Scientifically speaking.

Every other religion can be proven to be wrong.

Scientology is an obvious fraud committed by a proven liar and con artist.

That might be true of every other religion, but most of them were invented long enough ago that we don't really know.

Mormons tho

This.

Most other religions are very likely false, founded on delusions and/or lies.

Scientology definitely is.

Then prove it! You'd be the first. You can get a book published and be on a bunch of talk shows in no time.

It's laughably easy to prove religions wrong, if we accept the same type of argument that is used to prove them right.

For abrahamic religion all you need is someone who claims god does not exist and a book.

Then again, proofs are for logic and maths. Which is why it is mostly idiotic to speak of them when it comes to knowledge. Knowledge starts with an agreement of terms. Religion survives by being rather flexible when it comes to those terms. So religion isn't useless because it is disproven, but useless because it can't be.

Eh?

It's called objectivity. It's not a big thing in religion, you might not like it.

Should not be confused with its philosophical namesake.

The level of off-handedness with which you made that claim makes me believe quite strongly that you've never actually contemplated "knowledge" carefully.

Language is not a prerequisite of knowledge.

Well, not exactly, but it's a prerequisite of communicating knowledge. If two people can't even agree on the terms of a discussion, it is very unlikely they will come to any sort of growth as the result of a conversation.

In this specific case, any discussion is going to quickly devolve into a disagreement over what is or isn't acceptable proof of the validity of a religion, and nothing will get resolved.

Agreed upon *concepts* are a prerequisite for communication (of knowledge or anything else). That's very different from agreed upon definitions being a prerequisite of knowledge. I can get through a conversation with someone who speaks very minimal English even if they're using the wrong words for some things. Communication can still happen even if we don't agree on what the words mean.

There's a large gap between "language is a prerequisite for knowledge" and "shared concepts are a prerequisite for communication."

Indeed. But that still doesn't help to make the following two sentences fit together in a meaningful way:

Well, your reliance on psychic claims as to what I have or have not been doing makes your beliefs rather irrelevant. Feel free to keep me updated if anything changes.

It's more complex than that. Language is just a cute name for high-level exchange of information, even humans have many means of communication that do not require language.

Knowledge has never been observed in a system that does not share agents capable of communication. Capability for communication requires compatibility. Knowledge without the transference of information is, as fas as we know, impossible. As the complexity of knowledge grows, so does the complexity of the agents. The level of abstraction is generally linked to the requirement of acceptance. You won't be able to teach a dog that the ceiling is the floor, but you might be able to teach a 6-year old that house is spelled haus. Religion tends to be argued with high levels of abstraction, the reason for which is elegantly proven by the complete and utter failure of specific doomsday prophecies.

When we consider complex information extended to the macro-level of human condition - this can all be exemplifed via a very simple thought experiment. We leave a newborn in the woods with a tracking device, and then we return 20 years later and see what he knows.

For the religious this is all of course tends towards irrelevance, since they doctrinally tend to think of a human as a unit and not a process.

What do you even mean by "knowledge" being observed?

Plants turn towards the sun. This is an indication that plants "know" where the sun is. Does this count? A plant can do this in complete isolation of other plants. Even very simple organisms "know" which direction their nutrients are coming from and can respond accordingly.

Edit: Wait... is there some paper somewhere that presented an operational definition of knowledge that involves communication, and you have thus concluded that this is *THE* definition of knowledge?

I appreciate your consideration that I've developed a psychic ability, but in fact my response is completely based upon that which you've written.

I really don't think you of all people on this sub-forum should talk loudly about monopolization of definitions. More importantly...

... your reliance on nonsense and rhetoric makes you ignorant, but thankfully also irrelevant. You're actually a good representation of religious insight in that regard.

Oddly enough, I'm on the more open end for allowing people to define terms as they see fit. But I do also expect them to do so once they've declared that their definition does not fit the normal usage of the word.

Please un-ignorantify me. What is the definition of "knowledge" that you are using that requires:

1) An agreement of terms -- If I don't agree with your definition, does that mean you don't know something?
2) Communication -- Can I know something without telling you?

Just for fun, I googled this phrase and similar ones:

"Knowledge starts with an agreement of terms." - This only comes up with this thread.

"Knowledge begins with an agreement of terms." - No results.

"Knowledge starts with definitions." - This led to one link: "The Cosmological Evidence for Existence of God."

http://thedefiance.co/the-rational-five/

"Knowledge begins with definitions." - Interestingly enough, this led to a post in which you accused BTM2 of claiming that "knowledge begins with definitions."

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=343

It also led to only 4 links.

So I would really like for you to expand on what you mean by "Knowledge starts with an agreement of terms." I don't really see much evidence that such a position has broad acceptance, and it even looks like you're very critical of that as a starting point.

Topics brought up for discussion ITT:

- Trolling Scientology post
- Religions are simple to falsify
- The burden of proof for a religion lies on the theist, not the atheist


Topics discussed ITT:

- What the word "knowledge" means.


Oh, RGT, I missed you.

You left out psychic powers.

For someone who never expresses an opinion, but whose only debating trick is selectively read the texts of others I'm not terribly surprised you find the idea of expressing something with ones own words or without consulting Wikipedia/SEP shocking.

I have no idea why knowledge not starting with definitions is interesting. That sounds about as uninteresting a statement on knowledge as one can make, since its opposite leads to an unresolvable paradox.

Why don't you actually quote the part of Wikipedia or SEP that supports the claim that "knowledge starts with an agreement of terms."

It's interesting because you were apparently critical of it before. So that you would shift positions in the last few months on such a fundamental concept might suggest a larger shift in your viewpoints in general.

Given that you've somehow embedded "communication" into knowledge (which is far from a standard procedure), it would be very interesting to see you elaborate on the unresolvable paradox. But of course, you'll need to actually define what you mean by knowledge if you're going to have any chance of success, and given that you've had the opportunity and have not yet done it, I'm moderately confident you can't and you won't. But you might yet prove me wrong. We shall see.

I don't see any conflict between the two statements, so I don't understand your post. Please elaborate what it is you are trying to convey.

Ignore the two statements. Just do the following.

1) Define knowledge.
2) Support your definition with wikipedia or SEP.
3) Explain the paradox.

I'm suddenly to ignore this formely oh-so-important point that supposedly proved my ignorance?

As for your request, my statement stands. Please formulate and elaborate your protest, instead of grasping for a wiki starting point. Right now it is looking more and more like you are treading water.