Religion and logic - Page 18 - Religion, God, and Theology

You don't think that presupposing a conclusion is relevant in assessing claims? I'm not saying we don't do it, but it would be at least a little odd to assume otherwise.

That would be a rough approximation of my position. If someone claims X, then the only basis upon which I have to evaluate X at that moment is just that X was claimed. Why should I make any sort of assumption about X before assessing it?

But you seem to be implicitly suggesting that the only debate is external, and that there's not at least an internal debate. We have natural "internal discussions" (using a broad brush and painting this with more rationality than is experienced in reality) that evaluate claims as they arrive. Those are forms of bias which may or may not be justified, and it is important to recognize the nature of those biases when listening to the arguments put forth in the debate.

Insofar as the actual debate is concerned, if I'm listening to two people argue about something, I find no error in both sides having the burden of proof (that is, the responsibility to make an argument in favor of their claim).

Well, the subject of this thread is "religion and logic". The OP pretty much states "religious people don't do logic".

What you seem to be saying now is "Yeah, we're kinda feel players, but we know the odds off a flush draw. Well, at least some of us"

Quote

05-14-2017 , 03:14 AM

#427

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

So, before you disparage the scientific method, and science in general, why don't you take a little time to think about what it has given you?

LOL -- You just can't help yourself. At this point, you seem to be taking the standard rhetorical lines that atheists that suck at debate try to use to score points even though it has nothing to do with the actual topic at hand. This isn't the first time you've done this, and continues to point to a basic lack of intellectual skill with handling ideas. When you have nothing to offer, you just say random crap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

And here, Ladies and Gentlemen, we have the sterotypical Trump voter. We also have the archetype of the villain for my OP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

Can I rest my case now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

You're a Trumpkin, aren't you? Be honest now.

Quote

05-14-2017 , 03:17 AM

#428

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

Well, the subject of this thread is "religion and logic". The OP pretty much states "religious people don't do logic".

A claim that has been proven false.

Quote:

What you seem to be saying now is "Yeah, we're kinda feel players, but we know the odds off a flush draw. Well, at least some of us"

I'm saying that all people do that. This is what psychology has taught us about humans. But you don't accept the results of experimental psychologists, and generally seem opposed to knowledge, so I'm not particularly surprised that you don't believe the information that's in front of you, or that you've continuously denied facts to maintain your belief, or done any of the things that you believe that religious people do.

This doesn't deny that humans can do logic, but it's a way more complicated process than what your pitiful imagination is coming up with.

Quote

05-14-2017 , 03:18 AM

#429

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

And you can make this point typing into your computer, while texting your friends on your mobile phone, and eating a nice medium rare (hopefully) steak.

If everyone took your view, then you would be sitting in a cave, wondering whether you could hunt down some animal tomorrow, and if you did, whether your god would send some lighting so you could start a fire and warm your hands. And that's if you're younger than 30 or so - if not, you'd probably be dead.

So, before you disparage the scientific method, and science in general, why don't you take a little time to think about what it has given you?

Okay.

Quote

05-14-2017 , 03:24 AM

#430

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,137

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

A claim that has been proven false.

I'm saying that all people do that. This is what psychology has taught us about humans. But you don't accept the results of experimental psychologists, and generally seem opposed to knowledge, so I'm not particularly surprised that you don't believe the information that's in front of you, or that you've continuously denied facts to maintain your belief, or done any of the things that you believe that religious people do.

This doesn't deny that humans can do logic, but it's a way more complicated process than what your pitiful imagination is coming up with.

So, your argument is reduced to "they all do it"?

1. It's a ridiculous argument even if it were true
2. It's false anyway

Last edited by d2_e4; 05-14-2017 at 03:25 AM. Reason: Maybe you should meet more people outside your evangelical circle

Quote

05-14-2017 , 03:26 AM

#431

dynamite22

journeyman

Join Date: Jul 2015 Posts: 214

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

I disagree. I think trying to distinguish between these statements only serves to cloud the matter.

The interview you quoted with Feynman (ok, I'm a bit of a groupie, I think he is, like, the best scientist of all time), pretty much demonstrates that point.

I don't think it does. When Feynman says Look, I don't know that there is a God; I just don't think there is one. I don't think this is equivalent to "God does not exist" but rather to "The existence of God to me is highly unlikely"

Quote

05-14-2017 , 03:30 AM

#432

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,137

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

So actually, what psychology has taught us about humans is that most of them are susceptible to cognitive biases and logical fallacies. As you have just pointed out. So, thanks.

So, are we now just debating whether the religious ones are more susceptible. Well, I suppose they would be, because they already have to suspend their critical thinking faculties to believe in god.

But go on....

Quote

05-14-2017 , 03:35 AM

#433

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,137

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynamite22

At what point does "highly unlikely" become "impossible"? It asymptotic, sure. I'm guessing Feynman's "highly unlikely" answer was somewhere up there with "winning the lottery 10^10 times in a row"

Edit: the point I was making anyway, was that he didn't want to be noncommittal.

Quote

05-14-2017 , 03:39 AM

#434

dynamite22

journeyman

Join Date: Jul 2015 Posts: 214

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

I'm saying that all people do that. This is what psychology has taught us about humans.

I think you're painting with too broad a brush here. Not everyone does this and some people do this in more domains than others.

Quote

05-14-2017 , 03:40 AM

#435

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

Okay.

Notice here there is no obligation for me to provide reasons for my views here.

Quote

05-14-2017 , 03:47 AM

#436

dynamite22

journeyman

Join Date: Jul 2015 Posts: 214

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

I'm not talking about abstaining. I'm saying that believing that god exists (or doesn't exist) doesn't incur an obligation to offer a proof of the belief. There is no such thing as a burden of proof, except in courtrooms. People can decide to offer arguments for their beliefs if they want, but they don't have an obligation to do so. They can sing a song about their beliefs or paint a picture if they want instead. Or do nothing.

Agree but when people start painting or singing during a philosophical conversation then there is not much point in continuing.

Quote

05-14-2017 , 03:47 AM

#437

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,137

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

Notice here there is no obligation for me to provide reasons for my views here.

Are you playing 3d chess here? What point are you trying to prove?

Quote

05-14-2017 , 03:48 AM

#438

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,137

d2: If there are two people arguing about something and one has the "burden" of proof, then, by definition, the other one cannot. It's a zero-sum game.

Aaron: Underlined: No. Just... no. Both sides can fail to make their case. I have no clue where you're coming up with this arbitrary assumption except from convenient orifices in your body.

O- rly?

Quote

05-14-2017 , 03:55 AM

#439

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,137

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

Notice here there is no obligation for me to provide reasons for my views here.

Correct. There are also another ~6 billion people in the world in the same position. Should we also expect them all to post here to let us know that they don't care?

Reminds me of when an email goes out at work to say "does anyone need a pass this weekend" and someone invariably replies to all and says "not me".

Quote

05-14-2017 , 04:17 AM

#440

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynamite22

Agree but when people start painting or singing during a philosophical conversation then there is not much point in continuing.

Maybe I misunderstood you. Were you not arguing that Christians have a burden of proof to prove the existence of God? Anyway, as a matter of fact Christians have used music and art at least as much as philosophical argumentation to induce people to accept their creeds or join their religion. If your philosophical conversations about religion ignore these aspects then you will be missing an important part of religion.

Quote

05-14-2017 , 04:20 AM

#441

Original Position

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 9,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

I care. I'm pointing out the flaws in your model of intellectual engagement.

Quote

05-14-2017 , 04:26 AM

#442

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,137

Aaron -

Another poster asked you about belief in unicorns etc. You said, I believe, that "based on your personal experience", you found belief in god more reasonable than belief in unicorns. Can you explain why? What experience is this, other, than, of course, being brainwashed from a young age and not having the intellectual courage to break free?

Quote

05-14-2017 , 04:34 AM

#443

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,137

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

I care. I'm pointing out the flaws in your model of intellectual engagement.

Well I guess you should point out the flaws of forums then? Since, you know, anyone can post an OP on any topic, and nobody cares.

If this is a subtle way to suggest that I should probably be a little more civil, or a little less incendiary, then you're probably right - as Aaron would put it, in an "abstract sense".

In a "concrete" sense, I kinda enjoy it.

Quote

05-14-2017 , 04:56 AM

#444

dynamite22

journeyman

Join Date: Jul 2015 Posts: 214

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

I quoted Aaron who in turn was quoting from rationalwiki.

I personally have no problem with people believing in God mostly or strictly on faith nor with reasonable religious people such as Aaron.
I only get tilted super hard by religious fundamentalists, YEC's, etc.

I agree with your point wrt philosophical conversations; I should have said arguments rather than conversations.

Quote

05-14-2017 , 05:09 AM

#445

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,137

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynamite22

Jesus, you people are p*ssies.

"Oh, well, I want to respect his religion, but I just disagree with bla, bla, bla".

People like Trump get voted in. Creationism taught in schools. You p*ssies: "Well, they have a right to practice their religion".

I think I respect Aaron more than you - at least he stands for something. misguided as it may be.

Quote

05-14-2017 , 05:39 AM

#446

dynamite22

journeyman

Join Date: Jul 2015 Posts: 214

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

I believe in religious freedom so for me people are free to believe whatever they want as long as they don't harm others and keep it out of the public domain.

Fortunately I don't live in the US but I would fight tooth and nail to prevent Creationism being taught in schools.

I also strongly object to religious opposition to marriage equality for same-sex couples and to egregious anti-abortion laws. If that makes me a pussy then so be it.

Quote

05-14-2017 , 09:52 AM

#447

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,137

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynamite22

Sorry, I was a bit drunk with that last post. The tone and language was off. I apologise.

Quote

05-14-2017 , 10:32 AM

#448

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,137

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

Maybe I misunderstood you. Were you not arguing that Christians have a burden of proof to prove the existence of God?

I can't speak for the poster to whom you responded, but I am definitely arguing this very point, yes.

As to your point about intellectual engagement - you are right in that it's none of my business what you *personally* choose to believe. When your personal beliefs reach a critical mass of supporters to vote in democratically elected representatives who can enact legislation (or act in any other way) which affects my life, your beliefs become very much my business, and I am going to ask you to justify them.

Last edited by d2_e4; 05-14-2017 at 10:52 AM.

Quote

05-14-2017 , 10:38 AM

#449

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,137

Quote:

Originally Posted by dynamite22

I believe in religious freedom so for me people are free to believe whatever they want as long as they don't harm others and keep it out of the public domain.

Cool, and I would too. However, the Abrahamic religions have never done the bolded.

For the record, I would take the same issue with cults, or any other enterprise that basically brainwashes people into suspending critical thinking and lending their minds (and, in the case of violence/war, bodies), to some movement or another. I object to anti-intellectualism more than I do to religion; it just so happens that the organised support for the Abrahamic religions is by far the biggest anti-intellectual movement in the world.