alas, they don't involve a line to an absolute truth from which to stand on and hurl insults, and mostly offer doubt and some humility, so it's not surprising fans of Sam Harris are unaware of their existence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:I don't understand why assuming something isn't real unless proven otherwise should not be default position? Especially if being unprovable is often conveniently a trait attributed to the thing I'm being asked to disprove. I get that you are arguing that the sensible thing would be to remain agnostic, but by that argument should I also be agnostic about the already mentioned Hogwards exists statement, which seems... silly to even consider?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I don't understand why you're using belief in the material reality of an expressly fictional artifact as equated with religion, except as an unsubtle slander against religion. At their root most modern religions derives their claims about the universe from logic that goes something like: It's in the Vedas. The Vedas are given to us from the heavens, and so it must be true. All one needs to establish Faith in the Harry Potter universe is to develop the premise that the novels are divine truth, and the express intent for the material to be fictional becomes irrelevant. This kind of innovation occurs not infrequently, see the way some American Protestant movements treat the KJB or some modern people have begun to behave as if zombie apocalypses or Mad Max represent a real potential.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Because science concerns material it can't investigate God as God, as there's no god that can be tested. Not necessarily. An intercessory God could potentially be tested.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:I'm not going to try disprove "religion" because I think people much better equipped to do that have already argued the point convincingly countless times before me. You're stepping in the poo poo. Do not let Brainiac put you in the position of trying to prove the negative of an unfalsifiable belief. Between this and the claims of hypocrisy whenever someone won't take their argument to the extremes that Brainiac desires for purposes of taking potshots at strawmen, I figured it was pretty obvious that they're just trolling by now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Squalid posted:At their root most modern religions derives their claims about the universe from logic that goes something like: It's in the Vedas. The Vedas are given to us from the heavens, and so it must be true. All one needs to establish Faith in the Harry Potter universe is to develop the premise that the novels are divine truth, and the express intent for the material to be fictional becomes irrelevant. This kind of innovation occurs not infrequently, see the way some American Protestant movements treat the KJB or some modern people have begun to behave as if zombie apocalypses or Mad Max represent a real potential. This is certainly an argument made in good faith and not just a gussied-up "get owned, godhavers".
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You're stepping in the poo poo. Do not let Brainiac put you in the position of trying to prove the negative of an unfalsifiable belief. Yea, probably. Though I heard similar arguments from actually religious people who I'm positive were genuine and not trolling too, so some benefit of doubt was given.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Falsifiability is pretty outdated philosophy of science and explicitly doesn't render a verdict on truthfulness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not necessarily. An intercessory God could potentially be tested. Depending on the proposed action of intercession we could test certain types of claims about God's activity, not God's existence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:I'm not going to try disprove "religion" because I think people much better equipped to do that have already argued the point convincingly countless times before me. What's silly about it? It's very difficult to categorically prove with evidence that something doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Virtually every other post is about how the religious are mentally defective, but punching back is "trolling". Uh huh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This is certainly an argument made in good faith and not just a gussied-up "get owned, godhavers". It's something many religious people will say repeatedly, it's no secret Christianity is founded on the Bible. Of course there are many religious traditions with no texts, their practitioners typically appeal to tradition as a justification.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Depending on the proposed action of intercession we could test certain types of claims about God's activity, not God's existence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Squalid posted:It's something many religious people will say repeatedly, it's no secret Christianity is founded on the Bible. Of course there are many religious traditions with no texts, their practitioners typically appeal to tradition as a justification. This certainly is an argument made in good faith, (or should I say Faith, like we're loving Germans) and not just a gussied-up way to say "get owned, godhavers".
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:You're stepping in the poo poo. Do not let Brainiac put you in the position of trying to prove the negative of an unfalsifiable belief. - very often, religions make general claims about the material world - these often conflict with scientific claims - science is almost always the winner in these situations Brainiac Five posted:Virtually every other post is about how the religious are mentally defective Brainiac Five posted:Falsifiability is pretty outdated philosophy of science
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I think for most people it should be sufficient to say: Falsifiability in the sense of "all that is scientific is Popperian" is pretty outdated philosophy of science. Anyways, it's funny how your insults are "helpful" but mine aren't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What's silly about it? It's very difficult to categorically prove with evidence that something doesn't exist. It's silly to argue that since we can't prove Hogwarts isn't real, we should remain agnostic rather than just saying of course it's not real. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
So how much does the intellectual inferiority of being religious extend? Is any atheist a better thinker and scientist than Stephen Jay Gould?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:It's silly to argue that since we can't prove Hogwarts isn't real, we should remain agnostic rather than just saying of course it's not real. Why? If we don't have evidence to suggest that something isn't real, what basis do we have for making that statement?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
You misunderstand. None of the positive things you mentioned - love, poetry, hope & sentiment - have any foundation in archaic beliefs. They are, and always will be, constants of human desire and motivations. Same with curiosity or experimentation, the desire to explore. So long as people live, they're going to try to push the boundaries of what they can do. The mistake is thinking you need mythology or mysticism to do any of that. You don't. You just have to acknowledge the difference between imagination and reality, and be willing to come to terms with that. Imagination is a critical part of human consciousness, as is dreaming, so it should be encouraged. But visions of the future don't have unlimited degree of freedom. If they are to ever become realized, they must have a factual foundation. Ignoring that is immaturity, childishness. Your other error is thinking collective action can be constrained. It can't. The destruction of collective action through religion will create a new vector of collective action, as class consciousness replaces religious consciousness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:your insults Brainiac Five posted:"all that is scientific is Popperian"
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This certainly is an argument made in good faith, (or should I say Faith, like we're loving Germans) and not just a gussied-up way to say "get owned, godhavers". Brainiac Five posted:This certainly is an argument made in good faith, (or should I say Faith, like we're loving Germans) and not just a gussied-up way to say "get owned, godhavers". Instead of attacking my intentions why don't you defend the argument I was responding to? There's no reason to believe authorial intent should be assumed to have any relevance to faith in a text, the way the KJV is used is ample proof of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What? What insult? In terms of philosophy of science, that is the loving discipline, as opposed to scientists themselves, who often wear suspenders for christ's sakes, falsifiability as the basis for all science is well out of date. Squalid posted:Instead of attacking my intentions why don't you defend the argument I was responding to? There's no reason to believe authorial intent should be assumed to have any relevance to faith in a text, the way the KJV is used is ample proof of that. No thank you, I have no intention of slamming my foot on top of a landmine just because you're asking me to. Hell, your incompetence at using the quote function has somehow made me less likely to do so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:In terms of philosophy of science, that is the loving discipline, as opposed to scientists themselves, who often wear suspenders for christ's sakes, falsifiability as the basis for all science is well out of date. What insult? Where did I insult you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:It is correct that Die Logik der Forschung was published a good many years ago. I'm not so sure what that does for us here though? Hmm, verrrry dishonest of you to pretend I meant chronological age rather than being outdated as an understanding of philosophy of science. Your posts are an insult to your parents and to anyone with eyes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Hmm, verrrry dishonest of you to pretend I meant chronological age rather than being outdated as an understanding of philosophy of science. It is true critical rationalism is old, and it is not a particularly active topic. I don't however see how that is relevant. How did I insult you? You said I insulted you. It was probably a misunderstanding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 23:33
|
|